Quote
TW2019
Some good posts in this thread. I am in my late 20s so definitely one of the youngest probably in here haha. My friends know who The Rolling Stones are, they know the logo, but the catalogue just doesn’t seem to connect. They will play Paint It Black, Beast of Burden, Sympathy, and maybe Gimme Shelter and I’m just stunned they don’t know warhorses like JJF, Brown Sugar, HTW…

One that I have gotten I few hooked on is Out Of Time. That song gained a lot of traction with the movie Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. She’s a Rainbow goes over well too.

In my opinion the Stones need a movie like Bob Dylan or Queen. There’s so much potential here. I think that will eventually happen but right now they’re still touring at a high level and able to put out new music so I don’t think it’s a focus at all. Disney has put out a lot of Beatles material. I do think the Stones will be a future endeavor for something similar

In this streaming era, the Stones are in a 2nd or 3rd tier compared to other classic artists, let's say with a 40+ year career and it is something really strange because the catalog they have is immense and they are still the second most successful rock band in history with dozens of Top 10 hits, only the Beatles have more hits, they even had more popular hits than Queen or Elton John at the time but both have greatly surpassed them in the last 8-10 years with the invaluable help of the films that catapulted them at a level of popularity of current artists, something that the Stones cannot even dream of.

The issue with the history of the Stones is that it is impressive but full of topics that are a little uncomfortable for current times, which is one of the reasons why Mick Jagger, one of the 2 or 3 most important living people in the history of rock, almost does not give interviews or go to any of the hundreds of programs out there (Corden, Norton, Kimmel, Oliver, among dozens) to be interviewed except in 1 or 2 very controlled cases (Fallon) where no uncomfortable topic from the past or today is discussed.

Mick doesn't want to play Brown Sugar anymore, that just gives us a clue about how (un)comfortable he feels nowadays with any other issues from the past (and today).

Making a Stones movie requires their approval and taking all this into account it is very difficult for them to give approval.

It's easier to have almost no media exposure, tour 3 months a year for die hard fans and their childrens, raise 200 million dollars and disappear from the radar until the next tour.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
TW2019
Some good posts in this thread. I am in my late 20s so definitely one of the youngest probably in here haha. My friends know who The Rolling Stones are, they know the logo, but the catalogue just doesn’t seem to connect. They will play Paint It Black, Beast of Burden, Sympathy, and maybe Gimme Shelter and I’m just stunned they don’t know warhorses like JJF, Brown Sugar, HTW…

One that I have gotten I few hooked on is Out Of Time. That song gained a lot of traction with the movie Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. She’s a Rainbow goes over well too.

In my opinion the Stones need a movie like Bob Dylan or Queen. There’s so much potential here. I think that will eventually happen but right now they’re still touring at a high level and able to put out new music so I don’t think it’s a focus at all. Disney has put out a lot of Beatles material. I do think the Stones will be a future endeavor for something similar

In this streaming era, the Stones are in a 2nd or 3rd tier compared to other classic artists, let's say with a 40+ year career and it is something really strange because the catalog they have is immense and they are still the second most successful rock band in history with dozens of Top 10 hits, only the Beatles have more hits, they even had more popular hits than Queen or Elton John at the time but both have greatly surpassed them in the last 8-10 years with the invaluable help of the films that catapulted them at a level of popularity of current artists, something that the Stones cannot even dream of.

The issue with the history of the Stones is that it is impressive but full of topics that are a little uncomfortable for current times, which is one of the reasons why Mick Jagger, one of the 2 or 3 most important living people in the history of rock, almost does not give interviews or go to any of the hundreds of programs out there (Corden, Norton, Kimmel, Oliver, among dozens) to be interviewed except in 1 or 2 very controlled cases (Fallon) where no uncomfortable topic from the past or today is discussed.

Mick doesn't want to play Brown Sugar anymore, that just gives us a clue about how (un)comfortable he feels nowadays with any other issues from the past (and today).

Making a Stones movie requires their approval and taking all this into account it is very difficult for them to give approval.

It's easier to have almost no media exposure, tour 3 months a year for die hard fans and their childrens, raise 200 million dollars and disappear from the radar until the next tour.

Yes, kind of the same I have been arguing for. Though, a revival is needed. Could be both colab/movie/series/musical. You name it.

Any artist or band signed to a (big) label isn't making much money from Spotify, only independent artists make "all" the money (usually 80%). Obviously if enough people are streaming that music.

The Stones probably don't care about Spotify. Why would they - they make more money in one show now than they did on quite a few tours.

Spotify has stopped bothering to pay artists etc that don't have enough streams per year and in some cases the artist gets removed. It might have the most reach of any streaming platform but if no one knows whoever's music is on it, it doesn't matter.

YouTube Music, Pandora and SoundCloud pay the least and it's so low it seems pointless to bother. TIDAL, AppleMusic and Deezer pay the most (in the US).

However... the amount of users matters. YouTube has over 2 billion. Spotify has 350 million.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Any artist or band signed to a (big) label isn't making much money from Spotify, only independent artists make "all" the money (usually 80%). Obviously if enough people are streaming that music.

The Stones probably don't care about Spotify. Why would they - they make more money in one show now than they did on quite a few tours.

Spotify has stopped bothering to pay artists etc that don't have enough streams per year and in some cases the artist gets removed. It might have the most reach of any streaming platform but if no one knows whoever's music is on it, it doesn't matter.

YouTube Music, Pandora and SoundCloud pay the least and it's so low it seems pointless to bother. TIDAL, AppleMusic and Deezer pay the most (in the US).

However... the amount of users matters. YouTube has over 2 billion. Spotify has 350 million.

This shit pisses me off so freaking much

Spotify is the enemy. But the record labels are tied in. People are lazy.

The only way to knock Spotify down is to not listen.

Any artist with a new album should avoid Spotify. It's a shame - and a sham.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Spotify is the enemy. But the record labels are tied in. People are lazy.

The only way to knock Spotify down is to not listen.

Any artist with a new album should avoid Spotify. It's a shame - and a sham.

They're borderline a monopoly too. They're also shit at recommending music.

I wish Mick, Keith, and Ronnie would do something like what the Beatles are doing with the four biopics, something big. They deserve to cash in on their life stories while they're still around. Everyone knows that once they pass their estates will just do it anyway once they can't say no.

I think Mick commented on this around the release of HD. Think he said something along the lines of a biopic is very time consuming and that he feels his story is not complete so why do it. If hed rather focus his time and energy into touring and maybe we get that follow up album then all good with me. A biopic is inevitable. Matter of when, not if

Quote
TW2019
I think Mick commented on this around the release of HD. Think he said something along the lines of a biopic is very time consuming and that he feels his story is not complete so why do it. If hed rather focus his time and energy into touring and maybe we get that follow up album then all good with me. A biopic is inevitable. Matter of when, not if

Guess that makes sense.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Spotify is the enemy. But the record labels are tied in. People are lazy.

The only way to knock Spotify down is to not listen.

Any artist with a new album should avoid Spotify. It's a shame - and a sham.

Yeah, I’m lazy. I used to have CD’s and vinyl, but no-longer have the room. Personally, I find that Spotify has reignited my interest in music. I do agree, however, that Spotify may not be good for newer, emerging artists. It’s just a convenient platform for me. Perhaps when I’m elderly and with less responsibilities, I’ll invest in physical media.

Spotify is dedicating itself to new uses for which the Stones rather older fan base are not regular users. Just compare the Stones' score with other major artists ones, who achieve infinitely higher listenership rates. It's a fact of life. And the audience for Jagger and co. hasn't changed that much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-28 12:15 by powerage78.

I didn't use Spotify to listen to the Stones except occasionally and only songs I didn't have already, like whatever (extended or single) remix, B-side or live version when they were available.

And not everything probably most artists have ever released is available (likewise with Apple and Amazon Music).

Apple is strictly streaming now, music is not purchasable for downloading/owning. Last I looked that was still available with Amazon.

Perhaps if one listens to music often every day it's worth the $12 a month or whatever it is.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Apple is strictly streaming now, music is not purchasable for downloading/owning. Last I looked that was still available with Amazon.

At least here in Italy, you can still buy music for downloading/owning from Apple through Itunes store.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
GasLightStreet

Apple is strictly streaming now, music is not purchasable for downloading/owning. Last I looked that was still available with Amazon.

At least here in Italy, you can still buy music for downloading/owning from Apple through Itunes store.

C

I went to get one song on iTunes and... it was strictly available for streaming - it was not for sale. I'm in the US. I recall reading something about iTunes giving way to AppleMusic but I never saw anything about when and, I dunno, why take away the option for someone to actually buy a song???

I know why but still, it's extremely annoying. So it's back to CDs for anything in particular.

I think this is the main thing that consciously, and perhaps unconsciously, puts me off on-line music consumption, and why I stick stubbornly and anachronistically with hard copy disc.

I want to be able to play the music I love [and am happy to pay for] whenever I want, whether I have an internet connection or not...and not dependent on whether this provider or that chooses to make it available.

Quote
Spud
I think this is the main thing that consciously, and perhaps unconsciously, puts me off on-line music consumption, and why I stick stubbornly and anachronistically with hard copy disc.

I want to be able to play the music I love [and am happy to pay for] whenever I want, whether I have an internet connection or not...and not dependent on whether this provider or that chooses to make it available.

That's the even keel right there - not understated or overstated. Obviously if it's a new release the artist will get paid. I just got the Atlantic Records CD release of REWIND. It's brand new, never been played - but someone bought it in 1984.

A few years ago I overheard two distinct aspects of streaming that I thought was extremely out of touch with reality while basking in a castle of entitlement:

"If I knew it would be on YouTube I wouldn't've bought a ticket" - some grump at U2's JOSHUA TREE 2017 show in New Orleans. I know there's complaints about the set lists with Stones shows but there's one thing that anyone knows will happen (with exception to the BANG tour possibly) - it will be worth it.


Hanging out with a friend at a show of an artist I'd never heard of, a guy goes up to the singer and asks about the new album, singer points to the merch table, guy looks, shrugs and says, loud enough for me to hear, anyway, "Oh well, I'll just get it on YouTube".

It wasn't on YouTube it was only on CD.


CDs are out and vinyl is in? Eh, the cool factor has a financial issue: it's affordable to get CDs printed. Vinyl is quite expensive.

Will CDs be extinct commercially? Probably. Blu-ray will be in a few years. DVD, too.

Quote
GasLightStreet
I went to get one song on iTunes and... it was strictly available for streaming - it was not for sale. I'm in the US. I recall reading something about iTunes giving way to AppleMusic but I never saw anything about when and, I dunno, why take away the option for someone to actually buy a song???

I know why but still, it's extremely annoying. So it's back to CDs for anything in particular.

Well, you can buy a song, or also a complete album, e.g. from Qobuz or similar download stores, in CD quality, HiRes or as an mp3. You can store it on a hard disc, burn it to CD, put it on a USB stick or on your cellphone, and download it as often as you like once you bought it. If they also have the song you wanted to buy I don't know, of course, but it might be worth a try. Only "downside" (?): when buying an album it's not much cheaper than buying it as a CD, the real downside being that in most cases you don't get the complete album art but only the cover. (To me, an album is only complete with its art and the information given in the booklet etc. I also want to know who played what on which song, who wrote the song, and so on - must be an after-effect of growing up in the 70s ...). Also, they have a lot of stuff that is hard to find in a physical format (or if so, only with a hefty price-tag) or altogether out of print.

What I don't know is how much of the money actually goes to the artists.

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

Hm, deadheads seem more dedicated when it comes to archival releases ...

I wonder how the sales figures of Stones vault releases compare to the sales figures of the Dead's Dick's/Dave's Picks series or the multi-CD releases of whole tours. Same for King Crimson.

Also a question of group-specific fan mentality?

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

Hm, deadheads seem more dedicated when it comes to archival releases ...

I wonder how the sales figures of Stones vault releases compare to the sales figures of the Dead's Dick's/Dave's Picks series or the multi-CD releases of whole tours. Same for King Crimson.

Also a question of group-specific fan mentality?

The releases of the Dead are far way more successfull than the vault releases of the Stones, every Dave's Picks album sell over 20-25k in the States and chart in the Top 40, sometimes even Top 20 on the Billbord 200.

Since 2020, the Dead has 21 consecutives Top 40 albums in the Billboard 200, best peak at #11 (Volume 43 in 2022) and worst peak at #36 (the last one, Volume 52 in October of 2024).

The best charting album from the Stones' vaults series is The Mocambo set at #61 in 2022, with only 4 releases charting in the Billboard 200 so far (Hampton at #120 in 2014, Steel Wheels Live at #180 in 2020 and GRRR! Live at #193 in 2023)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-31 02:18 by georgelicks.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

Hm, deadheads seem more dedicated when it comes to archival releases ...

I wonder how the sales figures of Stones vault releases compare to the sales figures of the Dead's Dick's/Dave's Picks series or the multi-CD releases of whole tours. Same for King Crimson.

Also a question of group-specific fan mentality?

The releases of the Dead are far way more successfull than the vault releases of the Stones, every Dave's Picks album sell over 20-25k in the States and chart in the Top 40, sometimes even Top 20 on the Billbord 200.

Since 2020, the Dead has 21 consecutives Top 40 albums in the Billboard 200, best peak at #11 (Volume 43 in 2022) and worst peak at #36 (the last one, Volume 52 in October of 2024).

The best charting album from the Stones' vaults series is The Mocambo set at #61 in 2022, with only 4 releases charting in the Billboard 200 so far (Hampton at #114 in 2014 and GRRR! Live at #193 in 2023)

Damn

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
doitywoik

Quote
georgelicks
The latest Shepherd's Bush release is their worst UK/US chart performance for a vault release, previous worst was Copacabana Beach at #43 on the US album sales chart, this new release failed to chart even there and only made the Current Album sales chart at #46 with less than 2,200 units sold.

Hm, deadheads seem more dedicated when it comes to archival releases ...

I wonder how the sales figures of Stones vault releases compare to the sales figures of the Dead's Dick's/Dave's Picks series or the multi-CD releases of whole tours. Same for King Crimson.

Also a question of group-specific fan mentality?

The releases of the Dead are far way more successfull than the vault releases of the Stones, every Dave's Picks album sell over 20-25k in the States and chart in the Top 40, sometimes even Top 20 on the Billbord 200.

Since 2020, the Dead has 21 consecutives Top 40 albums in the Billboard 200, best peak at #11 (Volume 43 in 2022) and worst peak at #36 (the last one, Volume 52 in October of 2024).

The best charting album from the Stones' vaults series is The Mocambo set at #61 in 2022, with only 4 releases charting in the Billboard 200 so far (Hampton at #120 in 2014, Steel Wheels Live at #180 in 2020 and GRRR! Live at #193 in 2023)

Thanks, @georgelicks!

I was afraid the answer would be something like that.

What is fascinating (in a way) about this is that Dave's Picks appear to be sold (almost?) exclusively to an American audience whereas the Stones address a worldwide audience. (Dick's Picks were sold in record stores also in Europe at least in the 1990s and early 2000s - that's how I got mine -, but I can't recall ever having seen Dave's Picks in stores over here.) In addition, nearly all Dead shows have been available in SBD quality from gdlive or the Live Music Archive or the like or via torrents from be.etree.org or Lossless Legs or similar (not to mention snailmail trades) for about 25 years, and the folks who buy Dave's Picks or the larger boxsets in all likelihood already have the same shows in their collections for a long time from these sources (and then discuss whether the Charlie Miller versions or the official releases sound better).
I can't really imagine that the Stones would sell more than a handful of units of a 70+ CD box of a complete tour (cf. GD's Europe 72, the complete recordings).

Rock Is the Second-Biggest Genre in the U.S. Why Was It Missing From the Grammys?

Rock music may still be huge, but its current leading lights are putting up much smaller sales and streaming numbers than those in pop, R&B/hip-hop and country.


BY ED CHRISTMAN


This might have been the year that both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones won Grammy Awards, but older demographics who watched the show are wondering why rock music had such a low profile during the televised ceremony.

Sure, rock music had a token presence during the telecast: The show began with an uplifting performance from Dawes covering Randy Newman’s “I Love L.A.,” backed by an all-star band consisting of Brad Paisley, John Legend, Sheryl Crow, Brittany Howard and St. Vincent as a tribute to the people of Los Angeles who are still trying to recover from the devastating wildfires in January. Also, the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Anthony Kiedis and Chad Smith presented the best pop vocal album Grammy to Sabrina Carpenter for Short n’ Sweet, while the alternative band Khruangbin played a very abbreviated segment of their shoe-gazing song “May Ninth”; and Coldplay’s Chris Martin played a ballad during the In Memoriam section.

But the awards for best rock album, best metal performance and best alternative music album, among others, were relegated to the non-televised afternoon Grammy Award presentation.

Why weren’t there any artists from that genre rocking out during the telecast? After all, rock music still dominates the live show marketplace. And while there are many ways that various genres can be measured against one another, Luminate’s audio consumption album units genre report shows rock music is still the second biggest genre at 22.3%, Billboard calculates, when unassigned albums are deducted from the total. That’s almost two and a half times as large as Latin, which has an 8.3% market share; and slightly more than twice as large as country, which has a 10.4% market share.

In album units, rock is 50% larger than pop music, which has a 14.8% market share, but pop was featured prominently during the show. As was R&B/hip-hop, which is still the biggest genre at a 27.8% market share.

But even though rock may have a big presence collectively, it also has some missing ingredients that probably make it difficult to include it in the televised Grammy Awards these days.

Age is a factor — not only the demographics of the Grammy show viewers, which undoubtedly plays a role in what artists and music are featured on the TV broadcast, but the age of the rock music that makes up those market share numbers. Luminate tracks releases in two age brackets: current, which counts all sales and streaming activity in the first 18 months after a song or album is released; and catalog, which counts everything older than 18 months.

That is one of rock’s biggest issues: By the catalog category — again using audio consumption units minus activity from titles unassigned to a genre — its 25.5% of the market is comfortably No. 2 in the industry, still behind R&B/hip-hop. But by current releases, rock slips all the way to fourth, at 11.9%, behind R&B/hip-hop (27.2%), pop (18.7%) and country (14.8%) and barely ahead of Latin (10.6%).

And the Grammy Awards are all about current music; in fact, current music is literally written into the eligibility criteria of which music releases can be considered for its awards. For the 2025 Grammys, the Recording Academy only considered recordings released from Sept. 16, 2023, to Aug. 20, 2024. Mathematically speaking, all the releases that meet that criteria to be eligible for a Grammy Award, and thus to be included in the show, would be current releases.

But there could be another, more significant factor as to why rock music wasn’t front and center during the televised portion: The sales and streams for the nominees in the rock categories paled in comparison to those of other genres. Big sales and streaming activity clearly indicate widespread popularity and TV shows are all about drawing big viewing audiences. And the nominees in the rock categories turned in the weakest collective performance when it came to sales and streaming activity among the genres highlighted on the show.

Of the albums nominated for album of the year, only Billie Eilish’s Hit Me Hard and Soft could be remotely considered rock — and alternative at that, or more accurately dark pop. The other albums, not so much: Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department, Chappell Roan’s The Rise and Fall of A Midwest Princess and Carpenter’s Short n’ Sweet got pop covered; Charli XCX’s Brat represents electro-pop; and Andre 3000’s New Blue Sun and Jacob Collier’s Djesse Vol. 4 are R&B and jazz, with smatterings of funk thrown in. In fact, Beyoncé’s country album, Cowboy Carter, has been cited for bringing other genres into the mix.

Collectively, the eight albums nominated for album of the year averaged 2.043 million album consumption units in 2024, even with the Andre 3000 album only hitting 44,000 units and the Collier album lower, at 33,000 units.

Sales and streaming activity was also a likely distinguishing factor in determining if the big awards of the Latin, pop, country and R&B genres were featured on the televised show. Let’s take best pop vocal album, with the Grammy nod going to Carpenter’s Sweet album, which garnered 2.504 million U.S. album consumption units. Collectively, the five nominees in that category averaged 3.01 million album consumption units, with Swift’s Tortured Poets leading the way with 6.962 million.

In best rap album, Doechii’s Alligator Bites Never Heal won the Grammy, despite having the second-lowest sales/activity of the nominees at 133,000 album consumption units. Collectively, the five nominated albums averaged 712,000 units, led by Future & Metro Boomin’s We Don’t Trust You at 2.046 million units and Eminem’s The Death Of Slim Shady (Coup De Grace) at 1.01 million album consumption units.

In best country album, the Grammy nominees collectively averaged 856,000 album consumption units, with a pair of artists new to the genre leading the way in Post Malone’s F-1 Trillion, with 1.598 million units, and winner Cowboy Carter, with 1.42 million album consumption units.

Shakira, who performed and was acknowledged for her historic role in bringing Latin music to the masses, won best Latin pop album with her Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran album, which had 306,000 album consumption units. Collectively, her activity combined with the other four nominees for best Latin pop album averaged 171,000 album consumption units.

Even dance/electronic music, which ranks sixth with 3.8% in U.S. market share as calculated by Billboard based on Luminate data, made the cut for the televised portion of the show. While its overall market share is meager compared to rock, its collective current album consumption units were bolstered by Charli XCXs Brat album, which garnered 1.159 million album consumption units. In total, the five nominees in the category earned a collective average of 273,000 units.

Rock, in comparison, is a different story. The Rolling Stones won the best rock album award with 91,000 album consumption units for its Hackney Diamonds, while Green Day, which was the category leader, had 158,000 units. Collectively, the rock category nominees averaged just 81,000 units, by far the smallest of the bigger genres.

There may be plenty of reasons why rock was relegated to the back burner at this year’s Grammy Awards — the Stones and the Beatles, after all, are not the hottest names with kids these days. But the numbers certainly tell at least part of that story.


[www.billboard.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-09 02:29 by georgelicks.

Spotify signing big deals with Sony and Warners... wouldn't be surprised to see other platforms fold up. Amazon has an automatic tie in with Prime members so that will probably continue to work for Amazon. Apple... I dunno. They seem to be slipping.

Spotify is the majority.

Amazon and Apple pay "more"... barely. Such a joke.

The overall aspect of streaming music (Alexa is pathetic, it's pointless) is somewhere between background noise and disposable. It's people buying CDs or vinyl that have a true interest in listening. And supporting artists/bands.

In five years it probably won't matter at all.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Spotify signing big deals with Sony and Warners... wouldn't be surprised to see other platforms fold up. Amazon has an automatic tie in with Prime members so that will probably continue to work for Amazon. Apple... I dunno. They seem to be slipping.

Spotify is the majority.

Amazon and Apple pay "more"... barely. Such a joke.

The overall aspect of streaming music (Alexa is pathetic, it's pointless) is somewhere between background noise and disposable. It's people buying CDs or vinyl that have a true interest in listening. And supporting artists/bands.

In five years it probably won't matter at all.

That's the big picture . Sad, but true .

The utter bizarreness of Beyonsayyy winning a Grammy for country album of the year says all there needs to be said about how corrupt the Grammys are.

Should the Stones've won one? I dunno. Is HD that good of an album compared to Pearl Jam? The Black Crowes?

Or is it strictly 'Oh 18 years come onnnn we gotta give it to them'?

Quote
GasLightStreet
The utter bizarreness of Beyonsayyy winning a Grammy for country album of the year says all there needs to be said about how corrupt the Grammys are.

Should the Stones've won one? I dunno. Is HD that good of an album compared to Pearl Jam? The Black Crowes?

Or is it strictly 'Oh 18 years come onnnn we gotta give it to them'?

Of course, as much as I do love HD.

But it's ALWAYS been that way. Why in the hell did it take until Voodoo Lounge for them to win a Grammy? What about Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main St? Not even a nomination? Angie for song or record of the year - it's primo Grammy's schmaltz. No.

Some Girls for the love of everything sweet and good, they're part of the furniture, surely now? No.

Tattoo You?? COME ON!

Grammy's have a history of getting it wrong, and sometimes right. That's their bag.

I keep forgetting they won a Grammy for VOODOO. I think whenever I see that it's a joke.