There are many people on this board who are saying the Stones won't bother to record another album because ABB did not sell well.

What they fail to recognize is that ABB hit #1 on the global chart (spent 3 weeks there) as well as hitting #1 on the Euro chart and #1 in 10-15 indivual countries.

ABB got to #3 in the US and #2 in the UK (lost the #1 spot by 11 copies) and made at least a top 5 debut in several countries.

SOL charted fairly well around the world. Granted US radio won't play anything but rap and sissy rock music. But they did get airplay around the world. And rockers like ONNYA and Rough Justice did chart on at US rock radio.

A Bigger Bang is the highest grossing tour in the history of music. To go along with their Superbowl appearence to over a billion people. And their concert to well over a million people in Rio.

After all is said and done A Bigger Bang will end up selling anywhere from 3-3.5 million copies. Not bad for a band whose original bass player is 70 years old. I'm not saying ABB was a blockbuster. But it sold quite well around the world. If the sales had been pumped up to their normal levels in the US ABB would have sold north of 4 million copies.

Perhaps next time around (with a new record label) the next Stones record will sell better in the US. 40 Licks was a huge hit in the US. People still love the Stones here. But the general feeeling in the US is that the Stones are putting out product rather than great music at this point.

I would bet my life that if the Stones did a latter day album in the vein of Dylan's "Time out of Mind" or Johnny Cash's/Rick Rubin "American recordings" albums
that put the music up front and the tough guy (singing about their cocks at 65 years old) the album would be a very solid seller and sweep the grammys.

It's frustrating. I know what the Stones need to do. I just don't know if their egos will allow them to do it.

How many CDS did better in 2005 , that would be intersteing to note. I kow many sold a lot worse. It is hard to see why some people would view ant CD that went to number 1 to be a commercial failure, I have no idea what they want or expect. So even if 20 CDs last year sold better ( and I have my doubts) I cannot see that being in the top 20 out of 100's of releases is anythng to be ashamed of, let alone a reason to retire as some suggest.

ABB sold well in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq. Thats where I bought my copy. I don't have exact figures but they had plenty of copies in the PX and they sold out.

Drivin' Too Fast would sound crash-hot blastin' from a Hummer....Hang on to the wheel, I think you're going to crash....



ROCKMAN

ABB sold 500,000 in the US after 6 months - a disappointment compared to 40 Lix,Bridges, & Voodoo. It received virtually NO airplay, even when they were getting lots of publicity & good reviews for the shows. And they have not really played enough of it live to make the lukewarm fans who show up think much about a new album.
But yes # 3 means they have hit Billboard's top 5 w/ every studio album since 12 x 5, 42 years ago. Unprecedented, I believe.

The Stones have a big, pretty old and faithful bunch of fans and we buy a new record as fast as we can. But the youngsters hardly buy CDs at all and if they do not many spend their money at an rock'n roll band where "the boys" are 60+.

And I think the CD suffers of being that long if you look at it in an comercial way (but we're happy of course). I don't think young people have the patience to listen to a new CD containing 16 songs.

ABB sells well worldwide. Everywhere, except USA. It spent two weeks (not three, if i remember correctly) at #1 on global chart and five weeks on top 10 (#1,#1,#3,#5,#8). We have discussed many times about USA's exception, everyone has his opinion, but the facts are facts: ABB sells well worldwide. Nowadays, in the years of downloading, 2.5-3 million of copies sold is a mumber similar to 5-6 million 15-17 years ago. During the early 90s there were albums which were selling 10+ million units ONLY in US and 30m worldwide. Today the most succesfull albums (like Green Day's "American Idiot") are selling 15m in the whole planet.


The Stones outsell many new famous rock bands, like White Stripes and Strokes. They outsell every band "born" in the past decades (except their friends, U2). A few rock bands outsell the Stones these days. The talk about "commercial disappointment" comes from some people who consider US market as the whole planet! BTW, how many copies sold the preciding Pearl Jam's album in USA? Less than 500,000 if my memory is correct. But noone said it might be their last album, of course...

It is true the US market is not the only market in the world. But next time around (with a new record label) I hope they do sell more in the US.

It's a failure if we see the great number of shows and the big tour that they did on the States. More than 1.5 million tickets sold, but only 1/3 of that people was interested on the new album.

Worldwide, it sold well but didn't cover the early expectations (Mick said it a few months ago, he wasn't happy with the album sales) for the first studio album in 8 years. It was the first studio album that didn't produce Hot 100 hits in the States, or even worse, no Top 20 hits on the rock chart.
Virtually, had less than zero airplay on the Stones main radio market.

Still, it was by far the best selling album from their contemporaries but none of their contemporaries is doing a tour like ABB with so big promotion behind.

James Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A Bigger Bang is the highest grossing tour in the
> history of music. To go along with their Superbowl
> appearence to over a billion people. And their
> concert to well over a million people in Rio.
>


With all due respect, and please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't U2's recent tour out gross the Stones "A Bigger Bang" tour last year? I could have sworn this was the case. I will see if I can locate the article where the comparisons were made.

This was not to negate the Stones in anyway because there really is no comparing the two bands, but rather just a question I had about something I read regarding the highest grossing tour for 2005.

if the angel says so, that's good enuff por moi....

James Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are many people on this board who are saying
> the Stones won't bother to record another album
> because ABB did not sell well.

compared to past Stones studio releases, it certainly didnt
>
> What they fail to recognize is that ABB hit #1 on
> the global chart (spent 3 weeks there) as well as
> hitting #1 on the Euro chart and #1 in 10-15
> indivual countries.
>
> ABB got to #3 in the US and #2 in the UK (lost the
> #1 spot by 11 copies) and made at least a top 5
> debut in several countries.

With respect, thats not a proper barometer of 'sales'. You're looking at chart positions in the first week or two. Its natural that an album (or even a single) by a very big name act will chart highly because their fanbase rushes out to buy it. The real acid test is how the sales are sustained over a lengthy period. The album didnt chart for very long.

>
> SOL charted fairly well around the world. Granted
> US radio won't play anything but rap and sissy
> rock music. But they did get airplay around the
> world. And rockers like ONNYA and Rough Justice
> did chart on at US rock radio.

hardly makes those songs a smash, but then again a band of 60 somethings arent in the business of making hit singles. No need to pander to that
>
> A Bigger Bang is the highest grossing tour in the
> history of music.

If it turns out to be, its because it has the highest ticket price! The most successful tour in 'real' terms was the Stones' Voodoo lounge tour


To go along with their Superbowl
> appearence to over a billion people. And their
> concert to well over a million people in Rio.

well, no one paid to watch the Superbowl or Rio, and the Stones werent the main attraction at the Superbowl anyway (I seriously doubt it was seen by 1/6 of the worlds population either)
>
> After all is said and done A Bigger Bang will end
> up selling anywhere from 3-3.5 million copies.

I wouldnt bet on it. Wheres the audience out there who will buy it who havent already done so? Sales are now at a trickle. Even the exposure they got at the Superbowl made next to no impact on sales.

Not
> bad for a band whose original bass player is 70
> years old.

whats HE got to do with it? the bottom line is that sales werent that good for a band who are the most famous and greatest band in the world. And one who happens to be on a massive tour. What gets me the most is that even the people who go to the shows and can spend a week's wages on a concert ticket cant even be bothered to stump up $15 for a CD. That's criminal. Especially considering the fact that its a good record and the reviews were positive.

I'm not saying ABB was a blockbuster.
> But it sold quite well around the world. If the
> sales had been pumped up to their normal levels in
> the US ABB would have sold north of 4 million
> copies.

yes but they werent. And when was the last Stones studio album which sold 4 million in the US? That figure certainly isnt 'normal'. Yes, the album sold well around the world by the standards of most artists. However, for a band who are the biggest concert draw in the world and will be seen by about 4 million or more people on this tour - and who had maximum TV exposure at a huge ratings event like the Superbowl, to say the album has sold anywhere near the levels that it should have done is stretching credibility
>
> Perhaps next time around (with a new record label)
> the next Stones record will sell better in the US.
> 40 Licks was a huge hit in the US. People still
> love the Stones here. But the general feeeling in
> the US is that the Stones are putting out product
> rather than great music at this point.

40 Licks sold superbly everywhere, James. The 'product' argument (as seen on Rarities) is perfectly true (and not just in the US) but the band themselves arent helping by not pushing the new songs enough on stage.
>
> I would bet my life that if the Stones did a
> latter day album in the vein of Dylan's "Time out
> of Mind" or Johnny Cash's/Rick Rubin "American
> recordings" albums
> that put the music up front and the tough guy
> (singing about their cocks at 65 years old) the
> album would be a very solid seller and sweep the
> grammys.

I certainly agree with you re: the critical acclaim side of things, but the Stones have always been bigger sellers than Dylan and Cash so expectations are different. However, do you think their fans would 'get it' if they made records like that?

the thing is, ABB got the best reviews of any Stones record in about 25 years. Maybe more. Virgin have proved to be a terrible label for the Stones when it comes to promoting them. No excuse for slow sales. The main reason I can think of James is this. I think the 8 year wait has hurt them badly in commercial terms. The music industry has changed so much in that time in every way, be it the way people acquire their music, the way music is promoted on TV, and also because the Stones' audience has changed - much of it being the band's doing. Theres a generation of music fans who have been lost to the Stones and for whom the band mean nothing. Part of it may be down to the 'exclusive' nature of Stones shows price-wise, which means that so many potential fans cant get to see them. Another is their public invisibility for years at a time. The music world has moved on while the band have, creatively, gone years on end treading water.

So - the Stones come back with a very good album, and hardly anyone outside their hardcore fanbase gives a shit about it. A sad waste.
>
> It's frustrating. I know what the Stones need to
> do. I just don't know if their egos will allow
> them to do it.


Wont happen for the reason you suggest. Jagger found it difficult to work with Rubin when they made Wandering Spirit as he couldnt deal with a hands-on producer telling him he could write better songs...and Keith's antipathy towards hot-shot producers is notorious.

Personally, I think they should accept that commercially they're not going to reach the success of the late 70's/early 80's again. By doing that, they can follow their muses and make music on their own terms and not by worrying about radio play and having to use cheesy soap operas to promote their singles.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-25 21:31 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Personally, I think they should accept that
> commercially they're not going to reach the
> success of the late 70's/early 80's again. By
> doing that, they can follow their muses and make
> music on their own terms and not by worrying about
> radio play and having to use cheesy soap operas to
> promote their singles.
>



Amen and Hallelujah! And to think you can post such a right-on post whilst holding up the Wembley arches - truly inspiring, gazza!

James Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> SOL charted fairly well around the world. Granted
> US radio won't play anything but rap and sissy
> rock music.
>

By that logic, SOL should have been a monster smash stateside!

Don't forget the THOUSANDS, if not a few hundred thousand people who got the entire album for free on line (WinMX, LimeWire, etc).

I got the entire album that way before I got to actually by the CD. I also got "Radar" and "Don't wanna go Home" for free thanks to WinMX.

40 LICKS CD sales don't count because that was greatest hits CD. Sales have nothing to do with BANG being a better than good album. They made some good music on BANG. The sales are respectable, but do not forget how many people now just download entire albums. WORLDWIDE, I wonder how many official sales were lost because of WinMX and other sites.

Milo, NYC
We all need someone we can lean on

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if the angel says so, that's good enuff por
> moi....

Thanks for your faith in me, but I stand corrected. I found the article from Reuter's dated approximately 12/29/05 or so. U2 was 2nd to the Stones.
Here is the article:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Rolling Stones smashed their own 11-year-old record for the highest-grossing North American concert tour of all time in 2005, helping lift overall ticket sales to a new high, trade publication Pollstar said on Thursday.

The Stones sold $162 million worth of tickets by playing their golden oldies for 1.2 million concertgoers, while Irish rockers U2 pulled in $138.9 million from 1.4 million fans. U2 worked a little harder for its payday, playing 78 shows in North America, compared with 42 performances by the Stones.

The old record for a tour was $121 million, which the Stones set in 1994.

Canadian pop singer Celine Dion was third on the list with $81.3 million, thanks solely to her exclusive engagement at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, where she belted out her ballads for tourists at 155 performances.

Paul McCartney and the Eagles rounded out the top five, with respective sales of $77.3 million and $76.8 million.

Pollstar said ticket sales for the top 100 shows rose to $3.1 billion, breaking last year's record of $2.8 billion, thanks to a jump in the average ticket price to $57 from $52.39 last year. Indeed, the top 100 acts sold a combined 36.1 million tickets, down 1.5 million from last year.

The relentless rise in ticket prices combined with the decline in the number of tickets sold was "a little disconcerting," said Gary Bongiovanni, editor of the Fresno, California-based publication.

Apportioning blame depends on who you ask. Promoters say the artists demand too much money, forcing them, in turn, to charge higher ticket prices. Artists say promoters keep offering more lucrative deals, which they can hardly reject, especially when CD sales are in a tailspin.

New albums by the Stones and McCartney had disappointing sales, while the Eagles have not released a new studio album in decades.

Top acts can generally name their prices with no risk of chasing away customers, with the Stones charging upward of $450 in some cities.

Their average ticket cost about $134, Pollstar said, while U2 tickets averaged out at about $97. Dion and McCartney had average ticket prices of about $136 and $135, respectively.

The North American scene could be a little quieter next year, with the Stones and U2 focusing on international markets. Once again, oldies acts could be the top draw, with veterans like the Who, Prince, Queen with Paul Rodgers, and Pink Floyd frontman David Gilmour hitting the road.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-26 04:21 by Rock'NRollAngel.

Milo Yammbag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget the THOUSANDS, if not a few hundred
> thousand people who got the entire album for free
> on line (WinMX, LimeWire, etc).
>
> I got the entire album that way before I got to
> actually by the CD. I also got "Radar" and "Don't
> wanna go Home" for free thanks to WinMX.
>
> 40 LICKS CD sales don't count because that was
> greatest hits CD. Sales have nothing to do with
> BANG being a better than good album. They made
> some good music on BANG. The sales are
> respectable, but do not forget how many people now
> just download entire albums. WORLDWIDE, I wonder
> how many official sales were lost because of WinMX
> and other sites.
>
> Milo, NYC
> We all need someone we can lean on


Milo - dont you think that argument (which is a valid one) about downloads of albums applies to other artists too?

Of course, the ease with which albums can be downloaded will have an effect on sales. You're perfectly correct. However, it doesnt seem to stop loads of other acts from selling millions of records. Its not as if Stones fans are alone in taking advantage of this phenomenon.

To me, a couple of million US fans paying an average of $170 a ticket to see their 'favourite' band versus 500,000 (or whatever it is) CDs sold at $15 just doesnt compute.

I would argue that the Stones fan base is LESS likely to download than other bands. After all, the fans are older . . .

Except me, of course. (19!)

Good point, now you mention it

The Stones fan base (among those I'm acquainted with) is frankly the most technically-challenged out there....all those pounding KR rhythms have taken their toll on the part of the brain that is "technical" apparently....

Me not remember how to connect to internet. Where plug go again?

I am 100% sure this is the highest grossing tour ever.

It may well be by the end of it, james - but thats more to do with the higher ticket prices than anything else. Inflation can account for a lot of things. Bums on seats is a more accurate reflection.

Voodoo lounge - even though it was 11 years ago - was the highest grossing tour of all time. When you consider the numerous megatours that have taken place by the Stones, U2 and other bands since then - as well as the level that ticket prices have got to - thats quite an achievement. Even if ABB outgrosses it, in 'real' terms, Voodoo Lounge remains the most successful tour undertaken by any band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-26 18:29 by Gazza.

Anybody know how many people actually saw them on these various tours?

James Kirk asks:"Anybody know how many people actually saw them on these various tours?"

1981/82: 3.5 million of people

1989/90: 6.2 """"""""""""""""" (new big market: Japan)

1994/95: 6.7 """""""""""""""" (new big market: South America)

1997/99: 5.6 """""""""""""""""

2002/03: 3.5 """"""""""""""""""


Since 1989, 22 million of people. Incredible record!

nikkibong wrote : "the Stones fan base is LESS likely to download than other bands. After all, the fans are older . . .Except me, of course. (19!)"

MMMMmmmm.... Personally, i know many young Stones fans. Also, i count 13 friends of mine, between 38 and 49 years old, who have listened to ABB without buying it. How? Simply, their kids did downloading and offered them the album! Afrer commissions, of course. Just a personal example...

you trying to make a fool of me, biatch?

Streets Of love reminds me Of that show "Dawsons Creek". I dont think that show is even on anymore.

Gazza/

"Bums on seats is a more accurate reflection."

I donty agree. Cheaper tickets will always result in higher attendance. And the other way around.

Therefore gross income will give the most accurate "ranking" of how successful a tour is.

What is the prevision of nº of spectators for this Tout: 5 milion??