Well i guess America does have some class still, we made Dylan #1 for the first time in 30 years. Well he deserves it, its a better album than most 60's bands are putting out.

A much bigger achievement than "A Bigger Bang". Although I enjoyed "A Bigger Bang" it has none of the subtleties than Dylan or indeed their old selves seemed to possess. It mostly sounds like a much younger band! Not a lot of maturity. Anyone agree/Disagree?

I agree iamthedj.

Bob's album is a lot more substantial and sincere because he's not playing a role like the Stones.

press release about it in this thread :

[www.iorr.org]

Way to go Bob! Sorry Mick, maybe next time.

poor immigrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way to go Bob! Sorry Mick, maybe next time.


The Stones should change the record company to get a #1, they had 4 clear chances to get a #1 since 1994, but the release dates were horrible with big competition all the time (Lion King's in '94, 2 rappers in '97, Elvis in '02 and West/50 Cent last year)
Virgin was terrible for them, no #1 album since 1981 is a real shame for the Stones.

poor immigrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way to go Bob! Sorry Mick, maybe next time.


Don't feel too sorry for the Stones. If you look at all the Dylan and Stones new album chart positions since 1980 the Stones average a chart position of two plus whereas Dylan has an average chart position of 29 plus. These figures include the U.S. and U.K. charts.

Even over the last three studio albums the Stones average position is better.

Not to knock Dylan but lets not overlook the big picture and start slighting the Stones and what they have accomplished.

But kudos to Dylan. I think he is number one in Australia too as well as a respectable number three in the U.k.

You are right- they have had some terrible luck as far as when the albums were released.

To be fair to Dylan I think on this one album (Modern Times) he actually did outsell the Stones in the first week. It will probably go platinum like ABB.

And Voodoo Lounge was number one in 1994.(U.K.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-06 22:40 by FrankM.

uh-oh....here we go again.....strap it in folks for another session of "FrankM on the Hotseat"!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uh-oh....here we go again.....strap it in folks
> for another session of "FrankM on the Hotseat"!

Why? Can't I state an opinion without being attacked? If I am going to be under fire it must mean I have struck a nerve.

There will be no hot seat today since I don't have hours to waste on this but to make my point clear, The Stones are great, Dylan is great but since 1980 when they would both be considered past their prime the Stones have vastly outperformed Dylan when you consider reviews, ablum sales, chart positions, tours etc..

And don't tell me all those stats don't matter. It would be as silly as trying to compare baseball players without comparing home runs, runs batted in, stolen bases etc.

Dylan is great but the Stones are better and that is the final word from me today.

bob dylan might do some good records
but live he is one of the most boring artists ever

oh, lighten up a bit. nobody's attacking you. nobody really gives a damned about your stupid opinions or our asinine defensiveness. Really. But, nobody's attacking you. Honestly.

haaa??
its just a fact
dylan live is a bad and boring keyboards show

Let's be honest, #1 is just a number, but when people do their stats overview years from now, no one will say "the stones averaged #2 or #3 from 1981 on. They will say, The Stones never had a #1 album after 1981. They will say, Dylan hit #1 at the age of 65! Not, Dylan averaged a chart position of #29.

The #1 is what it's all gonna be about.

I don't understand all the excuse-making for the stones' chart performance and ticket sales. I also don't really care about how many albums and tickets they sell--in fact, I would prefer their popularity to plummet so they would play smaller venues!--but since when were sports seasons a concern for their concert scheduling (honest question--did they always plan around these things?), and it's absurd to say they had "bad luck" in releasing an album at the same time as the Lion King soundtrack or one or another one hip hop album... what will "keep them from the top" next time--the audiobook of My Pet Goat?

FrankM....for the reviews in which Dylan got 4 stars you said the album was "overrated." That sounds like your opinion, Frank, not an objective barometer.....anyway, I strongly disagree with your assertion about post 1980 comparisons......and I think this subject was debated enough last week don't you?

poor immigrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be honest, #1 is just a number, but when
> people do their stats overview years from now, no
> one will say "the stones averaged #2 or #3 from
> 1981 on. They will say, The Stones never had a #1
> album after 1981. They will say, Dylan hit #1 at
> the age of 65! Not, Dylan averaged a chart
> position of #29.
>
> The #1 is what it's all gonna be about.

That's not neccessarily true. When people compare Mantle to Mays they will look at all the figures not just look at who was the last to win the batting title.

But if number one is all that matters the Stones have had their share of number ones;

1994 Voodoo Lounge number one on UK charts.

1994 Voodoo Lounge tour was the biggest world tour of all time.

2005 ABB tied for number one when you combine both the U.S. and UK chart positions(technically this is not a stat but is impressive nonetheless).

2005 Number one North American tour of the year(was also biggest N.A. tour of all time).

2005 number one ultimate 10- this counts money made by an arist and includes tours and new albums.

2006 number one touring act for first half of 2006 according to Billboard- will most undoubtedly be number one for all of 2006 by the end of the year.

But you are right. Dylan will be remembered for this comeback and deserves all the praise he gets even though I think Modern Times is slightly overrated.

Anyway I think everyone is tiring of this topic so we'll just agree to disagree.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> poor immigrant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Way to go Bob! Sorry Mick, maybe next time.
>
>
> Don't feel too sorry for the Stones. If you look
> at all the Dylan and Stones new album chart
> positions since 1980 the Stones average a chart
> position of two plus whereas Dylan has an average
> chart position of 29 plus. These figures include
> the U.S. and U.K. charts.
>

I bet Bob's really losing sleep over that. As he's never really aimed himself at the more commercial side of the entertainment industry, do you think its really a big deal that the Stones generally sell more records?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > poor immigrant Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Way to go Bob! Sorry Mick, maybe next time.
> >
> >
> > Don't feel too sorry for the Stones. If you
> look
> > at all the Dylan and Stones new album chart
> > positions since 1980 the Stones average a chart
> > position of two plus whereas Dylan has an
> average
> > chart position of 29 plus. These figures
> include
> > the U.S. and U.K. charts.
> >
>
> I bet Bob's really losing sleep over that. As he's
> never really aimed himself at the more commercial
> side of the entertainment industry, do you think
> its really a big deal that the Stones generally
> sell more records?

It has nothing to do with the "commercial side" it has to do with fan base and the fact the Stones were able to keep their popularity through all five decades.

No I don't think Dylan loses sleep over it and no It doesn't make him a second rate artist, but yes the fact the Stones sell more records means something- not everything. Zeppelin has probably sold more records than Stones and Dylan together but I wouldn't consider Zeppelin better than either of them. It's just one factor.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 06:41 by Beelyboy.

I completely agree that chart positions do not matter for either Dylan or The Stones. They're both so far past that! However artistically Dylan is pushing back boundaries wheras the Stones are cruising on auto-pilot. However I do think "A Bigger Bang" is a step in the right direction. Next time we need it stripped down!

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > haaa??
> > its just a fact
> > dylan live is a bad and boring keyboards show
>
> that live brown sugar version he did in 2002 beat
> the pants off any other version i've heard of that
> in many years...vocals, guitars, everything...
> it rocked like crazy...
word. even cut the stones on the b-stage on licks tour. difference is dylan uses real guitar players.

Real guitar players...... zzzzzzzzzzzz

anyway, I agree about Virgin. They've been hopeless. I've seen no press for any of the singles, and general promo is very poor.

I don't think the Stones are on auto pilot, but whilst making ABB things weren't that easy health wise.

Dylan is a genius as from the press I've read is amazing everyone.....

The oldest person, ever, to go straight in, at Number 1,
in the US album chart:-

[www.nme.com]

Pretty cool aint it......

I tell you whats cool -
having 3 great bands, The Foo Fighters, The Raconteurs and Kings Of Leon,
supporting you on tour...
oh boy- here's hoping for similar UK dates!

Adrian-L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I tell you whats cool -
> having 3 great bands, The Foo Fighters, The
> Raconteurs and Kings Of Leon,
> supporting you on tour...

I didn't know that....so they're warming up for Dylan?
Still....Dylan will blow them offstage, even though he's 65.

Way to go Bob!

FrankM Wrote:
but yes
> the fact the Stones sell more records means
> something-

tell us more, Frank. What does it all mean?

The Stones are still the greatest R&R Band and Dylan is still the greatest singer/song writer.

Maybe this will light a fire under Mick & Keef and they'll come up with another great album. Something they have not done in 25 years...............


#1 does not mean everything. Beyonce is very talented and appeals to a wide audience. However, soem of the stuff that hits #1 is junk.............

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four