.....the reverend robert makes some very good points about the Stones dollars being spread thin.....and that comparisons should be made of overall spending as opposed to comparisons of particular albums (or CDs, whatever)

a word of caution to anyone thinking of buying the new eagles album ,retail its available only at WALMARTS,which is home to sam waltons form of censorship caution buyer beware !!!!!!!!!

I think it was THIS THRREAD that caused iorr's computers to crash yesterday.

Just to add my two cents--

I think the main reason the albums dont sell as well anymore is more to the fact that radio has completely changed-- back in the 60's and 70's when a new Beatles or Stones album came out it was big news-- radio would play them to death-- these days most of the independant radio stations are gone and are replaced by huge corporations--they just dont have any interest in the Stones...couple that with downloading songs, etc and everything has changed--the market place is different, and all the priorities have changed.
I am fortunate in the fact that I am a DJ at a radio station here in the US that still allows us to play whatever we want to play-- so if we want to play the hell out of a new Stones album we can-- most other stations cant do that anymore-- they are told what they can play and what they cant play.

Gazza Wrote:
> Prince's album wasnt eligible for a chart position
> because of the way it was distributed.

I did not know that. I heard it gave him a chart placing. It's not something I've researched a lot - actually, I think I read it it on this board ;-)

> Theres plenty of point to it. It generates interest in
> your new music from a fanbase who are primarily
> only at your shows to hear old material - it
> justifies the act of continuing to make new music.

Sorry - still don't see the point. I fail to see why the Stones would be interested in "generating interest" for their new music. Most "normal" people only go and see the Stones once - especially with the prices nowadays. So giving out the album for free at the concert in Sweden would not mean that more people in Denmark would know the new songs, therefore Jagger would still choose not to play the new songs.

If this scheme should work it would be better if the tickets had some kind of code you could use for donwloading the album for free. In my case I bought the tickets for the concert in Horsens (originally scheduled for June - pushed to September 2006) in December 2005 as did most of the concert goers, so that would have given people time to aquaint themselves with ABB.

But, frankly, however much I love the Stones, I don't see them at the front of any other frontiers than the one as "longest surviving band". I don't think they are on a quest to push their new music - otherwise why not just play as much from ABB as they would like? It's more than likely that they will not again embark on a tour on this scale so they didn't even have to "suck up" to punters to make them come back the next time.

And if there is a "next time" I'm pretty certain they will not play anything from ABB, just like they have all but ignored SW, VL and BtB on subsequent tours. Indeed, I don't think we will hear much of ABB if they tour in spring 2008.

-------

Incidentally, I saw two great concerts - one in late 2006 and the other in late 2007 (where Keef kicked serious ass) and I still think ABB is a masterpiece. I still play it most weeks and in some periods even on a daily basis. ;-)

>Sorry - still don't see the point. I fail to see why the Stones would be interested in "generating interest" for their new music.

because theyve always insisted they're not a nostalgia act, would never do that sort of show and that its important to them to continue to be creative. Accepting the fact that their ticket-buying fanbase are affluent but lazy and unimagininative is one thing - doing something about is another, Making the music more readily available to them by marketing it in a different way encourages them to embrace it or at least give it a try instead of easily ignoring it.

> Most "normal" people only go and see the Stones once - especially with the prices nowadays.

Most normal concert goers only go to see ANY act once per tour, regardless of the price. Thats always been the case. Didnt stop them (or any act) playing new music before.


>So giving out the album for free at the concert in Sweden would not mean that more people in Denmark would know the new songs, therefore Jagger would still choose not to play the new songs.

Er..Prince's CD was given away in a newspaper several weeks before the London shows. Giving it away as people went into the show doesnt enable them to know the new songs obviously, but its still good marketing as most of those people would have the album anyway and will give copies to friends. After all, the Stones gave '40 Licks' away with the fan club memberships in 2002-2003, yet we all bought the album anyway - but think how many extra people may have got to discover or rediscover the Stones getting those surplus copies as gifts.

If they included the CD with the ticket purchase, then the logical thing to do would be to send the CD out WITH the tickets...ie, in advance of the show. Easily done in most cases.

>But, frankly, however much I love the Stones, I don't see them at the front of any other frontiers than the one as "longest surviving band".

or highest grossing band!


> I don't think they are on a quest to push their new music - otherwise why not just play as much from ABB as they would like? It's more than likely that they will not again embark on a tour on this scale so they didn't even have to "suck up" to punters to make them come back the next time.

Oh, I agree with all of that. There's saying you have a quest to produce new music (because it makes you sound credible) and theres actually doing something to push it. To me, the Stones gave up on that when they did the No Security tour - and targeted a selective and more affluent (ie older) audience who are less interested in the 'depth' of their back catalogue. That trend continued with the Licks tour when they realised how much $$ could be made with the sales of a greatest hits record and has continued ever since.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 02:04 by Gazza.

Stones never had a HUGE album hit, like The Wall, Rumours, Born In The USA and others. Could it be they never made a great album, just okay albums, with a couple of really god songs. And after 40 years you have alot of great songs for a live setlist. But still only make okay albums with a couple of really god songs. ? And the sound of Bigger Bang was really poor. If you listen to the album with HI FI ears, it is noise, no good at all. (produced for MP3, radio airplay)?

Just my thoughts.

seriously---who cares? Do you like the music because it means something to you? or would you like it more if other lemmings convinced you the music was great? This fascination with sales is ridiculous.....Would Howard Roark love the Stones more if they sold more CDS, tapes, albums, etc?

Never made a great album????Only a couple of really good songs?It probably has more to do with the Stones dollars being spread around to many different albums.

DKsoulman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stones never had a HUGE album hit, like The Wall,
> Rumours, Born In The USA and others. Could it be
> they never made a great album, just okay albums,
> with a couple of really god songs. And after 40
> years you have alot of great songs for a live
> setlist. But still only make okay albums with a
> couple of really god songs. ?

You have got to be putting us on! Could it be they never made a great album? You are talking like someone that "just fell off the turnip truck"- and just in time for Thanksgiving.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 06:46 by FrankM.

I'll just repeat what I said before this thread got truncated in the crash ;^)

I think one factor is that the Stones' sound has always been something of an acquired taste. They don't sound "nice". Folks don't tend to "sort of like" the Stones and don't buy their music for a casual listen.

Contrast that with the Eagles for example.

Guys, Eagles? What is this? This band is important only in USA. The Eagles sale albuns in USA and the USA is not the world.
The Rolling Stones is a global band. Please.

carlostones10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guys, Eagles? What is this? This band is important
> only in USA. The Eagles sale albuns in USA and the
> USA is not the world.
> The Rolling Stones is a global band. Please.

Last time I looked the Eagles were quite capable of selling shitloads of albums and filling stadiums in Europe as well.

No accounting for taste, I suppose.

How many concerts The Eagles do in the last 30 years? The Eagles is a popular band in USA. In the rest of the world the people know Hotel California. And finish.
Garry Brookes sale milions in the US. Who is Garry Brookes?
Please. There are some american fenomenous like the eagles and these country singers.
Everybody listen the Stones around the world. But Eagles? Who are they?

Excellent question! Who the hell is Garry Brookes?

WMiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent question! Who the hell is Garry
> Brookes?

Gary Brooker from Procol Harum. Later started a solo career as country musician under the pseudonym Garth Brooks - huge success, but only in the States. Gary = Garry = Garth is also known under the pseudonym Gerry - remember Gerry & The Pacemakers? Gary = Gerry = Garry = Garth also enjoyed some huge success during the 1970s Glam & Glitter Rock movement, under the pseudonym, guess what, Gary Glitter. After Glam was gone, he reappeared under the pseudonym Gary Newman (get the wordplay: New Man!) with his band Tubeway Army. Dont know about other incarnations, but there are probably more than I know. You see, Gary = Gerry = Garry = Garth has been around since the early 60s in various incarnations and under various pseudonyms. quite obviously one of the most versatile and varied musicians who ever saw the light of this planet, almost like a chameleon!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-14 20:56 by alimente.

carlostones10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many concerts The Eagles do in the last 30
> years?

Lots - although they split up from 1980 until around 1993, but I believe theyve toured on and off quite frequently in that time.

The Eagles is a popular band in USA. In the
> rest of the world the people know Hotel
> California. And finish.

Maybe thats the limit of YOUR awareness of them. If only it was that simple. Its amazing how some Stones fans cant grasp or accept that there ARE other acts on the planet who also sell a lot of records and can be quite popular.

Garry Brookes sale milions in the US. Who is Garry
> Brookes?

I dont know, but I think Garth Brooks has done well for himself


> Please. There are some american fenomenous like
> the eagles and these country singers.
> Everybody listen the Stones around the world.

No they dont. They certainly arent buying their records 'around the world' and theres still huge parts of the world where - like pretty much all western music acts - they're unknown.

But
> Eagles? Who are they?

I seem to remember them touring Europe as recently as 2006 and selling out Twickenham and other stadiums.

Nice work on that response Alimente! Wasn't there an incarnation named Chris Gaines in the mix too?!

WMiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice work on that response Alimente! Wasn't there
> an incarnation named Chris Gaines in the mix
> too?!

Im not really sure; as Ive said, there must be more incarnations, but some of them have escaped my attention...mmmh, Gary Tallent sounds suspicious to me, too...Chris Gaines, well its possible, of course.

Yes - Brooks reinvented himself as "Chris Gaines" a few years ago - and it tanked.

I don`t think that The Rolling Stones` popularity in the USA is so important. USA is not the world, it is just a country, nothing more. They are N 1 in the world - this is much more important.

For example A Bigger Bang stayed on N 1 in the world for 2 weeks. The last tour was the most successful in history. But even these facts don`t make the Stones Number 1. Their MUSIC does.

Contratulations Dobril. You are right.

Garth Brooks or Garry Brooks..who is? Eagles? Who are these artists when we talk about of THE ROLLING STONES?

Please, we are talk about THE ROLLING STONES. We dont´s talk about the local artists.

Stones are a global band... in USA, England, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Africa, Japan, China, India or in France.

The Rolling Stones are Global. Many of their fans are about my age, we all have vinyl copies stored somewhere of Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street, etc. While I will still buy all of their new studio releases unheard, most of my Stones fan friends will still see them every time they come to town, and even follow them to near by cities, but they will tell you that they haven't bought a new Stones CD in over 20 years. I am not saying this is typical, it's just my experience.

BluzDude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Rolling Stones are Global. Many of their fans
> are about my age, we all have vinyl copies stored
> somewhere of Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky
> Fingers, Exile On Main Street, etc. While I will
> still buy all of their new studio releases
> unheard, most of my Stones fan friends will still
> see them every time they come to town, and even
> follow them to near by cities, but they will tell
> you that they haven't bought a new Stones CD in
> over 20 years. I am not saying this is typical,
> it's just my experience.


I think that this column sums the reasons very well. The casual people who are willing to pay the huge concert prices are the people who once bought the albums when they were pressed as vinyls. That's the 'fan base' that is much bigger and importnat than 'us' - the hardcore ones that are gathered in the forums like ours. Those people are not interested of their latest albums, and Jagger seems to quite awere of that. Some nice CD collection of 'greatest hits' might gather some interest, but that's about it. And frankly I also partly agree; the Stones hasn't really released any album in recent 25 years that would really make a difference, to add anything significant and fresh to the stuff for you, if you already have a Beggars, Sticky, Exile or even Some Girls or Tattoo You in your closet.

I think the Stones somehow 'lost it' by the time of UNDERCOVER their status as a big album seller. They had a very profilic years as big sellars prior that: SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU were their biggest album hits ever, and almost all of their 70's stuff were 'sure' number ones in US charts (and elsewehere). Even though they didn't sell as many copies, the #1 positions showed that they could draw a huge interest for their new releases - a new Stones album was a BIG thing. Even EXILE ON MAIN STREET reached that position, even though it is somehow famous nowadays for not selling so much and getting bad reviews at the time when it was released.

But as far as I can see it, after UNDERCOVER it has never been the same (and DIRTY WORK was almost a bum in Stones terms). Of course, the Stones don't ever fail strongly - expect by their solo abums and live recordings, but there is no such demand for a new Stones release anymore. I think the band somehow has been musically stigmatizied, at least in the eyes of its potential audience. The people somehow 'know' what to expect from a new release, and are not very excited about it. And there haven't been any big radio hits to draw the attention of new audiences to buy their albums.

There were some nice 'come back vibes' for STEEL WHEELS, and especially VOODOO LOUNGE was a great seller; both of them were nice a pair to buy with some tickets for their concerts, but the sales of BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG show that the time of 'tour souveniers' is gone. But to be true, none of the sales of their post-89 albums reflect their status of a concert-draw. They are a nostalgy act, says Jagger whatever he wants.

To repeat my point: I would say that the biggest reason for The Stones not being such a heavy seller anymore is not due to the fact that the big masses are ignorant or that the kids are fool nowadays or that their old fans are seniles or that radio policy is against them, but simply to the fact they don't make very exciting new music anymore. For that reason they don't gather that excitement anymore to make big sales, like Springsteen, U2 or The Eagles does. Even Dylan seems to be a better seller than them nowadays as far as new music is concerned.

You know, I was raised by "Start Me Up" and ever since I have waited the day for wittnessing a new Rolling Stones classic to be born - the one people immedietelly recognzing "Ahh Yeeaahhh, that's The STONES!!!", and without apologizies making the war horses section of their concerts with songs like "Satisfaction", "Brown Sugar", "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", but there haven't been any... it reflects something.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 06:40 by Doxa.

they have also chosen shitty lead off singles for most of those albums too.
And first impressions i.e. SOL, Harlem Shuffle, ASMB do count. I still think Bridges would have done a lot better if they released SOM three weeks before the album came out.

Doxa Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------

> To repeat my point: I would say that the biggest
> reason for The Stones not being such a heavy
> seller anymore is not due to the fact that the big
> masses are ignorant or that the kids are fool
> nowadays or that their old fans are seniles or
> that radio policy is against them, but simply to
> the fact they don't make very exciting new music
> anymore. For that reason they don't gather that
> excitement anymore to make big sales, like
> Springsteen, U2 or The Eagles does. Even Dylan
> seems to be a better seller than them nowadays as
> far as new music is concerned.

Well what is and isn't exciting is a matter of opinion. I don't think U2, Springsteen or The Eagles have done anything exciting lately but others are free to disagree. I think a lot of it has to do with expectations. None of the three acts mentioned above were as big as The Stones in their heyday so not as much is expected of them now. Springsteen can sound like Springsteen, The Eagles can sound like the Eagles but if The Stones sound like The Stones people rip them and accuse them of having a "paint by numbers" sound. People have unreal expectations of them imo. As long as their new stuff is good it is enough for me. No they do not break any new ground but neither do other older acts imo.

And no the new stuff by Dylan doesn't outsell the new Stones stuff so I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I'm pretty sure ABB outsold MT worldwide. We can argue all day about which is better but that is a different argument. It remains to be seen whether Magic will outsell ABB worldwide so don't draw so many quick conclusions about "poor sales".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 07:27 by FrankM.

Bashlets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they have also chosen shitty lead off singles for
> most of those albums too.
> And first impressions i.e. SOL, Harlem Shuffle,
> ASMB do count. I still think Bridges would have
> done a lot better if they released SOM three weeks
> before the album came out.

If you don't like SOL or HS that is fine but your agrument makes no sense. Both singles were successes considering the point in their career they were released. HS was top five in the US and SOL was a top forty hit in many countries and I think top ten in some countries even though it was released long after The Stones were in their heyday.

So explain how lead off singles that were well received by the public hurt album sales. Again if YOU think they are crap that's fine but that's not the point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 07:29 by FrankM.

>To me, the Stones gave up on that when they did the No Security tour - and targeted a selective and more affluent (ie older) audience who are less interested in the 'depth' of their back catalogue.


I don't think I follow this sentiment. NS was when they unearthed "Moonlight Mile", "Some Girls", "I Got The Blues", "You Got The Silver" ... I'd call that "depth back catalogue" material.

Doxa hits the nail on the head perfectly - the Stones post Tattoo You releases just haven't been anything special. However much the Stones music tended to waver in quality post Exile On Main Steet the magic was still very much there if more sporadically. Sometime around the late seventies post Some Girls they started to lose their muse but still retained enough quality to give Emotional Rescue the odd standout track. Tattoo You of course mainly consists of outtakes from the seventies. Post Tattoo You the Stones are simply a nostalgia act churning out new material on occasion which harks back to their classic sound but without any of the resilience of their best work. The last single they released that could genuinely stand alongside their classics is Start Me Up which is coicidentally their last major hit.

Their later music is too slight and sketchy and doesn't stand up to repeated listens especially well - the Stones releases in later years tend to ring hollow. They play the role of The Rolling Stones well for those interested in being nostalgic when the play their concerts, but their sincerity and bite of the old Stones has been lost for decades now.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> >
> Well what is and isn't exciting is a matter of
> opinion. I don't think U2, Springsteen or The
> Eagles have done anything exciting lately but
> others are free to disagree. I think a lot of it
> has to do with expectations. None of the three
> acts mentioned above were as big as The Stones in
> their heyday so not as much is expected of them
> now. Springsteen can sound like Springsteen, The
> Eagles can sound like the Eagles but if The Stones
> sound like The Stones people rip them and accuse
> them of having a "paint by numbers" sound. People
> have unreal expectations of them imo. As long as
> their new stuff is good it is enough for me. No
> they do not break any new ground but neither do
> other older acts imo.
>

Yeah, I agree that the question can be more of expectations than of excitement. And it is true that The Stones has such a history of great music behind that it is almost a burden for them. It is quite likely that they can not better themeslves when they were 'young, hungry and angry'. But that idea also seems to be strenghten the argument that they have musically decreased, and that's the reason for their RELATIVELY poor sales. I can understand people thinking like 'why should I buy an album of old guys imitating the music they did better decades ago?' What really strike me in that passage I quoted in my original post was the recognition of the people who once bought albums like LET IT BLEED or SOME GIRLS and were very excited of them at the time, were fed up and bored during the years, and haven't found the new Stones albums very exciting anymore, or worth buying (or at least in the first week...). I know quite many people like that myself who share that kind of feeling. (Hell, even Bruce Springsteen is parhaps someone like that...). The thrill of the idea of a new Stones album is gone, and people are just happy to wittnessing the band LIVE 'one more time' and perhaps educating their children or grand-children of the music that once changed the world, by giving them a chance to SEE the Stones.

I don't know about the expectations of Springsteen, U2 or Eagles fans (I personally care next to nothing any of those names), but what I see is a constant serie of number one spot albums following each other (well, the Eagles not so often, but that's not the point). The same thing The Stones did back in the 70's. It looks like that those artists still have something to say to their fans for rising such a demand.


And no the new stuff by Dylan doesn't outsell the
> new Stones stuff so I'm not sure where you got
> that idea from. I'm pretty sure ABB outsold MT
> worldwide. We can argue all day about which is
> better but that is a different argument. It
> remains to be seen whether Magic will outsell ABB
> worldwide so don't draw so many quick conclusions
> about "poor sales".

Dylan has never been such a big seller as the Stones and his image has never been much defined by his commercial success (comparing to the Stones who has always the stigma in them for being the 'biggest' or 'greatest' in terms of making money and attention), but what I have found interesting is the recent following Dylan seems to gather with his new music. He even made a thing The Stones (nor him ) had done for ages: charting number one in US albums charts. Yes,I know that A BIGGER BAND has sold (some) more copies than MODERN TIMES worlwide (and perhaps even in US), but the huge difference between Dylan and The Stones is that the interest for Dylan's music seems to be increasing, while with The Stones the case is the opposite. And one can not use the same argument as with the Stones: if the reason for neglecting their recent output lies in their magnificient past, well what about Bob Dylan's 'back pages'? At least as magnificient as the one by the Stones. I think the plain reason why Bob Dylan seems to rising positive expectations (which implies rising sales) is that he has lately done some superb albums. It's the quality of the music.

Lastly, I - and I suppose none of us - never argued for 'poor sales' by the Stones. All of this talk is very relative to the expectations we might have think rising from the reputation of the Stones as the greatest rock and roll band in recorded history.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 09:46 by Doxa.