Recently, the new albums from Springsteen and The Eagles have been #1 on Billboard and sold massive quantities in their first weeks - an amazing feat considering the state of album sales these days. Yet, stones albums of the last decade - ABB, Licks, Live Licks, No Security, B2B - have had horrible sales in the USA in comparison to other artists. Considering they are the 2nd or 3rd biggest name in music history, it is amazing that people do not buy their albums as much as other bands. This also goes back to their classic 60's and 70's albums. Only Some Girls,Emotional Rescue, and Tatto You really are major platimum sellers. The Stones have never sold as many albums as Zeppelin, U2, Eagles, Floyd for example in the USA... yet, they can sell out stadiums without major problems at their incredibly high ticket prices... Is it b/c no one cares about their new music and only view them as a classic band? I just find it amazing that with all their fans and how big they are, in the USA, they cannot sell albums anymore, yet Bruce and The Eagles come along, both of whom are not nearly as big as the Stones, and have no problem selling albums. Any opinions?

People don't buy many Stones record albums anymore
'cause it's all downloads and CDs.

it's cc's doing

not the point. Bruce and The Eagles sold hundreds of thousands of copies in their first week of sales. When ABB came out a few years ago, it was not #1 on the charts, not even close from what I remember, and did not sell nearly as many copies in its first week. The point is that in the USA, a Stones album is met with a more lukewarm reception nowadays than U2 or Bruce Springsteen. Granted, this is the first Eagles album in 20 years and maybe that is why. But Stones albums have never sold as many copies as they should considering their classic nature and how great they are. you'll never see Exile, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Beggars up there in sales with the classic Beatles, Zeppelin albums. Only Some girls and Tattoo you come close, but they are still so far off in sales numbers.

the other bands have a wider appeal - obviously, and better promo and managing staff

OLDKR

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's cc's doing


I agree about the cc:'s
All the carbon copies and replying and what-not is getting to the point of unwanted spam. IMO.

Forty Licks sold fantasticaly here in the UK and that counts for a lot.

Because their material is lacking in the appeal that the 70's gave them. Plus they have had too much exposure around the world for quite a while now and the demand is not outpacing the their supply.

Translation: Too much Stones stuff with too little content and no big desire to have it.

Plus high ticket and merchandise prices, weak setlists, too selective in picking cities to tour has soured a fan base.

The general public don't see the Stones as an albums act, that's the point, and I think their music is outdated compared with the current scene, the top rock acts of today are more Beatles-Floyd-U2-Zeppelin friendly than Stones friendly.

Their new music is so out of touch, lyrically and musically. Half of ABB was embarrassing for a band in their mid 60's and the other half barely mediocre.

When you see a public poll (not a critics poll), only 1 of their albums are on a top 100 list and in the lower part, it's not surprising when their last blockbuster hit was Start Me Up, three generations ago.

what does this mean:

I agree about the cc:'s
All the carbon copies and replying and what-not is getting to the point of unwanted spam. IMO.

Some points:

(A) What do you mean "...anymore"? As you said, the Stones NEVER had been "monster" as album sellers. Never. Their most successful (from the particular point of view- sales) studio album, "Some Girls", sold 9 million copies, at time, late seventies, when Fleetwood Mac were selling 29 m ("Rumours") - and i don't mention Led Zeppelin's or Floyd's incredible sales during 70s...

( You're talking about the US market. Yes, indeed, ABB sold poorly in the US. We have discussed 1,000 times about the reasons, here. But the whole picture isn't exactly the same. ABB sold 2.6 million copies worldwide. Not a triumph of course, but also not a bad number, considering the fact that the Stones studio albums from 1983 or 1986 (and if i'm right some band's albums from 70s too) had sold 2.3- 2.5 million. At time when the general level of sales was much higher.

(C) Do you think that nowadays, in the years of downloading, ONLY the Stones do lower sales than what once they were managing? Once upon a time a "very succesful" U2's album was selling as "Joshua Tree" did (about 15million) and now the limit is 7-8 m. Sometimes people forget that in the late- 70s and 80s we had sales at the level of 30m, 22m, 25m. Now "zenith" is MUCH LOWER.

(D) Maybe the Stones never had been "monster" as album sellers, but they were and they remain stable enough. That's why they're #12 on the catalogue of best selling acts ever (according RIAA).

(C) Please, name an act born in 60s that sold better than the Stones it's new stuff, worldwide, in last 15-20 years. Please, do the same with acts born in 70s. I think the right answer is "only U2"...

... i mean on stable basis in the last years, not as for one only album (for example Santana's "Supernatural")...

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's cc's doing

no! I bought that cassette of Dirty Work. How'd that one do? double-platinum? quadruple?


is it really true that they don't sell? I thought ABB had done fairly well for a new album by 65-year-olds that was not really promoted.

jjsteve, schillid was making a pun about e-mail.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it's cc's doing
>
> no! I bought that cassette of Dirty Work. How'd
> that one do? double-platinum? quadruple?
>
>
> is it really true that they don't sell? I thought
> ABB had done fairly well for a new album by
> 65-year-olds that was not really promoted.

ABB had plenty of promotion....a tour in front of 6 million people is sufficient exposure. Let alone the fact that they had huge advertising promotional campaigns that 99% of bands can only dream of having, lots of interviews on TV and in high profile magazines, the AMA's, NFL tie in and the Superbowl. All of those events promoted not only the tour but the album as well as on each of those televised performances, they made a point of performing a song from ABB.

The general public had all the opportunity they needed to be aware that the Stones had a new album out. More so than most other acts would have.

Where the Stones failed was in not having the balls to see through the 'promotion' that the record needed with their own audience. If you're playing to 6 million people, and say, half of that is in the US where the audience are seemingly okay with paying an average of over $160 to see you perform (and $450 and upwards in many cases) then it shouldnt take much effort to persuade said audience to part with $15 to acquire your new release.

Not even making the album available at your concerts (yet you could buy overpriced shite like toy trucks with a Stones tongue on it and the like) and having a half arsed attitude to playing new songs (to the extent where by the end of the tour you were playing next to noting from it at all) gives the impression that you dont really have a lot of faith in the material.

all that granted, do you think the album really didn't sell well? How many copies should it have sold?

stickydion Wrote:
> (C) Please, name an act born in 60s that sold
> better than the Stones it's new stuff, worldwide,
> in last 15-20 years.


Well thats mainly because most of those acts just arent around anymore, but theres still a few :

Pink Floyd. The Beatles. Led Zeppelin (The Beatles and LZ's reissues or archive releases sell more than a new Stones studio album)

and maybe : The Bee Gees, Barbra Streisand,



Please, do the same with acts
> born in 70s. I think the right answer is "only
> U2"...

U2's first album came out in 1980.

Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band, The Eagles, Michael Jackson, Billy Joel, maybe Aerosmith?

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all that granted, do you think the album really
> didn't sell well?

Compared to most acts - it sold very well. For the amount of exposure it had - it underperformed

How many copies should it have
> sold?


5 million?

people who apparently like a band enough to spend exorbitant amounts of money for a ticket to see them should reasonably be expected to buy their latest album which costs less than 10% of the price of an average ticket. Simple as that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-12 04:14 by Gazza.

basically because it was a crap album as were all those preceding it since early 70's............analyse it till the cows come home but its pretty bloody obvious

How does that explain the fact that Emotional Rescue far outsold Exile on main Street then - even without a tour or a massive hit single?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-12 04:25 by Gazza.

2.5 million copies is good, but for a band like the stones - the biggest name in music next to the beatles and elvis - it should have sold more. when bruce or U2 come out with an album, people buy it. not true for the stones. and the stones have wider appeal than these acts. i know most people do not casre about stones albums anymore which is probably why, but gazza is right, if you can sell 6 million tix on a tour, at least a few million in the USA should buy an album.. and the album was not that bad. at least half the songs were good.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it's cc's doing
>
jjsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what does this mean:
>
> I agree about the cc:'s


> jjsteve, schillid was making a pun about e-mail.


As I mentioned,
PAin medicine brings out an urge to make puns... i don't know why


Actaully, cc's refers to cubic centimeters...
Even tho my medicine's in tablet form.

; )
smileys don't seem to work any more.
Why is that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-12 05:26 by schillid.

......well it's no big secret that Some Girls had a huge cross over single (Miss You) that was played on Dance, Pop and Rock radio followed up by another cross over hit like Beast of Burden and then the radio friendly Shattered/Respectable/Just My Immagination et al....even Keith's Walk Before they Make Me Run was played nearly as much as Happy.....at least in the USA it was....they haven't done that since...and they have NOT written like that since....and they have not performed with that kind of bravura since......Licks nonwithstanding..........they sure get more press than anyone else....in fact they don't need to pay to promote.......they can fart and the press will cover it....but then no one put on a show like they did over the years..........and that was up until Licks...'cause what they did on Licks was nothing short of a miracle......ABB wasn't Licks...and ABB the record in the end just didn't hold up.

Technically, I guess the Stones' core audience for albums would be the same age group as the Eagles. If you've had a listen to the online streaming sound samples of the current Eagles album, you would have realized that this disc is rather mellow, even boring at times. The Stones won't do that. They like to rattle the cage. Generally, ABB could have done better with more promotion, but the main problem lies somewhere else.

When I played ABB for the first time to my mom and uncle, both of them Stones fans in the 60s, and now rather casual listeners ( = the ones who make a best seller), they didn't like it. Their criticism sounded like: Who's that shouter? I can't believe that's supposed to be Mick. And: This is all rhythm. Where are the melodies? So the track list could be a problem.
And then they asked me to skip through the disc. And when I had skipped to the end, and asked them to name me a song they would like to listen to in its entirety, they said something along the lines of No thank you. Get that disc outta here.
And they both reacted like this, even though I played them the disc independently!

My old / former room at my parents' household is located fairly central, so when I am around, the radio in my room is used and I am the DJ (which is lots of fun for me), and especially my dad is a very receptive listener. I found out that "Let Me Down Slow" is about the only song from ABB that gets positive reactions from this kind of "audience". By now, they've gotten used to my personal choice of 1st single, "She Saw Me Coming", but there is no way yet that they react positive to "Driving Too Fast", "Infamy" or "Rough Justice" even.
The whole ABB album has mainly got a 1990s indie rock appeal to it that doesn't seem to go along well with people around the age of 60 ...

Whereas the Eagles or Bruce Springsteen's E-Street band tend to stick to their initial musical style.

In the conclusion, I must say that all other "recently new" Stones material, like the 4 new 40Licks tracks, B2B, VL, and Mick's solo albums fared pretty well among this audience, especially the songs "Throwaway", "Out Of Focus", "Sweethearts Together", "Highwire", "Jump On Top Of Me", "Too Tight", "Saint Of Me", "You Don't Have To Mean It", "Evening Gown", "Don't Stop", "Put Me in the Trash", "I've Been Lonely For So Long" and "Brand New Car" (in no particular order)
whereas they absolutely despised "You Got Me Rocking" and "Anybody Seen My Baby" (!!)

Harder stuff like "Gunface" or "Mother Of a Man" generally doesn't go down well with them either.

They pretty much ignored "Sparks Will Fly", the wonderful "Moon Is Up", "Out Of Control", "Hang On To Me Tonight", "Wired All Night", "Don't Give it Up", the whole of Steel Wheels, and lots of other tunes.

I guess this says something about why ABB sunk at the box office: its musical style just didn't quite fit the core audience.

i agree to billwebster´s analysis regarding ABB and the kind of reception it got by people in their 60ies.

but i am not so sure about his assumption that the Stones' core audience is this age group. i don´t think that people in their 60ies usually buy a lot of CDs, and believe that most of the "active" Stones fans are people in their thirties-fifties, like people here on this site. And to this age group the indie-feeling of ABB does appeal to....

At the end of the day I still think that ABB is a late masterpiece and that 2½ millions ain't too bad - brilliant in fact. In this day and age and from a band that has been running for more than 40 years. It's also interesting to see Stones' demographics changing - while they used to have 2/3 of their sales in USA now it's reversed....perhaps even to only 1/4 in the USA.

I have no idea how many people download Stones - I also don't see any point in doing a "Prince" - i.e. giving a free CD with the ticket just to get in the charts. ABB WAS the number one selling CD in the world for two weeks running back in 2005. Bruce has just had three weeks but I doubt if he'll sell more worldwide in the long run.

And the Stones did promote ABB - just not very much once the tour started. Which I personally think is a shame - I guess Jagger knows what he's doing, though (when it comes to his Rolling Stones career at least).

It makes no sense comparing ABB to Licks - Licks is the first album that covers their whole career and if you're only looking for one Stones CD, I reckon this would be the one.

I used to buy every Elvis Costello record - but now I've given up. Even when I buy his new ones I keep going back to the old ones - and I guess that's how a lot of people think about the Stones. When ABB came out they probably thought back to how many times they actually did play "BtB" after the initial spins. Compared to -say ohh - "Forty Licks".

Artistic quality and quantity of sales are two completely different things

so don't bother
I mean, most people like to eat SHIT

>I have no idea how many people download Stones - I also don't see any point in doing a "Prince" - i.e. giving a free CD with the ticket just to get in the charts.

Prince's album wasnt eligible for a chart position because of the way it was distributed. 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. Prince's previous album sold 70,000 copies in the UK. 'Planet Earth' was distributed to 2 million homes in a newspaper deal which made him about £250,000 (more than he would have made from UK sales of his previous record) and included as part of the ticket purchase to 450,000 people. Transfer that philosophy to a new Stones album and tour and you have an audience who have little excuse to rush to empty their ageing bladders every time the band try and convince them that they shouldnt have given up making music after 1981.

>ABB WAS the number one selling CD in the world for two weeks running back in 2005. Bruce has just had three weeks but I doubt if he'll sell more worldwide in the long run.

Not that its important, but cnsidering hes only played about 20 shows in the US (mostly on the east coast) and has yet to go overseas, I would bet that he will. The people who buy his concert tickets still buy his new music and he plays most of the songs in his live shows.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-13 14:40 by Gazza.

wandering spirit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i agree to billwebster´s analysis regarding ABB
> and the kind of reception it got by people in
> their 60ies.

The Stones are NOT trying to target people in their 60s. That is an audience that is set in its buying habits and ways and rushing out to get the latest CD by a group they loved 30+ years ago is not what the majority of that demographic do with their money.

If they wanted to sell to an older demographic they wouldn't continue to downplay their unreleased/box set material and continue releasing music they want to be considered relevant and current and new.

J

I don't know anywhere near as much about sales figures as many in this conversation, but there are two points probably worth adding:

1.) Stones albums, at the time of release and in their active promotional lifespans (18mos.? 2 years?) were massive sellers relative to the standards of their day up through "Tattoo You." Sure, there were things like "Tapestry" or "Rumours" out there, but the Stones' numbers through the 1970s were just huge. Remember also that the staggering figures now associated with things like "Eagles Greatest Hits" and "Saturday Night Fever" are connected to their steady sales as catalogue albums over vast timespans. "Exile," for all its legend, just hasn't kept up with, say, "Zep IV."

2.) And I think there's a reason for that which has not been discussed: A consumer's "Stones Dollar" is spread much, much wider than a "Beatles Dollar" or a "Zeppelin Dollar." The Stones' catalogue is as much as four times the size of those other bands, so purchases are spread around in a way that doesn't happen when there are just a few landmark albums. In other words, "Sticky Fingers" doesn't sell like "Rumours" because some percentage of people bought "12X5," "Ya-Ya's" and "Forty Licks..."

...to say nothing of $450 concert tickets and $40 t-shirts that compete with CD purchases.

And doesn't the extrordinary demand for those tickets testify mightily to the overall aggregate value of their catalogue? Isn't it a very significant economic vote for the band's overall work and reputation?

Maybe the meaningful comparison between all these bands would be in overall revenue dollars.

And 3.) Rightly or wrongly (I would say) don't people just feel like they couldn't possibly NEED yet another Stones album? I happen to love "Bridges To Babylon," but if I were reccommending Stones albums to someone, where would it rank? Eighth? Tenth? Lower?

How many people buy ten albums by any band, ever?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-13 18:47 by Rev. Robert W..

> "Exile,"
> for all its legend, just hasn't kept up with, say,
> "Zep IV."

True, though when I did research in 1995 for a book proposal, "Exile" was the highest ranking non-compilation Stones' album on Billborad's all-time sales chart. It was also one of the highest ranked non-compilation albums period.


Also remember that "Zeppelin IV" was the only outlet for anyone to buy "Stairway To Heaven" for ages on end, thus pumping it's sales. And while the Zep catalog is/was smaller, they also did not have a compilation album available until very recently, thus their fans, or anyone, had to buy more of their albums.

"Exile"s 2-LP ticket was also a deterrance, especially when "Tumbling Dice" and "Happy" were shortly available on "Made In The Shade."



> And doesn't the extrordinary demand for those
> tickets testify mightily to the overall aggregate
> value of their catalogue? Isn't it a very
> significant economic vote for the band's overall
> work and reputation?

I'd say it has much more to do with their reputation these days.


> And 3.) Rightly or wrongly (I would say) don't
> people just feel like they couldn't possibly NEED
> yet another Stones album?

Very true, and most probably already own the old familiar stuff -- which is what the play predominantly now, because they know the people that can pay for those tickets are that type of fan/audience. Sure most die hards would pay, but I know many HUGE and educated music fans that simply can't afford to see them. If it were left up to the die hards and the knowledgable music fan, the stadiums would not fill.

> How many people buy ten albums by any band, ever?

Perfect illustration/question.

J