>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.


Dylan's MODERN TIMES debuted at #1.

the journalists don't like stones,,stones always been critized(written down by journalists),,

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Well....great albums do not always match great sales. In my book ABB is as good as anything they've ever done - and personally, I think perhaps "ER" is the weakest album - that really was the Rolling Stones by numbers. And ABB got very good reviews.

And I still think 2½ million copies sold is not bad at all!

And if memory serves me right, I believe "Exile" was not a huge success at the time of its release.

And in my book "Rough Justice" is just as strong both as a song and as a single as "Start Me Up" - it's just that the "climate" is not right for that type of raunchy rock'n'roll anymore. Having hit singles is even harder than having number one albums. If "Jumping Jack Flash" - or indeed "Start Me Up" - came out today I'm afraid they would not be hits either.

In my book the Rolling Stones struggled for a while in the 80's but came back with half a great album - "SW" - and is now on the homerun with three strong albums in a row - "VL", "BtB" and "ABB". Each of these albums would have been stronger if they had been trimmed a bit and the rest of the songs given out as b-sides and rarities or whatnot. IMHO.

As for who IS number one on the album charts - it all depends on which week your album comes out. If Springsteen had put his album out the same week as the Eagles, he would not have had a number one album. Nor would the Stones ("World Top 50 Albums" chart that is).

Britney Spears just made that mistake. Her first week sales - 463.000 - is almost only half of that of The Eagles, but would most certainly have earned her a number one in almost any other week.

And if one cares to look back - Stones sold 608.700 in their second week. I don't know what happened to that first week - they only sold 72.300. Must be something to do with what day they count the numbers?? (Also goes to show that their record company does not put much thought into release dates??)

You cannot, however, compare the sales of "ABB" to Stones' back catalogue - especially as the last one was way back in 1997. You have to compare them with artists of today.

Jennifer Lopez who has had a long run of hit singles and albums - her last album tanked badly. ("Brave - highest position 12 with sales of 101.700)

Foo Fighters - another rock'nroll band - who was running high only a year or two ago - respectable sales in the first week of 477.400 at number two, already in the second week down to 203.000 and third week down to 143.700 (Stones' third week 431.200)

...and you can go on and on. Nobody's selling albums any more like the 80's or early 90's. The last album by White Stripes did f*ck all.

And what IS a number one album worth? Amy Winehouse only made it to number 10 on Billboard - again if memory serves - and number 2 on the world chart but has now sold a million copies in the US of A - five million worldwide. That's double up on "ABB" - and she's still selling around the 75.000 mark every week, 44 weeks after the release. But where is Amy in 44 years time - or indeed this time next year?

-------------------

The greatest shame - as I see it right now - is the new Robert Plant/Alison Krauss selling only 131.700 in its first week - . Still enough to give a highest position of 4 on this chart. That is worldwide, Ladies and Gentlemen. If they had debuted this week, they would have gone in at 8 - funny old world. On the other hand, their sales in the second week has gone up to 147.400 - earning them a position at number 5. Maybe people need time to realize what a great album this is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 17:42 by mofur.

vancouver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the journalists don't like stones,,stones always
> been critized(written down by journalists),,


They get more press than anyone! ;-) Don't blame it on the journalists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 12:36 by mofur.

<B2B - have had horrible sales in the USA>

When you sell a couple of million albums, it is stretching it a bit too far to call it horrible sales IMO...

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 considering 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.

Well, he better hurry then. I took the time to go back and add up the numbers from the "World Top 50 Albums" chart. After five weeks, Bruce Springsteen has sold 1.406.600 copies. After five weeks the Stones had sold 1.581.700 copies.

Not that big a difference you might say, but you have to also consider that sales of "Magic" are 139.200 in its fifth week compared to Stones' fifth week of 186.100. Stones did not drop into the 130.000's until their sixth week.

As for him touring Europe and playing the new songs - I personally think, that it does not matter at all. Very rarely - if ever - these days does one see albums crawling back up the charts. This goes for established artists, at least.

When the Stones bowed out of the list after nine weeks they did so with sales for that week for 55.900 and combined sales of 1.927.400. After that they have apparently sold another 500.000 to now stand at 2.500.000 (I don't know where this number comes from - I read it in here)

If you believe the last figure, Bruce still has to sell another 1.100.000 copies over the next two years. If you believe the last known figure of 1.927.400 he will have to sell 500.000 over the next four weeks to score even with the Stones.

It does not rattle my cage either which way - Bruce has outsold the Stones in the past without me losing any sleep.

I'm merely using this as an example of somebody to compare sales with. In that company the Stones are not left wanting.

---------------

And - at the end of the (my) day what matters to me is that ABB is a great album and "Rough Justice" a born classic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 12:38 by mofur.

Probably because everyone's bought them already. They ain't making music for today's kids and young people who go back to seek out classic rock albums are far and few between.

Some good counter claims by mofur that I am honoured to comment

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Well....great albums do not always match great
> sales. In my book ABB is as good as anything
> they've ever done - and personally, I think
> perhaps "ER" is the weakest album - that really
> was the Rolling Stones by numbers. And ABB got
> very good reviews.


That's very true that great albums do not always match with great sales - but they do not match with good reviews either. What I have seen The Stones has never got better reviews then they have since early 80's. How many times we have read the judgment 'best since Exile'? Too many times to be true. In fact, their reviews are much better now than for the ones they got for those we call now belonging to 'golden period' which now has been announced as the criteria of good quality. The bad reviews of Exile are a part of Stones mythology now, right? I think that change of climate tells more about the (d)evolution the style of criticism than of the quality of Stones records. The Stones are treated VERY nicely by the media recently - perhaps the reason is that the people who owns the media are Stones fans. Even Jagger's greatest hits was treated as an important release.. The buying audience just didn't seem to care.

As far as the quality of EMOTIONAL RESCUE - an album I love more and and more every day - is concerned, yeah probably it does not quite match up with its huge sales but the climate was good for The Stones at the eime of its release. SOME GIRLS had established the relevance of the band (once again) and ER rode with that wave. They quickly made a follow up with TATTOO YOU and the retro-sounding single "Start Me Up" before anyone recognized any serious decline.


> And I still think 2½ million copies sold is not
> bad at all!


Of course, it is not! But I think FOR A BAND LIKE THE STONES who has more individuals atteaching to their concerts worlwide and paying ridiculous sums of money for THAT, plus being the first studio release for 8 years, it is not that impressive. Interesting is also recognize that the sales are weaker in those markets which used to be their strongest (esp. USA). They do compansate that by conquering more new markets, thanks to globalisation I guess.

>
> And in my book "Rough Justice" is just as strong
> both as a song and as a single as "Start Me Up" -
> it's just that the "climate" is not right for that
> type of raunchy rock'n'roll anymore. Having hit
> singles is even harder than having number one
> albums. If "Jumping Jack Flash" - or indeed "Start
> Me Up" - came out today I'm afraid they would not
> be hits either.
>


I can also imgaine that "Jumping Jack Flash" or "Start Me Up" would not have been such big hits nowadays as they once were. But what I am sure is that if they would have released "Rough Justice" instead of "Jumping Jack Flash" in 1968 there would not have been any band to discuss in 2007. They couldn't have done a come back' for relevence with that caliber song. For that was needed an instant, catchy classic - what exactly JJF is. The same goes with "Start Me Up". I was caught up with that song - never would have "Rough Justice" made that influence! The best what can I think of RJ is to see it as an EMOTIONAL RESCUE filler, and I am not sure if there is any song I would kick out to get room for it. (Funny though: first time i head the song, the feeling of it somehow reminded me of EMOTiONAL RESCUE era sessions.)

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 14:01 by Doxa.

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >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.


They did, but Jagger commented afterwards that he would sing Moonlight Mile, look out at the audience and see a collective look on their faces that said "what the f**k is this?"

carlostones10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


China? you must be kidding. They're TOTALLY unknown there.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can also imgaine that "Jumping Jack Flash" or
> "Start Me Up" would not have been such big hits
> nowadays as they once were. But what I am sure is
> that if they would have released "Rough Justice"
> instead of "Jumping Jack Flash" in 1968 there
> would not have been any band to discuss in 2007.
> They couldn't have done a come back' for relevence
> with that caliber song. For that was needed an
> instant, catchy classic - what exactly JJF is. The
> same goes with "Start Me Up". I was caught up with
> that song - never would have "Rough Justice" made
> that influence! The best what can I think of RJ is
> to see it as an EMOTIONAL RESCUE filler, and I am
> not sure if there is any song I would kick out to
> get room for it. (Funny though: first time i head
> the song, the feeling of it somehow reminded me of
> EMOTiONAL RESCUE era sessions.)
>
> - Doxa

I respectfully disagree ;-)

No one can tell today what kind of impact "Rough Justice" would have made at that time. I think the reaction to "JJF" was also a sigh of collective relief from the audience that the Stones had left the kaftans behind ;-) Not that I would have noticed at the time of it's release as I was only seven....with my head up Beatles' collective arses. That was soon to change....well five years ;-) To my defence I have to say that I did discover Chuck Berry inbetween Beatles and Stones.

Personally, it took me many years to actually appreciate this song (JJF). A lot of songs are regarded as classics only because they are old AND because of the context they were released in. At the time Stones meant something sociologically and to many people their songs represented a new society - a new set of minds.

I think that "JJF" was a hit because it came out when it did.....and it was the first single with what we now call the "Classic Stones Sound" - but no one knew that at the time.

To my ears "RJ" is not that far from "JJF" - I wonder more what would have happened, had they released "Miss You" as a single in 1968......or "Angie" for that matter? Actually, you've got me wondering about many of their singles "what if they had come out at a different time"?. Material enough there for a worthwhile thread on its own ;-)

We have to understand that Stones don't mean shit any more! They are a great band - on any given night still capable of being the greatest live band in the world - Copenhagen, August 2007 springs to mind.

They mean a lot to their faithful fans - and I have been one since 1973 - but they do not have any impact on anything but the financial world these days. They do not set the agenda any more. The Stones of the 60's and early 70's was a band that wrote the soundtrack for the times. Now they are simply "just another band". And rock'n'roll does not mean anything any more except to the few faithfulls (myself included - but I am very childish).

If rock magazines were written by young people, the Stones would not get half the publicity they get. So, it's quite funny to see someone trying to explaing the lack of success (and I do not even agree with THAT!) as a result of negative press.

I would say, it's the other way around. It must be hard for up-and-coming bands to read the mags and see how much exposure every little fart from Stones, McCartney, Neil Young et al are getting, when they often do not get anything at all.

Somebody wrote that the Stones sales was a disaster compared to the coverage they are getting. I would say it's almost the reverse. For somebody with so fixed and sure sales they sure do get a lot of (over-)exposure. If the exposure had been only a quarter of the actual amount I'm pretty sure they would have sold the same amount of albums, give or take a few thousands. At least in Europe and USA.

Most of Stones' coverage has been in traditional media and music mags. I don't think the young ones read "Uncut", "Mojo" and least of all, probably, "Rolling Stone" - nor do they read the papers.

The Stones do not even advertise their concerts any more!!! As for Denmark they only advertised for one December Sunday in the five or so biggest newspapers.The rest of the advertising was left to the newspapers themselves - always sure to give Stones at least the same exposure as famine in the third world ;-)

Well - in the case of the concert in 2006 they need not have bothered -it sold out on the same day the tickets were up for sale.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-15 17:32 by mofur.

Gazza Wrote:

> China? you must be kidding. They're TOTALLY
> unknown there.


Except for a "few expats and their girlfriends and wives". ;-)

I, for one, buy the albums,and go to the shows. As far as Bruce goes, I see the show and drop the album.....

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
>
> > China? you must be kidding. They're TOTALLY
> > unknown there.
>
>
> Except for a "few expats and their girlfriends and
> wives". ;-)


Correct-amundo, mofur. I remember at the time when they played Shanghai much was made of the fact that, when asked about them, the general public there had no idea who they were

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >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.
>
>
> Dylan's MODERN TIMES debuted at #1.

Impressive for Dylan to debut at number one but totally meaningless as far as my point about total sales. An artist can debut at number one and sell 150,000 copies (not saying this is the case with Dylan) and an artist can debut at number two and sell 250,000 copies. ABB outsold MT wordide and may or may not outsell Magic worldwide- we will have to see.

If you're talking US sales, check out the RIAA website. They still sell just fine. The Kinks and The Who's albums don't sell anymore. Macca's album sales (while healthy) are not in the same league as the Stones. The only thing that changed is past 40 with 20+ years as superstars, they were never going to reach the kids again. Their fan base is alive and well. The catalog and new releases sell just fine. Double platinum certification for STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE, and FORTY LICKS. Platinum certification for JUMP BACK, STRIPPED, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, and A BIGGER BANG. Gold certification for FLASHPOINT and LIVE LICKS. These guys aren't hurting. Sure beats their contemporaries. Within 20 years the vaults will open and the famous live recordings with Taylor (LEEDS LUNGS OUT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BRUSSELS AFFAIR) will help reignite the flame. The Stones were never The Beatles in terms of sales. They weren't Michael Jackson. They never had a RUMOURS or BROTHERS IN ARMS that surpassed the 10 million mark. They can still be our favorite band without selling the most units.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mofur Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza Wrote:
> >
> > > China? you must be kidding. They're TOTALLY
> > > unknown there.
> >
> >
> > Except for a "few expats and their girlfriends
> and
> > wives". ;-)

>
> Correct-amundo, mofur. I remember at the time when
> they played Shanghai much was made of the fact
> that, when asked about them, the general public
> there had no idea who they were


I could picture the political cartoon now...

Something like a billion and a half people live in China, 8,000 went to see the Rolling Stones, the communist soldiers randomly walked up to 8,000 people, held a gun to their head and told them they are going to a show. (Please pardon my warped sense of humor).

Music is not as important as it once was. Too many daily distractions, computers, cellphones, etc make it hard to absorb it. I can't listen to anything in its entirity without being distracted. When I am in my car, workers call me. When at home, kids want something. When I do have a chance to listen it ends up being background.

trainarollin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Music is not as important as it once was. Too many
> daily distractions, computers, cellphones, etc
> make it hard to absorb it. I can't listen to
> anything in its entirity without being distracted.
> When I am in my car, workers call me. When at
> home, kids want something. When I do have a chance
> to listen it ends up being background.

I hear you!

But music is too important to mee to just let it slide. Therefore I try to MAKE time....just me, the stereo and a good bottle of red wine...listening, enjoying. Actually I find that listening while a little under the influence does help - but I don't smoke ANYTHING (well, maybe a good cigar now and then)...hence the red wine.

That does not mean that the music can't be blasting the rest of the time too - but I do set time aside just to listen (mostly when the kid is at his mom's or is busy with the computer) ;-)

Rough Justice doesn't add up to anything in my opinion. It's just the Stones role playing themselves when they were great. There's very little to be found except a concoction of recycled sounds that's vaguely reminiscent of what the Stones used to do so well. However, Rough Justice is nothing in comparison with their best work.To put it on par with Start Me Up seems a long stetch of the imagination and to even comtemplate mentioning it in the same breath as Jumping Jack Flash must surely be a joke.

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rough Justice doesn't add up to anything in my
> opinion. It's just the Stones role playing
> themselves when they were great.............
> mentioning it in the same breath as Jumping Jack
> Flash must surely be a joke.


Finally, some clarity.

Edward Twining Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rough Justice doesn't add up to anything in my
> opinion. It's just the Stones role playing
> themselves when they were great. There's very
> little to be found except a concoction of recycled
> sounds that's vaguely reminiscent of what the
> Stones used to do so well. However, Rough Justice
> is nothing in comparison with their best work.To
> put it on par with Start Me Up seems a long stetch
> of the imagination and to even comtemplate
> mentioning it in the same breath as Jumping Jack
> Flash must surely be a joke.

If that is directed at me - what can I say? I don't agree at all and no I did/do not mean it as a joke. But perhaps you did not read my whole post? All I'm actually saying is that if "RJ" and "JJF" had been switched - who can tell what would have happened? One thing I'm pretty sure of - more people would have gotten the joke about the rooster ;-)

A fine example how irritating chart positions are is German Marius Müller-Westernhagen. His best seller "Mit Pfefferminz bin ich Dein Prinz" (With peppermint I'll be your Prince) has sold 1.5 million copies till today. It was released in 1978, ok, that's a long period to sell. But: It reached #22 in the year of its release, with its highest position in 1981 on #19...

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Edward Twining Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rough Justice doesn't add up to anything in my
> > opinion. It's just the Stones role playing
> > themselves when they were great. There's very
> > little to be found except a concoction of
> recycled
> > sounds that's vaguely reminiscent of what the
> > Stones used to do so well. However, Rough
> Justice
> > is nothing in comparison with their best
> work.To
> > put it on par with Start Me Up seems a long
> stetch
> > of the imagination and to even comtemplate
> > mentioning it in the same breath as Jumping
> Jack
> > Flash must surely be a joke.
>
> If that is directed at me - what can I say? I
> don't agree at all and no I did/do not mean it as
> a joke. But perhaps you did not read my whole
> post? All I'm actually saying is that if "RJ" and
> "JJF" had been switched - who can tell what would
> have happened? One thing I'm pretty sure of - more
> people would have gotten the joke about the
> rooster ;-)

Mofur has a point imo. No I'm not saying RJ is as good as JJF or even SMU but a lot of success depends of timing. It's really just common sense to realize that the more airplay/exposure a song gets the better the chance it will catch on with the general public/become a hit.

These newer Stones songs are at a disadvantage in the sense they don't get the exposure older songs get. Of course you can say that about newer songs from other artists too. If RJ were released in 1981 it would have been a big hit imo.

..................uhm......the newer songs are at a disadvantage because they are not as good.

..and because they dont perform them.....

a + b = c

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >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.
>
>
> Dylan's MODERN TIMES debuted at #1.


Plenty of Stones albums have debuted at #1 including Voodoo Lounge.All of their new studio albums debuted in at least the top four.Besides,the total sales are more important than the sales in the first week.

Rip This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..................uhm......the newer songs are at
> a disadvantage because they are not as good.


The new songs are not as good as some older songs but,they are better than other older songs.It depends on which songs you are talking about.It's ridiculous to say that all newer songs are worse than any/all older songs.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rip This Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ..................uhm......the newer songs are
> at
> > a disadvantage because they are not as good.
>
>
> The new songs are not as good as some older
> songs but,they are better than other older
> songs.It depends on which songs you are talking
> about.It's ridiculous to say that all newer songs
> are worse than any/all older songs.

Exactly. It's not an all or nothing thing where all the old songs are better than all the new songs. ObviousLy on the whole the old stuff would be better but if anyone thinks there aren't songs on ABB, VL and BTB that are better than some of the songs from the seventees and even sixties then they are not paying attention.