With all the recent talk about Zeppelin, here's how popular they are compared to my favs, the Stones, in album sales. The Stones have released albums for 40 years; I believe 42 official releases. Led Zeppelin released 8 albums while together between 1969 and 1979, plus the outtakes, BBC, live and box sets, etc. Look at where the two rank in certified album sales. And one sixth of the Stones sales are Hot Rocks! Are the Stones albums underappreciated?

Artist Certified Units in Millions

THE BEATLES 170
GARTH BROOKS 123
ELVIS PRESLEY 118.5
LED ZEPPELIN 109.5
EAGLES 94
BILLY JOEL 79.5
PINK FLOYD 74.5
STREISAND, BARBRA 71
ELTON JOHN 69.5
AC/DC 69
STRAIT, GEORGE 66.5
AEROSMITH 66.5
THE ROLLING STONES 66
SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 63.5

yep!

in the evenings and in the mornings,
when we set out on our journeys and when we return home,
we will speak of them.

....This is U.S.A only...

iamwaiting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all the recent talk about Zeppelin, here's
> how popular they are compared to my favs, the
> Stones, in album sales. The Stones have released
> albums for 40 years; I believe 42 official
> releases. Led Zeppelin released 8 albums while
> together between 1969 and 1979, plus the outtakes,
> BBC, live and box sets, etc. Look at where the two
> rank in certified album sales. And one sixth of
> the Stones sales are Hot Rocks! Are the Stones
> albums underappreciated?
>

Definitely, although nowhere near as much as how bafflingly OVERappreciated Garth Brooks is....

This says nothing.....I mean what are the most sold food and drinks in the world? McDonalds hamburgers??? Coca Cola??? Definitively not kaviar and champaign. We have to accept that most people don't like quality, especially not artistic quality....many people don't have own opinions....they just listen to the radio and watch that bloody telly. They have 2 TV-sets and 2 cadillac cars, but it won't help em at all......well, I've got my life saved by ROCK AND ROLL..

Underrated by commercial radio.
Not underrated by the legions of fans that continue
to fill arenas at ridiculous ticket prices.

Who cares how people rate the Stones? The best things in life are shared with special people. To hell with the rest. And ridiculous ticket prices? Well I've paid only 15, 25 and 40 Hfl (that's 7, 12 and 18 euro) for their Holland 1973, 1976 and 1982 concerts. Can't remember any Stones show after that..mmm o.k. Keef in Rotterdam 1993. Ever since I watch them in my home-cinema!

Definitely, although nowhere near as much as how bafflingly OVERappreciated Garth Brooks is....

I was thinking the same thing about that list , well said Gazza

Garth Brooks is that some vacuumcleaner salesman from Ohio?

keeffriffhard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This says nothing.....I mean what are the most
> sold food and drinks in the world? McDonalds
> hamburgers??? Coca Cola??? Definitively not kaviar
> and champaign.

I'd usually agree, but The Beatles are on top of the sales list and most would say that their songs are the kaviar and champagne, not the McDonald's hamburgers of popular music.

I have 2 explanations:

1)

A LOT OF THEIR ALBUMS ARE UNDERCERTIFIED:

- England's Newest Hit Makers, 12 x 5, Now, December Children, Between The Buttons, Flowers and Their Satanic Majesties Request, all GOLD, all should be PLATINUM at least. That's 3.5 million more at least.

- Beggars Banquet is only Platinum (1989), the album should be 2x Platinum at least, it sold +650k since 1991.

- Let It Bleed at 2x Platinum (1989), it sold 1+ million since 1991. It should be 3x Platinum.

- Exile On Main Street only Platinum!, the album should be 2x Platinum at least with the sales since 1991 (about 800k)

- Metamorphosis, not certified. The album peaked at #8 in 1975 and it sold 100k since 1991. Easily Gold.

- Black And Blue Platinum (1976), should be 2x Platinum, about 400k sold since 1991 (and who knows the number from 1977-1991)

- Love You Live Gold (1977), it sold 200k since 1991, easily is over the platinum mark.

- Steel Wheels 2x Platinum (January 1990), the album was on the charts until May 1990, several weeks in the Top 40, it sold 500-600k during that time and 300k since 1991. It should be 3x Platinum.

- Flashpoint Gold (1991), 950k sold according to Soundscan. It should be Platinum.

- Forty Licks 4x Platinum (2003), the album sold almost 3 million copies, it should be 6x platinum at least, maybe even 7x Platinum including shipments.

12 million copies, at least, missing from the Stones total (78 m. aprox.)



2)

They never had the commercial hit of Led Zep back in the 70's and don't have it now. Research has shown that the under 25's buy lots of Pink Floyd and Led Zep but not very much Rolling Stones.

Beyond their commercial hit singles, the Stones music on albums is still pretty blues-based and this will always have a limited appeal in that their classic albums (in the US, for example) have sold several millions but have never approached the 20 million league (or 10 million for that matter). To many young people the music is probably just old-fashioned.

Strait, George????

if the stones are underrated it's because they're still around and not missed like other bands from the 60's and 70's . so the media takes them for granted

Just saw Led Zeppelin O2 concert:

Comparing Jagger and Plant, there is an enourmous difference: to me Plant is completely boring as a performer compared to Jagger, he has no stageperformance at all

georgelicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have 2 explanations:
>
> 1)
>
> A LOT OF THEIR ALBUMS ARE UNDERCERTIFIED:

If you take 1991 (I take it this was a year where some new way to measure sales was found?) as some sort of demarcation line, would the same not be true of all of Beatles' original albums and Led Zep's...ohhh....and in fact - most of the artists on the list? ;-)

To answer your question: No, I cannot see how the Stones can be seen as underrated. They've always had a lot of press - arguably the most press for any group ever.

So the audience is aware there is a group out there - the audience has just chosen to buy tickets for their concerts in huge numbers and their albums in not so huge numbers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-07 08:55 by mofur.

When a man buys a Stones album he buys two Garth Brooks albums.
One for the wife and one for girlfriend.

Are the Stones...underrated?....

Not in this household they ain't!

Unfortunately - YES!
But not in this household. They've always been number one under my roof.

Are the Stones ... underrated?

Not on this board!

Who cares anyway? As long as they put out quality releases and tour with modest ticket prices in decent venues I'm happy!

Stones not underated BUT Jagger/Richards underated as songwriters.

Through the years I've read houndreds of polls in various music magazines. In many of them, the Stones are (in the opinion of those who have cast their vote) less important, not as good as bands like Oasis, Blur, Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers, spice girls etc etc. In these cases, it's important to know that the opinion of the masses (here - the opinion of those who read this or that magazine) is not necessarily (rarely) the truth. I'm quite confident that when the music history of the 20th and 21st Century is written, the importance of the Stones in bot music, politics and various other cultural fields (films, painting, art in general) will not be underestimated. Actually I'm convinced that the Stones will be regarded as important contributors in music and culture. While some of the other bands mentioned above will be rather disappointed by the opinion of the historians. Some of today's artists are important now, and for about 3 months to come - but what about in 45 years? Will people remember them? My guess is, of course, no - sorry guys.
So I just take these polls for what they are. The opinion of relatively few readers who have bothered to vote for today's "big thing" or whoever they feel will be "the next big thing". But fortunately, these readers don't have the final say.

gstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Through the years I've read houndreds of polls in
> various music magazines. In many of them, the
> Stones are (in the opinion of those who have cast
> their vote) less important, not as good as bands
> like Oasis, Blur, Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili
> Peppers, spice girls etc etc. In these cases, it's
> important to know that the opinion of the masses
> (here - the opinion of those who read this or that
> magazine) is not necessarily (rarely) the truth.


Polls arent an accurate barometer and are meaningless because they're always going to be balanced in favour of whoever is flavour of the month. Stands to sense that if you ask a 15 year old girl who the greatest band of all ttime is and who the greatest songwriter of all time is she's somewhat unlikely to reply 'The Rolling Stones' and 'Bob Dylan'. Youre likely to get some moronic answer like The Spice Girls and Robbie Williams. Yet in a poll, thats going to carry the same weight as that of someone who's actually listened to a reasonable amount and variety of music.

To give an example, a nationwide poll in 2000 in the UK to find the greatest composers of the millenium had a top 3 of Mozart, John Lennon..and Robbie Williams.

Gazza, if you'd quoted the last part of my post - you'd see we really do agree on this one.

"I'm quite confident that when the music history of the 20th and 21st Century is written, the importance of the Stones in both music, politics and various other cultural fields (films, painting, art in general) will not be underestimated. Actually I'm convinced that the Stones will be regarded as important contributors in music and culture. While some of the other bands mentioned above will be rather disappointed by the opinion of the historians. Some of today's artists are important now, and for about 3 months to come - but what about in 45 years? Will people remember them? My guess is, of course, no - sorry guys.
So I just take these polls for what they are. The opinion of relatively few readers who have bothered to vote for today's "big thing" or whoever they feel will be "the next big thing". But fortunately, these readers don't have the final say."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-07 22:01 by gstone.

Yep - we do.... although as I said in another post a couple of days ago, I'm personally unconvinced about how the music we've grown up with will be remembered (and IF it will be remembered at all) in 100 years time.

Not because of the music itself, but because of the changing nature of society and the fact that with each preceding decade, the general public (and that also includes the people who write about music) appear to have an attention span similar to that of a squirrel.

Gazza,
You're being very disrespectful to the squirrel !

How many music journos could remember where their nuts were ?

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza,
> You're being very disrespectful to the squirrel
> !

If only you'd met some of the squirrels I've known, Spud! Disrespectful and fickle bitches, the whole lot of them!

If you don't like the company, come outa the trees ;^)

the stones underrated please. just check the gross receipts for their tours .they pack stadiums at the prices that they charge which if truth be told are high . so they have a very rabid following worldwide that continue to follow from here to the next city on the tour,buy their albums , tee shirts ,posters and other merchandise.tell me who in this day and age of the global world that we live in makes this much money? oh as a footnote i am one of the very rabid stones fan that i talk about.

The Greek - Income is one thing, (and they sure have 'em!), respect is something totally different. (I'm rabid, too - if going from one show to the other, spending ridiculous amounts of cash on my passion qualifies for that tag.)

it's funny, although they're a household name and many people i know claim to like them, i'm the only one in my groups of friends who listen to them and have discovered their world of bootlegs, outtakes (despite spending lots of time in the bootleg world of the grateful dead). most friends don't get past hot rocks or maybe exile.

in some ways, i like that it's "my thing" and i'm not drowning in the masses of those who's favorite band is the beatles.