UK Top 10 Best Selling Catalogue Albums of 2007
albums released before 2005
sales from 01/01/2007 - 31/12/2007
Source: Music Week

1. Amy Winehouse ? Frank 341,436
2. Phil Collins ? Hits - 332,184
3. Snow Patrol ? Final Straw - 145,124
4. James Blunt ? Back To Bedlam - 140,431
5. The Proclaimers ? The Best Of - 130,037
6. The Rolling Stones ? Rolled Gold - The Very Best Of ? 114,938
7. Diana Ross & The Supremes ? The No.1?s ? 105,089
8. Fleetwood Mac - Greatest Hits ? 102,554
9. Genesis ? Turn It On Again ? The Hits ? 101,710
10. KT Turnstall ? Eye To The Telescope ? 100,279


Klein and Co. must be laughing their ass off, Mick and Co. would not believe that a 32+ years old compilation outsold their latest studio album.

You're f***ing kidding me???

Its only been out 3 months, its a double CD reissue of a 1975 compilation and its the 6th biggest seller of the year?

Who is there left who's discovering the Stones through these old compilations?

i think a bigger concern is who is buying the Phil Collins related material!!! Re Stones, if you were born just after Steel Wheels Tour u would now be in your late teens and maybe they are the people buying it. You have to start somewhere, sometime.

Quote
babablack
i think a bigger concern is who is buying the Phil Collins related material!!! Re Stones, if you were born just after Steel Wheels Tour u would now be in your late teens and maybe they are the people buying it. You have to start somewhere, sometime.

Possibly but those 'youngsters' would have had the option of Forty Licks only a few years ago which would also have included tracks they'd be more familiar with.

Quote
Gazza



Who is there left who's discovering the Stones through these old compilations?

Essentially, no one. Mainly, it's old farts like us who get some sort of nostalic comfort from hearing these tracks in the same running order they first heard them in 33 years ago.

I still put on "Big Hits" once in a while. That was my first Stones album so to me, those particular tracks are just SUPPOSED to be heard in that particular running order. It just sounds RIGHT to me. It would, of course. Wouldn't it?

Quote
tatters

Quote
Gazza



Who is there left who's discovering the Stones through these old compilations?

Essentially, no one. Mainly, it's old farts like us who get some sort of nostalic comfort from hearing these tracks in the same running order they first heard them in 33 years ago.

Maybe, but I find it hard to believe there are 115,000 of us in the UK sufficiently interested in buying stuff we already own on numerous compilations already.

Personally, I havent bought it.










Yet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 17:48 by Gazza.

It is no wonder that these 'best of' records seem to sell so nicely, namely the band seems to do their part of promotion by playing those songs every night...

- Doxa

It was the success of 'Rewind' in the US when they finally released it there that bemused me the most - considering its almost the same as disc 2 of 40 Licks, which had been released a couple of years earlier and which was still selling well.

makes you wonder why the people who are buying these are reluctant to dip much further into the band's back catalogue.

The downside of this 'success' is that it 'encourages' the Stones to stick predominantly to the 40 Licks/Rewind/Rolled Gold format when they perform - and knowing there's such a market for nostalgia doesnt exactly encourage them to record new material

Quote
Gazza
It was the success of 'Rewind' in the US when they finally released it there that bemused me the most - considering its almost the same as disc 2 of 40 Licks, which had been released a couple of years earlier and which was still selling well.

makes you wonder why the people who are buying these are reluctant to dip much further into the band's back catalogue.

The downside of this 'success' is that it 'encourages' the Stones to stick predominantly to the 40 Licks/Rewind/Rolled Gold format when they perform - and knowing there's such a market for nostalgia doesnt exactly encourage them to record new material

You mean "Jump Back" don't you? Wasn't "Rewind" an equally pointless compilation that was released in the States circa 1984?

The First Rolling Stones tape I bought was Rolled Gold in about 1991. I had no idea about Hot Rocks or anything else. Some kids would just look at it and go hmm best of rolling stones i'll have that as my stones album.

Yeah, the continous demand for the complilations - and nostalgy - is incredible, and The Stones seem to get their share of it. But I think that is nothing to compared to the Beatles and Elvis demand; every few years, released nicely prior Christmas, there is another number one album providing the same old set of greatest hits in a different package.

But I was thinking what Gazza mentioned. It seems to be a closed circle: the band plays the songs they think the audiences are familair with - and this has the effect, that the band promotes by their set list the greatest hits compilations... There is no way out for a new fresh material.

But considering that from a realistic point: do we really need any mind-provoking hot new material anymore - is the material from their two first decades not enough? Perhaps everyone - the audience, the band - is exhausted by the supply. I think the idea of the Stones still breathing, living 'real' recording artists is a myth we here don't want really revail or kill down. They supply the idea of a great 'real' rock and roll band of our dreams - the look, the attitude, the songs - and they do it very well. What differs them from a pure nostalgy band is quite make-up-thing - it's more like they refused to grow up: they and us still pretend it's still LIKE 1966 or 1976, or that time stopped around 1982. It is not important if a fan is not even born then yet - it's the fantasies of them in their glory days that seems to matter, and the current Stones seem to represent it very well - perhaps the copy is sometimes even better than the original. In this sense Mick Jagger is the most nostalgic of them: he plays the role of Mick "Peter Pan" Jagger of people's fantasies - and he plays it so well that we don't believe that he actually is sixtysomething singing and dancing for a millionth time "Jumping Jack Flash" or "Satisfaction" to the thrilled audience. I think the Stones have created their unique version of nostalgy, and all the demands for new material sound like romantic ideas; not really wanting to accept the real nature of the band.

The question is not that their new material is not good - it is usually very good. But nothing compared to the canon created in their first twenty years. The new stuff just don't add anything essential to that. Musically and otherwise The Stones IS the band created in those first 20 years, and they seem to reluctant to change anything - and I don't think the fans actually either.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-14 12:01 by Doxa.

... didn't we just have a thread criticizing Don Was for saying the same thing?
i protest.

Quote
Gazza
The downside of this 'success' is that it 'encourages' the Stones to stick predominantly to the 40 Licks/Rewind/Rolled Gold format when they perform - and knowing there's such a market for nostalgia doesnt exactly encourage them to record new material

not only new material, it also doesnt exactly encourage them and their record companies to go through the hassles of opening the vaults.

its much easier for anybody involved to recycle the already released material in new packages from time to time - not much work, no legal hassles, no endless going through old tapes, no endless listening & mixing sessions - and a guaranteed success anyways! obviously they dont believe that a live double CD from 1972 or 1973 could sell more than a recycled compilation than Rolled Gold.

Quote
with sssoul
... didn't we just have a thread criticizing Don Was for saying the same thing?
i protest.

You are so romantic, dear

- Doxa

Doxa, your essay nicely sums up what are my thoughts about the band too. cannot imagine better words to describe it. you nailed it!