|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
Hi!
Why do you think the Stones had never been the top selling artists? Of course they sold millions (and overall sales are great, too), but in comparision to many other artist like Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Beatles, Michael Jackson etc. they didn't do very well. Hot Rocks is their best selling record with about 12 million sales and it's a Best Of, not a regular album.
I never really figured out the reason why the "GREATEST Rock 'n Roll Band in the World" was so "average" when it comes to sales figures. Look at Forty Licks! 2 million copies sold (well officially 4 mio. because it's a double disc) which is ridiculous in my opinion for a band like the Stones. And right the same happend to almost any album in the past decade. Is it because there is something in the Stones music that is so anti-mainstream??
I remember some guy saying in the 40th anniversay Let It Bleed documentation that the biggest mistake people can do in music is not to buy the records of artist during their lifetime!! And he is absolutely right!
ThatsWhatISay
[Edited by ThatsWhatISay] |
|
|
| egon |
it might take a while before he replies,
but JB will explain everything to you |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
OH DEAR LORD,ANOTHER BORE. |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
Still no topic-related answers? :-( I don't think 'jb' will ever see this posting if he answers in some days/weeks or whatever...so it would be nice if other rocks off members could reply...thanks! |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
Let's be boring. I dont know what the actual sales figures are but I would think the Stones have out sold Led Zepplin in almost every way. Did Led Zepplin ever have any top 10 hits? The Stones had a whole string of them. Stairway to Heaven may have charted. I don't know. It certainly became popular later on the radio. Pink Floyd had one or two very popular albums. Almost nothing in top 40 singles. Micheal Jackson and the Beatles are the only two you list that I would think have done better than the Stones in the singles market. I think the Stone's album sells have been less because they have never made strong albums that can be listened to straight thru. In my opinion Tattoo You is the only studio Stone's album that can be listened to in it's entirety. They have always been primarily a singles band. Led Zepplin only outsells the Stones now because they are disbanded and not out there skewering the public's perception of them as rock gods, and because they were resurrected from the grave by the big hair bands of the 80s. I am old enough to barely remember when the last couple of Led Zep albums where all over the cut out racks. You couldn't give a Zepplin album away. Robert Plant might like to say they broke up because an original member of the band died, but I think a better explaination is because they couldn't sell their crappy music anymore. Punk and New Wave may have given the Stones and the Kinks a second life; but it killed Zepplin, at least temporarily. |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
"They have always been primarily a singles band" & "they have never made strong albums that can be listened to straight thru"
Hey these are good statements...I think that was what I waited for as explanation :-)
Sorry for boring you guys ;-) |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
LuckyWithTheLadies wrote:
I think the Stone's album sells have been less because they have never made strong albums that can be listened to straight thru.
****************BLANK FRIGGIN' STARE******************* |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
Yeah, this might be true, because the Stones intended to be sometimes a bit too experimental/(stoned). This often lead to songs where I asked myself how they could hit the studio to record such songs. But these are mostly only 1 or 2 songs on those albums. However enough not to listen straight thru the album ;-)
[Edited by ThatsWhatISay] |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
Tell me you can listen to Emotional Rescue straight thru and not wince when you hear Indian Girl. Ok, that's an extreme example. How bout Black and Blue? Melody anyone?
It's Only Rock and Roll? How bout If you Really Want to be my Friend. Or tell me that even Sticky Fingers is not hurt by the jam at the end of Cant you Hear me Knockin? Or try selling You Got to Move to the average rock radio listener who is not a hardcore Stone's fan. In fact, I bet that only a hardcore fan could listen to Exile all the way through without stopping for a breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong I love everything they've ever done, as does any Stones freak out there. But fans are not what creates chart topping album sells. The average listener out there in radio land does that. And he or she don't give a damm if the song is by the Rolling Dead or the Grateful Stones, they just want to get high and ball each other. A little 60s lingo there. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I dont know what the actual sales figures are but I would think the Stones have out sold Led Zepplin in almost every way.
Actually the Stones NEVER outsold Led Zep in ANY way. Album sales arent even close. In the mid 70's when both were touring, Zep were at least as big if not a bigger draw re: ticket sales.
Led zeppelin despite only having released 8 studio albums and one live album during the band's lifetime are the third biggest selling artist in US history for album sales. The Stones I would imagine wouldnt even be in the top ten.
>Did Led Zepplin ever have any top 10 hits?
they might have done had they released singles. usually they didnt. Only in the US. they didnt need to. Whole lotta love reached #2.
>The Stones had a whole string of them. Stairway to Heaven may have charted. I don't know.
uh..
> It certainly became popular later on the radio.
it was always popular!
> Pink Floyd had one or two very popular albums.
they had several actually. dark side of the Moon stayed in the charts for about 15 YEARS!
> Almost nothing in top 40 singles.
they werent a singles act. They still managed to top the UK charts twice.
> Micheal Jackson and the Beatles are the only two you list that I would think have done better than the Stones in the singles market.
try a guy named Elvis for starters. Theres several more in fact in any country you may wish to name. The Supremes in the US to name but one (add on Diana Ross' solo hits too). Elton John. Madonna. Need I go on?
I think the Stone's album sells have been less because they have never made strong albums that can be listened to straight thru.
+++BLANK FRIGGIN STARE++++
In my opinion Tattoo You is the only studio Stone's album that can be listened to in it's entirety.
+++ EVEN BIGGER BLANK FRIGGIN STARE +++
>They have always been primarily a singles band.
This would be true if you wrote this in 1967. Several Stones albums since then have only seen one or two singles at most released from them. The Stones have barely had a top 10 single in two decades. Primarily a singles band? Youve got to be kidding me.
> Led Zepplin only outsells the Stones now because they are disbanded and not out there skewering the public's perception of them as rock gods, and because they were resurrected from the grave by the big hair bands of the 80s.
Led Zeppelin ALWAYS easily outsold the Stones. Even in the 70's. I'm talking about a ratio of 2 or 3 to one in album sales. Not bad for a band that didnt release singles or do TV.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
well your emotional rescue/indian girl example is a good one
as for the others "melody" /"be my friend" they are OK by me
put into the context you've suggetsed i do see your point from a non-fanatic point of view - i knew a girl once who loved SF but just had no idea what "You Gotta Move" was all about
having said and conceeded that i still don't think that reason (i.e. tthey don't make albums you cab listen to all the way thru)effects sales that much - i'd say the reason the stones have not sold much, at least in the last 25 years, is the lack of hit singles...i mean, "miss you" was a hit and SG sold fairly well same goes with TY and SMU - since then there's been little if any top 10 action and hence your uncommitted (read non fanatic) stones consumer is hardly even aware that a new album has been released
the chances of the stones having any more top 10 is extremely remote (imo) - they're too old for contemporary music stations and the stations that do play the stones only play music up to the '80's (the "music stops when you turn 29" syndrome) - i appreciate the above is pretty general but i think it holds |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I think the Stone's album sells have been less because they have never made strong albums that can be listened to straight thru.
people dont usually get the chance to "listen to an album straight through" before making the decision to buy. If that was the case, album sales would be minimal. Most people buy albums because they like the artist generally or because theyve maybe heard a couple of songs and have decided to try the whole package.
"Emotional rescue" is hardly a good example as its one of the band's weakest albums. However, it topped the charts so people bought it BEFORE deciding they may not like it "straight through". Thats called the benefit of hindsight. I dont know any record shop that gives you the option of buying a new album and then taking it back and getting your money refunded if you dont like it the whole way through.
How many albums do YOU know that are completely wonderful throughout? Not too bloody many.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
@Gazza So why do you think the Stones didn't do that good with sales? Again I have no clue :-D
And why the hell did others better?!? For me the Stones are by far the most charismatical band I know that is making fucking great music!
Bad management? Weak promotion?
|
|
|
| Gazza |
theyre not a middle of the road pop act, thats why.
Theyve actually done very well with sales, when you think about it. The vast majority of acts would kill for that lack of success!
But they dont sell units these days like...say,Aerosmith or U2.. But then Aerosmith are a band who always seem to be releasing records, performing or appearing at massive media events like the Superbowl and touring. They also put out "crossover" type singles that attract them to a different audience. Thats one thing thankfully the Stones don't do.
The Stones have however latterly targeted themselves to an affluent, white middle class audience content with nostalgia. Hence the high ticket prices and lack of new product.
they're also promoted by their record companies as a nostalgia act. When they signed a record breaking deal with Virgin in 1991, the selling point was their back catalogue which Virgin bought the rights to. No sooner was the ink dry on the contract than Richard Branson sold the company to EMI. Having the Stones on his roster was what swung it - and you can bet it wasnt their upcoming 3 albums on their contract that had EMI salivating. Look at the promotin that went behind the re-releases and various repackages of old hits by Virgin/EMI. Much better than the way they promote a new studio album.
Led Zeppelin's sales are a complete anomaly when they are measured against the lack of media exposure and promotional stunts that you would normally have to do to sell millions of units. Amazing marketing and an exceptional method of management.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
In my own defense. Elvis wasn't one of the acts listed in the orginal post that I was answering. Yes, there are a lot of bands or solo artists that have had more hit singles than the Stones, but only 4 bands where listed for comparison. Of those four, I stand by my statement that the Stones only suffer in comparison to The Beatles and the Weirdo.
A good point is made about Emotional Rescue selling strong before anyone heard it, selling on the strength of Some Girls and the Emotional Rescue single. I think we will all agree on that. I would point out though that the post is not about albums or singles selling well or even neccassarily about topping the charts (something that most Stone's releases do at least breifly, as was pointed out most artists would kill to bomb so badly). But the post was bout why the Stones have not sold as many units of music as the 4 mentioned artists have.
I may be completely wrong about Led Zepplin, and by the way I dig the band. But I have never heard anything but anedotal evidence from fans of the band about their mythical drawing power when on tour. Or worse yet evidence from the band's own PR department. Watch The Hair Remains the Same and the viewer is purposely left with the impression that the whole world is invading New York with only one mounted street cop to stop them. Hell, it's '75 (i think?) and they are only playing Madison Square Gardens for crying out loud an arena. I may be talking out my arse here, but until I see some hard numbers I am not convinced that they were a bigger draw than the Stones.
I don't care how many blank stares I generate. I still stand by my statement that the Stone's are, or were pre modern era, primarily a singles band and that the typical Stone's album is not as listenable to the average rock fan as Floyd or Zepplin ablums are. (I think that Floyd had two huge selling albums? Dark Side and the Wall. Count them TWO.) I live in the real world, or at least try to, and I would be hard pressed to find a Stone's CD that I could put on in it's entirety for the listening critiq of young rock fans who dig Puddle of Mud, Limp, Korn, Manson, Nickolodeon or whoever. I could easily find some Zep or Floyd to fill the bill. For myself, I like Tattoo You all the way through. Merely my opinion. I was about to entire High School when it was released, but I can certainly understand why that is not THE Stone's album for every Stone's fan. |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
When you look at riaa.com you will see that only two Elvis albums broke the 6 mio (in the US) limit (his Golden Records with 6 mio. and the Christmas Album with 7 mio.). All other releases mostly didn't even come close to 2 mio. In this respect I would say that he only did better than the Stones in terms of OVERALL sales due to the enourmous amount of releases.
Another question: Hot Rocks is certified for 12mio. in sales, but is it rated same as Forty Licks (actually only 6mio. because it's a double disc)? Or is it classified as single disc, because it first came out as LP and then was continued as CD? So it REALLY sold 12 mio., not 6 mio.? |
|
|
| Moonisup |
i think even Garth brooks sold more albums then the stones |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/artists/
&
http://www.abo.fi/~jbacklun/moneymen.htm
[Edited by ThatsWhatISay] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I may be completely wrong about Led Zepplin, and by the way I dig the band. But I have never heard anything but anedotal evidence from fans of the band about their mythical drawing power when on tour. Or worse yet evidence from the band's own PR department.
With respect maybe you should check hard facts. I'm not a huge Led Zep fan but the statistics I gave you are factually accurate and common knowledge, not based on anecdotes ot myths.
> Watch The Hair Remains the Same and the viewer is purposely left with the impression that the whole world is invading New York with only one mounted street cop to stop them.
for Christ's sake,its a film. It's entertainment. Not the Sermon on the Mount.
> Hell, it's '75 (i think?) and they are only playing Madison Square Gardens for crying out loud an arena.
it was actually filmed in 1973. That same tour they broke the existing record of tickets sold for a one-day concert by a single act at a stadium show in Tampa. They were primarily playing stadiums around that time. "Only playing an arena" means nothing. In some cities its harder to get a license or a suitable venue to STAGE a stadium concert for various reasons. Also - does it ever occur to you that some bands (those who dont need the money) play an arena as opposed to a stadium by CHOICE? (The Stones have done that in the last couple of tours for example)
For what its worth, the Stones themselves never played a stadium show in New York City until they played Shea Stadium in 1989. When they toured the US in 1972 and 1975 (either side of those Led Zep shows youre referring to) they also ONLY played Madison Square Garden. Even on the hugely grossing 81 tour that followed the release of Tattoo You they played NO stadium shows in the NYC metropolitan area - instead they played 5 arena shows at MSG and the Meadowlands arena in nearby East Rutherford, NJ. That tour was primarily a stadium tour.
> I may be talking out my arse here, but until I see some hard numbers I am not convinced that they were a bigger draw than the Stones.
I think you need to bend over a bit more then! They sold far more units than the Stones did throughout the 70's and they still do (look at the sales for the live DVD and live CD that came out last year..can you imagine a live double CD of a 31 year old Stones concert selling anything remotely like that?) and when they were both touring at the same time in the 70's, they were a bigger concert draw. I don't have the inclination to trawl through various websites showing record sales and I dont exactly keep lists of concert grosses from the 1970's but what I'm saying is common knowledge. Believe what you want. They werent alone in outselling the Stones around that time, either.
As for Pink Floyd. I dont know what your definition of a "huge selling" album is but pretty much every Pink Floyd album since "Dark side of the Moon" would fit into that category. "Dark side" and "The Wall" would certainly be the two biggest sellers but I'm sure you'll find that "Animals" or "Wish You Were here" etc would have outsold most of what the Stones were putting out too (although as far as studio album sales go, "Sticky fingers" was the Stones biggest selling album until it was passed by both "Some girls" and "Tattoo you" so the late 70's/early 80's was a period when the Stones sold more albums than at any other time in their career). Pink Floyd were also playing stadiums by the mid 70's as well.
|
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
For me Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin only profitted from being disbanded, although Pink Floyd was not officially disbanded, just "discontinued".
riaa.com database shows that until 1980 when they broke apart no Led Zepplin album was certified multi platinum. In 1990 suddenly Led Zepplin IV reached the 10 mio. mark. to nowadays 22 mio sales. I think it's obvious what gave the push for the sales. I can't imagine that until 1980 Led Zepplin outsold the Stones by 2 or 3 units to one...
I would really love to know what Stones sales would look like today if the Stones made the 81/82 tour their last. Same with Pink Floyd: Until 1984 no single Multi Platinum certification. In 1989 The Wall made it to 7 mio. and in 1990 Dark Side of the moon hit the 10 mio. mark.
Of course the Stones didn't do better in this period, but I can't see that Led and Pink were so far superior. According to the stats even the Beatles had to wait pretty long until heavy multi platinum certifications took place.
I don't know if I misunderstand something in the riaa-certifications, but that's what is listed there. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Fair enough point in many ways but I think the Stones - like many acts - have benefited from having their back catalogued "repackaged" many times and in different formats.
For example, since Rolling Stones Records released its first product, distributed by EMI in 1971, the Stones had their post-1970 catalogue repackaged by Atlantic and CBS then released on CD by CBS before being bought and repackaged all over again by Virgin/EMI.
A lot of acts who sold a lot of units in the 70's would have had their sales increased considerably from the mid 80's onwards with the advent of CD. Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd would undoubtedly be in the same category...and neither of those acts has had their albums repackaged as often as the Stones have had.
I remember reading in the NME Encyclopaedia of Rock which came out in 1978 (I still have it!) that at that time EVERY Simon & Garfunkel album bar their first ("Wednesday morning 3 am") had outsold even the highest selling Rolling Stones album (at that time, "Sticky Fingers").
As good as the Stones album sales were, theres never been a time where they were the biggest selling act in the world. They've benefited from whats called in the retail business as having "a long shelf life" (ie you can go into any major record store and find pretty much all of their back catalogue easily enough on CD as it continues to sell at a solid rate (without actually charting), quite a feat considering how many different releases theyve put out). Even something like "Hot rocks" would have been something that sold solidly down the years as to many new fans its been their most obvious introduction to the band's work. Their albums sell well when released but don't stay in the charts for months (and years) like those of some other acts.
I think also that (and I stand corrected if I'm wrong) that the award of "Platinum" discs only originated relatively recently - ie, the mid 70's or so, so a lot of releases prior to that would not have earned that status.
Might explain why the Beatles didnt register as well as some led Zep and Stones albums before that period.. There's no logical reason, sales-wise. After all,the White album was the fastest selling album in history according to the Guinness book of Records with over 2 million copies sold in it's first week or something.
Think of it logically. The Beatles were only a working and recording band for seven or eight years. They only released about 12 studio albums and something like 24 singles (17 of which topped the UK charts and 20 topped the US charts). they've sold something around 800 million units, maybe more. Thats about 20 million a year, even though they disbanded in 1970. Theyve certainly continued to sell crazy amounts since they broke up but they were obviously the biggest selling act in the world when they were active as well. Its not like their sales suddenly took off into orbit around 1980 either!
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I think also that (and I stand corrected if I'm wrong) that the award of "Platinum" discs only originated relatively recently - ie, the mid 70's or so, so a lot of releases prior to that would not have earned that status.
here y'go....from riaa.com
-----------------------------------------------------
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) administers a silver, gold, platinum and diamond award category for a number of countries, excluding the United States. (IFPI has members in 70 countries and five continents.) While these other countries have a program similar to ours, the RIAA® Gold & Platinum® program continues to have the highest standards for sales achievements.
On March 14, 1958, the year the awards were launched, the RIAA® awarded the very first Gold plaque to Perry Como for his hit single, "Catch A Falling Star" (RCA Records). Four months later, the cast album to Oklahoma! sung by Gordon Macrae (Capitol Records) became the first official Gold® album. These events transformed the euphemism "Gold Record" into a formalized process honoring recording artists who achieve extraordinary success.
Fueled in part by the disco craze, the volume of music sales and Gold awards skyrocketed by the mid-1970s, prompting the RIAA® to introduce the Platinum® award category in 1976, for sales of one million albums. By the mid-1980s, the recording industry was enjoying another boom, this time from the introduction of the CD, and the RIAA® instituted Multi-Platinum™ awards for sales of 2 million or more.
Johnny Taylor's "Disco Lady" is the first Platinum® single. The first Platinum™ album certified by the RIAA® was The Eagles' Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975. And now, that album has reached over 26 million copies, becoming the best-selling album of the 20th century. Michael Jackson's Thriller, which was one of the first Multi-Platinum™ albums ever certified, held the top album slot from 1984 until his record was tied and then eventually broken in 1999.
The advent of MTV, VH-1 and other music networks brought more artists into the Multi-Platinum™ winners circle, prompting the RIAA® to establish music video awards in 1981. In 1998, the RIAA® celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Gold® album award and the more than 7,000 titles that have been certified Gold® by the RIAA® since 1958.
On March 16, 1999, the RIAA® launched the Diamond® Awards, honoring sales of 10 million copies or more of an album or single. Of all the artists in attendance, Sir Elton John best described the significance of the award when he said "I think this is the biggest accolade you can be given because it means your fans have gone out and bought your records. And that's why we make records - for our public."
The list of Diamond® titles represents some of the best and most influential recordings in history. From The Beatles to The Backstreet Boys, it is truly an audio timeline of the last 50 years. Representing all genres of music, these titles total more than 900 million in U.S. sales, and counting.
|
|
|
| Gazza |
from riaa.com:
Top Artists
Totals are derived from cumulative album sales totals (U.S. only)
Artist
Certified Units (in Millions)
BEATLES, THE
166.5
PRESLEY, ELVIS
117.5
LED ZEPPELIN
106.0
BROOKS, GARTH
105.0
EAGLES
88.0
JOEL, BILLY
78.5
PINK FLOYD
73.5
STREISAND, BARBRA
71.5
JOHN, ELTON
67.5
AEROSMITH
63.5
ROLLING STONES, THE
63.5
AC/DC
63.0
SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE
61.5
MADONNA
60.0
JACKSON, MICHAEL
58.5
CAREY, MARIAH
57.0
METALLICA
57.0
STRAIT, GEORGE
54.5
HOUSTON, WHITNEY
54.0
VAN HALEN
50.5
ROGERS, KENNY
50.5
DIAMOND, NEIL
50.0
FLEETWOOD MAC
48.5
KENNY G
47.5
U2
47.0
ALABAMA
46.0
DION, CELINE
45.5
SANTANA
43.5
TWAIN, SHANIA
42.0
JOURNEY
40.0
NELSON, WILLIE
39.0
CLAPTON, ERIC
38.5
SIMON & GARFUNKEL
37.5
SEGER, BOB/SILVER BULLET BAND
37.0
CHICAGO
37.0
MC ENTIRE, REBA
36.5
2 PAC
36.5
PRINCE
36.5
BACKSTREET BOYS
36.0
FOREIGNER
36.0
GUNS 'N ROSES
35.5
DYLAN, BOB
34.5
JACKSON, ALAN
34.5
BON JOVI
33.5
DENVER, JOHN
33.5
STEWART, ROD
33.0
COLLINS, PHIL
32.0
DEF LEPPARD
32.0
RONSTADT, LINDA
31.5
BOSTON
31.0
QUEEN
30.5
TAYLOR, JAMES
30.5
DOORS, THE
29.5
MATTHEWS, DAVE BAND
29.0
DIXIE CHICKS
28.5
PEARL JAM
28.0
PETTY, TOM & THE HEARTBREAKERS
28.0
SPEARS, BRITNEY
28.0
'N SYNC
28.0
KELLY, R.
28.0
BOLTON, MICHAEL
28.0
OSBOURNE, OZZY
27.5
BOYZ II MEN
27.0
MELLENCAMP, JOHN
26.5
BEE GEES
25.5
LYNYRD SKYNYRD
25.0
MC CARTNEY, PAUL
25.0
SINATRA, FRANK
25.0
ZZ TOP
25.0
NIRVANA
24.0
CARPENTERS, THE
24.0
RUSH
24.0
MANILOW, BARRY
24.0
MILLER, STEVE BAND
24.0
JACKSON, JANET
24.0
CARS, THE
23.5
BROOKS & DUNN
23.0
EARTH, WIND & FIRE
23.0
HILL, FAITH
23.0
CREED
23.0
MANNHEIM STEAMROLLER
22.5
GILL, VINCE
22.5
MOTLEY CRUE
22.5
VANDROSS, LUTHER
22.5
SADE
22.5
POLICE, THE
22.0
TLC
22.0
ESTEFAN, GLORIA
22.0
ENYA
22.0
DOOBIE BROTHERS
22.0
CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL
22.0
MC GRAW, TIM
22.0
R.E.O. SPEEDWAGON
21.5
GENESIS
21.5
RICHIE, LIONEL
21.0
BEASTIE BOYS
21.0
MORISSETTE, ALANIS
20.5
BUFFETT, JIMMY
20.5
MEAT LOAF
20.5
HEART
20.5
EMINEM
20.0
BEACH BOYS, THE
20.0
HENDRIX, JIMI
20.0
WHO, THE
20.0
HOOTIE & THE BLOWFISH
20.0
This chart was generated on 8/25/2003
|
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
Well said, ThatsWhatISay. And Gazza, please do not perform that which is unspeakable upon me. I concede your point. You make a good point that the movie is about entertainment and not an historically accurate document. All bands engage in that type of huppla, even the deadly serious Pearl Jammers. However once a band starts to sell out stadium shows, I am not sure how a record for selling seats in a single stadium can be beaten. Perhaps a smaller stage so more seats can be sold? It seems like an odd record to break, maybe I missunderstand the point being made. I would point out though that during a Madonna tour in the late 80s or early 90s her management was saying she was breaking records for selling out stadiums in record time, when in fact seats where still available and the only record being broken was the record for tour hyperbole. During the same period some of the big hair bands management was on local raio pulling the same stunt only for areana sells. In Bill Grahm's biography he admits to telling the press during the 81 tour that the Stone's where breaking records in how fast they were selling out shows. He says he kept making the sell out time smaller and smaller claiming records were being broken just to create hype, just pulling the numbers off the top of his head. Again when you think about it, it is an odd record to break. Are the tickets selling quicker because sells requests where being filled quicker? You see what I mean were does the bullshit start and stop.
You make a good point about only playing in areanas. If I had thought about that I would have realized the error of my ways. Especially in NYC. I don't have my Rolling Stones paraphenalia at my figure tips, but I think they played an areana on the west coast for an entire week during the '75 tour. I think it was in LA. I would suspect they did the same in Madison Square Gardens on that tour. And I am sure Led Zepplin also parked there for a week or more. So peace.
I agree with the above poster about Led and Floyd growing in stature after they broke up. I tried to make the same point earlier only didn't make it clearly. Had the stones stopped in '81 about the same time most other classic acts where stopping. They too would be the stuff of legends. If Led was still out there touring with a replacement drummer and ablums that would never reach the heigths of their glory days though still good music perhaps, they too would not have reached the mythical status that they have. Led and Floyd have become all things to all people because they are not out there doing high profile tours that show them to be not rock gods but human all too human. I personally think the Stones have some balls to go out and do what they do. Stone's like rule man! After they break up for 31 years and release the '72 tour DVDs maybe they will break Zep's records. God! dont make us wait that long. I would point out that 4 Flick's sells are in no way embarrassing. Led Zepplin may have showen us How The West Was Won but the Stones have, as Richard's says, An Extreme Western Grip and they ain't lettin go.
[Edited by LuckyWithTheLadies] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>You make a good point about only playing in areanas. If I had thought about that I would have realized the error of my ways. Especially in NYC. I don't have my Rolling Stones paraphenalia at my figure tips, but I think they played an areana on the west coast for an entire week during the '75 tour. I think it was in LA.
they did indeed. LA Forum 9-13 July.
> I would suspect they did the same in Madison Square Gardens on that tour.
yep!
>And I am sure Led Zepplin also parked there for a week or more. So peace.
Peace to you too. Actually, I didnt mind doing the research in the end...lol..Its a good thread, actually..I'm glad you brought the subject up. It was interesting to see what the sales actually WERE in the end. Ironic that the Stones are joint tenth with a band who many people (myself included) see as a third rate carbon copy of them. And at least Bob Dylan has sold more than Bon Jovi. Thank heavens for small mercies...
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
From an aesthetic/influential point of view, it is essentially irrelevant whether or not they sold very many albums or not. The Stones have always appealed to rock intelligentsia more than they have the record buying public, have always had primarily a cult audience, particularly for their records. That they have the largest cult audience in history does not change this fact. Once in a while they break big on a record (Some Girls, TTY), but more often than not their records are for an audience of rock and rollers, which music is supposed to be for outsiders, not for everybody. Great Stones singles ARE for everybody, but great Stones albums are for rock and rollers, who are a bunch of socially maladjusted weirdos.
A lot of what brings that about is that the band's albums actually contain subtletly and have never really appealed to a teenager of ages 15-18, the way more symbolically grandiose album rock bands like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin did. When I was growing up weird in the middle of Missouri in the late 80s, loads of music consuming kids had the complete Zep, the complete post-Meddle Floyd, and the complete Halen (an act I'd be interested in comparing to the Stones in terms of sales) but owned absolutely no Rolling Stones albums. Some of this has to do with the age of the band, some with the sheer size of their output (where the hell do you start?) and some with the fact that public perception of the Stones is a set number of songs you hear on the radio and that's it. SO they're on the radio. Why buy them? We live in a world where most people can not recall the first time they ever heard Satisfaction because it has been with them all their lives, somewhere in the background. Why ever go seek out a recording of Satisfaction?
Obviously the Stones live have always been another matter, as exhibited by their concert sales and the fundamental "event" status, and the last I checked/knew they were the all time selling live group. but I would like to think that their fundamental status as artists and outsiders has had something to do with their not having the same sort of dollars to donuts sales reputation as a Beatles or a Michael Jackson or a Led Zep. EVERYBODY might own a copy of LZIV, but Everybody who loves music owns a copy of Let It Bleed, and the latter is the group I'd choose to stand with at the end of the day, anyway.
All those people that you mentioned, they've outsold Dylan, too, but that means nothing, ultimately, in terms of cultural importance, influence, or most importantly, quality of recorded output.
I am interested, though. What tracks on, say, Let It Bleed, keep you from listening to it all the way through?
|
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
Thanks guys for discussing this topic! :-)
Very well said "Nasty Habits","Lucky WIthLadies" and "Gazza", that was actually what I was thinking all time, but couldn't forumlate it with my school english ;-)
@Gazza I'm not sure if I understood those early Gold certification correctly...does it mean that those Gold awards don't stand for half a million copies sold, but merely for extraordinary successful sales, some kind of general reward?
@Nast Habits On Let It Bleed there is only one song I absolutely hate and that's 'Live With Me'...First of all this boring bass intro pisses me off and afterwards the whole song sound to me as complete dissonant crap that makes my ears bleed (well that's what the album intends :-) ).
My favorite remains Sticky Fingers however...
[Edited by ThatsWhatISay] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza I'm not sure if I understood those early Gold certification correctly...does it mean that those Gold awards don't stand for half a million copies sold, but merely for extraordinary successful sales, some kind of general reward?
Both. Gold AWARDS were only certified and given from 1958 onwards. Platinum from 1976. You have to sell a specific amount of units to get a gold or platinum disc. Therefore a lot of million selling singles released prior to 1958 would not have earned the artist a gold record, which would therefore have included almost all of Elvis' pre-army classic singles (Heartbreak Hotel, Hound dog, All shook Up, Jailhouse Rock etc)..
here's one for trivia buffs...what was the first record ever to be certified as selling a million copies worldwide? Artist and song. Your clue is that it was NOT from the rock 'n' roll era.
|
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
Well said, Nasy Habits. Well said all. Who would have thought that bean counting could be so much fun? This thread was slow to take off but became quit interesting. I never thought of my self as being part of the rock n roll intelligentsia as Nasty calls it. Only thought I was part of the Rolling Stone's Nation. But I will gladly take the moniker anyday. I would agree that Live With Me is the track that makes me wince on Let It Bleed or maybe even more so Midnight Rambler, but only because the versions on Ya Yas dwarfs the studio versions. After hearing those songs live I wince when I hear the studio versions. The Stones always seem to sound so much better live, and the phenoma continues to this day, witness You Got Me Rockin' on Four Flicks and on Voodoo Lounge. Or the Some Girls songs on Let's Spend the Night Together and on the studio album. There is another thread here about Stone's producers. Perhas they need a producer who can get them to sound live in the studio and not so smooth. All English rock bands have a tendency to go uptown when they play the blues. Keep it rough dirty and irresistable. |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>
here's one for trivia buffs...what was the first record ever to be certified as selling a million copies worldwide? Artist and song. Your clue is that it was NOT from the rock 'n' roll era.
bing crosby - white christmas |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
