|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
LuckyWithTheLadies wrote:
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.
Same thing!
But, since I am Nasty Habits, I would be sorely remiss if I did not cast a stunned, opened mouth gasp of disbelief over TWO people chiming in that "Live With Me" is a cringe making, unworthy Rolling Stones song, as the entire number makes me gibber with glee and dance like a monkey. Hilarious filthy lyrics, ecstatic slow build, slamming, wild, drums building into a cymballic crescendo of kit destroying proportions, Chuck Berry gone utter licentious sleazyness with a killer sax solo to boot, that song looks real good pram pushing down the high street, even if it awful 20th Century.
To each his own, of course, but I am gabberflasted . . .
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| ThatsWhatISay |
Yep, indeed. I find the Stones really sound too smooth sometimes on their studio records. Midnight Rambler is a good example, but also Honky Tonk Woman, Brown Sugar, CYHMK, Gimme Shelter, Happy, JJF and a couple others sound too sterile. Sometimes I wish a certain live version would replace the one from the studio, because the Stones are really an incredible live act, so full of energy that it blasts anyone away who listens to their live recordings! When I show my Stones videos/audios to friends they all sit in front of my PC/TV and say something like: "This is awesome!" Although they are absolutely no real Stones fans I made 4 of them visiting a concert from the Licks Tour. They thought it was a fantastic show! :-)
However most other studio recordings are real masterpieces in my opinion! Only few artists can compete with this quality... |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote
The entire number [Live With Me] makes me gibber with glee and dance like a monkey. Hilarious filthy lyrics, ecstatic slow build, slamming, wild, drums building into a cymballic crescendo of kit destroying proportions, Chuck Berry gone utter licentious sleazyness with a killer sax solo to boot, that song looks real good pram pushing down the high street, even if it awful 20th Century.
I am in complete agreement. These words you speak are true. If you are talking about the Ya Yas version!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Gazza |
>bing crosby - white christmas
Nope. Earlier than that. |
|
|
| glencar |
This thread is both informative & sickening. The Stones are behind Billy Joe & the Eagles? BJ has had fewer albums than the Stones & it's been almost as long since he's had a hit single/album. And the Eagles broke up 20 years ago. And both artists blow chunks. I'm a-gonna cry. |
|
|
| Soldatti |
For me the Stones are the artist with MOST LUCKY on the history of the charts: all their studio albums reached the Top 5 on UK or US. But the lucky comes on the time charting: some albums were on the charts too few weeks that is impressive.
Some examples:
UK
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Chart Peak: #3
Chart Run: 23-7-11-3-5-6-10-12-13-17-15-29-33
Only 13 weeks and No. 3...
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Chart Peak: #2
Chart Run: 5-2-6-15-17-28-xx-47-xx-xx-49
Only 8 weeks and the albums was No. 2!!
Other examples:
Beggars Banquet (No. 3, 16 weeks on chart)
Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! (No. 1 for 2 weeks, 15 weeks on chart)
Stone Age (No. 4, 8 weeks on chart)
Love You Live (No. 3, 8 weeks on chart)
Dirty Work (No. 4, 10 weeks on chart)
Flashpoint (No. 6, 7 weeks on chart)
Bridges To Babylon (No. 6, 6 weeks on chart)
US
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Chart Peak: #1 for 1 week
Weeks on chart: 20
The album was 20 weeks on the Top 200 and reached No. 1!. Incredible...
Black And Blue
Chart Peak: #1 for 4 weeks
Weeks on chart: 24
This album is the most amazing: reached No. 1 on his 2nd week, remained 2 weeks there, dropped at No. 2 for 3 weeks and returned at No. 1 for 2 more weeks!. So on 16 weeks the album slide from No. 1 to No. 182, the last position.
Other examples:
Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out (No. 6, 23 weeks on chart)
Exile On Main Street (No. 1 for 4 weeks, 43 weeks on chart, very few for a classic...)
Metamorphosis (No. 8, 13 weeks on chart)
Undercover (No. 4, 23 weeks on chart)
Dirty Work (No. 4, 25 weeks on chart)
The Stones didn't sell too much because their albums didn't stay too long on the charts. The reason for the high sales are the weeks on chart. The only Stones album with more than 100 weeks on chart was Hot Rocks (243 weeks) and is the only certified Diamond for the RIAA. Some Girls stayed 82 weeks on US and is the studio album with more weeks on chart followed by Out Of Our Heads (66 weeks), Sticky Fingers (62 weeks) and Tattoo You (58 weeks).
Big Hits also stayed 99 weeks on US but only is certified 2x Platinum...
[Edited by Soldatti] |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>bing crosby - white christmas
Nope. Earlier than that.
you got me |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
Good post Soldatti. Interesting numbers. Black and Blue is indeed a shocker. One of their lesser efforts in my book. And also, in my opinion, one of their least user friendly. Go figure.
One thing about the charts that wonders me is, and I am sure there are folks here who know this sort of thing, what do the numbers actually represent? How many units were sold to the retailer? or how many units actually reached the hands of the consumer? If it is units sold to the retailers, the numbers could be highly inaccurate. CDs are so cheap to produce that it is easier to ship a whole rack full to a retailer in order to make the artists look good on the shelves and than just destory the left over product. But if the charts are based on actual product reaching the hands of the consumer, how could that possibly have been accurately measured back before bar codes and computer scanning? And even with computer scanning, it would be easy to cook the books, as the accountants say. Is there any accountability at all? or is it more or less the honor system of the big labels or retailers? And do the charts reflect population changes? There is a lot bigger market for music now than 20 years ago for a number of reasons: because the population is constantly growing; because the global economy, read market for American pop culture is growing expotentially; because recorded music is cheaper to produce; because playback of recorded music is easier and in higher fidelity; because of cultural changes; and because of other reasons I probably can't think of. It is a heck of alot easier for Garth Brooks to go platinum in the 90s than it was for the Stones in the 60s or even 70s.
[Edited by LuckyWithTheLadies]
[Edited by LuckyWithTheLadies] |
|
|
| glencar |
There's little accountability in the music bidness. If Soundscan were around 30 years ago, would the Stones have charted as higly as they did? |
|
|
| Gazza |
>you got me
"Vesti la giubba" (on with the Motley) by Enrico Caruso, from "La Pagliacca".
Recorded exactly 100 years ago last week.
(I knew the first part - the 2nd bit i just found out)
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| egon |
LOL
But of course, how could i've forgotten! |
|
|
| Gazza |
I know..doesnt it seem just like yesterday? |
|
|
| kahoosier |
Streisand out sales Dylan??? God I need a drink, a double, and it is only 10 AM here! |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Dont take the figures too seriously. And dont just go off U.S. figures. The world is not America. Abba, a well known, but by no means major player in U.S., has outsold the beatles and Elvis combined!!!!! In WORLD WIDE sales.
Also, something very odd has always been happening with certification of Stones sales. Exile was only certified a million seller in the late 90's! I simply cannot believe that. As far back as 1965, the Stones were issued with 22 gold records for sales of 1 million each. Thats 39 years ago. Oh, um, also included singles, sorry. Most of their 70's albums went to No 1, or close, and i think albums from Goats head to tattoo went No 1 first week in! Again, which charts do you read? Here in Oz, the charts are easily manipulated as not all record stores are part of the chart survey. Plus, it also goes on "ordered" copies. Hence, Kylie Minogue's current album goes high up the charts, but only sells 2,500 copies! But, 50,000 were ordered!
Bit off topic, but this is why music companies should be destroyed!
Similar thing happened to Robbie Williams, who will NEVER make it in the U.S. 2 years ago he was paid $220,000,000 for a new deal. He was gonna be huge in the U.S. A contender! They shipped an initial 200,000 or so copies of his cd, only to sell 15,000 or so. Yet, those 200,000 are recorded as sales! So how does the record company ever hope to get their money back? Flogging him in Europe and Oz, forgetting U.S. and releasing 3 albums in 2 years plus a tour. Is that why cd's are so expensive?
Led Zep are easily more popular than the Stones. They had the initial backlash when punk hit, but have surived better because their image never got old. THough in life, they did. SO for all concerned, Plant is still young and not a faded hippie and Page isnt fat and incontinent. And Bonzo is still alive. Same with Jim Morrison. The stones mistake is being too tough to quit. They also didnt take the popular route LZ did in the 70's by appealing to pimply white head bangers. The Stones turned to dirty funk. Good on em too. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
