ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

© 1975 Bob Gruen (?)
[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [FORO EN ESPAÑOL] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Noel Gallager bashes Stones ticket prices Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
April 15th, 2005 07:52 AM
Gazza
quote:
exile wrote:
If Oasis had any talent or a hit record people might pay $190 for a ticket to one of their shows

fortunatley oasis have neither



people WOULD pay that amount. Dont kid yourself otherwise. they're also more likely to have a hit record than the Stones are. Talent is irrelevant when it comes to public taste.
April 15th, 2005 07:55 AM
Gazza
quote:
exile wrote:


Corgi Im just curious what makes you think Led Zep, Doors, Hendrix back catalog sell more than the stones?

The Beatles I can see...surely the stones back catalog sell a lot more than Led zep and hendrix, Doors.(all great artists BTW)



Led Zeppelin's back catalogue would outsell the Stones, without any doubt.

The fact that even though they only released 8 studio albums and one live record during their career - yet are only behind the Beatles and Elvis in US album sales - would indicate that their back catalogue and various reissues are shifting in huge quantities. I think the live DVD they put out last year was the biggest selling music DVD ever.


from riaa.com - the top selling artists in US history in terms of album sales (no. of certified units in millions) :


1. BEATLES, THE 166.5

2. PRESLEY, ELVIS 117.5

3. LED ZEPPELIN 106.0

4. BROOKS, GARTH 105.0

5. EAGLES 88.0

6. JOEL, BILLY 78.5

7. PINK FLOYD 73.5

8. STREISAND, BARBRA 71.5

9. JOHN, ELTON 67.5

10. AEROSMITH 64.0

11. ROLLING STONES, THE 63.5

12. AC/DC 63.0

13. SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 61.5

14, MADONNA 60.0

15. JACKSON, MICHAEL 58.5

16. METALLICA 57.0

16. CAREY, MARIAH 57.0

18. STRAIT, GEORGE 54.5

19. HOUSTON, WHITNEY 54.0

20. VAN HALEN 50.5


[Edited by Gazza]
April 15th, 2005 08:03 AM
egon garth brooks at no 4?

what's wrong with you people?!
April 15th, 2005 08:22 AM
Doxa Wow, what a list! The bad taste of masses can never be underestimated...

Still some oddities; Billy Joel and Elton John have sold more albums than Bruce Springsteen. "Poor Man's Rolling Stones" Aerosmith has sold more than The Stones..

It looks like The Stones will be drop out from Top Twenty in a couple of years; there is so many big-seller bubbling behind them.. Metallica, Bruce, Madonna, Ac/Dc..

Fame of The Stones seems to exaggarate their real success. They've always been much better making headlines and big fuzz than top sellers. (I remember Page and Plant complaining that already in the 70's when Zeppelin easily outdo them in record sales or concert attenders, but the Stones always got the press attention).

- Doxa
[Edited by Doxa]
[Edited by Doxa]
April 15th, 2005 08:27 AM
Gazza I think rock fans in general tend to over estimate how popular a musical genre their favourite music is, when its quite obvious that the masses tend to be more into middle of the road and easy listening styles.

There is indeed an incredible irony in Aerosmith selling more albums in the US than the Stones. However, I would imagine that in worldwide sales, the Stones would be a few million ahead of them.

Springsteen hasnt actually released that many studio albums - the one due to come out in 10 days time will only be his 13th album of new studio material in a 32 year career. Back in the 70's, Elton actually had a contract which stipulated that he had to release TWO studio albums per YEAR. He managed to do it, too!
[Edited by Gazza]
April 15th, 2005 08:30 AM
Factory Girl I've seen Aerosmith twice in 1990's and that is enough for me. Their last good cd was Pump.

That said, I'll always welcome Joe Perry with open arms and open... you know the rest...
April 15th, 2005 08:32 AM
Gazza thank you for that enduring visual image, FG....
April 15th, 2005 08:34 AM
winter I predict the new album will sell over 40 million copies and move our favorite band into the Top 5.

Are you with me or against me?

Wintah
[Edited by winter]
April 15th, 2005 08:36 AM
egon put me down for 2 (two) copies!
April 15th, 2005 08:38 AM
Gazza if Mick or Keith drops dead around the week of it's release, there's a possibility.

Those kind of tricks always work wonders for record sales for some reason that I cant fathom. Do people somehow think that once someone croaks it, the record companies are automatically going to withdraw all their records from the shops or something, so they have to rush out and buy them all in vast quantities?
April 15th, 2005 09:48 AM
glencar
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!
It's only money. Easy come, Easy go.
But $500 for the Eagles is a bit much. But the Eagles suffer from delusions of granduer anyway. As far as people actually paying that....well ...the old PT Barnum adage come to mind. There's a sucker born every minute.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]




Someone mentioned going to see the Eagles the other day. I assume they're on tour. I was gratified when someone else I respect agreed with me that the Eagles are shiite.
April 15th, 2005 09:50 AM
glencar Looking at Gazza's list, I am somewhat humbled. I can't believe Babs outsold our boys. Mariah is coming up fast. Her new plastic titties have helped!
April 15th, 2005 12:08 PM
Honky Tonk Man The new Stones album should easily make the top 5. The singles they release from it should JUST scrape the top 40. That's my honest opinion.

BTW, I don't actualy think the new Oasis cd will hit the number 1 spot here in the UK. With Coldplay releasing their 3rd shite album very soon, I think the Gallagher brothers will stall at no 2.
April 15th, 2005 12:10 PM
Joey

Figures representing record sales are notoriously suspect .

Having said that , if anyone needs me , I will be at P.F. Changs for lunch .

Bye Bye !!!

Bye Bons !!!
April 15th, 2005 07:56 PM
Gazza
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
The new Stones album should easily make the top 5. The singles they release from it should JUST scrape the top 40. That's my honest opinion.



The album will go to the top 3 or 5 ceryainly both in the UK and in the US

That isnt the problem, though. In recent years the albums have charted well but have not stayed in the charts for very long.
April 15th, 2005 11:08 PM
Soldatti The riaa list on their website is well out of date, so I updated it with more real numbers.

1 Elvis Presley - 166,000,000
2 The Beatles - 161,000,000
3 Led Zeppelin - 95,000,000
4 Garth Brooks - 94,000,000
5 The Eagles - 85,000,000
6 Barbra Streisand - 80,000,000
7 Elton John - 79,000,000
8 The Rolling Stones - 78,500,000
9 Frank Sinatra - 73,000,000
10 Pink Floyd - 70,000,000
11 Aerosmith - 69,000,000
12 Billy Joel - 68,000,000
13 AC/DC - 66,000,000
14 Madonna - 61,000,000
15 Kenny Rogers - 60,000,000

Stones' back catalog in US
(Sources: Rolling Stone, Billboard, UKMix and Soundscan since 1991)

England's Newest - 0.8m
12 x 5 - 0.8m
Now - 0.8m
Out of Our Heads - 1.5m
December's Children - 1.2m
Big Hits - 2.5m
Aftermath - 1.5m
Got Live - 0.7m
Between the Buttons - 1.5m
Flowers - 1.2m
Satanic Majesties - 1m
Beggars Banquet - 2m
Past Darkly - 1.5m
Let it Bleed - 2.6m
Get Yer Ya Ya's - 1.5m
Sticky Fingers - 3.2m
Hot Rocks - 12m
Exile on Main Street - 1.5m
More Hot Rocks - 1.1m
Goat's Head Soup - 3m
It's Only Rock'n Roll - 1.5m
Made in the Shade - 1.5m
Metamophosis - 0.6m
Black & Blue - 1.5m
Love You Live - 1m
Some Girls - 6.5m
Emotional Rescue - 2.5m
Sucking in Seventies - 0.7m
Tattoo You - 4.5m
Still Life - 1.2m
Undercover - 1.3m
Rewind - 1m
Dirty Work - 1.3m
London Years - 0.5m
Steel Wheels - 2.6m
Flashpoint - 1m
Voodoo Lounge - 2.1m
Stripped - 0.8m
Bridges to Babylon - 1.3m
No Security - 0.3m
Forty Licks - 2.5m
Jump Back - 0.4m
Live Licks - 0.1m
[Edited by Soldatti]
April 15th, 2005 11:28 PM
Soldatti
quote:
Doxa wrote:
It looks like The Stones will be drop out from Top Twenty in a couple of years; there is so many big-seller bubbling behind them.. Metallica, Bruce, Madonna, Ac/Dc..


False, the Stones back catalog needs updates soon. They will be in the Top 5 then, trust me.

quote:
Doxa wrote:
Fame of The Stones seems to exaggarate their real success. They've always been much better making headlines and big fuzz than top sellers. (I remember Page and Plant complaining that already in the 70's when Zeppelin easily outdo them in record sales or concert attenders, but the Stones always got the press attention).



Bullshit, EVERY STONES ALBUM between 12x5 and Emotional Rescue went Top 10 in US. No other act in the music history did an impressive record like that, 26 consecutives Top 10 albums in 16 years.
The Stones are #5 in the US All Time Artists with 1,704 weeks on chart between June 27, 1964 and April 23, 2005, this week. Only Elvis, Johnny Mathis, the Beatles and Frank Sinatra are over the Stones.
Led Zeppelin? they are #38 but with the back catalog well over certified.

I repeat, an update of the Stones catalog will put the things on the right places.

quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
The new Stones album should easily make the top 5. The singles they release from it should JUST scrape the top 40. That's my honest opinion.



The new Stones album will be #1 or #2 in both UK & US. They will get a US hit single this time thanks to the download chart. Bruce Springsteen sold 12,000 digital copies of the single Devils & Dust and got a #72 debut, only with download sales and zero airplay.
Since 1981 every first single from a Stones album did the Top 3 in the US rock airplay, with this help they can get a great hit this time.

quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
BTW, I don't actualy think the new Oasis cd will hit the number 1 spot here in the UK. With Coldplay releasing their 3rd shite album very soon, I think the Gallagher brothers will stall at no 2.



The new Oasis album will be #1 in UK easily.
[Edited by Soldatti]
April 15th, 2005 11:51 PM
Happy Motherfucker!! Oasis? Come on when it come to talking about the history of rock music, these fucking dicks will never be mentioned 50 years from now. As for The Stones tickets prices, it's what the market will bare, so people will still continue to pay top dollar to see them. since the word is out that this really could be the last time around, I don't think they will have any problem selling out ever show they play. But, I do think it's a shame that they can't find away of making tickets accessable to younger fans who will certainly not shell out big bucks to see them. But, if they have a top 10 hit and the younger crowd digs it, they just might find a way of scraping up the cash to see them. Only time will tell.
April 16th, 2005 12:24 AM
Trey Krimsin If the Stones did actually have a tour date in North Carolina and tickets were priced at $250 or $300, I'll have to pass. I have to pay bills, damnit!

If the tickets were somewhere between 20 and 40 dollars, then I would definitely buy a couple of tickets. Any higher, then the only way I'd see the Stones is if the band volunteered to pay my bills for one enitre year. Of course, I'm living in a fucking dreamworld.
April 16th, 2005 05:05 PM
Happy Motherfucker!! >>>If the tickets were somewhere between 20 and 40 dollars, then I would definitely buy a couple of tickets. Any higher, then the only way I'd see the Stones is if the band volunteered to pay my bills for one enitre year. Of course, I'm living in a fucking dreamworld.<<<<

Yes it certainly is a dream world to think that tickets would ever be 20-40 bucks again. Shit, you can't even see a crap-ass band for that kind of change. Everyone has bills to pays, but since most fans already know that tickets are going to be high, that's why you need to plan in advance by saving up money, clearing credit cards ect. I plan on seeing The Stones at least four or five cities this time around because I really feel that this is going to be the last go around, with their age and health issues, so I've been putting a little back here and there for several months and trying to knock down some of my credit card debt so that when tickets go on sale I'll be good to go. Money is only that, money, and when The Stones are gone the price that I have to pay to see them a few more times will not matter in the least. Thank about it, does it matter to you now what you spent on the last tour? I mean are you still in debt because of it? Most are probably not, so when it comes time to seeing the boys I just have to face reality and know that I'm going to have to shell out the cash so there's no need in bitch'n about it.
April 16th, 2005 10:24 PM
Dan I've seen over 20 "last shows" so I am now immune to the sort of emotional blackmail inherent in farewell tours. Even though most farewell tours are by bands in their 30-40s, if the Stones did it this time around it would still seem like a cheap marketing ploy to me.
April 16th, 2005 10:50 PM
glencar I doubt the Stones themselves will cite this as their last tour. It's hard to see how many tours they can do after this, assuming that it takes the usual 2 years or so. With that, they'll be about 64 by the end of this thing. With a 2 or 3 year break, it's hard to see them going out again. And Charlie's even older.
Page: 1 2 3
Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour