| September 13th, 2005 11:38 PM |
|
|
| Zack |
quote:
the good wrote:
Number three is pretty good. A lot of their best albums never went number one. For example, I believe "Let It Bleed" only went to number three in the States.
True, but numbers 1 and 2 at the time were Abbey Road and Led Zeppelin II, respectively. |
| September 13th, 2005 11:55 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Zack wrote:
True, but numbers 1 and 2 at the time were Abbey Road and Led Zeppelin II, respectively.
Well, Kanye West and 50 Cent are the Beatles and Led Zeppelin of this generation, at least for the kids. |
| September 14th, 2005 12:03 AM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Well, Kanye West and 50 Cent are the Beatles and Led Zeppelin of this generation, at least for the kids.
I have never felt like slitting my wrists more than I do now! I fear you may be right,and that scares the hell outta me. Is there such a thing as evolution in reverse?
There is no accounting for tastes these days!
Riffhard |
| September 14th, 2005 03:45 AM |
|
|
| Doette |
Hello Friends,
If you want to check-out Kat Kramer’s review of “A Bigger Bang” – go to the link for Entertainment Today in Los Angeles.
www.entertainmenttodayonline.com.
She also writes the weekly column “Words ‘N’ Music” and is writing exclusively about The Rolling Stones for ET. Her last column featured The Los Angeles listening party at WhiskyAGoGo. In fact, if you want to check out photos, go to www.dailyceleb.com.
Kat is the actress, singer, writer who is working on a Tribute album to The Glimmer Twins. She is also featured on the DVD “The Rolling Stones – Just For The Record.”
She will be seen in Henry Jaglom’s new film “Going Shopping” this fall.
|
| September 14th, 2005 10:06 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Well, Kanye West and 50 Cent are the Beatles and Led Zeppelin of this generation, at least for the kids.
For the record, I think Kanye West and 50 Cent are both better than Zeppelin, a band that I cannot listen to at all anymore. I used to love ZEP. Now it sounds like nails down a chalk board. |
| September 14th, 2005 10:33 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
the good wrote:
Number three is pretty good. A lot of their best albums never went number one. For example, I believe "Let It Bleed" only went to number three in the States.
Thats a meaningless comparison, to be honest.
No.3 , with those sales figures, for a band whose "fans" have bought well over a million extremely highly priced tickets to see them in concert is a disgrace.
What kind of people can pay $450 for a concert ticket to see a band, as well as other additions such as transport, hotel rooms and various merchandise at the shows, yet cant bother to pay about $12 to buy "their favourite band"'s new album (one which has been quite critically acclaimed and whose release they couldnt possibly have been unaware of)
Shameful and inexcusable. |
| September 14th, 2005 10:35 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Well, Kanye West and 50 Cent are the Beatles and Led Zeppelin of this generation, at least for the kids.
not to any kids I've ever known, theyre not |
| September 14th, 2005 10:38 AM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
the good wrote:
For the record, I think Kanye West and 50 Cent are both better than Zeppelin, a band that I cannot listen to at all anymore.
Well Riffy, you were right. They're here... |
| September 14th, 2005 11:40 AM |
|
|
| polytoxic |
Canadian first week sales: (n.b. x10 for equivalent sales in the US)
#1. Rolling Stones- A Bigger Bang (16,000)
#2 Kanye West - Late Registration (14,000) |
| September 14th, 2005 12:48 PM |
|
|
| Stones |
Next time have the New CD for sale right next to the shirts at the concerts for $10.00 and it will easily be #1. |
| September 14th, 2005 02:36 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Thats a meaningless comparison, to be honest.
No.3 , with those sales figures, for a band whose "fans" have bought well over a million extremely highly priced tickets to see them in concert is a disgrace.
What kind of people can pay $450 for a concert ticket to see a band, as well as other additions such as transport, hotel rooms and various merchandise at the shows, yet cant bother to pay about $12 to buy "their favourite band"'s new album (one which has been quite critically acclaimed and whose release they couldnt possibly have been unaware of)
Shameful and inexcusable.
Well, it may not be a perfectly sound comparison, but I don't think its meaningless. The Stones have never sold an enormous number of records, and they were much bigger act on the music scene in 69 than they are today. So going to number three in 2005 against current acts isn't THAT bad. Am I disappointed, yes.
For what its worth, I think Mick's foray into politics had something to do with album sales in the States. As you pointed out, its much more expensive to buy a concert ticket than an album. Die hard Stones fans with a right wing bent weren't going to be deterred by things like Sweet Neocon, so they still bought concert tickets and the album. But a lot of right leaning people in the general public who were never going to pay for a concert ticket, but may have been inclined to buy the album, decided not to because of Sweet Neocon. I have no real proof my theory is correct, but its interesting that ABB has gone to number one some European countries, and it hasn't here. I mean, its impossible to overestimate just how much of a turn off an unsolicited politcal message can be for most people. The only thing that rivals it is an unsolicited religious message. |
| September 14th, 2005 03:00 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
System of a down rocks???
Gimme a break.
Their guitarist is one of the best I've seen play live in a long time. For a hard rock band, their sound at least live, is the cleanest. . . you can hear all of the instruments individually. Don't knock them until you've seen them live. |
| September 14th, 2005 07:02 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
the good wrote:
Well, it may not be a perfectly sound comparison, but I don't think its meaningless. The Stones have never sold an enormous number of records, and they were much bigger act on the music scene in 69 than they are today. So going to number three in 2005 against current acts isn't THAT bad. Am I disappointed, yes.
For what its worth, I think Mick's foray into politics had something to do with album sales in the States. As you pointed out, its much more expensive to buy a concert ticket than an album. Die hard Stones fans with a right wing bent weren't going to be deterred by things like Sweet Neocon, so they still bought concert tickets and the album. But a lot of right leaning people in the general public who were never going to pay for a concert ticket, but may have been inclined to buy the album, decided not to because of Sweet Neocon. I have no real proof my theory is correct, but its interesting that ABB has gone to number one some European countries, and it hasn't here. I mean, its impossible to overestimate just how much of a turn off an unsolicited politcal message can be for most people. The only thing that rivals it is an unsolicited religious message.
the thing is, though that Stones fans of a certain political leaning were still fine about paying money for tickets so I find it strange theyd boycott the album which cost so much less just on the strength of one song
The Stones didnt NEED the support of those outside their usual fanbase to have a successful chart position, nor should they have had to worry about a certain percentage of them feeling alienated enough to adversely affect sales
Look at the figures for this tour already (I'm excluding the Canadian shows from these figures because its not relevant to US chart positions). They have, to date, played to 260,000 people in the US so far on this tour. Of the concerts so far on sale for the rest of the tour, there will be something like another 950,000 if the shows sell out - and that doesnt include the shows that have been rumoured or have been confirmed but arent on public sale yet. By the time the Stones leave the US in March 2006 they will have performed to anything up to 1.3 million people there on this tour.
Based on that, 125,000 for a band currently on a high profile tour and selling out stadiums despite their high ticket prices is a mediocre return and a bad indictment of the majority of people who attend their concerts.
I find it amazing that despite the vast array of merchandise that you can buy at a Stones concert, you cant even buy their new album. It shows where their priorities are. Incredibly bad marketing strategy.
|
| September 14th, 2005 07:30 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I think that the piracy was important, why the hell is the Stones album on their web site. Many "potential" buying people, interested on a new Stones album only heard the album there.
|
| September 14th, 2005 09:52 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
the thing is, though that Stones fans of a certain political leaning were still fine about paying money for tickets so I find it strange theyd boycott the album which cost so much less just on the strength of one song
The Stones didnt NEED the support of those outside their usual fanbase to have a successful chart position, nor should they have had to worry about a certain percentage of them feeling alienated enough to adversely affect sales
Look at the figures for this tour already (I'm excluding the Canadian shows from these figures because its not relevant to US chart positions). They have, to date, played to 260,000 people in the US so far on this tour. Of the concerts so far on sale for the rest of the tour, there will be something like another 950,000 if the shows sell out - and that doesnt include the shows that have been rumoured or have been confirmed but arent on public sale yet. By the time the Stones leave the US in March 2006 they will have performed to anything up to 1.3 million people there on this tour.
Based on that, 125,000 for a band currently on a high profile tour and selling out stadiums despite their high ticket prices is a mediocre return and a bad indictment of the majority of people who attend their concerts.
I find it amazing that despite the vast array of merchandise that you can buy at a Stones concert, you cant even buy their new album. It shows where their priorities are. Incredibly bad marketing strategy.
Those are all good points Gazza. I just don't know why they haven't sold more records. I do know a few people who may have been inclined to buy the album (like my sister) who were really pissed off about Sweet Neocon, and I'm sure this influenced their buying decision. Its irrational, but that's the nature of politics. Whether anything can really be extrapolated from her case to the whole population, is unclear. Soldatti made a good point about piracy. I know at least two people who downloaded the album. Whether they would have bought it without the download, I don't know. |
| September 14th, 2005 10:30 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I cannot stress enough how badly the eight year layoff hurt them. It killed their radio status because in the eight years since Bridges the Stones have had zero exposure on any active rock radio formats. With the exception being a few spins here,and there of Gimme Shelter,Sympathy,Start Me Up,....So program directors are having a hard time determining the Stones relevance to their station's target demographic(ie-the 18 to 24 year old male). Add to the fact that while ABB may be a vey strong effort,it's not particularly radio friendly. Rough Justice is Stones by rote,and I love it for that very reason,but in these days when shit like System of a Down,and Greenday are considered the new classic,Rough Justice already sounds dated,and out of touch with todays' market. That is an indictment of the utter ineptitude of todays' music buyer. That is not the Stones' fault per se,however it is their fault that they allowed the better part of an entire generation go without
any new Stones material to keep them interested.
Not that this really bothers the Stones. They will still be putting more asses in the seats than all these baby bands combined. It's also a very safe bet that forty plus years later nobody will give two shits about Greenday,System of a Down,Incubus,etc. The Stones' legacy is,and always has been,much more grounded on their live show,and a library that puts all other bands to shame. New material is just a bonus. The cherry on top if you like.
Riffhard
[Edited by Riffhard] |
| September 15th, 2005 09:09 AM |
|
|
| mac_daddy |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Many "potential" buying people, interested on a new Stones album only heard the album (on their site)...
i dont think that statement is accurate.
the number one factor was the sh*tty timing of the release. this happens to movies all the time. this album should have come out at the same time the fenway gigs were happening, as that was when they were all over the news. seriously, this astonishes me (i mean, it is management 101 kind of stuff), and the only reason for this that i can see is that the album was not ready to go then. but if that were the case, i would have waited until the msg show (this week) - at least they are in a major news hub for the weekend, and if those things went onsale two days ago, they would be selling like hotcakes. i dont mean to sound like an aristocrat, but you have no idea how important a "buzz" in new york or los angeles is to the nationwide success. those places, more than ANY other city in the nation, generate their own news stories and cycles. and to be uber-successful, you have got to be in on that sh*t. i wonder if they are getting a star on hollywood bl. - that would have been a good time to do it, too. but all this sh*t needs to be tied together, but if it is, you can sell VOLUMES of some of the WEAKEST sh*t imaginable. remeber, in sales, it aint what you are selling - it's how you sell it.
as for the internet thing - dont get me started. first of all, are the itunes sales even factored in to these US sales figures..?
i think the album is good enough to get legs, and that it will certainly go platinum by xmas (maybe double/triple? platinum before it is all said and done)...
posting the album on their official site generated buzz - it just should have been coordinated with the FREE news coverage on CNN the fenway weekend, and there should have been magazine covers, and that matt lauer interview - they did this in europe, but all those keef interviews are the euromag circuit - not time, newsweek, etc.
but the only reason i can see as to why this didnt get coordinated is that the album wasnt ready (it still beeds to be remixed - the whole thing is a touch hot). if this were the case, they really should have waited longer to release it. and NO they werent pressured to release because of the internet - in fact having their site be the exclusive home of the album for a minth or two would have continued to build buzz...
blah! i gotta go to work  |
| September 16th, 2005 05:29 AM |
|
|
| boblandy |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I cannot stress enough how badly the eight year layoff hurt them. It killed their radio status because in the eight years since Bridges the Stones have had zero exposure on any active rock radio formats. With the exception being a few spins here,and there of Gimme Shelter,Sympathy,Start Me Up,....So program directors are having a hard time determining the Stones relevance to their station's target demographic(ie-the 18 to 24 year old male). Add to the fact that while ABB may be a vey strong effort,it's not particularly radio friendly. Rough Justice is Stones by rote,and I love it for that very reason,but in these days when shit like System of a Down,and Greenday are considered the new classic,Rough Justice already sounds dated,and out of touch with todays' market. That is an indictment of the utter ineptitude of todays' music buyer. That is not the Stones' fault per se,however it is their fault that they allowed the better part of an entire generation go without
any new Stones material to keep them interested.
Not that this really bothers the Stones. They will still be putting more asses in the seats than all these baby bands combined. It's also a very safe bet that forty plus years later nobody will give two shits about Greenday,System of a Down,Incubus,etc. The Stones' legacy is,and always has been,much more grounded on their live show,and a library that puts all other bands to shame. New material is just a bonus. The cherry on top if you like.
hi riff or whoever you are....this is bob dylan from transilvania or former bleeding yugoslavia...as keith said it doesn't metter where you are...110 or 17row...as long as your chewing funny cigarettes...and the air doesn't smell sweet and strange, like in 69...but of barbq and of disciplined bleeding redneck america...
so boblandy wasn't my name...but dylan bob...if it's not the same...
here's the dylan thomas poem for you my dear friend...
in my craft or sullen art
exercised in the still night
when only the moon rages
and the lovers lie abed
with all their griefs in their arms,
i labour by singing light
not for ambition or bread
or the strut and trade of charms
on the ivory stages
but for common wage
of their most secret heart
chelsee hotel, 23st, ny
Riffhard
[Edited by Riffhard]
|
| September 16th, 2005 02:52 PM |
|
|
| VoodooChileInWOnderl |
From the official website
09.14.05 The Rolling Stones New Album Makes A Big Bang On International Charts
The Rolling Stones' "A Bigger Bang" has made a big impact on sales charts across the globe. Released just last week, the album now finds itself sitting atop charts worldwide.
Check out the partial list of sales rankings collected from countries far and wide:
Austria #1
Canada #1
Denmark #1
Germany #1
Italy #1
Holland #1
Slovenia #1
Sweden #1
Switzerland #1
Iceland #2
Mexico #2
Norway #2
Poland #2
Spain #2
UK #2
France #3
USA #3
Australia #4
Belgium #4
Japan #5 (#3 on International charts)
Portugal #5
New Zealand #9
Arabia #16
Ireland #18
Argentina #1
Brazil #1
Hong Kong #5 |
| September 16th, 2005 03:09 PM |
|
|
| Jair |
UK 2, Ireland 18 & Brasil 01??!!
They're fucking lying, Voodoo!
|
| September 16th, 2005 03:35 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
New Zealand #9
They're #2 this week.
quote:
Slovenia #1
?????
quote:
Arabia #16
???????????????????????
quote:
Brazil #1
How the hell they know? The updates are on Monday's and the week is still going.
Another #2 debut is missing: Czech Republic. |
| September 16th, 2005 03:49 PM |
|
|
| Jair |
You lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...one day, somewhere, someone believe you.
Thats old!!!
|
| September 16th, 2005 04:04 PM |
|
|
| time is on my side |
quote:
Jair wrote:
You lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...one day, somewhere, someone believe you.
Thats old!!!
[/quote] |
| September 16th, 2005 04:07 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT RIFFY,RADIO TODAY ABSOLUTELY BLOWS DOG..CORPORATE PUPPETS INDEED |
| September 16th, 2005 04:10 PM |
|
|
| Col |
quote:
VoodooChileInWOnderl wrote:
From the official website
09.14.05 The Rolling Stones New Album Makes A Big Bang On International Charts
The Rolling Stones' "A Bigger Bang" has made a big impact on sales charts across the globe. Released just last week, the album now finds itself sitting atop charts worldwide.
Check out the partial list of sales rankings collected from countries far and wide:
Austria #1
Canada #1
Denmark #1
Germany #1
Italy #1
Holland #1
Slovenia #1
Sweden #1
Switzerland #1
Iceland #2
Mexico #2
Norway #2
Poland #2
Spain #2
UK #2
France #3
USA #3
Australia #4
Belgium #4
Japan #5 (#3 on International charts)
Portugal #5
New Zealand #9
Arabia #16
Ireland #18
Argentina #1
Brazil #1
Hong Kong #5
Thing is, does anyone from the UK or US really honestly give a hoot as to how the album's doing worldwide. It seems like folk are clutching at straws to me. Personally, I wanted my country(uk) to see the Stones at number 1, just as a little fuck you to all who diss the band. Thing is though, how much folk actually know about chart placings in other countries. Hardly anyone. So although, the world-wide chart positions do look good, it is little comfort to my disappointment. |
|
