|
|
| gimmeshelter27 |
The real sure fire way to guarantee a monster tour next year is cut a killer album first.Release a single with a riff that cuts to the bone around the 4th of July(Flip the Switch was no Start Me Up)and the scalpers will drool! |
|
|
| Todd |
Funny...I thought Flip the Switch was one of their best rockers EVER. |
|
|
| gimmeshelter27 |
I liked Flip too..but never have heard it played on any radio station.Just wishing they could catch lighning in a bottle one more time! |
|
|
| Gazza |
Well..flip the Switch wasnt released as a single,so it could hardly be compared in terms of "impact" to "Start me up" as a song to promote the album
Personally..if I never hear the Stones play "Start me up" in concert again,I wouldnt miss it - good riff,but little more than that. A classic SONG it aint. "Flip the switch" is FAR better as a song IMO |
|
|
| The Eggman |
Also "Might aS wELL gET jUICED" is a good one |
|
|
| Mikey |
the problem was, IMO, the release of "Anybody seen my baby". Cool song but "Saint of Me" would have been the better first single. |
|
|
| gimmeshelter27 |
Yeah..but Keith did not play on Saint.It was Waddy Wachtel on guitar.That's why Saint was not released.Also Mick thought Anybody Seen was more trendy with the rap piece etc. |
|
|
| bob tamposi |
the stones need a great hit single for the next album, and it has to be the first single released. let's face it. there has not been a true classic single for 20 years( start me up)and it's not because the material wasn't there.
If the first single is just okay, then the second single no matter how good it is just doesn't get the credit it deserves.
in several interviews throughout the years, here are the classics that everyone should know:
"she was hot" should have replaced "undercover"
"one hit" should have been first single from Dirty Work
"Rock and a Hard Place" should have been first off steelwheels
out of tears( that's right- the first fucking ballad released as the first single since "fool to Cry" should have been the first off Voodoo.
Saint of Me should clearly have been the first single off Bridges. Love Anybody seen my Baby, but I think If Saint was the first thing everyone heard, they would have drooled.
First impressions mean a lot to radio etc, and the stones for whatever reasons have chosen the more trendy first singles which infact tells the "average guy" that it's another so so Stones album when in fact a lot of great stuff has come out. The stones need another "start me Up is the bottom line which will hold at the end of the show with Brown Sugar(which all of us die hards get so bored with now)
and videos- only saw the Saint one once, and it was great. very sinister. Much better than Anybody seen, but it did not get played a lot same as radio, and for the same reasons.
Personally, I would hold the press conference for the album, and tour. Release the killer single directly to radio via satellite right after it, and then have both MTV and VHI agree to play it on the top of every hour for the next 48 hours. If this was done with Saint the album would have been much bigger, and probably "anybody seen" would be pretty big too since first impressions mean the most. Hey, I wonder if the Boys could use me for a marketing job?
I would have told Mick to release his first single as"Hard Woman" going solo, and probably Party Doll, or War Baby for the second album. Look at Wandering Spirit, a great album,but only a so so first single- "SWeet thing" and he released "dont tear me up" to rock radio. Instead he should have just stuck to "don't tear" with all radio formats, and then again you would have seen the video a lot because its a very good song. I have never seen the video for that song nor Sex Drive etc. Come on now, you got the material- just market it right! |
|
|
| Gazza |
Mick said in an interview a few years ago that generally the band pick the 1st single and the record company the second one..dont know if thats still the case now,as theyve changed record company
Its easy to say with the benefit of hindsight what the most appropriate choice should be for a first single - do you go for a standard Stones-sounding song (I note you omitted "Love is strong" from that list of first singles - surely a classic "Stones ound" if ever there was one..) or do you go for something a bit more left-field which will have crossover appeal?
Probably the most successful single and best known song the Stones have cut in the last 25 years was "Miss You" - whilst many of us may have been sick to death of it being dragged out in concert over the last few years,the fact is its a fabulous single and a great studio cut (I'd personally pick it as Bill's finest moment on any Stones song). Listen to "Some Girls" album NOW and with the obvious exception of "far away eyes" its maybe the least "typical" Stones song on that whole album - yet at the time it came out,it got great airplay,cross-over appeal and resulted in the band having its biggest selling album (at the time) to date..
What makes a single successful now is different to the era of "Start me up" (I agree with you that its a killer single - I just dont happen to think its a great song,but it did the job in promoting the album..) With video rotation being so important its almost as important for the band to produce a killer VIDEO as it is for them to have a commercial SOUNDING song. That can quite easily influence what song is chosen as the 1st single
No band has produced as many ground breaking videos as the Stones have - think back over the last 20 yearse or so,and nearly every first single from each album has been accompanied by a breathtaking video to remind the world that the Stones are back.....(apart from "Mixed emotions" where you were basically just glad to see them back in the same room on a video - think of Undercover,harlem shuffle, Love is strong and Anybody seen My Baby - all of them classic promos)
The fact is that at this stage in the bands career and with the amount of money were talking about - the most important part of the "product" financially is the tour - the chain of things is that the video promotes the first single which promotes the album which promotes the tour. With the singles basically appealing to the sort of people who probably think that "Satisfaction" is a Britney Spears song, competing with THAT market isnt really THAT important. Just let the world know youre out there and the rest should take care of itself. Having singles success isnt really THAT important anymore as there are no so many different ways of marketing your product |
|
|
| SAGJ |
Maybe it's the kind of outlets that are available for the Stones to be heard on the airwaves that's the problem. Start Me Up got so much exposure on MTV back in the day, because they didn't have that many videos to play -- I mean, they had "Fishheads" in regular rotation. And radio was nowhere near as bad as it is now. Now MTV is what, Tiger Beat on the air and a lot of frat-house mentality stuff -- not saying those kids wouldn't pick up on good stuff in a heartbeat, but the powers that be won't play it for them, because it's demographically-incorrect. VH-1 is a little better to the Stones -- the other night I was floored to stumble across a full hour of Stones videos there, played from start to finish, with no wraparounds. But that was the exception and not the rule. Most of their programming is either one of those "and then tragedy struck" things or stuff that's just downright goofy. And U.S. radio is such a ghettoized joke -- the only stations to give new Stones stuff a play are "classic rock," and a lot of people probably don't want to hear "Smoke On The Water" twelve times a day in the hope of hearing something new. And even then, it's the first single, and it stays the first single. People don't get the chance to grow into an album anymore. If the last several albums had been treated by radio like earlier albums were, the Stones' sales would not have gone down, I don't think. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, so it has to be something outside of the band. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Maybe it's the kind of outlets that are available for the Stones to be heard on the airwaves that's the problem. Start Me Up got so much exposure on MTV back in the day, because they didn't have that many videos to play
Well yeah - plus the fact that they simply refused to play any black artists for the first two years
>I mean, they had "Fishheads" in regular rotation.
LOLOL! Christ - I remember that video..I have it around here somewhere - Barnes & Barnes,wasnt it?
>And radio was nowhere near as bad as it is now. Now MTV is what, Tiger Beat on the air and a lot of frat-house mentality stuff -- not saying those kids wouldn't pick up on good stuff in a heartbeat, but the powers that be won't play it for them, because it's demographically-incorrect.
Well thats true...Living in the UK I can only compare what we have here..BBC Radio 1 - traditionally the mainstream "pop" station now basically caters only to under 20's and wont play anything thats more than a couple of years old....Radio 2 - which used to be the station where you were pretty much limited to hearing easy listening stuff like Barry Manilow ad nauseam is now the place on the BBC where you'd expect to hear the Stones,if anywhere - its become more a base for "rock" as well as the oldies stuff and has actually overtaken Radio 1 for listening figures.
IN the UK,on digital satellite TV we have about ten music channels,all variations of MTV/VH1 accoring to genre - one VH1 channel is specififcally geared towards "classic rock"
Point is that the broadcasting media is now so splintered and specialist-orientated - with so many more channels - youre not going to get much of a crossover audience
>VH-1 is a little better to the Stones -- the other night I was floored to stumble across a full hour of Stones videos there, played from start to finish, with no wraparounds.
bet its the same Stones "Greatest Hits" hour long special that OUR VH1 repeats every couple of months!
>If the last several albums had been treated by radio like earlier albums were, the Stones' sales would not have gone down, I don't think. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, so it has to be something outside of the band.
Fair point - that said,i think "no security" stiffed because it was the zillionth live album in the last decade..that simple. the studio albums theyve toured behind whilst on Virgin have done well..even though BTB sales tailed off a bit. Voodoo Lounge and indeed Stripped were the biggest sellers theyve had in a long time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
| SAGJ |
Wasn't the kid from Lost In Space Billy Mumy one of the "Fishheads" people?
You are absolutely right about MTV not playing black artists for the first two years or so -- not until Walter Yetnikoff at CBS told them, you'd better play Michael Jackson or else you'll never see another Billy Joel video from us! What a long strange trip it's been! I found out back then that MTV turned videos from The Meters down cold. How stupid can people be?
I'm with Big Bill Broonzy -- all music's folk music; I ain't never heard no horse sing a song. So I abhor all of this pigeonholing of music by these senseless, nonexistent standards. In New York, if you want to hear the Stones on the radio, you have the classic rock station, and the oldies station, wait a minute, that's the black and white oldies station, not the black oldies station. That's it. But the classic rock station does acknowledge that a lot of these bands are still around. The oldies station doesn't play anything past, maybe, Miss You; once in a while, Harlem Shuffle, because it's a remake of an oldie (are you following this?) They even have a lot of the old DJs from back when, but they seem to forget that they gave Dandelion and She's A Rainbow as much play then as The Last Time and Jumping Jack Flash. If you were from another planet, you would think that the Four Seasons and the Stones had the same body of work from listening to these playlists. |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
Guess I miss a lot over a couple days...All very interesting comments, however, with regards to a new Stones' tour/album/singles/videos, I don't think any REALLY have great impact.
I presume that most people that see a Stones' show don't by the supporting album. Simply compare album and ticket sales. Most people that see the Stones have probably seen them before.
So, when talking about what should be an albums' first single, I don't think it really makes a difference. When the Stones release the new album next year, the majority of the people that buy also have Bridges.
If they absorb new fans, most of those kids heard of the Stones through a parent or older relative.
Personally, I think it's great that they're still making music instead of creating new "greatest hits" albums. |
|
|
| The Eggman |
THAT WAS SORTA MY POINT TOO LAZYBONES |
|
|
| Ned Kelly |
Simply redo the bootleg, Lonely at The Top and release that as a new album. I got that recently and can't quit listening to it. |
|
|
| x_pensive_wino |
Personally, I think "Out of Control" would have made an
excellent first single. Still, "Anybody Seen My Baby"
wasn't disasterous. The problem was that it didn't have any
b-sides, only dance mixes. I'm sick of seeing dance mixes
on their singles and refuse to buy them. Why not shove
the songs that don't quite work (Might as Well Get Juiced,
Theif in the Night and How Can I Stop) onto the singles
as b-sides, rather than release a bloated album. Or even
put some outtakes onto the single; after all, they do
record many songs that don't make it on record. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]