ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Albert Golgman "The Lives of John Lennon". Bantam books. New York, 1989
Thanks Irina!
[Ch1: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch2: Random Sike-ay-delia] [Ch3: British Invasion]
Support these stations! Click and check



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


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

Topic: Jagger Album Sells Less Than 1,000 Copies On First Day Return to archive Page: 1 2
11-20-01 10:03 PM
CS Mick Jagger's Goddess In The Doorway solo album released yesterday (19 November) has reportedly sold less than one-thousand copies on its first day of release.

Ananova is reporting that the long-player is expected to enter the UK album charts around the number eighty-five position.
11-20-01 10:32 PM
MarthaMyDear I have to get my copy tomorrow 'cause I was too busy at home today, etc., and I just got the sound to work again on my computer... Well, the tracks sound great on Mick's official site... I can't wait to get the CD, myself!!!
11-21-01 12:05 AM
Jaxx a stone alone gathers no green. oh well. i'm glad i was one of the first 1000...

Jagger Rocked by Poor Album Sales - Reports

LONDON (Reuters) - Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger's new solo album sold just 954 copies on its first day on sale, according to British newspapers on Wednesday.

Despite a massive publicity effort, the 58-year-old singer's fourth solo album "Goddess In The Doorway" was lying at number in the British charts.

On the same day, Robbie Williams' new album "Swing While You're Winning," sold 73,000 copies.


The Daily Mail quoted a music industry insider as saying: "These results have staggered everyone.

"They are very, very disappointing considering the Jagger publicity machine has been absolutely wonderful."

Jagger's spokesman Bernard Doherty said: "I cannot possibly comment on the album sales. It is far too early to tell."

11-21-01 01:23 AM
MarthaMyDear I give-up... lol................. :P I can't get out of the house so I'm just going to listen to it online... lol.............. :P Thank God for the internet (but I'm buying my copy tomorrow)!!!
11-21-01 10:19 AM
sandrew I think this report is premature at best, and probably bogus. Fleet Street has had it in for Jagger for decades. The album is in the top 25 sales on Granted, it's not a scientific sample, but it's a pretty good indication that its sales will at least be modestly good in the States.
11-21-01 03:08 PM
Gazza These are UK sales figures (not international) and pretty accurate..its in every paper here today

however to say it will chart only at #85 based on one day's sales is a bit premature..what the press have now actually inadvertently done is alert people that the album is available - more than what Virgin have done because its not as high profile as one would expect..even today in work when the story was in the press,people were saying to me "did you know jagger has a solo album out?".Tomorrows documentary wont do it any harm either I fancy (saw a trailer for it last night - looks quite amusing)

I havent even heard a note of the new album yet! I deliberately avoided the downloads available annd pre-ordered it from (8.99 including postage - great price) and even though they have a good record of issuing new releases BEFORE theyre officially released..they had the nerve to mail me after i complained,to say it was on its way and I should allow 5-7 days for delivery! Christ! As another indicator,I went into HMV on Monday..expected to see it on a display stand as is the case with all major new releases such as Madonna's album,Robbie Williams chance. Couldnt even find it listed under "J" - instead its filed in the "Rolling Stones" section..idiots

I'm not surprised its flopped (so far)- Mick's previous solo albums havent exactly been chart toppers either* (see the stats at the bottom of this post) or spent long in the charts,which people tend to forget - and a Stones album will always get more media hype and label promotion than a solo effort.

You have to ask - what is the projected audience for a Mick jagger solo album? If THIS board is a decent barometer of the Stones HARDCORE fanbase,then it appears that quite a few people even HERE either will buy it and not like it or wont buy it at all. Its not gonna appeal to a "pop" audience either - theres been no single in the Uk for example,radio play has I'd imagine been minimal,no video seen so far on MTV/VH1 - yet VIRGIN claim theyve been heavily behind it? My ass!

The average singles buyer in the UK is about 14 years of age,and most of them probably dont know who the fuck Mick Jagger is,apart from being some craggy guy who's in the tabloid press every few days for reasons that are nothing to do with his chosen profession - the Stones havent had a UK top 10 single in 20 years (since "Start me up"),they only tour every few years and even when they do the ticket prices are aimed more at the sort of middle class professionals who would pay the sort of money to see opera rather than the kind of "pop" audience. There simply isnt a crossover market I'm afraid. The people who buy Mick's solo releases are the people who'll buy all the Stones albums and not just the "Hot rocks" and "Jump Back" stuff. No-one else - and as long as they stay on Virgin I think that'll be the case (Virgin were very keen to promote the deal initially - especially the fact that they got the rights to the back catalogue. "Voodoo lounge" being the first Virgin studio album was well promoted and was the first Stones album to top the UK charts since "Emotional rescue". "Stripped" also was well promoted considering it was a live album. They werent as solidly behind "Bridges" and by the time "No Security" canme around they had practically given up)

The lack of success of "Primitive cool" in 1987 was instrumental in making Mick realise that he was never going to have a solo career on a par with that of the Stones. As much as I'd like to see his album do well - and I'm lookin forward to hearing it! - its relative lack of success might persuade him to get back into some kind of Stones activity instead of flogging a dead horse for the next few months with a solo album

* Shes The Boss - no 6 in UK,no.3 in US
Primitive Cool - no. 26 UK,no.41 in US
Wandering Spirit - no.12 UK,no. 11 in US
11-21-01 04:13 PM
KeepRigid I was under the impression that even the Stones have had trouble selling albums in the UK in recent years, something that several writers made an issue of during the B2B tour. Any truth to that, Gazza?

Anyway, if Robbie Williams doing a swing album is what's topping the charts over there, isn't it a good sign that they don't like Mick's album?
11-21-01 04:36 PM
Gazza The Stones albums usually chart well enough (ie Top 3) but rarely stay in the top 20 for too long..I remember "Steel wheels" sold very poorly even though it got to no.2 in the charts - still when they played the UK a year later they managed to sell about 550,000 tickets for 10 shows including 5 sold out shows at Wembley stadium (72,000 per night). Just prior to the tour,their "comeback" album had managed to shift about 60,000 units in its first 9 months or so. Hardly impressive. But then the Stones have never been the unit-selling artist that the likes of Michael jackson or The Beatles have been and their long standing in the business would have warranted.. Their main source of drawing power since the 80's has been concert takings (and merchandise...!)

as for Robbie Williams - well,compared to his "contemporaries" hes not too bad and reasonably likeable. He's hardly a good yardstick to use when comparing sales to - fact is,if Robbie released an album of songs recorded while he was taking a dump it would still probably go double platinum in about 10 minutes....
11-21-01 10:46 PM
the lepper What did you expect? Mick isn't relevant anymore, and basically the new record is average at best. Many of these tracks remind me of the worst of BTB. More fluff and no ROCK will always make Mick average at best.
11-22-01 07:16 AM
robbluedog 'Goddess in the Doorway' is not a Stones album and as such can't really be expected to sound like one, can it now? So lets not wet our pants. How many copies did 'Main Offender' sell on its first day?

So although they don't seem to have the sales volume of say ABBA, I think they've still done alright. 100 million or so albums sales over forty years is not bad for a career really is it, (even if some of the albums didn't sell too well individually)?
11-22-01 11:58 AM
Cardinal Ximinez Gee, this is hard to figure out isn't it? Only 954 albums sold on the first day? How could this be?

I know....the album isn't very good. AND Mick's PR people have made him out to be some kind of freakish cartoon figure.

I'm stating that the album isn't very good after listening to clips from every song but one. I'm not comparing it to a Stones album or anything else. I just took the songs for what they are worth...and IMHO they aren't worth much. I would have bought the thing until I heard most of it. Now, no way.

Goddess will be lucky to sell 100,000 copies. And in my opinion, it's because the album sucks.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.
11-22-01 01:14 PM
The Eggman Shuddup, let and let die, music has to move on, Mick isnt Mick from 1969, it's Mick 2001 and face up to it, i like the album, it's new and refreshing,

Face It, Brown Sugar aint gonna appear on this album Cardinal
11-22-01 04:02 PM
Cardinal Ximinez Hey Eggman, read my post again. I do believe I said I wasn't comparing Goddess to anything. Of course 1969 ain't gonna happen again, when did I say it was? I clearly stated that I took the songs idividually for what they were worth. Who said ANYTHING about Brown Sugar?

You find the music fresh and new, I find it sickly sweet and fluffy. You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. I do not like it Sam I Am. I like scratchy old blues, durty punk, and the Rolling F'n Stones. I like music that makes me feel like I need a hot shower to get the filth offa me. Hell, Goddess doesn't even make me wanna jump my woman! Where's tha SEX?

OK, Mick's headed in a new direction. Fine. He can do what he wants, he's earned it. But that doesn't mean that I gotta buy into that new direction. Especially when I think it sucks. But if you like it, great. I'm happy for you.

11-23-01 02:09 AM
Jane Wyman I think the cardinal is right. The album is smooth and the compositions are poor. That's a pity because Mick is the most experimental Stone. I don't understand why he doesn't dare tot take more risks. Goddes will be forgotten soon.
11-23-01 10:21 AM
VOODOO Jagger's record is selling fairly well in the US and in Canada.

It should enter the charts in the top 30 in both countries.
11-23-01 05:40 PM
Cardinal Ximinez Gee, Top 30 sounds really good, but let's face it, even top 20 doesn't mean what it used to. In today's music industry climate, entering at #25 is a disappointment. A mere blip on the radar screen. If you don't debut in the top 10, hell maybe even top 5, you are gonna be ignored. Especially when word of mouth gets around about how AVERAGE Goddess is. It's not gonna get an MTV "Buzz Clip", and that means that the biggest record buying't gonna see it, or hear it...or buy it. Mick might get some AC radio play, but people who listen to AC radio don't buy a whole lot of records. Mick will sell about 100,000 units in the US. Less than that in England. Charting at # 25 in the US doesn't qualify Goddess as a "Chartbuster" by any stretch of the imagination. And let's see where it is at the end of the month. I'm betting it won't be in the "Hot 100" anymore.

I also don't want people to get the wrong impression of me. You probably think I'm some kind of negative vibe merchant. Well, I can understand that. But I'm not. I desperately wanted to LOVE Goddess. Really. I was so ready to gush about Mick and his great new album. I was even composing cute little superlatives to use in my review of the record (I'll just have to save 'em for the next Stones release whenever THAT is!). But unfortunately for me, I didn't dig the songs. I listened to those songs over and over...I read the lyrics repeatedly, trying to find SOMETHING that I could hang onto, sink my teeth into. But alas, to no avail. I WANT to be one of you people posting about how much you love this music....dammit I want to be excited too! But I can't do that. For me Goddess is a HUGE letdown. Complacent, dull, overproduced, drum machine, radio fluff. I was gonna buy it anyway, but I can't make myself do it. I don't want it in my collection. Some of you may say that this makes me somehow less of a Stones fan. To those people I say fuck you. I'm completely obsessed with the Stones, and anyone that knows me(and some of the people here DO know me), will tell you that I am a bonifide, first class, prime Stones nut. But that doesn't mean that I have to love everything they do. I mean, come on, Emotional Rescue? What the fuck is that? It sure as hell wasn't MY Rolling Stones. Anybody Seen My Baby? Not MY fucking Stones. Goddess In The Doorway? That ain't MY Mick Jagger.

In closing, if you like GITD, great. Good for you. But don't delude yourselves into thinking that just because it charts in the top 30 US that this will be a big seller. It's a dog, and it'll show in the charts. No matter how many times ABC shows "Being Mick". I'm not even gonna go there.
11-24-01 05:53 AM
F505 I totally agree with the cardinal. He is a wise man AND a great Stones fan. Someone who dares to critizise Goddes deserves a compliment! Jagger is no saint and even the Stones-frontman can make bad records. And Goddes is bad. I think we must conclude that the famous writers duo Jagger/Richards are no longer the top. An exception can be made for their live-performances. Then they can still keep that motor running. YEAH!!!
11-24-01 12:37 PM
Cardinal Ximinez Jagger is no saint. Yeah, and that's why I love the hell out of him! Didn't he write a song a few years back that goes something like "You'll never make a saint of me."? So why all of the sudden is the Jagger PR machine trying to do just that? The "Being Mick" documentary vainly struggled to make Mick seem like an average guy....doting father, hard worker, yadda yadda yadda. But he is NOT an average guy. He is a true renissance man. And there were telling moments in that show that let me know that MICK knows this as well. Example, the airport scene where he mocks the customs guy. This is the WRONG WAY to try to sell Mick Jagger to the public. He is not an 'NSync guy. The proper way to sell Mick to the public is to play up his naughty side. Come on, we all wish we could live the decadent life the way Mick could. "Being Mick" would have been more effective if it had shown all the dalliances with the young lovelies! I could care less about Mick pumping iron, or about Mick pumping Sophie Dahl, or stretching Kate Winslett over his desk instead! I didn't mind all the famous name dropping, I expected that. It just seems to me that Mick's PR people are trying to downplay what got him to where he is! My question is why? Do Mick's PR people actually think we want a "wholesome" Mick? A "politically correct" Mick? I say it's bullshit. Look, I like to live vicariously through my heroes. If I'm gonna do that, then I'd like to think that Mick lays around on exotic beaches having beautiful supermodle types feeding him nachos and rubbing coconut milk on his nuts. Instead of THAT, I get Mick riding an exercycle(hell I already DO that myself), and doing a song with Wyclef(something that I DON'T want to do). Shit! It is my considered opinion that Mick should get back to living a life that is worth my living through him vicariously. Dammit. My life is as interesting as his is except I don't know any pretentious famous people...and I don't have my own jet. Don't you see what Mick's PR people are doing to him? Not only have they made him into a cartoon of himself, they also made him NORMALIZED! I don't want a normalized Mick. I want bad Mick. Very Bad Mick. And I'm betting that the majority of his fandom wants VBM as well.

So Mick, on the off chance that you read this. Fire Osama Bin Publicist, get caught in bed with two 20 something supermodels(in fact, impregnate them AT THE SAME TIME!), punt Jerry Hall back to friggin' Texas, and start Being Mick F'n Jagger again.
11-24-01 01:19 PM
Happy Motherfucker It seems to me a lot of people here think that Mick's album is suppose to be The Stones. What did you expect? Did you think the music was gonna sound like something from 1972 or what. Mick is certainly not trying to make his solo record compare to The Stones. He is a first class musican and song writer, which ables him to go off in different directions. Lets face it you ain't gonna hear another "Bitch" here because that is not what the music of 2001 is about. He is taking all the music grooves that he hears today and incorparating them into his music. This just further proves how good he is at his game! If he wanted to just please hard core Stones fans he would have never made the album in the first place, but that's not the case here. And what is the crap that I hear about "Emotional Rescue" not being a real Stones album? While it is'nt their best thats for sure, it does have some killer tunes on it. Listen to the clanky guitars on "Summer Romance" and " Let me Go" that is the real Stones! Some people here must think that the music should never progress and we should keep on like it was the first 20 years or so of the bands history and never leave that time warp. As these guys get older, it's pretty stupid to think that all of the music that they put out these days is gonna be as powerful as the tunes that came from 1967-1978. The band must change with the times to be considered relevent in todays music world, but this does'nt make it any less true Stones music now does it? Mick has acomplished just what he was after on "Goddess in the Doorway" a reflection of his self, not a mirror image of The Stones. Be glad that he cares enough for his fans to give you anything! He has earned your respect!
11-24-01 03:43 PM
VOODOO If you look at the Thursday and Friday sales in the USA the album is selling pretty well over here.

How can you take the Brit's serious in their taste of music?
They buy tons of Robbie Williams,Kylie Minogue and Posh Spice records for Christ sakes.

Jaggers record is selling well in most places in the world besides Britan.
11-24-01 05:24 PM
Cardinal Ximinez You know Happy MF, you are starting to mildly annoy me. Like an itch that you just can't reach. What are you? A tick?

Please go back over ANY of my posts, from ANY thread about Goddess, and point to the place where I compare GITD to a Stones album. I quite specifically stated several times that I didn't compare Goddess to anything. I took the songs at face value. I didn't like the face. Why it bothers you so that I don't like this album is beyond me. You don't even know me! What is the big deal? So some anon. name out in cyberspace doesn't like Mick's new album. I'm flattered that you take the time to bother posting a reply!

By the way, my references to Emotional Rescue were JOKES. Made at the expense of the lamest Stones attempt at an album. You got a problem with making jokes now?

I certainly appreciate the fact that I still have my heroes around to make new music for my listening pleasure. Unfortunately, this latest batch of ditties didn't do a damn thing for me. Maybe next time. And even if the Stones made the sad announcement tomorrow that they will never play together again, I have all of that great stuff they have done already(with the notable exception of ER), and I'm content with that. But GITD will never enter my CD collection simply because I don't like it. And you are just gonna have to deal with it.
11-24-01 07:45 PM
Miss U. I agree with the comments by HAPPY MOTHERFUCKER, whether or not they refer directly to Cardinal.

Gee, haven't even BOUGHT the album or listened to their songs in their entirety, and your making these rash judgements already, from your pulpit?? What you said in your original post was that GITD won't do well sales-wise because the tiny clips you heard suck, and you implied it shouldn't come as a surprise that sales suck.

Mick said from the start this CD is POP. Not to listen & be disappointed because it doesn't rock hard enough isn't quite fair. He's incorporating muscial styles from today...if Mick incorporated punk, I'd be very disappointed...punk is passe. I think this album is a mature Mick, and for that I find it very refreshing. I think there's some really good tunes on it.
Not much sex, no, but maybe Mick's tired of that whole rigmarole, and that's the reason for a SOLO. Just a change to be able to write the kind of stuff he wants. Maybe he feels stifled in the Stones & from Stones fans in general who won't change with him.

We should be thankful Mick's still around to sing his heart out! How apropos Being Mick was aired on the American Thxgiving!

11-24-01 07:54 PM
Miss U. One more thang re BEING MICK....I agree some of it was definitely contrived, and MIck's naughtiness with women was played down. But as much of a playboy as Mick is, he loves Jerry and they're still great, close friends. And from what I've heard Mick is a great father...I was only shocked he allowed us to see that part of him. Seeing that made me like him even more. Mick has grown up. I would have been more surprised to see this as a remake of Cocksucker Blues. There's many sides to Mick Jagger, and I think Being Mick showed alot of those different sides. Mick was still naughty...the part where he says he has a "bohemian" approach to relationships, and the part where he talked about living life to the max regardless of his age. His naughtiness showed thru. They just didn't show it in action.
Heck, even I'd like to be Mick Jagger! LOL.
11-24-01 08:30 PM
steel driving hammer Hey, Miss U has some good points my (not sharing any of your 2 bottles of Zonoma at the Cleveland Summit...) brother.
Take this album for what it is.
Mick on his own, singing about his family.
Yes it's Pop but IMO, Mick is the King of Pop as well as the King of the greatest rock and roll band this side of Jupiter.
Mick has 3 Generations to apease which is not easy.
And it's a Haaaaaard, it's not easy it's a Haaaaaard.
And it's a pretty hard babe.
Sitten' here thinking w/ cher head of fire...
Man I gotta play some tunes, later.
11-24-01 09:49 PM
Cardinal Ximinez God damn I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

I listened to 2 minute long clips of each song. I think that is PLENTY of time to get the feel and texture of the song. I listened to each song at least 5 times. I didn't like any of the songs. It was all slick, overproduced radio fluff. There is nothing wrong with pop music. I love the Beatles, and they were pretty good at it, so's David Bowie, so's XTC...there IS pop music out there that I like. I don't like these songs off of Goddess. It sounded formulamatic, forced, and most botheringly, framiliar. It was like I'd already heard some of this shit before. I also read the lyrics for each of the songs....pretty insipid, sappy stuff. So please tell me, why am I supposed to go out and buy this album when I don't like any of the songs on it? Mick Jagger doesn't need my money, "Being Mick" proved that.

So Mick wanted to try a new direction, fine, I have no problem with that. He can do what ever he wants. But that doesn't mean that I have to LIKE that particular direction. Did you see his aol chat? He said there that he was influenced by house and techno. Guess what? I don't like house or techno. In fact, I hate it. It all sounds like the same thing to me. I'm not really much of a ballad guy either. So Goddess really doesn't hold much for me.

I've also said over and over that I took the songs individualy for what they were. I didn't compare them to anything. I JUST DON'T LIKE THEM. Since when is there a law saying I have to love everything that the Stones or an individual Stone does? I don't like jazz very much, and I wouldn't waste my $100.00 to see Charlie's tentet either. Not because I have anything against Charlie...I just don't like the music.

Why the fuck is this so hard for you people to understand?
11-25-01 01:08 AM
Happy Motherfucker It's not hard to understand, everybody has a right to like or dislike any music they choose to enter into their ears. I don't have any problem at all with you just because you fuck'n don't like the album. I don't know you but the fact that you like The Stones makes you at least ok in my book even though I don't agree with a lot of things that you say. You certainly have the right not to like the new stuff but why try to bum everybody else out about it. Most people take it for what it's worth but for some reason you treat it like it is a load of crap when you have'nt even listened to it completly! And by the way, why the fuck do you want to start calling people names? I'm a Happy Motherfucker but apparently you are not,let it loose man!
11-25-01 04:07 AM
F505 I think the cardinal is right once again. Most of our die-hard fans can't read. Or just want to read what they want. It doesn't matter what kind cd Jagger made: whether it is pop, rock, country, or blues, it is just not a good record. And it is certainly not a modern 2001 record! Then you have to listen to quite different groups such as Beck. Of cours no one expected Mick to make a Stones record. But of course no one expected also he made such an afwul bad pop record. Sometimes I think I've bought a Phil Collins record!
11-25-01 01:03 PM
Cardinal Ximinez I didn't NEED to listen to this record completely to realize that I don't like it. Actually I didn't need to listen to as much as I did to realize that. I WANTED to like it. I swear on my son's life that's true. But, after hearing these songs, or 2 minutes of them anyway, it was crystal clear to me that these songs were at the best average, and some of them flat out suck like a Hoover. Are you suggesting to me that if I listened to the other 1:28 or so of each song that I'd change my mind?

I am NOT trying to bum anyone out. I am stating my opinions, just like you are. It just happens to be a very converese opinion to what you feel. I'm sorry that my opinion bums you, or anyone out. But this sure as hell ain't a perfect world dude. And quite frankly, I'm damn glad it isn't. We'd all be bored silly if it was. Everything would be all happy happy joy joy, but we know that isn't even close to reality. Well my man, it's the same here. We can't all love the same stuff. If you wanna gush, and only read gushing stuff, check out I prefer reality though, thanks.

BTW, I don't see Goddess as being representative of music in 2001. 1988 maybe, or 1995, but not 2001. Either that, or music in 2001 has backslid into the quagmire of late 80's hair pop.

Also, I HATED "Summer Romance", and "Let Me Go" would be filler on any other Stones record. The only song on ER that I even remotely like is "She's So Cold". And that's more because that's what was on the radio when I got my dick sucked for the 1st time, than it being an great song.

So whaddaya say that we just agree to disagree on this. I'm sick of writing about it, and I'd just as soon forget about it completely. Goddess will be forgotten soon enough by everyone else as it is.
11-25-01 03:19 PM
KeepRigid Yeah, Beck is really current, ain't he?

Anyway, at least Card has his own opinion, unlike the dozens of toadies that usually appear when someone expresses one.

I also respect that Card deals in reality- one in which he doesn't realize that HIS Mick Jagger existed 30 years ago. Hell, Mick has now been criticized for being a caricature of himself for longer than he was considered a threat.

Does anyone really think that Card's idea of Being Mick- a 58 year-old Mick cavorting around on camera and leering at young women- WOULDN'T make him out to be a cartoon? Sure, Mick still loves ladies, why should he have prove it to us?

The response on this board (to GITD) seems to operate under the assumption that B2B and recent Stones albums haven't been comprised of Mick solo. Maybe Mick should've credited Keith on guitar here as well and fans would like it more.

A few more thoughts:

-When the GITD lyrics that didn't make the cut appear on the next Stones' album, you guys will proclaim the return of Mick's songwriting prowess.

-I count 3 dreaded 'pop' songs (the first 3 tracks). I also count 2 dreaded 'dance' songs (GITD + Gun). Explain to me again how the rest are NOT just two members away from being recent Stones songs?

[Tracks 6, 11, + 12 and tracks 4, 8, and 9 are essentially Stones ballads and rockers, respectively. Loop Charlie's organic drums, turn up the rhythm guitars a bit and Hide Away is the Stones doing what they've always done, dabbling in a new style.]

-All About You is the best song on Emotional Rescue. (There is absolutely no question about this.)

-Cracking the Top 25 is no grand feat for a new album- BUT, for a Stones SOLO release (one that doesn't just take a session band through the motions of a Stones album to please the fans) it's pretty good. Is anyone trying to pretend that Main Offender wasn't DOA in the charts? And Keith toured behind that one.

Look, Keith is my main man, but without Mick's drive and desire to keep up with the scene, the Stones would've become an oldies act on a defunct label long ago.
11-25-01 04:31 PM
Cardinal Fang I think F505 is right when he/she said that some of you only read what you want to read. Either that or there is a problem comprehending english.

Let's get something straight here. Mick's album has NOT cracked #25 on any chart that means anything! (as in the Billboard 200 or the Official UK Pop etc) and CDBuy charts are about as meaningful as a VH1 or MTV chart. It entered the UK charts this week at #44. It has NOT broken the US Top 100 Chart yet. It's still a little early having only been released a few days ago. That's not to say that it couldn't get to #25. We will see.


Page: 1 2

On June 16, 2001 the hit counter of the WET page was inserted here, it had 174,489 hits. Now the hit counter is for both the page and the board.
The hit counter of the ITW board had 1,127,645 hits when it was closed and the Coolboard didn't have hit counter but was on line only two months and a half.