Hard to beleive 3 years ago I was as giddy as I was at 13 waiting for Tattoo You. Anyone else remember the electricity and excitement. Was digging through Stones disc the past few days, came across ABB. Passed on it a few times, remembered how much bashing I gave it... I remembered how much have done this to The Stones over the years with new albums.
I'm listening to it right now. I'm 4 songs in... The funk'd RFD is on...
I'm not hating on it as much... I'm really looking forward to B2B after this... That album really grew on my in the early double aughts.
I think 8-22 will be 3 years since ABB came out...

I STILL QUITE DIG IT..NOT AS EVANGELICAL ABOUT IT AS 2005-06

UNDER THE RADAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE RECORD
SWEET NEOCON & LET ME DOWN SLOW OFF

I like the music in neo-con, and I love the harmonica intro. Jagger did a horrible job at being liberal looney, bless his heart, at least he made the point, Bush/Cheney et all suck ass and are to freedom what Yugo's are to race cars.

oh yea, i like Under the radar alot too...

Pdog wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:09pm:

I like the music in neo-con, and I love the harmonica intro. Jagger did a horrible job at being liberal looney, bless his heart, at least he made the point, Bush/Cheney et all suck ass and are to freedom what Yugo's are to race cars.

HE REALLY DRIVES ME NUTS WITH HIS LYRICS..TOO MANY ARE MAILED IN AND INSIPID.

TOO ME,THEY DID SO MANY THINGS RIGHT ON THIS RECORD..BUT MOST OF THE LYRICS ARE WRETCHED :

whatapostronnie

I liked Let Me Down Slow.

I listened to infamy and Look what the cat dragged in today. They both really rock. Infamy reminds me of miss you a lot.

is under the radar on a boot?i was lookn for tattoo too the other day but the links were all dead, anyone got ne good ones?

thanks

It was a solid album, shoulda stopped at track 12, but what can you do? I'm tired of reading crap like that MSN.com Top 10 of artists who should stop making music. ABB was as good as Springsteen's "Magic" (also solid, but overrated), better than Dylan's "Modern Times" (overrated, and not as good as "Love and Theft") and better than anything Neil Young has put out in 20 years.

For people who say they're no good at making records anymore, I play 'em "How Can I Stop" and say Shut the hell up, suck on your frappuccino ... and your Coldplay.

Pdog wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:09pm:

I like the music in neo-con, and I love the harmonica intro.

Me too - reminds me of some of their late-70s NYC-themed tunes, musically anyway.

The album is very good. It is what everyone here always gripped about before it came out. Everyone wanted a stripped down, minus all the excess studio musicians, not-over produced album that rocks. ...well in my opinion they got just that.

In addition, they even did much of it at Mick's House in France. Something many had mentioned they should try doing ...which is getting together in someones house versus the carribean or some other luxurious place to do an album, like they used to without the million dollar recording affair at a major studio.

More-over, they did that too. Probably three fourths of the album was written and recorded at Micks (mixing was done in LA I believe).  Still people gripe.

People wanted an album without any "pop" influences ....they got just that.

A Bigger Bang is harder than their more recent releases, basic, direct, and rocks...without all the gloss. Just what the doc ordered in my ears.

Sure the songs are basic and simple, but that was the whole point of A Bigger Bang. It wasn't even promoted like their other albums. It was supposed to be an album to get back to basics and rock with just them playing on it. It was supposed to sound like a non-commercial affair. Period.

Thats what they did and that's what it is. I still don't get the complaining from folks.

The songs on ABB are good. The Stones sound GREAT (plenty better than I thought they could still sound), and it is solid all the way through.

I dig it.


Ian

I havent played it in ages. I might just give it a spin. I agree with Ian too. Maybe not every song is genius, but its fun and funky.

Just wished they played some more stuff of it whilst on tour.

Pdog wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:

Hard to beleive 3 years ago I was as giddy as I was at 13 waiting for Tattoo You. Anyone else remember the electricity and excitement. Was digging through Stones disc the past few days, came across ABB. Passed on it a few times, remembered how much bashing I gave it... I remembered how much have done this to The Stones over the years with new albums. I'm listening to it right now. I'm 4 songs in... The funk'd RFD is on... I'm not hating on it as much... I'm really looking forward to B2B after this... That album really grew on my in the early double aughts. I think 8-22 will be 3 years since ABB came out...

The tour started on 21st August 2005.

ABB was released on 4th September (the following day in the US)

At the time, I said it was the best album theyd done since Tattoo You.  Three years later, I dont think its as good as BTB, but its still a very good album.

I just wish the band's belief in the songs they had released had lasted longer than a couple of months. It certainly deserved better than that.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 1:26am:

they even did much of it at Mick's House in France . . . versus the carribean or some other luxurious place   Ian

I've never been to Mick's chateau, but I suspect it might be just a little luxurious.  [smiley=wink.gif]


Just teasin'.

I'm telling you, I know talent when I see it.

This Billen character understands nuance and insight.

He's going places, mark my words.

http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fart_in_space_suit.jpg

Good thread, pdog. I'm glad you're coming around. I haven't played it lately but I will play it on my iPod whilst driving to tennis tonight!

Don't forget the lube!

>In addition, they even did much of it at Mick's House in France. Something many had mentioned they should try doing ...


eh? who said that? What difference would THAT make anyway?


>People wanted an album without any "pop" influences ....they got just that.

I seem to recall the first single being the wimpiest ballad theyve released in decades.  ::)


>Sure the songs are basic and simple, but that was the whole point of A Bigger Bang. It wasn't even promoted like their other albums.


In terms of being played live, thats certainly true.

> It was supposed to be an album to get back to basics and rock with just them playing on it. It was supposed to sound like a non-commercial affair.

said who?

i have not listened to a bigger bang front to back in at least 6-7 months.  the only songs i hear from that cd come from the dvd's i listen to...rough justice, back of my hand and oh no not you again.
i bought bridges to babylon second hand for something like 3.99 a couple of months ago and i have been jamming that a lot more the bb.  the 1 song i dislike from b2b is gunface...the rest, i think, are keepers.

:wtf1

Gazza wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:41pm:

I just wish the band's belief in the songs they had released had lasted longer than a couple of months. It certainly deserved better than that.

Yeah but with the exception of "SOL" the live versions of the Bigger Bang songs didn't rock nearly as hard as the studio versions. IMO

The album is not a masterprice, I think that SW, VL and B2B are better albums with better songs.

Zack wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:45pm:

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 1:26am: they even did much of it at Mick's House in France . . . versus the carribean or some other luxurious place   Ian I've never been to Mick's chateau, but I suspect it might be just a little luxurious.  [smiley=wink.gif] Just teasin'.

KEEF WAS SLUMMIN IT-HE HAD TO SMOKE OUTSIDE

>In addition, they even did much of it at Mick's House in France. Something many had mentioned they should try doing ...


eh? who said that? What difference would THAT make anyway?

-----------------

I seen it quite a few times here. The difference is that many felt The Stones needed to get "down-and-dirty" again and quit being on vacation when writing/recording an album. None-the-less, many Stones albums were recorded through-out the years in quite nice places. It was just a notion to some some how they wanted The Stones to do another Exile style scenario. Even Keith told Mick "your turn" in reference to them doing an album as they did with Exile (Mick wanted to eventually go into the studio, until he realized Keith was right in that things were going great right there and they wouldn't need it).


>People wanted an album without any "pop" influences ....they got just that.  

I seem to recall the first single being the wimpiest ballad theyve released in decades.  Roll Eyes

________________________________________

SOL is radio friendly. I know that. However 90% of the album is straight ahead Rock, Blues or Funk. The rockers do not sound anything like "Don't Stop", which was poppy. It is the most non-radio friendly album they have made since ....hmmmm,  I can't even remember. ..I would say since 1976's Black and Blue (although this album sounds completely different from that album). So take one (maybe two tops) pop friendly/radio friendly songs out of 16. That is basically the ratio. More-over, it is simply not a pop oriented release at all.


>Sure the songs are basic and simple, but that was the whole point of A Bigger Bang. It wasn't even promoted like their other albums.


In terms of being played live, thats certainly true.  

> It was supposed to be an album to get back to basics and rock with just them playing on it. It was supposed to sound like a non-commercial affair.  

said who?  

_____________________________

Keith, Mick, and Ron very clearly when talking about how the album was to go:

Mick said he wanted a "simplistic" album that was "very hard hitting" and "direct".
Keith said the album was "screaming" at them not to over produce it and just keep it bare-bones and stripped down. So they did.
Ron said the album was sounding "earthy" when they were working on it. I suppose that means pretty down-to-earth and "real" in a recording sense ...minus all the gloss.

Simplistic, earthy, hard hitting, direct, "don't over produce me". I think that the fact that they wanted a non-commercial sounding venture has been known since 2005??? That's pretty clear and always has been.

Just look at the cover. It looks almost "boot-leggish"


Ian

The only song I still listen to is the only one i really like : Laugh, I nearly Died...
A masterpiece IMO
Doesn't sound like any other Stones song, yet it's very stonesy. Could have been a HUGE hit.

I'll say this again. They should have released Driving Too Fast as the first tune.   I played it 2 years ago at a pool party with 30 mixed age people. No one had heard it but all thought it was an old classic and were digging it large.When I expliained they were amazed it was new.It rocks despite its basic chords etc.

TomL and I got together for some beers last Tuesday at my place and I threw it on.

It really is not a bad effort.

Laugh really is a unique song -- reminds me of the first Chicago get together - riding around in Pammy's car!!

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 11:27pm:

>SOL is radio friendly. I know that. However 90% of the album is straight ahead Rock, Blues or Funk. The rockers do not sound anything like "Don't Stop", which was poppy. It is the most non-radio friendly album they have made since ....hmmmm,  I can't even remember. ..I would say since 1976's Black and Blue (although this album sounds completely different from that album). So take one (maybe two tops) pop friendly/radio friendly songs out of 16. That is basically the ratio. More-over, it is simply not a pop oriented release at all.

I agree with you to a point, but as the Stones arent ordinarily that sort of band, I'd like to think that it WOULDNT be a "pop oriented" release. However, the decision to relaunch the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' as a recording act after eight years with a piece of MOR crap like 'Streets of Love' beggared belief in it's sheer stupidity. If anyone was wanting to get the message out that the band had returned with a back to basics, raw sounding new release, then this was a funny way of doing so.

"Radio friendly" is another thing entirely. New Stones records dont get played on the radio anymore for one reason and one reason alone. The dudes are old and radio has become more and more ageist since they were last releasing new material. Its got little to do with how commercial or un-commercial their music sounds.

i think ABB was very poorly produced - they tried to make it raw and rough round the edges but it ended up sounding sloppy IMO

Also agree with Gimmekeef - Driving Too Fast is pretty cool - they shoulda tried it live at least, and its not pretentious at all, unike a lot of the album

I have moved on already, thanks.

gimmekeef wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

I'll say this again. They should have released Driving Too Fast as the first tune.   I played it 2 years ago at a pool party with 30 mixed age people. No one had heard it but all thought it was an old classic and were digging it large.When I expliained they were amazed it was new.It rocks despite its basic chords etc.

fuckin smokin track-PLAY IT LOUD!

speedfreakjive wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 12:30pm:

i think ABB was very poorly produced - they tried to make it raw and rough round the edges but it ended up sounding sloppy IMO Also agree with Gimmekeef - Driving Too Fast is pretty cool - they shoulda tried it live at least, and its not pretentious at all, unike a lot of the album

it wasn't poorly produced, you just can't force rough and raw, it is or in't. You listen to The first Stooges record, and then think how many people have tried to recreate that in million dollar studios. Some things are just created organically and you can't manipulate or force it to happen...

Gazza Wrote:

"....the decision to relaunch the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' as a recording act after eight years with a piece of MOR crap like 'Streets of Love' beggared belief in it's sheer stupidity. If anyone was wanting to get the message out that the band had returned with a back to basics, raw sounding new release, then this was a funny way of doing so."

________________________


Your right. That may seem "bass-ackwads". I think SOL is a fine song. It IS the most radio friendly tune on the album, either that or Rain Fall Down, which takes a moderately close second spot as a "single" next to SOL.

However SOL it is no representation of the rest of the album at all...  

Q. Why was it chosen as the first single when it is hardly a representation of the albums sound or the rest of the songs on the album?


A. Record Companies want a strong first single regardless and this, again, is the most single friendly track on ABB so they went with it. Secondly, the general public will buy an album, or purchase more downloads online from the album if they hear it on the radio, or hear the song in some way, in some market. Unless your a Stones fan, the general CD Purchasing crowd and Download purchaser population more-over could care less about how bare-bones and stripped down The Latest Rolling Stones album is. Record companies know that.

However strangely after taking that plausible and all too normal first step to get something on the album out there and played, Virgin/EMI really didn't do much eles at all, or do hardly anything in any other area to market or promote this album.


Ian

Pdog wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 2:31pm:

speedfreakjive wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 12:30pm: i think ABB was very poorly produced - they tried to make it raw and rough round the edges but it ended up sounding sloppy IMO Also agree with Gimmekeef - Driving Too Fast is pretty cool - they shoulda tried it live at least, and its not pretentious at all, unike a lot of the album it wasn't poorly produced, you just can't force rough and raw, it is or in't. You listen to The first Stooges record, and then think how many people have tried to recreate that in million dollar studios. Some things are just created organically and you can't manipulate or force it to happen...

organic. why live stones is the best
in the studio. its like sex with a condom

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 4:36pm:

Gazza Wrote: "....the decision to relaunch the 'greatest rock n roll band in the world' as a recording act after eight years with a piece of MOR crap like 'Streets of Love' beggared belief in it's sheer stupidity. If anyone was wanting to get the message out that the band had returned with a back to basics, raw sounding new release, then this was a funny way of doing so." ________________________ Your right. That may seem "bass-ackwads". I think SOL is a fine song. It IS the most radio friendly tune on the album, either that or Rain Fall Down, which takes a moderately close second spot as a "single" next to SOL. However SOL it is no representation of the rest of the album at all...   Q. Why was it chosen as the first single when it is hardly a representation of the albums sound or the rest of the songs on the album? A. Record Companies want a strong first single regardless and this, again, is the most single friendly track on ABB so they went with it. Secondly, the general public will buy an album, or purchase more downloads online from the album if they hear it on the radio, or hear the song in some way, in some market. Unless your a Stones fan, the general CD Purchasing crowd and Download purchaser population more-over could care less about how bare-bones and stripped down The Latest Rolling Stones album is. Record companies know that.

It wasnt 'friendly' for several reasons

Casual or hardcore rolling stones fans wouldnt have bought it or been impressed by it

The sort of audience who buy MOR crap arent going to suddenly become Stones fans on the back of  a song like that. Its crossover appeal was negligible.

Rain Fall Down or one of the more traditional sounding Stones rockers on the album would have worked far better.

mojoman wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:

Pdog wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 2:31pm: speedfreakjive wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 12:30pm: i think ABB was very poorly produced - they tried to make it raw and rough round the edges but it ended up sounding sloppy IMO Also agree with Gimmekeef - Driving Too Fast is pretty cool - they shoulda tried it live at least, and its not pretentious at all, unike a lot of the album it wasn't poorly produced, you just can't force rough and raw, it is or in't. You listen to The first Stooges record, and then think how many people have tried to recreate that in million dollar studios. Some things are just created organically and you can't manipulate or force it to happen... organic. why live stones is the best in the studio. its like sex with a condom

Exile is one of those organic albums... then again, take Some Gilrs, which is a very direct attempt to make very specific styled songs, and that worked too. The other part is, they just don't have any thing pushing them to create... How can you write good blues when you live like a king?

Gazza Wrote:

The sort of audience who buy MOR crap arent going to suddenly become Stones fans on the back of  a song like that. Its crossover appeal was negligible.

_______________________________

Gazza,

You already know the record companies don't think that way (for the record neither do The Rolling Stones entirely as you know as well). They want to always push for air-time. It is the goal of ANY album regardless of my opinion, your opinion, or The General Rolling Stones fan.  

As you agree I think SOL has more cross-over appeal and is more single friendly than any other of the tunes on ABBc(so did the exec's and A&R's, and for good reason). Rain Fall Down (for the most part) is a typical disco-era Rolling Stones song. While it is very good, still it is much more dated as far as style goes than SOL which hinders the possibility of airtime on todays major FM's even more in addition to the fact that Stones being considered out of touch with today's tunes and possibly viewed as being "washed up".

At least SOL could be described as a power ballad (harking back to at least Aerosmith style tunes that possibly the Stones could try to do as well....but unfortunately it didn't cut the mustard as much as they had hoped it to).

Secondly, SOL is more of a song females would enjoy. Females buy more music much more than men do today. RFD is more geared towards a male reception.

This is why SOL was chosen. It was a good call, regardless of the out-come. No other tunes would of fit that mold. It is all about FM.

Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 10:20pm:

Gazza Wrote: The sort of audience who buy MOR crap arent going to suddenly become Stones fans on the back of  a song like that. Its crossover appeal was negligible. _______________________________ Gazza, Secondly, SOL is more of a song females would enjoy. Females buy more music much more than men do today. RFD is more geared towards a male reception. Ian

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

PERKS Wrote:

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

_________________________________



Just by general reaction I've seen. Also the lyrical content. The song speaks about the streets of Paris directly at one point. A girl would enjoy this song because it is a new "heart felt" ballad versus revamped disco-era Rolling Stones (again both are songs that are quite good). A dude may like Rain Fall Down better over all. SOL is a "female friendly" tune.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 12:58pm:

PERKS Wrote: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? _________________________________ Just by general reaction I've seen. Also the lyrical content. The song speaks about the streets of Paris directly at one point. A girl would enjoy this song because it is a new "heart felt" ballad versus revamped disco-era Rolling Stones (again both are songs that are quite good). A dude may like Rain Fall Down better over all. SOL is a "female friendly" tune. Ian

WOULDNT FAGS LIKE IT TOO?

IAN,YOUR PROBLEM IS HAVE OPINIONS THAT YOU CONVINCE YOURSELF ARE FACTS..

Bill Perks Wrote:

"IAN,YOUR PROBLEM IS HAVE OPINIONS THAT YOU CONVINCE YOURSELF ARE FACTS.."

__________________________________


I wouldn't know the answer to your first question. Mr. Perks, there is plenty of good reason The record company picked SOL first, and RFD second.

90%-95% of the time (not ALL the time) the execs (and A&R's that work for the lable) will choose the best "single" oriented, and most probable radio hit to release first.  In my opinion they were "spot on" with this choice.

Your problem with "opinions" is that you will argue against people who do this sort of thing for a living and are quite good (yes, better than probably all of us here) at picking out singles from huge masses of material and projecting the market/demographic these singles will reach.

Remember, lables pay these people good money for this. They don't do this because these folks are under qualified. They do this for a living day in day out.

Again, there is plenty of good reason SOL was chosen first. I agree with them this time.


Ian

I thought Rough Justice was the first single?? It was the first ABB song I heard on the radio.

Feelings are not facts Ian. Perks is 100% correct, you are way over thinking, and then projecting your feelings on lyrics of a song, as to why it was marketed a certain way. It's not that you're right or wrong, it is that you state opinion as fact... Truth is more likely, The Stones are so completely detached from die hard fans, and the record labels are trying to market to an untapped audience who watch Days Of Our Lives. This is why you get singles that are soft rock ballads, instead of historically, rock and roll singles.

Holden wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 10:38am:

I thought Rough Justice was the first single?? It was the first ABB song I heard on the radio.

SOL, Rough Justice, Back Of My Hand were the songs on the first CD single. SOL was credited as album version, I often wondered, b/c I can't tell if the other two are slightly dif. RJ is the 1st song on the single...

I didn't like it when I fisrt heard it, which is not very unusual for any non Stones records. I was just starting to appreciate some of the songs, lent the record out.....and never got it back.

Here's some data, Ian.  My wife loved Rain Fall Down but didn't care for SOL.  Never sang along to it.  In fact, that's it's problem.  You feel stupid singing along to SOL.  Try it.

"IAN,YOUR PROBLEM IS HAVE OPINIONS THAT YOU CONVINCE YOURSELF ARE FACTS.".

I'm glad I don't have that problem.

Pdog wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 10:47am:

The Stones are so completely detached from die hard fans, and the record labels are trying to market to an untapped audience who watch Days Of Our Lives. This is why you get singles that are soft rock ballads, instead of historically, rock and roll singles.

The BonJovial formula.....pander to the statistics.  

Listen, I am not saying die-hards would not like RFD more (they most likely would), I am saying that the record companies were looking for a single that could capture a little bit of the new crowd and be played on the radio and not sound dated (not that RFD sounds dated to me, it is just older grooves and may seem out of place on some radio).

Thats all I'm saying.

In A NUTSHELL:

**Releasing SOL as the very first single was definitely not about pleasing the die-hards ....the die-hards were going to buy the album anyway.


Ian

>Secondly, SOL is more of a song females would enjoy.

No..its a song more likely to appeal to Barry Manilow fans if anyone at all. However, as they are unlikely to like it enough to buy it, it fails on two counts.

> Females buy more music much more than men do today.

No they dont. Evidence? They certainly dont buy more Rolling Stones records.

>RFD is more geared towards a male reception.

and most Rolling Stones fans are male.


>This is why SOL was chosen. It was a good call, regardless of the out-come. No other tunes would of fit that mold. It is all about FM.

How was it a 'good call' when airplay was minimal and most Stones fans thought the song sucked? It failed in every regard imaginable. Most Stones fans thought it was weak to the point of embarrassment. It gave a poor indication of the album it was taken from and sent out the wrong signal which implied that after so many years without a new record, the Stones had come back with a single with less balls than a tribe of eunuchs. Most of the potential cross over market ignored it or simply thought it a laughable song. Airplay was non existent, and the Stones obviously had so much faith in it it took them almost a year to have the balls to perform it.


>Just by general reaction I've seen. Also the lyrical content. The song speaks about the streets of Paris directly at one point.


So do some versions of that well known wimpy ballad "Honky Tonk Women". Who on earth is going to buy a record just because it mentions the 'streets of Paris' (and for the record, it doesnt mention Paris at any point in the song)

>A girl would enjoy this song because it is a new "heart felt" ballad versus revamped disco-era Rolling Stones (again both are songs that are quite good). A dude may like Rain Fall Down better over all. SOL is a "female friendly" tune.

Stereotypical nonsense. Most female Stones fans that I know are perfectly capable of differentiating between a good Stones song and a bad one regardless of whether its a ballad or not....and most of the female Stones fans I know thought the song was ...to quote the word Mick uses repeatedly at the start....'awful'

" Females buy more music much more than men do today.  "

They sure do.

http://www.ultimatesupport.com/site/artists_tim_mcgraw2.jpg

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:

Listen, I am not saying die-hards would not like RFD more (they most likely would), I am saying that the record companies were looking for a single that could capture a little bit of the new crowd and be played on the radio and not sound dated (not that RFD sounds dated to me, it is just older grooves and may seem out of place on some radio). Thats all I'm saying. In A NUTSHELL: **Releasing SOL as the very first single was definitely not about pleasing the die-hards ....the die-hards were going to buy the album anyway. Ian

Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath.

Its the 9-10 million people who bought the likes of Tattoo You and their most recent major release (40 Licks) but who arent that interested in the latter day Stones that they needed to get on board when promoting a new release. This song wasnt going to convince them.

Holden wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 10:38am:

I thought Rough Justice was the first single?? It was the first ABB song I heard on the radio.

It was RJ and SOL. RJ was the one chosen for the US and SOL elsewhere.

USA! USA! USA!

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 12:09am:

I wouldn't know the answer to your first question. Mr. Perks, there is plenty of good reason The record company picked SOL first, and RFD second. 90%-95% of the time (not ALL the time) the execs (and A&R's that work for the lable) will choose the best "single" oriented, and most probable radio hit to release first.  In my opinion they were "spot on" with this choice. Your problem with "opinions" is that you will argue against people who do this sort of thing for a living and are quite good (yes, better than probably all of us here) at picking out singles from huge masses of material and projecting the market/demographic these singles will reach. Remember, lables pay these people good money for this. They don't do this because these folks are under qualified. They do this for a living day in day out. Again, there is plenty of good reason SOL was chosen first. I agree with them this time. Ian

Historically, the Stones used to always choose the first single from an album and the label would then pick subsequent singles, depending on whether they not there they thought there was a market for them. I've an interview from the 80s with Jagger where he specifically stated that.

Considering the Stones would be then obliged to make a video to promote a single, I very much doubt a band of their power would be obliged to do that for a single they didnt want released in the first place.

In recent years, EMI have had a policy of not releasing 'physical' singles from albums if they dont feel theres a market for selling a certain amount of them - theyve been doing this in the UK now for 5-10 years. If your single is unlikely to sell (I think) 5,000 copies, they wont put it out. A download single is another matter, though.

The decision of what song to put out as the first single almost cetainly isnt down to the label - its down to the band. EMI have been reluctant to put out multiple singles from Stones albums ever since Out of Control sold very poorly in 1998.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:

I am saying that the record companies were looking for a single that could capture a little bit of the new crowd and be played on the radio and not sound dated. Ian

Make this statement fact, a news article an interview, anything that makes this anything more than your opinion. PLEASE, otherwise, stop acting like your opinion is fact, you can't argue opinion. And that's what you're doing...

Gazza wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 3:00pm:

Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath.

Only if it was a soundboard.

Gotta draw the line somewhere...

Gazza Wrote:

"The decision of what song to put out as the first single almost cetainly isnt down to the label - its down to the band."

____________________________

Yes .."Before"... As you stated in the 1980's the band itself choosing which track on an album to be the first single was semi-plausible and occurred but only at times and only with the top of the game major acts. Almost no band (if any, unless your counting the situations in which the occasional Indy label permits such) has the privilege of which single to release first in today's day and age. Today, the record company chooses.

Those days are long gone.


Ian

Gazza Wrote:

"Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath."

____________________________________

I whole heartedly disagree.

I can almost assure you 70% of ABB sales were from Stones "fans". 70% of 2 1/2 million is quite a bit more than a few thousand...

For instance I know about twenty people who purchased ABB (10-12 are from this board alone).

All are Stones die-hards. I do not know of a single person who purchased this album that is just a casual music fan, or simply the run-in-the-mill music listener. Those people didn't buy ABB. It is the Stones fans that bought the album. Most likely the more avid Stones followers made up the lot of this albums sales versus even the average Stones casual fan who downloaded 40 Licks five years ago.

I'll ask you this:

Who do you know that is simply a casual Stones fan, or simply a standard music listener that went out and bought it, or obtained it via a purchased download?


Ian

Holden wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:

Gazza wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 3:41pm: I just wish the band's belief in the songs they had released had lasted longer than a couple of months. It certainly deserved better than that. Yeah but with the exception of "SOL" the live versions of the Bigger Bang songs didn't rock nearly as hard as the studio versions. IMO

i thought back of my hand was terrific each time i saw it, and rj and onnya were always given prime real estate in the setlist (ie: second song deep, second song on the b stage). it seemed like the band had more faith in sol in europe, where they kind of stretched it out a bit.

re: abb
i liked it. i would have liked to see neocon and sol left off, and under the radar included. fwiw, i remember the listening party voodoo set up, and reading sol was the lead off single, and being pretty disappointed with that news - but i knew then that i was not who they were aiming with the single.

i will have to give a listen to b2b again (it has been a while since i had that one on).

macdaddy wote:

"i will have to give a listen to b2b again (it has been a while since i had that one on)."

__________________________

Although ABB runs really nicely from start to finish (perfect actually), it also does very well on shuffle mode.

ABB was like having great songs from Dirty Work, Undercover, one or two from Some Girls, and a few from Exile in which we never heard before.

After I heard it I was thinking it was like hearing great tracks from those albums in a dream that did not exist. Then waking up and thinking, man those were good tunes...wish they were real.

Only ABB made that a reality.

Bridges is an album that is a start to finish listener. It doesn't do well on shuffle mode to me. Voodoo can go either way.

That's my two cents-


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

Gazza Wrote: "Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath." ____________________________________ I whole heartedly disagree. I can almost assure you 70% of ABB sales were from Stones "fans". 70% of 2 1/2 million is quite a bit more than a few thousand... For instance I know about twenty people who purchased ABB (10-12 are from this board alone). All are Stones die-hards. I do not know of a single person who purchased this album that is just a casual music fan, or simply the run-in-the-mill music listener. Those people didn't buy ABB. It is the Stones fans that bought the album. Most likely the more avid Stones followers made up the lot of this albums sales versus even the average Stones casual fan who downloaded 40 Licks five years ago. I'll ask you this: Who do you know that is simply a casual Stones fan, or simply a standard music listener that went out and bought it, or obtained it via a purchased download? Ian

I know quite a few, actually.

However, I specifically said "diehards" - not "fans". And this board - and others - are a reflection of the more fanatical end of the fan spectrum. We're not and never will be a microcosm of the sort of people who make up the average 21st century Stones audience or who buy the latest Stones album.

Buying a band's latest album does not make you a 'diehard'. If thats the case, then I must be a diehard fan of about 200 different artists.

I think something like twice as many people saw the Stones on their last tour as bought the album they were touring behind. If you look at the US statistics as a barometer, over 2 million people bought tickets (at an average of $167) yet only half of that amount of people bought A Bigger Bang (which costs, what, $15?). In 2005-2007 - the 3 year timeframe for the last Stones tour - their back catalogue shifted a total of 3 million copies in the United States. In three years. Thats definitely underachieving for a band that can attract a huge amount of revenue from their concerts. Especially when you take into account that Billboard estimates of their total album sales in the United States is something approaching 70 million.

The logical conclusion to draw from all that is that a large % of people who think nothing of paying large sums of money to watch the Stones in concert are not only NOT diehards, but barely buy an average of just over one Stones album (including the new one) every year.

Speaking as someone who's been collecting Stones material avidly for 25 years and who does something similar for a couple of other artists too, the proportion of Stones fans who I'd define as 'diehard' is decreasing. Even more so when compared to other acts who maybe dont sell as many records or as many concert tickets. We're all getting older and fans who have dropped out are not being replaced by a 'new' base of hardcore fans because the Stones dont release a lot of new material, have ignored their archives (something which has introduced  a lot of people to Dylan's music for example as well as rekindling the interest of people who were losing interest) and because their ticket prices arent going to attract new fans.

It speaks volumes to me that approximately a quarter of the shows on the last tour - even with todays recording technology and despite the fact that many of them took place in crowds of over 50,000 people - still arent in circulation amongst collectors. Most of the missing shows - intriguingly - in the US where the ticket prices are so much higher. On previous tours, you would have expected by now to have had access to about 95-98% of the shows, with the missing ones usually being from far away outposts like Singapore or India. Strikes me from that observation that a lot of 'diehards' who would have been going to shows in the past are staying away for various reasons, and that the people who are going to the shows instead arent buying the music.

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:20pm:

Gazza Wrote: "The decision of what song to put out as the first single almost cetainly isnt down to the label - its down to the band." ____________________________ Yes .."Before"... As you stated in the 1980's the band itself choosing which track on an album to be the first single was semi-plausible and occurred but only at times and only with the top of the game major acts. Almost no band (if any, unless your counting the situations in which the occasional Indy label permits such) has the privilege of which single to release first in today's day and age. Today, the record company chooses. Those days are long gone. Ian

Havent read any interview with anyone that would suggest that. I dont believe for a second that it was EMI's choice (as opposed to that of the Stones) to have 'Love is strong' and 'Anybody seen my baby' as the lead singles from the previous two albums on the Stones' deal with them.

Especially when you see the effort and expense put into the groundbreaking videos that were shot for both of them.

'Love is strong' came out in 1994. The music industry may have changed dramatically in the last 14 years, but the Stones were still on the same contract when "Streets of Love" came out as they had been back then, so its pretty implausible that EMI would all of a sudden have been able to become the sole decision makers on what to release as a lead single. The idea of EMI dictating to the Stones that they MUST release an untypical sounding wimpy ballad as the lead single from their first album in seven years on the eve of a world tour where theyre hoping to promote their new cd is pretty laughable.

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 6:10pm:

Gazza wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 3:00pm: Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath. Only if it was a soundboard. Gotta draw the line somewhere...

Damn that Gazza has a "way with words".

Might be interesting if other "sound effects" from the bath were used too!!!!! ;D :willya

PartyDoll MEG wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 6:45am:

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 6:10pm: Gazza wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 3:00pm: Theres only a few thousand diehards who would buy anything the Stones put out even if it consisted of Keith farting in the bath. Only if it was a soundboard. Gotta draw the line somewhere... Damn that Gazza has a "way with words". Might be interesting if other "sound effects" from the bath were used too!!!!! ;D :willya

I have a tape recording of Keith playing acoustic guitar and singing in his hotel room just before his wedding in Mexico in December 1983.

At one point he lets rip with two absolutely ear splitting farts, causing gales of laughter between himself and the guy in the room who was (presumably) the person recording it. It was around this point in the tape where he makes that oft-quoted expression about "five strings, two fingers and one arsehole". I always presumed this was the reason for that little aside.

Strangely, on the bootleg CD of the recording (to the best of my knowledge) his little 'special additions' were edited out.

I had a lil road trip and spun the cd recently. It is just really bad lyrics and lack of effort. 72 Mick would be humiliated.