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



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.

USA! USA! USA!

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



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:

"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

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


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).

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


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.

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

Damn that Gazza has a "way with words".

Might be interesting if other "sound effects" from the bath were used too!!!!!

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.