The Rolling Stones move to Universal
If I were writing the story, it would read like this:
EMI walked away from its long-term relationship with the Rolling Stones today, showing how little force the band retains in the retail marketplace. While the Stones remains rock’s touring kings—their last tour grossed more than half a billion dollars—EMI was selling only about a million copies a year in total of the two-dozen or so albums it distributed, or about as much as The Eagles’ Their Greatest Hits sells annually alone.
The Stones moved to Universal, which talked bravely about revamping the band’s digital catalog. But the group’s work has been on iTunes for years …..
This is a band that hardly sells records. Why does anyone care? Why the big play for the articles? Says the NYT, in a story that ledes the arts section today and features a photograph with a cutline that calls the band a “commercial powerhouse“:
Ending months of speculation in the music industry, the Rolling Stones have left EMI, the record label that has released the group’s music since the early 1990s, and signed a long-term recording deal with the Universal Music Group, the company announced on Friday.
The worldwide contract covers three new albums and the rights to release the band’s valuable catalog of music recorded since 1971 for about five years.
Similarly, Billboard says:
Ending months of speculation, the Rolling Stones have split with longtime label EMI and inked a new deal with the Universal Music Group. The pact covers not only future studio albums but the band’s lucrative back catalog from 1971’s “Sticky Fingers” onward.
All emphases added. Billboard is a sober outfit, but this is typical of the hyperbole surrounding the band. The force of those words “valuable” and “lucrative” is highly relative. The Stones catalog from 1971 on is worth more than, say, Hall & Oates’. Still, the band sells total perhaps a million and a half CDs per year. About a million of those are the post-1971 releases.
The third or fourth biggest name in rock—and the most aggressively promoted. They’ve been touring almost constantly or ten years. And that’s what they sell? And note that those averages include the sales boost they got during the CD era, when fans rebought the albums.
(Some of the post-’71 work —Tattoo You, Some Girls, and the latter-day greatest hits Forty Licks—are among their biggest-selling albums. On the other hand, the three studio releases the band has managed to get off its collective sorry ass to record in the post-’91 SoundScan era have mustered only a little bit more than a million in sales each, Billboard reports, this despite the fact that each in turn is heralded as the band’s “return to top rock ‘n’ roll form” by most reviewers.)
The papers get around to giving some hint of these facts deep down in the pieces, but casual readers are given what the Stones and Universal want—a big PR shot. Is that really the papers’ job?
Only the WSJ hints at the obvious—in the antepenultimate graf:
Despite the Stones’ stature, it is unclear how severe a financial blow their exit actually represents for EMI, which is owned by private-equity group Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd. “Shine a Light” has sold about 106,000 copies in the U.S. since its release in April; a person close to Universal estimated the album has sold 645,000 copies world-wide. Universal in a statement called the older titles covered by the deal “the most iconic catalog” in rock ‘n’ roll. The bestseller in that catalog, “Sticky Fingers,” sold just 48,000 copies last year in the U.S., according to Nielsen SoundScan.
All the band really has to sell is cachet. Doug Morris and the Universal boys just want to get their picture taken with the Stones. When he writes his memoir, Morris can say, “When I signed the Stones….” Unwritten will be the qualifying phrase, “… 45 years into their career…”
p.s. This Wired News blog item, particularly, is entirely unsupported in its bad-for-EMI thesis:
Before taking over major-label behemoth EMI last year, the private equity player got the gas face from top-shelf British acts like Radiohead and Paul McCartney, who walked away from EMI the minute they could. On Friday, Terra Firma scored the humiliation hat trick when The Rolling Stones, the planet’s highest-earning act of 2007, defected to Universal Vivendi.
McCartney, like the Stones, does not sell records any more. (And whaddaya think albums like Back to the Egg or Flaming Pile Pie sell a year?) Now, any of these acts would be nice to have on a roster. EMI is making a judgment that it couldn’t make money from the terms the Stones were offering. It doesn’t matter if the Stones make a lot of money touring. EMI’s a record company, and the Stones don’t sell records.
What the Stones and McCartney do have to sell is that cachet—but EMI already bought that once.
p.p.s. Universal’s also getting the rights to “two or three” (the WSJ) or “three” (NYT) or “future” (Billboard) Stones studio albums. Second prize would be four or five! Bridges to Babylon sold 160K its first week in 1997; Voodoo Lounge sold 154K in ‘94. The latest, A Bigger Bang, debuted with 127K. Those figures, given the band’s name, the crazily hyperbolic reviews (”The band’s best album since Some Girls!”) and the vast sums that went to promoting the albums, are humiliating.
6 Comments so far
Leave a reply
You are a DUMBASS!!! NONE OF YOUR INFO IS CORRECT!!! THE ROLLING STONES ARE AMONG THE LARGEST SELLING CATALOG ARTISTS IN THE WORLD. THEY HAVE SOLD AN ASTONISHING 300 MILLION ALBUMS IN THIER CAREER. THIER CATALOG RANKS IN THE TOP 40 SOUNDSCAN ERA BIGGEST SELLERS DESPITE RELEASING ONLY A HANDFUL OF STUDIO ALBUMS. HOT ROCKS HAS SOLD NEARLY 3 MILLION ALBUMS JUST SINCE 1991 AND IS NOW CERTIFIED FOR 12 MILLION COPIES SOLD. STICKY FINGERS IS ALSO AMONG THE TOP SELLING CATALOG SELLERS. IT HAS SOLD 1.1 MILLION COPIES JUST SINCE 1991. SOME GIRLS HAS SOLD 1.3 MILLION COPIES JUST SINCE 1991, LET IT BLEED HAS SOLD 1 MILLION COPIES SINCE 1991. ALL OF THESE ALBUMS ARE AMONG THE TOP 100 SELLING CATALOG ALBUMS!!!!!!! THE OTHER ALBUMS ARE ALSO STRONG SELLERS. THE ROLLING STONES’ CATALOG SELLS ABOUT 3 MILLION COPIES PER YEAR YOU MORON! THEY ACTUALLY OUTSELL MANY NEWER ACTS AND THEY ARE STILL POPULAR WITH YOUNG PEOPLE!!! THE ROLLING STONES HAVE SOLD MORE CATALOG ALBUMS THAN LED ZEPPELIN!!!!!! AND BY THE WAY, THIER NEWER ALBUMS ARE STILL SUCCESSFUL, THEY HAVE SOLD OVER 7 MILLION ALBUMS SINCE 1991, WITH VOODOO LOUNGE SELLING 2 MILLION, AND FORTY LICKS SELLING 3 MILLION COPIES. YOU ARE A COMPLETE JACKASS AND YOU DONT KNOW WHAT U ARE TALKING ABOUT!
[…] wrote recently of the breathless coverage about the Rolling Stones’ leaving their longtime record label, […]
It was reported that Sticky Fingers was the largest selling catalog album, but that is false. Hot Rocks is the largest seller, with over 2.5 million units sold since 1991. The largest selling studio album is Some Girls, with 1.4 million units now sold. Sticky Fingers is next, with 1.2 million units and Let it Bleed follows with about 1 million sold. All above info on Rolling Stones sales figures are from Soundscan. Some figures are from 2005 only and are found at http://www.ukmix.org. Google “ukmix Rolling Stones worldwide sales” to get the results. Most of the articles on this subject report a significant loss for EMI since the Rolling Stones “have a very significant catalog.” According to Nielson Soundscan, most Rolling Stones recordings have sold over 100,000 units since 1991, with about half in the 200,000-300,000 unit range. The other half have sold above 500,000 units. Other strong sellers include Beggars Banquet, with sales above 500,000 units, Exile on Main Street, with more than 700,000 units sold, and Tattoo You, with more than 600,000 units sold. The compilation albums High Tide and Green Grass with over 600,000 units sold and Through the Past Darkly with over 700,000 units sold also rank high. The live album Get Yer Ya Ya’s Out sold over 300,000 units since 1991. These albums are very old, with Hot Rocks and Sticky Fingers released in 1971 and High Tide in 1966. To still be selling thousands of units per year is astonishing.
Umm, not that I disagree with the overall point, but if you think calling a Stones album “the best album since Some Girls” (which Bang certainly was, the other two not really, although even those were better than most of the 80s stuff) “hyperbole,” we must evaluate the merits of these albums rather differently. Personally, I would see that more as “damning with faint praise.”
While you tried to embarrass me by attempting to use my words to make yourself look good at a later date, you were still shown to be wrong in your data… All my data are the figures as reported by Neilson Soundscan. The Rolling Stones are among the largest selling artists worldwide. Contrary to what you reported, thier albums have spent considerable time on the Billboard Catalog Chart. Would you like to be proven wrong on that too? Here goes: Despite repetition in rereleasing some of the same songs, Jump Back sold 260,000 copies as an import alone (despite a $30.00 price tag). It was officially released in 2004, and debuted in the Billboard Top 40 and has sold 1.1 million copies and spent several weeks in the Catalog Chart despite Forty Licks being released only a few years before… Forty Licks debuted at #2 on the album chart, where it remained for many weeks and also 9 weeks on the Catalog Chart just since 2003. Metamorphosis, another repetitive compilation album spent 1 week on Catalog Chart despite being out of print for 25 years. Some Girls, released in 1978, had appeared on the Catalog Chart 11 times by 2005-a good amount of time. Exile on Main Street, released in 1972, has appeared on the Catalog Chart 9 times. Sticky Fingers, released in 1971, has appeared on the Catalog Chart 12 times, longer than any other. Let it Bleed, released in 1969, has appeared on the Catalog Chart 2 times. Beggars Banquet, released in 1968, has also appeared on the Catalog Chart 2 times. But the greatest amount has definately been Hot Rocks, released in 1972, which has appeared on the Catalog Chart 31 times. Weeks on Catalog Chart are impressive, but they don’t denote “success” necessarily. For example, Pink Floyd has spent more time on the Catalog Chart than any other band, but they still haven’t OUTSOLD everyone else. Dark Side of the Moon has spent YEARS on that chart, but it isn’t the largest selling album even among thier own catalog. Appearances on Catalog Chart only exist since 1982 anyway, and most Rolling Stones recordings were on the REGULAR chart for a long time, High Tide and Green Grass spent 3 YEARS on the Billboard Chart in 1966, 1967, and 1968. My “dumbass” comment was not appropriate and I wish I could take it back, but you are still trying to convey a FALSE image and data. You are demonstrably false.
What an idiot.The Stones last album has sold over 2.8 million units. Show me ONE other artist at this stage of their career that comes close to that.
Soprinsteen’s latest has BOMBED.U2’s latest has slowed to a crawl
And the problem for the Stones is that they are competing against THEMSELVES!