Does the news that The Rolling Stones are planning on releasing their next project on Universal mean anything? It is really more about the demise of EMI than anything else. EMI is crashing. It is losing The Rolling Stones.
The Rolling Stones mean something in name, but The Rolling Stones don’t represent sales. They haven’t released anything relevant since Tattoo You back in 1981. Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang were hyped, but they are both completely forgettable. Yes, The Rolling Stones are still one of the biggest concert attractions in the world, but this isn’t because of their post-1981 work, it is because of their pre-1981 work which consists of their hits.
So what, The Stones are going to release the soundtrack to the upcoming Scorsese concert documentary on Universal. Does anyone think that project is going to move big units? If I want to spin some live music by The Stones, I’m going to break out “Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out!” or an underground soundboard recording from 1972. The current Rolling Stones’ concert experience does not translate well onto album.
Is this Universal attempting to open the door to a longer-term relationship which could include the band’s post-1971 catalogue? There are certainly a few gems from that era such as “Sticky Fingers,” “Exile On Main Street” and “Some Girls.” But none of them move huge units on an annual basis. Having access to The Rolling Stones’ back catalogue is more about status than actual numbers. And are fans really going to want to purchase a new set of remasters that will most certainly be unleashed by whichever major label acquires the catalogue? I am fine with my EMI versions of The Rolling Stones post-1971 titles.
The only way The Rolling Stones will move some big units will be if the band finally issues some archival material. There have been some attempts in the past, most recently in 2002, but nothing ever surfaces. They don’t even have an official release of BBC material. There is next to nothing archival on the shelves by The Stones other than 1975’s “Metamorphosis.” If the band released a few titles reminiscent of The Beatles’ Anthologies, you can bet some units would move. Tie it in with a huge marketing campaign highlighting the first vintage release of unreleased archival material from the vaults, and there will be a vibe. Other than the stunning, but short “Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out!” release, there still is not a premier live album in the band’s catalogue.
Mick Jagger does not embrace his past work with any real passion. He downplays the older recordings and has publicly made it clear on many occasions that he has little interest in vault releases. Well, if The Rolling Stones are looking for a big payday for their back catalogue, they may want to make a deal for a vault release. Granted, The Rolling Stones do not move units like Led Zeppelin, but ask Led Zeppelin and Warner Music Group about how much money was made with the band’s first real vault releases back in 2002 with “DVD” and “How The West Was Won.” A lot of units were moved and there was a real vibe out in consumer land because of the rare occurrence of a vault release from one of rock’s greatest bands.
The Rolling Stones can get a taste of that if they play their cards right. If I am a label, I make archival releases a part of the deal. There are only so many hits packages that can move – and unless the new label makes a deal with ABKCO, a lot of the band’s huge hits from the 60’s will be off limits for future hits packages.
At the end of the day, this deal means nothing. It is simply the transfer of a big name from one label to another. There is no substance behind it. EMI doesn’t really lose anything here; it just solidifies the perception that Guy Hands' operation is falling apart. The Rolling Stones gain a headline and maybe an advance.
The Rolling Stones mean something in name, but The Rolling Stones don’t represent sales. They haven’t released anything relevant since Tattoo You back in 1981. Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang were hyped, but they are both completely forgettable. Yes, The Rolling Stones are still one of the biggest concert attractions in the world, but this isn’t because of their post-1981 work, it is because of their pre-1981 work which consists of their hits.
So what, The Stones are going to release the soundtrack to the upcoming Scorsese concert documentary on Universal. Does anyone think that project is going to move big units? If I want to spin some live music by The Stones, I’m going to break out “Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out!” or an underground soundboard recording from 1972. The current Rolling Stones’ concert experience does not translate well onto album.
Is this Universal attempting to open the door to a longer-term relationship which could include the band’s post-1971 catalogue? There are certainly a few gems from that era such as “Sticky Fingers,” “Exile On Main Street” and “Some Girls.” But none of them move huge units on an annual basis. Having access to The Rolling Stones’ back catalogue is more about status than actual numbers. And are fans really going to want to purchase a new set of remasters that will most certainly be unleashed by whichever major label acquires the catalogue? I am fine with my EMI versions of The Rolling Stones post-1971 titles.
The only way The Rolling Stones will move some big units will be if the band finally issues some archival material. There have been some attempts in the past, most recently in 2002, but nothing ever surfaces. They don’t even have an official release of BBC material. There is next to nothing archival on the shelves by The Stones other than 1975’s “Metamorphosis.” If the band released a few titles reminiscent of The Beatles’ Anthologies, you can bet some units would move. Tie it in with a huge marketing campaign highlighting the first vintage release of unreleased archival material from the vaults, and there will be a vibe. Other than the stunning, but short “Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out!” release, there still is not a premier live album in the band’s catalogue.
Mick Jagger does not embrace his past work with any real passion. He downplays the older recordings and has publicly made it clear on many occasions that he has little interest in vault releases. Well, if The Rolling Stones are looking for a big payday for their back catalogue, they may want to make a deal for a vault release. Granted, The Rolling Stones do not move units like Led Zeppelin, but ask Led Zeppelin and Warner Music Group about how much money was made with the band’s first real vault releases back in 2002 with “DVD” and “How The West Was Won.” A lot of units were moved and there was a real vibe out in consumer land because of the rare occurrence of a vault release from one of rock’s greatest bands.
The Rolling Stones can get a taste of that if they play their cards right. If I am a label, I make archival releases a part of the deal. There are only so many hits packages that can move – and unless the new label makes a deal with ABKCO, a lot of the band’s huge hits from the 60’s will be off limits for future hits packages.
At the end of the day, this deal means nothing. It is simply the transfer of a big name from one label to another. There is no substance behind it. EMI doesn’t really lose anything here; it just solidifies the perception that Guy Hands' operation is falling apart. The Rolling Stones gain a headline and maybe an advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment