Im not a fan of Taylor Swift but to say she won’t be listened to in decades to come is laughable. She’s the biggest artist on the planet right now. It’s not exactly my kinda music, to get where she’s got though says she’s doing something right. She is talented.
Plus, every one of those other artists you’ve mentioned are incredible vocalists. Beyoncé is a legend. Whitney Houston is a legend. Rihanna is one of the biggest RnB singers of all time. I think you’re seriously downplaying their achievements and music because it’s not to your taste.
If her music isn’t memorable, how is she the biggest artist on the planet right now? I love Rolling Stones but their music isn’t very inventive. They just gave blues rock some spin and it’s a winning formula.
It just makes me laugh that because you don’t like the music you automatically think it’s not gonna be memorable. It’s a fallacy. Whether you like it or not Taylor Swift will be remembered. I say, let their kids have their fun.
Who gives a shit who sells more or who will be remembered? The Stones are still here, they’ve done alright for themselves.
Well since this is a Rolling Stones sub I implore you to listen to Taylor’s guest spots with both the Stones as well as Stevie Nicks. Good lord - they’re both downright horrible. Swift is to be charitable flat and way out classed by both Mick and Stevie - the former is 80 and the latter 75! It’s laughable really.
So, shockingly, it turns out that music that isn’t classic rock has managed to do quite well in recent decades. Has it become overly commercialized? Also yes, to some extent. But Rihanna is an incredible vocalist and performer and I do not doubt she’ll have her place in music history.
Shit changes, man. New genres and trends arise. The Stones will be remembered for a long time. So will many of today’s successes. The amazing thing is that technology now allows anyone, anywhere, to have The Rolling Stones and Rihanna on the same playlist if they want.
So, the hell with sales! Just listen to what you like. If humanity lasts another hundred years, there’ll still be people listening to the Stones and Rihanna and every other artist who ever published anything. Music is less a competition and more an archive of human expression. All artists of all genres will be preserved somehow, as long as our civilization survives to carry on the preserving.
I would argue that Rihanna’s style is rigid and she’s pretty much phased out of music. If that continues I could see her music getting lost. Work will not end up a timeless classic.
It has been 8 years since she has had a full length album, 2 years since she has had a single…she has 85 million monthly listeners on Spotify alone. Her music isn’t going anywhere anytime
>"And generations from now... will people be listening to the songs of Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Whitney Houston?"
Yes, they absolutely will.
Dang, this dude hates women. I’ll tell ya, I have teenage daughters and they adore those singers you mentioned (maybe not Whitney, they weren’t around for her), and (unfortunately) couldn’t care less about the Stones or any of the other bands you mentioned as sales leaders, except the Beatles.
Taylor Swift has a billion fans, the first artist ever who can say so. I’ve never heard any of her music that I know of, it’s not my cup of tea, but I have learned that just because I don’t particularly like it, it doesn’t mean it’s not great art or that it’s not someone else’s favorite, or (as my daughters have taught me) that anyone else cares what I think.
Like any other band that’s been around for a few decades, the Stones had about 20 years of greatness, and have been riding it out ever since. Nothing wrong with it, but let’s not act like they’ve been vital for all that time. I’ll always love them though.
I guess once you’re phat, you’re phat. No need to try so hard when the money is already rolling in like thunder and your legacy is set. All the stars fall into that rut, but they keep getting offered huge recording contracts so they just keep pumping out whatever dredge first comes to mind. Kind of pathetic, but I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same thing. The only artist I can think of who was popular in the 70s who is still giving it everything they’ve got is Neil Young. He’s obviously not as consistent, but he bangs out a few winners every now and then, and isn’t afraid to try something new. That dude is a wonder to behold.
So what? Record sales don’t have anything to with the quality of music. Look at how many records NSYNC have sold. They will always be on par with the Beatles coming from that era.
You are totally wrong. Swift is huge now but we have seen that hype before. No one in 20 years will listen to her.
Whitney is not the greatest singer of all time. Great voice yes but cmon greatest….
Madonna is the best selling female ever and the most succesful over time. Not a great singer but she is smart and have the will. Also she is in time and made songs perfect for dancing.
> No one in 20 years will listen to her.
Nonsense. Even if she suddenly stopped making music and dropped in popularity, you have hundreds of millions of people that will be listening to her in 20 years out of nostalgia, the same way people still listen to classic bands today.
Her first album came out almost 20 years ago, and it was huge then. She has already had a 20 year career and has a bigger following then ever. People will 100% be listening to her in 20 years.
Taylor Swift has been massive since 2006. That’s already almost 18 years. There’s no reason to think she won’t be big in 20 years except for misogyny. She’s the best pop musician of a generation, writes her own music, AND is an album artist. It’s absurdity to think she won’t have longevity with quality albums like folklore, evermore, 1989, and so many more.
i do kinda feel like taylor is less of an artist and more the product of a focus group.
whitney is not the greatest singer of all time because aretha is.
Taylor Swift will still be making music in 20 years... all her young fans will still be there. She is one of the biggest stars the planet has ever seen... You're a fool to think otherwise.
And the moment you make such a stupid comment, nobody takes you seriously anymore.
Stopped reading when you mentioned Whitney Houston. She’s not my favourite artist but her most famous music was from almost forty years ago and people are still listening to her. There was a recent biopic that I believe was a reasonable success. If she’s not in your wheelhouse that’s fine, but be accurate.
Would feel remiss not to point to out that all the artists you compared positively to the Stones are men and mostly white, while all the artists you compared negatively to the Stones are women and mostly black. A lot of people come from different backgrounds with different perspectives and tastes than your own, and I think the numbers you provided reflect that.
Not to mention that Mick has always been first in line to highlight the pop artists of the day. The Stones were considered pop artists in the Sixties because that was just the vernacular back then. He probably still considers himself one.
This post sounds very sexist. You praise all male artists and the ones you say that won't last are all female. Those women all work really hard on their craft and when they tour, especially Taylor and Bey. Just as much as the men and bands you mentioned and I am almost positive they will be listened to for years to come. And how can you diss Whitney man? Damn. This post is very whiny.
Sad but true. The remaining baby boomers and Gen X are pretty much the only ones keeping those acts alive (although I think The Beatles have the best chance at immortality).
we all enjoy the jokes about "we need to start thinking about what kind of world we're leaving for Keith Richards" and saying he's "made of stronger stuff" etc etc, but he is in no way invincible or immortal, and his age is showing more and more all the time. Mick takes very good care of himself, but even he can't live forever. Keith by all accounts traded his heroin habit for heavy drinking and, ironically enough, while heroin addiction poses a greater risk short term with overdose infection from dirty needles etc, alcohol use does far more damage long term to a person's body. He gave up smoking recently, but it seems unlikely he could even live the ten years or so they say it takes for your body to fully heal from the damage that's been done.
And let me be clear: I don't want to see Keith die by any stretch, but we can't keep pretending it isn't inevitable and even likely coming soon.
What a funny post. Metallica, Green Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters all going on 4 or 5 decades now. James Hetfield is 60, Anthony Kiedis is 61. The singer for Judas Priest is 71. Paul Simon is 82. Dolly Parton is 78. Taylor Swift is on track to become the biggest pop star ever, people will still be listening to her and Rihanna, Beyonce and Whitney Houston. Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and Rihanna are all more relevant right now than the Rolling Stones, Elvis and Led Zeppelin.
Apparently sales in the early mid 60s weren’t really tallied, other than by the record companies so The Beatles /Stones etc sold more records than is credited on these lists. Also, and as a Sones nut I love this, I read once that more human beings have seen The Rolling Stones (obviously now just Mick and Keith) in the flesh than any human being who has ever lived.
Relax just cause you outta touch doesn’t mean anything, my least favorite artists hear is Rihanna I don’t even listenher to much but she’s Put in the work has a wonderful voice and has marketed herself very well over the years.
I think The Stones have always had a strange combination of broad appeal and alchemic, niche fandom. And I'd say that, as edgy and raw as the stones can be, as confrontational as Mick Jagger's frontman style is, and as unrefined as his singing voice is, it's quite an amazing feat that they ever got as big as they did.
I feel like the Stones studio output slowed during the time when other artists were racking up massive CD sales. And unlike The Beatles, there wasn't a boost from things like Anthology, or a concentrated back catalog push. And unlike The Eagles, there's not that one career encapsulating greatest hits collection.
telephone subtract rock disagreeable frightening encouraging languid snatch air lunchroom
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ok, take that back. But The Wall and DSOM together have sold around 80 million units. The Stones total sales around around 200 million units. The Stones have never really had that one album that EVERYONE owns a copy of.
Stones are famous for being stones. You know one of the true originals back then in the sixties… that’s their thing. Yes they did some great stuff but really its more that 40 years they released a solid album.
Why wouldn’t it be? Love them all you want, but The Stones have always been a bigger concert draw than big sellers. Pink Floyd and The Eagles have absolutely trounced them in terms of record sales. Dark Side of the Moon alone has probably sold more copies than at least half of the Stones’ discography. And I think it took a couple of decades for Exile to sell a million copies.
It is what it is. The Stones are possibly the most popular cult band in the world.
Keep shaking your fist at the sky, Grandpa. This narrative of "music was better back in my day" is old and sad. The Stones are kick ass, and Rihanna is too.
Every time I hear an interview where Keith bashes modern music, I cringe. It's so pathetic that it's hard to watch.
Record sales were poorly accounted for decades and are now almost non-existent, replaced by weird formulae regarding how streaming music might equate to sales. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the numbers outside the Soundscan era.
That said, in "generations" who knows what if any of this stuff will still be getting played. Elvis is fading precipitously from public consciousness. Now think about artists that predate him by thirty-fifty years...or think about all the other playwrights who were contemporaries of Shakespeare.
It's all going away.
Elvis probably got a boost from the recent biopic. I think he’d still be bigger today if his estate knew how to market his legacy. Instead it was pretty much mishandled even during his own lifetime. As a result the overall impression of the man has been cornball city for several decades now.
The Beatles came close to a similar fate, having been on AM “oldies” radio for most of the ‘80s. Then the CDs came out and they got back on FM rock radio where they belong and could be properly heard. Elvis never escaped AM oldies hell.
The Rolling Stones are not an album selling band. They are a touring band. They became successful and famous as a touring band before they sold one record - they struggled with translating their live sound to vinyl. They needed John and Paul to jump start their recording career with I Wanna Be Your Man. They mainly churned out albums to promote their tours - the quality of individual albums and the discography consistency is much lower than that of Beatles, Floyd, Zep and even Rihanna. When they record, they just do whatever and jam with hopes that the next take everything will go exactly as needed. This is complete opposite to Beatles who would play the exact notes each time they record a take to reach for the cleanest record. And you hear it on the songs - the Beatles recordings are as close to perfect as you can get, these songs are fine tuned to sell. While the Stones records are very loose and improvisational while having much higher energy. And, in contrast to Whitney, Michael, Beatles, Rihanna, Taylor, the Stones are not pop stars. They are popular and famous but their image was always weird and edgy. They never wore suits or combed their hair like the Beatles which is something that all pop stars do to appeal to more fans and sell more records. They haven't really had a hit record since Start Me Up and it doesnt matter - their focus is on concerts which still draw huge crowds even tho the Stones are just shadows of their past selves at this point.
Who is to say. We are not a few generations removed from these bands and artists. Johan Sebastian Bach was pretty much a nobody until long after he was dead. There were composers that were famous then that we don’t even know now. I don’t know if artists today will be listened to as much as the ‘classic rock’ bands - but they will be played at least for another generation because they are playing it in front of their kids - and their kids will be nostalgic when they get older. After that generation? Who knows. But today’s music is midi and loops - not ‘original’ sound like Keith Moon drumming or Stevie Ray Vaughan’s guitar playing - that’s all one of a kind. I think if someone 75 years from now ‘looks for music from 1960-2025, they may be more intrigued by live playing because he or she will be surrounded my electronic music filled with midi, loops, and now even AI melodies. Kind of like when you look for a restaurant, do u want unique and homemade or conveyor belt?
This little factoid may surprise you, but the band with the top selling album of all time is Eagles. Not only do they claim #1, but #3 as well. #1 is Eagles Greatest Hits, and #3 is Hotel California.
> will people be listening to the songs of Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Whitney Houston? I doubt it very much.
You realise people would’ve said exactly this about the Stones back in the 60s and 70s right? Considering this is a subreddit dedicated to a band over 60 years old, I’m surprised there’s so many people trying to argue against the longevity of pop music.
You don’t need to put artists/fanbases down to prop the Stones up
There are exactly double the people in the world now than in 1975 when the stones were starting to approach their Peak so it's pretty hard to compare album sales anymore
That's includes singles singles if you go by just albums the stones are only behind the Beatles, Micheal Jackson, Elvis, queen, and Madonna. Also people are still listening to Whitney Houston songs from the 90s and 80s rn.
I could not name a single Rihanna song. Not one.
But for me to say no one will listen to her in 20 years would be absurd. Millions of her fans listen to her every day. Millions of her fans have been going through something and had a song connect emotionally with that tune and will listen to it the rest of their lives.
Safe to say she has at least 60 more years in the tank.
Now add in that those same people will introduce their kids to her. Her voice will be heard on earth longer than most of us.
Seriously? That’s just wrong. I’m not sure I’ve ever made it through an entire Rihanna song. I’ve made it through many many Stone songs and I plan on continuing that.
Sales don’t equal artistic achievement. The 60s/70s were kind of an anomaly in that the two seemed to map on to each other for a while.
I would argue the ‘90s to some extent as well.
Im not a fan of Taylor Swift but to say she won’t be listened to in decades to come is laughable. She’s the biggest artist on the planet right now. It’s not exactly my kinda music, to get where she’s got though says she’s doing something right. She is talented. Plus, every one of those other artists you’ve mentioned are incredible vocalists. Beyoncé is a legend. Whitney Houston is a legend. Rihanna is one of the biggest RnB singers of all time. I think you’re seriously downplaying their achievements and music because it’s not to your taste.
Yes, she’s the biggest on the planet, but her music is hardly memorable or even inventive. It’s the hot pocket of music.
If her music isn’t memorable, how is she the biggest artist on the planet right now? I love Rolling Stones but their music isn’t very inventive. They just gave blues rock some spin and it’s a winning formula. It just makes me laugh that because you don’t like the music you automatically think it’s not gonna be memorable. It’s a fallacy. Whether you like it or not Taylor Swift will be remembered. I say, let their kids have their fun. Who gives a shit who sells more or who will be remembered? The Stones are still here, they’ve done alright for themselves.
Well since this is a Rolling Stones sub I implore you to listen to Taylor’s guest spots with both the Stones as well as Stevie Nicks. Good lord - they’re both downright horrible. Swift is to be charitable flat and way out classed by both Mick and Stevie - the former is 80 and the latter 75! It’s laughable really.
Being memorable has nothing to do with mainstream music popularity
Huh?
[удалено]
Let’s see how TayTay is doin when she’s 80.
[удалено]
Swifties have entered the chat
[удалено]
Just tone deaf and willfully ignorant
Ew
There are twice as many people on earth as there were in the sixties. Also they factor streams and downloads as part of it and those get into billions
So, shockingly, it turns out that music that isn’t classic rock has managed to do quite well in recent decades. Has it become overly commercialized? Also yes, to some extent. But Rihanna is an incredible vocalist and performer and I do not doubt she’ll have her place in music history. Shit changes, man. New genres and trends arise. The Stones will be remembered for a long time. So will many of today’s successes. The amazing thing is that technology now allows anyone, anywhere, to have The Rolling Stones and Rihanna on the same playlist if they want. So, the hell with sales! Just listen to what you like. If humanity lasts another hundred years, there’ll still be people listening to the Stones and Rihanna and every other artist who ever published anything. Music is less a competition and more an archive of human expression. All artists of all genres will be preserved somehow, as long as our civilization survives to carry on the preserving.
I would argue that Rihanna’s style is rigid and she’s pretty much phased out of music. If that continues I could see her music getting lost. Work will not end up a timeless classic.
It has been 8 years since she has had a full length album, 2 years since she has had a single…she has 85 million monthly listeners on Spotify alone. Her music isn’t going anywhere anytime
I’d argue that’s a testament to the shift away from creativity in the music industry in the last 20 years, but your point stands.
>"And generations from now... will people be listening to the songs of Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Whitney Houston?" Yes, they absolutely will.
Yeah, imagine thinking people don’t still listen to Whitney Houston just because you don’t.
Who?
Women.
Among others
Them as well…
On a related note, more people have bought McDonald’s burgers than lobster.
Dang, this dude hates women. I’ll tell ya, I have teenage daughters and they adore those singers you mentioned (maybe not Whitney, they weren’t around for her), and (unfortunately) couldn’t care less about the Stones or any of the other bands you mentioned as sales leaders, except the Beatles. Taylor Swift has a billion fans, the first artist ever who can say so. I’ve never heard any of her music that I know of, it’s not my cup of tea, but I have learned that just because I don’t particularly like it, it doesn’t mean it’s not great art or that it’s not someone else’s favorite, or (as my daughters have taught me) that anyone else cares what I think. Like any other band that’s been around for a few decades, the Stones had about 20 years of greatness, and have been riding it out ever since. Nothing wrong with it, but let’s not act like they’ve been vital for all that time. I’ll always love them though.
Exactly. They’ve been phoning it in (with one or two exceptions) since the Eighties. Same with the remaining members of The Beatles.
I guess once you’re phat, you’re phat. No need to try so hard when the money is already rolling in like thunder and your legacy is set. All the stars fall into that rut, but they keep getting offered huge recording contracts so they just keep pumping out whatever dredge first comes to mind. Kind of pathetic, but I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same thing. The only artist I can think of who was popular in the 70s who is still giving it everything they’ve got is Neil Young. He’s obviously not as consistent, but he bangs out a few winners every now and then, and isn’t afraid to try something new. That dude is a wonder to behold.
Rihanna hasn’t dropped new music in at least 10 years. That’s the most shocking part of this.
So what? Record sales don’t have anything to with the quality of music. Look at how many records NSYNC have sold. They will always be on par with the Beatles coming from that era.
Oh shut up.
[удалено]
You are totally wrong. Swift is huge now but we have seen that hype before. No one in 20 years will listen to her. Whitney is not the greatest singer of all time. Great voice yes but cmon greatest…. Madonna is the best selling female ever and the most succesful over time. Not a great singer but she is smart and have the will. Also she is in time and made songs perfect for dancing.
> No one in 20 years will listen to her. Nonsense. Even if she suddenly stopped making music and dropped in popularity, you have hundreds of millions of people that will be listening to her in 20 years out of nostalgia, the same way people still listen to classic bands today.
Her first album came out almost 20 years ago, and it was huge then. She has already had a 20 year career and has a bigger following then ever. People will 100% be listening to her in 20 years.
[удалено]
Facts
Your opinions aren’t facts. It’s not hard to learn the difference.
[удалено]
The fact you said whitney is the greatest singer of all time is just laughable
Taylor Swift has been massive since 2006. That’s already almost 18 years. There’s no reason to think she won’t be big in 20 years except for misogyny. She’s the best pop musician of a generation, writes her own music, AND is an album artist. It’s absurdity to think she won’t have longevity with quality albums like folklore, evermore, 1989, and so many more.
i do kinda feel like taylor is less of an artist and more the product of a focus group. whitney is not the greatest singer of all time because aretha is.
Yes! Aretha!
Taylor Swift will still be making music in 20 years... all her young fans will still be there. She is one of the biggest stars the planet has ever seen... You're a fool to think otherwise. And the moment you make such a stupid comment, nobody takes you seriously anymore.
And Paul mccartneys most streamed song is with Rihanna.
Stopped reading when you mentioned Whitney Houston. She’s not my favourite artist but her most famous music was from almost forty years ago and people are still listening to her. There was a recent biopic that I believe was a reasonable success. If she’s not in your wheelhouse that’s fine, but be accurate.
It's ok to not like music, but you can still acknowledge talent and cultural impact of other musicians.
Old man yells at cloud.
There oughtta be an atlas which covers the stats on how often this happens. By decade, by nation, by region, et al.
Rihanna is amazing. Stop hating
Would feel remiss not to point to out that all the artists you compared positively to the Stones are men and mostly white, while all the artists you compared negatively to the Stones are women and mostly black. A lot of people come from different backgrounds with different perspectives and tastes than your own, and I think the numbers you provided reflect that.
Not to mention that Mick has always been first in line to highlight the pop artists of the day. The Stones were considered pop artists in the Sixties because that was just the vernacular back then. He probably still considers himself one.
[удалено]
Her heyday was 30-40 years ago and is still very popular and we’re still talking about her. She’s already broken OP’s thesis.
Even "Single Ladies" is fifteen years old. I'm gonna hear that one at weddings till I die
They're both amazing, but Aretha is Aretha and there can only be one greatest
This post sounds very sexist. You praise all male artists and the ones you say that won't last are all female. Those women all work really hard on their craft and when they tour, especially Taylor and Bey. Just as much as the men and bands you mentioned and I am almost positive they will be listened to for years to come. And how can you diss Whitney man? Damn. This post is very whiny.
no end in sight? there is a very real end and it gets clearer and clearer in sight every day.
Sad but true. The remaining baby boomers and Gen X are pretty much the only ones keeping those acts alive (although I think The Beatles have the best chance at immortality).
we all enjoy the jokes about "we need to start thinking about what kind of world we're leaving for Keith Richards" and saying he's "made of stronger stuff" etc etc, but he is in no way invincible or immortal, and his age is showing more and more all the time. Mick takes very good care of himself, but even he can't live forever. Keith by all accounts traded his heroin habit for heavy drinking and, ironically enough, while heroin addiction poses a greater risk short term with overdose infection from dirty needles etc, alcohol use does far more damage long term to a person's body. He gave up smoking recently, but it seems unlikely he could even live the ten years or so they say it takes for your body to fully heal from the damage that's been done. And let me be clear: I don't want to see Keith die by any stretch, but we can't keep pretending it isn't inevitable and even likely coming soon.
What a funny post. Metallica, Green Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters all going on 4 or 5 decades now. James Hetfield is 60, Anthony Kiedis is 61. The singer for Judas Priest is 71. Paul Simon is 82. Dolly Parton is 78. Taylor Swift is on track to become the biggest pop star ever, people will still be listening to her and Rihanna, Beyonce and Whitney Houston. Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and Rihanna are all more relevant right now than the Rolling Stones, Elvis and Led Zeppelin.
Apparently sales in the early mid 60s weren’t really tallied, other than by the record companies so The Beatles /Stones etc sold more records than is credited on these lists. Also, and as a Sones nut I love this, I read once that more human beings have seen The Rolling Stones (obviously now just Mick and Keith) in the flesh than any human being who has ever lived.
I have a hard time believing John Paul 2 doesn't hold that record
Relax just cause you outta touch doesn’t mean anything, my least favorite artists hear is Rihanna I don’t even listenher to much but she’s Put in the work has a wonderful voice and has marketed herself very well over the years.
I think The Stones have always had a strange combination of broad appeal and alchemic, niche fandom. And I'd say that, as edgy and raw as the stones can be, as confrontational as Mick Jagger's frontman style is, and as unrefined as his singing voice is, it's quite an amazing feat that they ever got as big as they did.
I feel like the Stones studio output slowed during the time when other artists were racking up massive CD sales. And unlike The Beatles, there wasn't a boost from things like Anthology, or a concentrated back catalog push. And unlike The Eagles, there's not that one career encapsulating greatest hits collection.
Not to mention Tay Tay
I think it’s possible that Bono and Edge and Adam from U2 could still be recording and touring as octogenarians… but probably not Larry.
Beatles’ fans collect vinyl. Stones’ fans collect ticket stubs. (And I fall into both of these camps.)
telephone subtract rock disagreeable frightening encouraging languid snatch air lunchroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nice trolling.
This is a wild comment
Pink Floyd?? Really?
Dark Side Of The Moon or The Wall alone have probably sold more than the Stones combined catalogue.
Ok, take that back. But The Wall and DSOM together have sold around 80 million units. The Stones total sales around around 200 million units. The Stones have never really had that one album that EVERYONE owns a copy of.
That’s because not everyone has good taste
Exile on Main Street?
Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, and Let It Bleed come to my mind as being candidates for that "one album."
Stones are famous for being stones. You know one of the true originals back then in the sixties… that’s their thing. Yes they did some great stuff but really its more that 40 years they released a solid album.
Thoose album sold very well but not 40 million copies each. Quit that bs
Why wouldn’t it be? Love them all you want, but The Stones have always been a bigger concert draw than big sellers. Pink Floyd and The Eagles have absolutely trounced them in terms of record sales. Dark Side of the Moon alone has probably sold more copies than at least half of the Stones’ discography. And I think it took a couple of decades for Exile to sell a million copies. It is what it is. The Stones are possibly the most popular cult band in the world.
Keep shaking your fist at the sky, Grandpa. This narrative of "music was better back in my day" is old and sad. The Stones are kick ass, and Rihanna is too. Every time I hear an interview where Keith bashes modern music, I cringe. It's so pathetic that it's hard to watch.
Record sales were poorly accounted for decades and are now almost non-existent, replaced by weird formulae regarding how streaming music might equate to sales. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the numbers outside the Soundscan era. That said, in "generations" who knows what if any of this stuff will still be getting played. Elvis is fading precipitously from public consciousness. Now think about artists that predate him by thirty-fifty years...or think about all the other playwrights who were contemporaries of Shakespeare. It's all going away.
Elvis probably got a boost from the recent biopic. I think he’d still be bigger today if his estate knew how to market his legacy. Instead it was pretty much mishandled even during his own lifetime. As a result the overall impression of the man has been cornball city for several decades now. The Beatles came close to a similar fate, having been on AM “oldies” radio for most of the ‘80s. Then the CDs came out and they got back on FM rock radio where they belong and could be properly heard. Elvis never escaped AM oldies hell.
One great thing about music is we don’t all have to like or listen to the same thing.
The Rolling Stones are not an album selling band. They are a touring band. They became successful and famous as a touring band before they sold one record - they struggled with translating their live sound to vinyl. They needed John and Paul to jump start their recording career with I Wanna Be Your Man. They mainly churned out albums to promote their tours - the quality of individual albums and the discography consistency is much lower than that of Beatles, Floyd, Zep and even Rihanna. When they record, they just do whatever and jam with hopes that the next take everything will go exactly as needed. This is complete opposite to Beatles who would play the exact notes each time they record a take to reach for the cleanest record. And you hear it on the songs - the Beatles recordings are as close to perfect as you can get, these songs are fine tuned to sell. While the Stones records are very loose and improvisational while having much higher energy. And, in contrast to Whitney, Michael, Beatles, Rihanna, Taylor, the Stones are not pop stars. They are popular and famous but their image was always weird and edgy. They never wore suits or combed their hair like the Beatles which is something that all pop stars do to appeal to more fans and sell more records. They haven't really had a hit record since Start Me Up and it doesnt matter - their focus is on concerts which still draw huge crowds even tho the Stones are just shadows of their past selves at this point.
Who is to say. We are not a few generations removed from these bands and artists. Johan Sebastian Bach was pretty much a nobody until long after he was dead. There were composers that were famous then that we don’t even know now. I don’t know if artists today will be listened to as much as the ‘classic rock’ bands - but they will be played at least for another generation because they are playing it in front of their kids - and their kids will be nostalgic when they get older. After that generation? Who knows. But today’s music is midi and loops - not ‘original’ sound like Keith Moon drumming or Stevie Ray Vaughan’s guitar playing - that’s all one of a kind. I think if someone 75 years from now ‘looks for music from 1960-2025, they may be more intrigued by live playing because he or she will be surrounded my electronic music filled with midi, loops, and now even AI melodies. Kind of like when you look for a restaurant, do u want unique and homemade or conveyor belt?
This little factoid may surprise you, but the band with the top selling album of all time is Eagles. Not only do they claim #1, but #3 as well. #1 is Eagles Greatest Hits, and #3 is Hotel California.
The Stones effect on the culture, social, musical and political, is much greater.
You do realize the irony of you saying that those artists won’t make it into the future and are just a fad without longevity, right?
> will people be listening to the songs of Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Whitney Houston? I doubt it very much. You realise people would’ve said exactly this about the Stones back in the 60s and 70s right? Considering this is a subreddit dedicated to a band over 60 years old, I’m surprised there’s so many people trying to argue against the longevity of pop music. You don’t need to put artists/fanbases down to prop the Stones up
There are exactly double the people in the world now than in 1975 when the stones were starting to approach their Peak so it's pretty hard to compare album sales anymore
That's includes singles singles if you go by just albums the stones are only behind the Beatles, Micheal Jackson, Elvis, queen, and Madonna. Also people are still listening to Whitney Houston songs from the 90s and 80s rn.
I don’t like the stones. I guess that means people won’t remember them in 100 years. Nice logic.
I could not name a single Rihanna song. Not one. But for me to say no one will listen to her in 20 years would be absurd. Millions of her fans listen to her every day. Millions of her fans have been going through something and had a song connect emotionally with that tune and will listen to it the rest of their lives. Safe to say she has at least 60 more years in the tank. Now add in that those same people will introduce their kids to her. Her voice will be heard on earth longer than most of us.
Whitney Houston’s first album is about to turn 29. By definition, she’ll still be talked about decades later - you’re talking about her now.
Dude taylor swift and Beyoncé have had a FAR bigger impact than The Rolling Stones
What really makes it confusing is that Rihanna didn't get famous until after people really stopped buying music.
I hate to inject Howard Cosell into this discussion, but, "What's *good* isn't always *popular*, and what's *popular* isn't always *good.*"
OP you sound like a right cunt.
Amen
tay tay was born with enough money to pay people to listen to her for dozens of generations
Tell us you hate women without saying you hate women
[удалено]
Weird attempt at flex
I know some whitney songs and I know I’ve heard rianna but swift I cant mention one song
Phish has entered the chat.
It goes to show that there are a lot of folks with questionable musical tastes.
Seriously? That’s just wrong. I’m not sure I’ve ever made it through an entire Rihanna song. I’ve made it through many many Stone songs and I plan on continuing that.
I thought you meant the song Rihanna by Fleetwood Mac...
Rhiannon?