Quote
Doxa

I don't have the exact numbers but in long run, and from a economical, Cohlian point of view, NO SECURITY tour was - unfortunately - a clever business move. They put the prices to a new level, and it - strangely enough - felt somehow justified to the 'intime' nature of the tour... It is a privilege to see The Stones so 'private', and people were willing to pay the prices. Then, in a next time around (FORTY LICKS tour), they kept the tickets in a standard the audiences were used to pay during the NO SECURITY tour, but were playing stadiums instead. It - strangely enough - felt 'natural', if not even justified. Bloody clever business. Almost like no one had realized how much the prices were bigger than just few years earlier during BRIDGES TO BABYLON stadium tour.

They actually did a bit of a trial run for the No Security prices experiment in spring 1998. Firstly, they played the 3 MSG shows in January - I think the ticket prices were $100,150 and 200 (I'm sure those who were there will know the exact structure) at a time when other shows were priced at $65. Some of those shows were indoors. (edit - just checked the IORR news archive. MSG tickets were $300, $150, $85, $50 and $30)

The following month, they played a club show at the Joint in Las Vegas and charged $250 and $500. I suppose few batted an eyelid as it was the chance of seeing the Stones in a club.

However, the real sign of things to come occurred a few weeks later when they returned to North America to play some make-up shows which had been postponed in January. Normal prices for those gigs, but they then added a show at the UC Centre in Chicago, charging $300, $200 and $100. The show - which many speculated at the time could be their last on US soil - sold out. The die was cast after that, and that system became the norm for US arena shows in the future and was then gradually expanded to stadiums. Then from 2003, it was expanded to 'selective' markets overseas such as the UK (along with 'enforced' seating - despite no legal requirement to do so - as an excuse to justify hiking tickets that cost £40 in 1999 to £135 in 2003). That has since been expanded to other countries on the ABB tour - in fact some countries that didnt have it in 2006 were 'rewarded' with it for the 2007 leg!

1998 was the tip of the iceberg. It got steadily more ridiculous after that and they've employed various sneaky ways of doing it - eg the price range of tickets (say $90-450) on ABB was pretty similar to Licks, except that the % of tickets in the higher range was a LOT higher, especially in major markets such as New York and London, therefore driving the average ticket price up by a lot more than the "5-10%" that Cohl laughably claimed it would be at the ABB press conference.

I blame the people of Chicago, personally. ><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 18:47 by Gazza.

Quote
cc
I haven't a heard a lick from AC/DC's new album here in the US

you must walk around with your head in a bin then

Thanks Gazza for giving a detailed accunt of 'what a hell really happened' in ticket pricing section! That shows how inch by inch the greed & gross go hand in hand, and soon withoiut noticing we all are paying incredible sums to see the legends. (We die-hards are the true losers in this tragedy; we got to see the band whatever it costs, and so we pay... because their true target, these casual, wealthy attenders (who are going to see with their business colleagues or grand-kids their "rock and roll show" between last week's Celine Dion and next week's Moscow Circus) is willing to pay those bloody sums.)

Watching the progression of that kind makes easily to think what could we expect in future... how much, say, the poor economical situation globalwise, does really affect to the probability of the next tour. Most probably, the economy has hitted quite hard to their potential audience. Most likely, they cannot expect to use the same old formula as they have prior done, or can they?...

It would be interesting to get some first hand knowledge of the ticket policy... what sort of calculations they do (how much The Stones - "you can have the money, pal" - are involved in actual pricing, etc. Is it right to blame Cohl solely, buyt not of his clients?)... and how much that really affect to actual plans. Could it be the case, for example, that if Chicaco 1998 had turned out to be a fiasco with those prices, there wouldn't been NO SECURITY tour at all?

- Doxa

Quote
andy js

Quote
cc
I haven't a heard a lick from AC/DC's new album here in the US

you must walk around with your head in a bin then

nope--I must be living in the 2009 section of the US, not 1979.

Quote
Doxa
Thanks Gazza for giving a detailed accunt - Doxa

Language please!

Quote
Doxa
Watching the progression of that kind makes easily to think what could we expect in future... how much, say, the poor economical situation globalwise, does really affect to the probability of the next tour. Most probably, the economy has hitted quite hard to their potential audience. Most likely, they cannot expect to use the same old formula as they have prior done, or can they?...

I think the biggest factor in deciding the immediate future of the Stones as a touring band is now the economy, more than their age, health or recording plans. I would also hazard a guess that as 2008 progressed, their advisers would have suggested that touring in 2009 would not be a viable business move.

I honestly cant see where they can go if they choose to repeat the same formula as before. While theyre still a huge concert draw and can attract crowds that other acts can only dream of, their overexposure in recent years coupled with the economic downturn is surely going to have an affect on how many people in future are going to think nothing of sticking $1,000 on a credit card to see a rock concert.

I really think that IF they tour again, the modus operandi will have to change. Either smaller venues and shows almost exclusively in 'A' markets - or else they're going to have to allow their egoes to take a hell of a reality check and drop their prices dramatically. I dont think they'll do the latter, so either its more likely to be selective markets or nothing at all. They're at a bit of a crossroads market-wise - more so than any other of their contemporaries are.

Of course they could just announce a tour as a 'farewell' and then all bets would probably be off!

Quote
Doxa
It would be interesting to get some first hand knowledge of the ticket policy... what sort of calculations they do (how much The Stones - "you can have the money, pal" - are involved in actual pricing, etc.

Mick was asked about the pricing in an interview with Forbes Magazine published in October 2002 and admitted that the decision to price Stones tickets as they are is HIS. Unfortunately, there are still some people who like to believe they'd play for next to nothing but its Big Bad Cohl who's forcing them to do otherwise. It's nonsense.

Quote
Doxa
Is it right to blame Cohl solely, buyt not of his clients?)... and how much that really affect to actual plans. Could it be the case, for example, that if Chicaco 1998 had turned out to be a fiasco with those prices, there wouldn't been NO SECURITY tour at all?- Doxa

It would not have happened in the way it did and at that time. Unquestionably. Might have done so in the future when the market was ready for it, though. Chicago '98 was definitely a trial run for what happened afterwards.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-19 20:06 by Gazza.

I just remember reading about the NS tour (USA Today) and they asked Keith if he would pay that much money to see the Stones. He was firm - no.

AC/DC has gone through line-up changes. They've had 3 different drummers over the years and 2 bass players. And then the real obvious one. Regardless, they are a constant engine and an incredible live act period. People go to AC/DC shows to rock, to get their heads torn off. I think that's the biggest difference between AC/DC and the Stones. The Stones are very wobbly at times whereas AC/DC is just right down the middle steady.

Yeah, their songs might sound the same, but if you are any kind of a fan (notice I'm not slinging 'true fan' around because I HATE that), you can tell the difference, you can tell what song it is. They do have some that are not 'the same'. They are very much like Chuck Berry in that aspect, which in my book, is perfectly fine.

People can complain about AC/DC sounding the same. Go ahead - and while yer at it, go play your Chicago or Rush or Styx albums too - they all sound the same - mindless, too busy, cheesy and boring. Well, maybe except for Rush. I just don't like Rush but they are incredible.

Quote
cc

Quote
andy js

Quote
cc
I haven't a heard a lick from AC/DC's new album here in the US

you must walk around with your head in a bin then

nope--I must be living in the 2009 section of the US, not 1979.

well they've never been this popular in the states ... especially in 1979

if you took time out from listening to golden oldie radio you may discover the band are about the biggest thing on the planet at the moment

but i understand if you're housebound

Quote
Gazza
but they then added a show at the UC Centre in Chicago, charging $300, $200 and $100.

I think they first "tried" those price levels at the MGM arena shows in Las Vegas, 1994.

Quote
andy js

Quote
cc

Quote
andy js

Quote
cc
I haven't a heard a lick from AC/DC's new album here in the US

you must walk around with your head in a bin then

nope--I must be living in the 2009 section of the US, not 1979.

well they've never been this popular in the states ... especially in 1979

if you took time out from listening to golden oldie radio you may discover the band are about the biggest thing on the planet at the moment

but i understand if you're housebound

on which planet? You don't think 1979 is already "golden oldies"? That's why you're reading me wrong... It's the other way around, grandpa--I couldn't care less about who's big on the dinosaur scene, classic rock radio, and Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine--and neither do most people where I live (Brooklyn), unless they're all playing the new AC/DC on airtight headphones.

Quote
Gazza
II blame the people of Chicago, personally. ><

I blame the Eagles. Yeah, ticket prices were climbing before they got back together for the "Hell Freezes Over" tour, but prices skyrocketed with that tour and every classic rock act's tour after that.

Well, there are a few exceptions, Bob Seger's last tour was very reasonable, all tickets around $57 (at least in my city).

Quote
kovach

Quote
Gazza
II blame the people of Chicago, personally. ><

I blame the Eagles. Yeah, ticket prices were climbing before they got back together for the "Hell Freezes Over" tour, but prices skyrocketed with that tour and every classic rock act's tour after that.
.

Not true.

Quote
cc
on which planet? You don't think 1979 is already "golden oldies"? That's why you're reading me wrong... It's the other way around, grandpa--I couldn't care less about who's big on the dinosaur scene, classic rock radio, and Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine--and neither do most people where I live (Brooklyn), unless they're all playing the new AC/DC on airtight headphones.

Oh right. They aint big in NYC i see ...

Do tell us which hip and happening bands you're currently 'digging' ?

Drunkdriver and Sightings perhaps ?

I'm doubting it somehow ...

Quote
cc
on which planet? You don't think 1979 is already "golden oldies"? That's why you're reading me wrong... It's the other way around, grandpa--I couldn't care less about who's big on the dinosaur scene, classic rock radio, and Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine--and neither do most people where I live (Brooklyn), unless they're all playing the new AC/DC on airtight headphones.

Brooklyn? That explains it. There used to be a ballpark there. Sorry about your luck. If you haven't a clue, then ask your grandpa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-20 02:46 by bassplayer617.

This again?? The Stones have far more depth than AC/DC. AC/DC is a kick ass live band but i can not listen to a whole albun at one time. Do they sell better right now?? The answer is yes. Who know as to the why. Maybe they connect better with younger kids. The Stones are too old to click with the kids today or so it seems. Is AC/DC better than the Stones?? Only if you like them better. To me the Stones are far better band. I'm not going to get into it with mexicostone and andyjs again they bring up childish posts.

Not the same leauge.

Quote
andy js

Quote
cc
on which planet? You don't think 1979 is already "golden oldies"? That's why you're reading me wrong... It's the other way around, grandpa--I couldn't care less about who's big on the dinosaur scene, classic rock radio, and Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine--and neither do most people where I live (Brooklyn), unless they're all playing the new AC/DC on airtight headphones.

Oh right. They aint big in NYC i see ...

Do tell us which hip and happening bands you're currently 'digging' ?

Drunkdriver and Sightings perhaps ?

I'm doubting it somehow ...

Isis isn't bad if you want hard rock... or High on Fire. They don't play in football stadiums, though, so you might have missed them.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
kovach

Quote
Gazza
II blame the people of Chicago, personally. ><

I blame the Eagles. Yeah, ticket prices were climbing before they got back together for the "Hell Freezes Over" tour, but prices skyrocketed with that tour and every classic rock act's tour after that.
.

Not true.

Ok, I may have exaggerated saying "every"...I was really referring to those who can still sell out an arena (12,000 - 20,000), which I think there are few exceptions to what I said.

Quote
kovach

Quote
Gazza

Quote
kovach

Quote
Gazza
II blame the people of Chicago, personally. ><

I blame the Eagles. Yeah, ticket prices were climbing before they got back together for the "Hell Freezes Over" tour, but prices skyrocketed with that tour and every classic rock act's tour after that.
.

Not true.

Ok, I may have exaggerated saying "every"...I was really referring to those who can still sell out an arena (12,000 - 20,000), which I think there are few exceptions to what I said.

The Eagles tour started in 1994 and went into 1996. Even The Stones kept their ticket prices to a sensible level on the BTB tour from 97-99 apart from the No Security US leg in 99 and those isolated shows in '98 I mentioned earlier.

Very few 'classic rock' acts started charging silly prices until a couple of years at least after the Stones did it, but plenty of them managed to (and some still continue to) keep their prices below the $100 some 14-15 years after The Eagles broke that barrier. Springsteen, Dylan, Petty, ACDC to name but a few. Even U2 kept theirs semi-sensible.

Yeah, I remember it seems like the Stones always commanded top prices, and I remember on that Eagles tour thinking "Oh no, what are the Stones going to charge?", but was somewhat surprised. Even "No Security" I got a ticket for $50 in the Memphis Pyramid.

The Licks tour is when they seemed to rocket up dramatically.

I still like the concept of 1 ticket price though. Let's all hardcore fans at any income level have an even shot at good tickets (well, outside of scalpers and ticket brokers), rather than the minority with a lot of disposable income who may be casual fans at best, or those who "just want to be seen".

Quote
kovach
I still like the concept of 1 ticket price though. Let's all hardcore fans at any income level have an even shot at good tickets (well, outside of scalpers and ticket brokers), rather than the minority with a lot of disposable income who may be casual fans at best, or those who "just want to be seen".

yeah, absolutely, but do we old hardcore fans still count?

since Licks theres this "lets milk the concert market as much as we can" attitude, probably fuelled by the feeling that the end of their touring days is coming near. where do we "normal income" fans fit there?

Quote
kovach
Yeah, I remember it seems like the Stones always commanded top prices, and I remember on that Eagles tour thinking "Oh no, what are the Stones going to charge?", but was somewhat surprised. Even "No Security" I got a ticket for $50 in the Memphis Pyramid.

The Licks tour is when they seemed to rocket up dramatically.

I still like the concept of 1 ticket price though. Let's all hardcore fans at any income level have an even shot at good tickets (well, outside of scalpers and ticket brokers), rather than the minority with a lot of disposable income who may be casual fans at best, or those who "just want to be seen".

No Security tickets went as low as $40 behind the stage as I recall.

Agree in principle with the 'one price' theory as long as the sales are transparent (ie, none of this 'holding the best tickets' back nonsense which is the norm now as a method of getting those who dont know how the system works to panic-buy bad but overpriced seats).

The only problem with this system though is that while its great if you get good seats for, say, less than $100, its not so great if you're at the back of the venue. This is why some artists who really should be selling out arenas without any problem are having difficulty filling those last couple of thousand nosebleeds. Doubt that would be much of a problem for the Stones though.

Im sorry but the man asked a question, Stones vs. AC DC, or did you miss that part???? I had no idea i was insane. My wife has been right all along!!

Quote
mexicostone

Quote
stonesriff
Please understand that the Stones were playing stadiums at a high price tag. Where AC DC is playing inside arenas for a much lower price tag.

If both tours played at the exact same places and were priced the exact same. Dont fool yourself....The Stones are the greatest.

Only insane people like you keep saying the stones are the greatest.
they used to be amazing , but they're not so good now , you should see how many hundreds of thousands of bands play better than the stones.
the stones ain't the only thing in the world , you sound like my sister " Oh Hannah Montana is the greatest!!" just because she's the greatest and she's the greatest , that's the same with you , " the stones are the greatest!"
i cant say acdc is better than them , they're both good , but none of the both are so talented.
they are famous in the same amount of fans , they've been good rockers since a long time ago , but also you should think of other stuff .
You sound like sick 5-year old girls discussing at school.

mexicostone is an idiot!

First album since 2000 and the last full scale tour ended in 2001. They haven't saturated the market in the last 2 decades and in the meantime a new generation of fans have come aboard. They may have been somewhat passe for a brief period during the 1990's but even without media hype, they were always massively popular, at least in Los Angeles where 4 arena shows per tour was the norm. In 1988 they sold out 3 shows in Portland, Maine of all places. So this level of success isn't really anything new.

Proven value for your money. The shows may be predictable, but that's a positive, you know exactly what you are getting going in - all the big hits with a few new songs. They play the songs loud and play them well. The lineup you see onstage is the exact one on Back In Black, their most famous album. Many anthemic songs performed exactly as one would expect to hear them.

They have achieved a new sort of respectability among well heeled older folks, the kind who can afford hundred dollar concert tickets. Seems to me some of the people telling me about their recent AC/DC experiences are the type who would have been afraid to go in the 1980's when they were more associated with heavy metal.

Quote
erikjjf

Quote
Gazza
but they then added a show at the UC Centre in Chicago, charging $300, $200 and $100.

I think they first "tried" those price levels at the MGM arena shows in Las Vegas, 1994.

Didn't Atlantic City 89 have prices upwards of $100? I also seem to remember an arena tour with high prices being considered in the Spring of 1996 that obviously never happened. There was an article in the LA Times in late 95 or early 96 with the headline "Are You Ready To Pay $300 For A Concert?"

You might be right, Dan - yes, and Erik is correct about the MGM shows in 1994.

Both were arena sized shows in casino cities on stadium tours, though. Maybe that was why.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-21 00:40 by Gazza.

Quote
slew
This again?? The Stones have far more depth than AC/DC. AC/DC is a kick ass live band but i can not listen to a whole albun at one time. Do they sell better right now?? The answer is yes. Who know as to the why. Maybe they connect better with younger kids. The Stones are too old to click with the kids today or so it seems. Is AC/DC better than the Stones?? Only if you like them better. To me the Stones are far better band. I'm not going to get into it with mexicostone and andyjs again they bring up childish posts.

The child are you .
I say , if we are children , then why do you discuss with children??
only children discuss with children.
i think this thread is a shit for children like slew who's discussing about something that will get you to nothing at the end.
Some people like slew just wants to deffend the stones , but deep inside he knows nothing about music , i say satisfaction has the most stupid riff i ever heard and keef's solos live when playing that song are utter shhit.
i dont know what you wanna say , but anybody has his/her preferences , if you prefer the stones , that's fine for me , i like them too , i just don't think they're any good since a long time ago , they've already got their amazing rocking days , it's just over now , please try to be mature. there's another world today. it can't be the rolling stones always , anyway you are the ones who decide what to do with yourselves.
please try to listen to people who can still PLAY instruments and then you can say something. this is what musicians do , they don't need a fanbase of the rolling stones size and please don't come with shitty stadistics like ticket sales and shit gazza and co. post.

Quote
mexicostone

Quote
stonesriff
Please understand that the Stones were playing stadiums at a high price tag. Where AC DC is playing inside arenas for a much lower price tag.

If both tours played at the exact same places and were priced the exact same. Dont fool yourself....The Stones are the greatest.

Only insane people like you keep saying the stones are the greatest.
they used to be amazing , but they're not so good now , you should see how many hundreds of thousands of bands play better than the stones.
the stones ain't the only thing in the world , you sound like my sister " Oh Hannah Montana is the greatest!!" just because she's the greatest and she's the greatest , that's the same with you , " the stones are the greatest!"
i cant say acdc is better than them , they're both good , but none of the both are so talented.
they are famous in the same amount of fans , they've been good rockers since a long time ago , but also you should think of other stuff .
You sound like sick 5-year old girls discussing at school.

Hundreds of thousands of bands play better the the Stones????????

Perhaps the stupidest statement you have made to date...though there are many to choose from!

Quote
mexicostone
that's what happens to losers who are addict and hypnotized by the stones.

You are absolutely obnoxious. I am not sure why you come on this board...you lurk around here waiting feverishly for a new AC/DC thread where you then can talk endlessly about how much better they are and all this shit. The reason you are bumping heads with so many posters here is because you are so childish and looking through a very narrow point of view. YOU are the one who is brainwashed, pal. And if anything...YOU are making me hate AC/DC.