That whole residency idea...it makes a lot of sense.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bitches Brew
I think that recession is good for concert shows, in these hard times people are looking for good fun entertainment.

I detect a slight flaw in that logic somewhere.

I would too, except that movie theatres have historically done better business in hard times because people are looking for an escape from the worries of the day. But then again, a movie is much cheaper than a concert, but it's generally the same concept.

Well, youve basically hit the flaw right there. Movie theatres arent charging you $500 to get in.

The old justification for high ticket prices is that the act sets a price that "the market will bear".

At the minute, it won't be bearing anything like that for some time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-11 20:37 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza
Well, youve basically hit the flaw right there. Movie theatres arent charging you $500 to get in.

The old justification for high ticket prices is that the act sets a price that "the market will bear".

At the minute, it won't be bearing anything like that for some time.

Gazza, do you think there is a slim hope that because of the conditions of the world economy that ticket prices for the stones in the future MIGHT come down? or is that wishfull thinking on my part?

I think Mick's idea is: wait until the economy get better (and a good amount of time is passed since the last time you've seen my band)

Quote
The Greek

Quote
Gazza
Well, youve basically hit the flaw right there. Movie theatres arent charging you $500 to get in.

The old justification for high ticket prices is that the act sets a price that "the market will bear".

At the minute, it won't be bearing anything like that for some time.

Gazza, do you think there is a slim hope that because of the conditions of the world economy that ticket prices for the stones in the future MIGHT come down? or is that wishfull thinking on my part?

I dont think the TOP end of the prices will come down, personally (thats the market they are most interested in and there are enough rich people in the world who will think nothing of paying that sort of money) - but I would expect them to follow a similar model to what U2 are doing if they choose to play stadiums again.

So, maybe fewer tickets in the very high range and a few thousand more cheap tickets (I think U2 have guaranteed something like 10,000 tickets per show being available in the cheapest range - which is something like €35-40).

They'll find some way of charging a higher price for some cities within the same market than they do in others. For example, whilst the range of ticket prices on the last US tour may have spanned $450 maximum to $60 (or whatever it was) minimum, you'll find that the proportion of tickets priced in the $450 range in New York would be FAR higher than in a smaller and less competitive part of the market such as Boise, Idaho or Missoula, Montana.

And unless (as was the case at a few venues last tour) someone can get access to and publish a colour coded seating chart in advance of the ticket sale giving a breakdown of what proportion of seats are available in each price category, you wont have a clue what % of the tickets are in the price range you want by the time you're trying to buy them.

It'd be nice to believe there'll be transparent ticket selling on the part of Ticketmaster, Live Nation, Cohl, The Stones and anyone else involved in able to stop scams such as holding good tickets back so that people panic buy mediocre ones first, but I wouldn't be overly optimistic.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
The Greek

Quote
Gazza
Well, youve basically hit the flaw right there. Movie theatres arent charging you $500 to get in.

The old justification for high ticket prices is that the act sets a price that "the market will bear".

At the minute, it won't be bearing anything like that for some time.

Gazza, do you think there is a slim hope that because of the conditions of the world economy that ticket prices for the stones in the future MIGHT come down? or is that wishfull thinking on my part?

I dont think the TOP end of the prices will come down, personally (thats the market they are most interested in and there are enough rich people in the world who will think nothing of paying that sort of money) - but I would expect them to follow a similar model to what U2 are doing if they choose to play stadiums again.

So, maybe fewer tickets in the very high range and a few thousand more cheap tickets (I think U2 have guaranteed something like 10,000 tickets per show being available in the cheapest range - which is something like €35-40).

They'll find some way of charging a higher price for some cities within the same market than they do in others. For example, whilst the range of ticket prices on the last US tour may have spanned $450 maximum to $60 (or whatever it was) minimum, you'll find that the proportion of tickets priced in the $450 range in New York would be FAR higher than in a smaller and less competitive part of the market such as Boise, Idaho or Missoula, Montana.

And unless (as was the case at a few venues last tour) someone can get access to and publish a colour coded seating chart in advance of the ticket sale giving a breakdown of what proportion of seats are available in each price category, you wont have a clue what % of the tickets are in the price range you want by the time you're trying to buy them.

It'd be nice to believe there'll be transparent ticket selling on the part of Ticketmaster, Live Nation, Cohl, The Stones and anyone else involved in able to stop scams such as holding good tickets back so that people panic buy mediocre ones first, but I wouldn't be overly optimistic.

thank you Gazza, my gut feeling tells me if the economy does not get better than jagger/cohl will call it a day .as much as i want to hope and pray that the prices come down a bit ,they will probably raise the prices .you know the creed "what the market will bear".to jagger/cohl ,lowering ticket prices is akin to going backwards and we all know sir jagger is always about moving forward .

Quote
jagger50
Rumors? Don´t anyone use their spell check anymore?

I hate to nag about naggers, but shouldn't that be "Doesn't anyone" ?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
paulywaul

Quite right, no Charlie, no Stones. But speaking of, who's going to the Purcell Room in Royal Festival Hall on 1st September to see the great Mr Watts and Co ?

Southampton, september 4th

Quote
The Greek
thank you Gazza, my gut feeling tells me if the economy does not get better than jagger/cohl will call it a day .as much as i want to hope and pray that the prices come down a bit ,they will probably raise the prices .you know the creed "what the market will bear".to jagger/cohl ,lowering ticket prices is akin to going backwards and we all know sir jagger is always about moving forward .

Except when it comes to playing and releasing new material!

I think they'll tour again OK (and probably in 2010). I dont think there's much in the way of predictions that would suggest that by next year the economic crisis will be worse than it is now. There'll always be a way around it for them to make money.

And I really can't see them just stopping altogether and retiring to their pipe and slippers while they're still physically capable of performing.

It isn't what musicians do.

Ditto Gazza's comments above. Simple as that.

Quote
Gazza
And I really can't see them just stopping altogether and retiring to their pipe and slippers while they're still physically capable of performing.

you're assuming they're physically capable...given that keith and his guitar haven't been seen together in awhile, i would hesitate in making that assumption.

I'd suspect that Keith might be in better nick than he was last time out.
With the benefit of hindsight it's plain that he wasn't in very good shape on the resumption of the tour, following his bump on the noggin.
Could have done with a longer recovery period but there were obviously great pressures to get back out there.
The odd off night asside [normal down the years] he was getting better as the tour drew to a close.

As for the band in general. Do they know they aren't quite what they used to be?
On a rational level...probably yes.

But which of us don't convince ourselves that we're just as fast and just as pretty as when we were 21 ;^).

Can they still produce a fantastic Rock N Roll show bordering on a religious experience ? Too right they can !

So why stop !

Quote
Spud
The odd off night asside [normal down the years] he was getting better as the tour drew to a close.

having seen shows from various parts of the tour, i sure can't agree with that...in oakland he was a mess...not much better a few days prior at the beacon. i'm not thinking the bump on the head had much if anything to do with it, either....it's been a downward spiral since the '99 tour....

Quote
Spud
I'd suspect that Keith might be in better nick than he was last time out.
With the benefit of hindsight it's plain that he wasn't in very good shape on the resumption of the tour, following his bump on the noggin.
Could have done with a longer recovery period but there were obviously great pressures to get back out there.
The odd off night asside [normal down the years] he was getting better as the tour drew to a close.

As for the band in general. Do they know they aren't quite what they used to be?
On a rational level...probably yes.

But which of us don't convince ourselves that we're just as fast and just as pretty as when we were 21 ;^).

Can they still produce a fantastic Rock N Roll show bordering on a religious experience ? Too right they can !

So why stop !

Ditto Spud's comments above. Simple as that!

Quote
T&A

Quote
Spud
The odd off night asside [normal down the years] he was getting better as the tour drew to a close.

having seen shows from various parts of the tour, i sure can't agree with that...in oakland he was a mess...not much better a few days prior at the beacon. i'm not thinking the bump on the head had much if anything to do with it, either....it's been a downward spiral since the '99 tour....

Definitely a decline post-1999 and certainly post-Fiji, but the early shows on the autumn 2006 leg were far worse than the ones you're referring to - plenty of people I know who would usually be more likely to be blindly enthusiastic about his playing were horrified at what they saw and heard in Foxboro and Chicago. The same people were more pleasantly surprised at the improvement later on.

He was a bit of a mess again in Europe at some shows early on, but he was pretty solid at the three 02 shows.

I think he improved once he got rid of that moustache, myself....

Quote
Spud

But which of us don't convince ourselves that we're just as fast and just as pretty as when we were 21 ;^).

"I had a friend was a big baseball player, back in high school...."

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A

Quote
Spud
The odd off night asside [normal down the years] he was getting better as the tour drew to a close.

having seen shows from various parts of the tour, i sure can't agree with that...in oakland he was a mess...not much better a few days prior at the beacon. i'm not thinking the bump on the head had much if anything to do with it, either....it's been a downward spiral since the '99 tour....

Definitely a decline post-1999 and certainly post-Fiji, but the early shows on the autumn 2006 leg were far worse than the ones you're referring to - plenty of people I know who would usually be more likely to be blindly enthusiastic about his playing were horrified at what they saw and heard in Foxboro and Chicago. The same people were more pleasantly surprised at the improvement later on.

He was a bit of a mess again in Europe at some shows early on, but he was pretty solid at the three 02 shows.

I think he improved once he got rid of that moustache, myself....

the ability to look at him without LOL certainly improved at the point, at least...

Only the truth will let us know. And that hasn't happened yet. It might not. Speculation is all there is. Based on the history of Keith's meandering about onstage with his not playing, who knows. Maybe he has gotten better.

I'm not holding my breath, for Keith or a Stones tour. But then they always seem to do SOMETHING at some point. So no worries. Besides, as far as actually going to see them, I've given that up. I gave that up after 1994. So none of it effects me really.

I'd love a new album though. Even if it sucks. It would be something. Right? I know - go listen to Emotional Rescue or Dirty Work or Steel Wheels or Bridges To Babylon or Voodoo Lounge or A Bigger Bang or Undercover.

Funny how anything post 1981 is treated like shit! I still blast Bang!

skip: you'd love a new album that sucks? don't you already have enough sucky albums to listen to if the mood strikes? geez - some ppl are so greedy...

I can't think of any "sucky" albums they've put out. Others, certainly. Not the Stones.

I can't think of any "sucky" albums they've put out.

......that's 'cause they is all "fucky" albums ...from The to Bang ....



ROCKMAN

I was just going by what some people here tend to piss off about - which are the ones I mentioned.

That is all.

I can't believe people are arguing recession is good for ticket sales..

People wake up! Live Nation is selling now $10 all in tickets to see MOtley Crue, Creed and many other bands.. including ticket charges...why do you think that is? at the ballgame two weeks ago they said "buy two hamburgers get a free ticket to see depeche mode!".. why do you think that is? People at least in the US are not yet spending on concerts..

Yes there are exceptions but overall things are not going well..

I know of a recent show in a theater that was forecast internally by LN to sell out all 1800 and is now downgraded to about 1100 with some of those sales being at lower prices than original

The idea that because U2 is sellling well in Croatia all is well is ridiculous..

Bottom line ticket sales are down and concerts are being cancelled....

However, things should turn around by end of year and Mick who is no dummy when it comes to finances should be ready to pounce