Hi folks,
In term of:
- where to play first ( USA)
- ticket prices
- variety of shows ( stadiums,arenas,clubs)
- setlistwise ( more changes, more risky)
- Payperview Tv show & guest appearence
and so on ...

the Rolling Stones proofed that , at least since 89,
they are at their best, during the first half of their world tours,
which always take place in the USA.

When they come to europe finaly....things are back to normal.
Nothing spectacular to expect anymore.
The only thing they should keep in the US is the high ticket prices,
but why not to start a tour in europe ?
is it because of tax reasons or what ?

I also like the way of U2`s tour plan...when I do remeber well they did that kind of planing the last couple of tours.
They start in march/April in the USA...go to Europe during the summer
and go back in the USA in winter....so when they come to europe they should be just as fit as @#$%&.

Anyway....what I wanted to say is, that I feel that the Us leg of the world tour
is like Premium....wheras the european part is like basic standard version.

Do you feel the same ?

See you on the tour
regards
salar
P.S. Too Tough...read this...I got your mail...and I will answer you soon.

Hi salar. I was going to start a similar thread. I have noticed this as well. Hearing so many people bash Ronnie last tour I couldn't beleive it because at the US shows it seemed like we were seeing a new Ronnie, his playing was great. But then when the tour shifted to Europe I kept reading all these bad reviews and I was surprised. Also as you said the sets lists became very similar and there were not nearly as many surprises. Not sure if they get bored or what.

Salar, it is so funny because I used to feel the same way about Depeche Mode. Thay always started their tours in Europe and I always wondered if their momentum was still going by the time I got to see them in Texas. But maybe the Stones will change up some material when thye get to Europe.

"but why not to start a tour in europe ?"

Their entire logistical support is based all over North America. The stages, lights and sound are built and stored here. Most of the crew is based here. The venues are all capable of handling the stages. Jagger has often said they don't break even on a tour until they are through with North America. The first leg in America recoups the investment, The rest of the world is profit. That said, it is too bad you folks seem to get rote shows. The least they could do is kick it up a notch since you're providing the gravy.

Actually, I've seen similar disparities in their performances here in the States as I'll attend 3 to 4 shows throughout a tour. Opening week shows are always interesting because they are still tentative. I ALWAYS go see them about 3-4 weeks after the tour starts because they are then firing on all eights and as yet not bored with the routine, By the end of the American tour they are often going through the motions as well.

salar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do you feel the same ?

Yes, my dear.


> P.S. Too Tough...read this...I got your mail...and
> I will answer you soon.

Nachtigall, ich hör dir trapsen!

Hi there!

The thing about Europe-Ronnie is right. Last time, as I saw them in Prague, huh...I hated the man. To earn that much by playing asolutely nothing or shit the entire show. Ok, Keith did also not play too much, but he had his heart in those few riffs.

I don't agree. PARIS BERCY was better, at every point of view, than MSG. Even public was better. Even M.R. WAS BETTER. ... ... ...

"Hearing so many people bash Ronnie last tour I couldn't beleive it because at the US shows it seemed like we were seeing a new Ronnie, his playing was great. But then when the tour shifted to Europe I kept reading all these bad reviews and I was surprised."

There's a very logical explanation for this. Europeans are more perceptive than Americans.



-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

Agree with salar and Hound Dog. This has been true of just about all their tours, with the exception of 1995, they were great that year.

Bluespeyer, not sure what your statement meant. When I heard good things written about the US leg of the Licks tour it was mostly by Europeans who could not wait for them to come overseas. Also people have bootlegs and can hear all the shows and everyone seems to have felt that the US part of the tour was better. Set lists don't lie either, nothing to do with being perceptive there.

I think one answer could be boredom and as far as the set list goes they may feel they have to do more greatest hits set lists in the Europe because they go from country to country and need to please everyone or please the masses at each stop.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I ALWAYS go see them about 3-4 weeks
> after the tour starts because they are then firing
> on all eights and as yet not bored with the
> routine, By the end of the American tour they are
> often going through the motions as well.


Agree! That's the best time to see them. The US does have to deal with their opening shows. Does anyone think there's a 75-02 opener that's good?


karl

this pattern didnt just start recently...


north america -> europe

69 -> 70

72 -> 73

75 -> 76

78 -> (europe didnt get a some girls tour)

81 -> 82

imo, all of the north american legs have been superior to their european counterparts, with the exception of 72 -> 73... how do you say which is better, when they were both brilliant..? totally different, but equally brilliant.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-14 23:08 by macdaddy.

europe really got ripped in 1976,,,, they didnt c that lotus stage....

I don't agree Macdaddy!

In 1995 Europe did get better shows, and the clubshows, and the 1998 part was a bit better too.
The tour that really made a difference was the licks tour, where the USA got a great, raw band, and europe on some nights a bunch of old guys doing their trick

I really don't think the lotus stage was that big of a deal... maybe for the time it was. As far as the 72 and 73 tours are concerned I would say that the 73 European tour is a different breed. The 73 Far East Tour and the US Tour of 72 are alike in many ways. But the 1973 European Tour has an album in between so there is a different set list, which I like better than the 72 tour selections. Maybe this is why Euro beat the US in the 72 / 73 tours??? Again ... IMO ... LOL

rik -

i dont know much about the 90s tours, so i would guess that i would agree with your sentiments. i was just commenting about how it could be interpreted that this pattern was nothing new to the band during the licks tour. in fact, it has happened quite a few times throughout the years...

i feel that that the australian 73 tour stands by itself - they have never sounded that raw before or since...

and i also think that the 73 european tour was done because they had toured the us extensively the year before...

there was no Some Girl tour in europe ,,,right,,or was there a couple of shows..

the last 70's show in Europe was the Knebworth show in '76....

Bluespeyer wrote:

"Hearing so many people bash Ronnie last tour I couldn't beleive it because at the US shows it seemed like we were seeing a new Ronnie, his playing was great. But then when the tour shifted to Europe I kept reading all these bad reviews and I was surprised."

I think Ronnie at the US shows were great and even at the Europe he usualy was good and sometimes great. Usualy. But not always stable.

But we have so many different opinions…

On IORR you can read one or two bad reviews for Ronnie’s performaces at US shows…

On IORR you can read a lot of good, even enthousiastic reviews for Ronnie’s performaces at Europe shows…

(The same with Keith)

It’s a matter of taste. Some people loved Ronnie’s solo on CYHMK, others said “nothing special” or “bad”. Some fans are dying for Ronnie’s solo on Love You Live version of YCAGWYW. Others incuding myself think that it was a bit childish solo. In my opinion LYL is the worst live album of the band and I know that a lot of fans want to kill me for saying that!

WE ARE ALL FANS OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STONES! I think that is the key to the band’s popularity…

love u live may be bad ,,,But the 4 from canada are superb,,,,,that started this whole canada thing i think,,that & keiths herion bust.

Chippy, agree about the 4 from the Canada but the rest stuff...

The difference ins US - Europe is the variety in the set. At least in the 90ies they did change much more in the US than in Europe. Europe started to become little different songs only by Urban Jungle, then a bid Voodoo and and BtB as well. Licks waas the big exception where the also played songs in Europethey did not do in North America. For the length of the shows North Aermica gets more minutes and sometimes a 2nd encore mostly in LA and NY ( which have the highest tickets prices, except for Vegas).
The amount of songs played in the US has been always 1 or 2 and up to 3 more. So you see for the high ticket prices you really get more (ha.ha.ha)
For the audience and reading through the lines in this forum I have the feeling that Europe is still the one who is wild enough to carry them away (which used to be also in 81 in the US). I have the feeling that the enthusiam in the US has calm down because of incidents and claims. But I will report you once I am there.

I don't agree at all. The fans get what they deserve. I have seen the Stones on all continents (except Africa) and the shows are as good or as bad any place depending on the crowd. Saint of Me in Europe was totally different from the North American version live because of the crowd. Out of Control was may be better in the US I think. They have played Memory Motel at random places across the world I have been to so I am perfectly happy with that. And I have been experiencing fantastic crowds in places such as New York, Buenos Aires, Malaga, Coimbra, London and so on, so the quality of the show is certainly not coming from how early or how late you see them on tour.

I remember one time when Paul McCartney started one of his tours. It starten in Oslo, Norway. He did actually state that it was nice to start the tour in a remote place when there would not be any problems if teh band was a bit rusty and not so ready.

The Stones do start up in their largest market. USA may be 40% of their entire market. They can play any city they like and choose venues and sho9ws as they see tickets are selling fst ajnd slow. In Europe you have to tour between May and August if you want to play for more than 20,000 people at any venue. So they could not even start the tourv in September in Europe. They would hit snow in many countries, and it would be a big mess. May be if you don't live in Northern Europe then you don't think about it, but the weather is rough outside in the winter here. You simply can't tour outdoor.

One of the nice things with the Stones is that they areb predictable. You know what you get. Not like with Bob Dylan. You have to read the sxet listb to make sure you know what siong he just played. And you can expect himm playing nearby every year. Or Elton John. He just tour and tour because he is always broke.



Bjornulf