Tell Me :
Talk
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
yes!! as many as possible. this is where the real deal is.
Couldn't agree more Gazza, the only thing that bothers me these days though, is can Keith play consistently ,with his fingers riddled with arthritis.
A small venue would mean he would have to play to a more vigilant audience, a large venue would allow more 'blending of guitars ' with whoever was in the background.
On the other hand if they play mainly accoustic numbers as in the intro to Faint it Black ,where his playing was spot on , he might find that easier than the thrashing of electric guitars.
Just a thought , what do you think.
Could you imagine the pandemonium that would cause, with everyone knowing that somewhere there would be a club show in every city?
The police would be gunning for the Stones like they were during the sixties!
To be honest, if they were playing a 2,000 capacity theatre and charging £40 for a ticket, I doubt too many people would be that bothered about a few bum notes.
Playing badly when you're asking a week's salary to be seen on a video screen is less forgivable.
You're right, money does indeed rule the world, and I don't think any rock star knows that better than Mick. He even commented before 1989 that the only reason he's back with the Stones was for the money. I just hope they do decide to do a "small" arena tour (hopefully this next tour, especially since the legendary Cobo Arena is going to be demolished next year...how cool would it be if the Stones were the band to close this legendary rock temple).
And you're also right about the uncertainty of whether or not these guys could do another huge tour. The fact that at one time the Stones could draw 90,000 people to a single show in the U.S. remains a great source of pride for me. But with oversaturating the market and high ticket prices, I don't know if they could get these numbers again. If they do decide a stadium tour, they should keep the prices as low as they can. In this poor economy, I really don't see how the Stones could charge the prices they usually do.
Its not like the Stones owe hundreds of people a living when they're inactive. The amount of crew and hangers on for a theatre tour should be a lot less. Unfortunately every time they DO play a theatre show, around 40-50% of the tickets are kept over for relatives and industry people - especially if its in places like London, LA or New York. That figure would be less when instead of the novelty of 3 or 4 theatre shows per tour and all in major cities, they'd be doing 50-60 of them all over the place.
they could actually overcome the lack of cash generated by ticket sales by other methods - closed circuit TV broadcasts, Pay per view, merchandise specific to each show, releasing recordings of each show through a dedicated website like The Who do.
In the era of paperless tickets and having seen how it worked when Tom Waits did his tour last year its perfectly doable. Even more so when you have a fan club thats taking people's money and giving nothing back. They managed to use a workable system for club shows on the Licks tour. Seriously, its not that hard to put 2,000 tickets with a 2-ticket limit on sale for every show, and have it box office collection only.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 14:40 by Gazza.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
kittypoo
()
Date: October 15, 2009 16:46
I am hoping that The Stones will do a smallish tour this time out . Possibly three nihght stands in small arenas . That way they can concentrate on music and the quality . How about having an online vote a few weeks prior to shows for songlist . I can do without the fireworks and big stage . It's always about the music . Besides I saw Bigger Bang 7th row at Dodger stadium and thats the big show I want to remember them by . Still can feel the burn marks from SYMPATHY . Yeah Yeah Yeah
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: October 15, 2009 16:56
Greetings Kittypoo!
Stones stage - small
Litter box - big (don't have to scoop as often!)
Stones stage - small
Litter box - big (don't have to scoop as often!)
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
sweet neo con
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:07
my backyard..you're all invited.
IORR............but I like it!
IORR............but I like it!
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Adrian-L
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:15
stadiums-
i want fireworks and lasers and to watch the 'boys' from half a mile away.
i want fireworks and lasers and to watch the 'boys' from half a mile away.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:16
just airports this time around please
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:21
Another Licks kinda tour would be nice. Clubgigs were great, and the ones I attended, I thought I was dreaming. But how many people can get in, and how many gigs would they have to do to satisfy everybody ? Arenashows were still rather small and I enjoyed them tremendously. Big stadiums are also great because of the spectacle, big screens, lights, fireworks and the atmosphere of a big crowd enjoying the show. Therefore I would love the combination again off big, smaller, smallest.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
BBrew
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:21
they should do both, stadiums and arenas.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:22
Big or small ..never mind ,I will be in !
I'd love of course small venues since I've missed the 2003 Olympia ...I could go to several shows in Europe ....
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
I'd love of course small venues since I've missed the 2003 Olympia ...I could go to several shows in Europe ....
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:28
Big things come in small packages.
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:40
size matters
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Jim Bolton
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:44
Im with you kittypoo.....lets go back to the old days
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: October 15, 2009 17:46
dive bars
Re: Should Stones go big or small ? Posted by:
ROLLINGSTONE
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:02
Like McDonalds, we should be given the option 'if we'd like to go large with that?'...all for just an extra 30p!
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:06
Quote
Rollin' Stoner
dive bars
yes!! as many as possible. this is where the real deal is.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:11
Small. And they shouldnt use the size of the venues as an excuse to inflate the prices even further either.
By now everyone who has wanted to see them has had ample chance to do so, and they've earned enough money for it.
Time to ditch the egoes and obsession with highest grosses, tell the corporate sponsors to f**k off and get back to what they're meant to be. A rock n roll band playing to rock n roll audiences.
By now everyone who has wanted to see them has had ample chance to do so, and they've earned enough money for it.
Time to ditch the egoes and obsession with highest grosses, tell the corporate sponsors to f**k off and get back to what they're meant to be. A rock n roll band playing to rock n roll audiences.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:31
Quote
Gazza
Small. And they shouldnt use the size of the venues as an excuse to inflate the prices even further either.
By now everyone who has wanted to see them has had ample chance to do so, and they've earned enough money for it.
Time to ditch the egoes and obsession with highest grosses, tell the corporate sponsors to f**k off and get back to what they're meant to be. A rock n roll band playing to rock n roll audiences.
Couldn't agree more Gazza, the only thing that bothers me these days though, is can Keith play consistently ,with his fingers riddled with arthritis.
A small venue would mean he would have to play to a more vigilant audience, a large venue would allow more 'blending of guitars ' with whoever was in the background.
On the other hand if they play mainly accoustic numbers as in the intro to Faint it Black ,where his playing was spot on , he might find that easier than the thrashing of electric guitars.
Just a thought , what do you think.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Kurt
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:36
They should go BIG with a "surprise" club gig in every single market.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:39
Quote
Kurt
They should go BIG with a "surprise" club gig in every single market.
Could you imagine the pandemonium that would cause, with everyone knowing that somewhere there would be a club show in every city?
The police would be gunning for the Stones like they were during the sixties!
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Kurt
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:44
Yes, I can imagine that.
It would be INCREDIBLE!
It would be INCREDIBLE!
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: October 15, 2009 18:53
Quote
adotulipsonQuote
Gazza
Small. And they shouldnt use the size of the venues as an excuse to inflate the prices even further either.
By now everyone who has wanted to see them has had ample chance to do so, and they've earned enough money for it.
Time to ditch the egoes and obsession with highest grosses, tell the corporate sponsors to f**k off and get back to what they're meant to be. A rock n roll band playing to rock n roll audiences.
Couldn't agree more Gazza, the only thing that bothers me these days though, is can Keith play consistently ,with his fingers riddled with arthritis.
A small venue would mean he would have to play to a more vigilant audience, a large venue would allow more 'blending of guitars ' with whoever was in the background.
On the other hand if they play mainly accoustic numbers as in the intro to Faint it Black ,where his playing was spot on , he might find that easier than the thrashing of electric guitars.
Just a thought , what do you think.
To be honest, if they were playing a 2,000 capacity theatre and charging £40 for a ticket, I doubt too many people would be that bothered about a few bum notes.
Playing badly when you're asking a week's salary to be seen on a video screen is less forgivable.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: October 15, 2009 19:30
Quote
GazzaQuote
adotulipsonQuote
Gazza
Small. And they shouldnt use the size of the venues as an excuse to inflate the prices even further either.
By now everyone who has wanted to see them has had ample chance to do so, and they've earned enough money for it.
Time to ditch the egoes and obsession with highest grosses, tell the corporate sponsors to f**k off and get back to what they're meant to be. A rock n roll band playing to rock n roll audiences.[/quot
Couldn't agree more Gazza, the only thing that bothers me these days though, is can Keith play consistently ,with his fingers riddled with arthritis.
A small venue would mean he would have to play to a more vigilant audience, a large venue would allow more 'blending of guitars ' with whoever was in the background.
On the other hand if they play mainly accoustic numbers as in the intro to Faint it Black ,where his playing was spot on , he might find that easier than the thrashing of electric guitars.
Just a thought , what do you think.
To be honest, if they were playing a 2,000 capacity theatre and charging £40 for a ticket, I doubt too many people would be that bothered about a few bum notes.
Playing badly when you're asking a week's salary to be seen on a video screen is less forgivable.
A very good appraisal, price would indeed seem to make a difference, as you say it's one thing paying a fortune to watch a screen to paying an acceptable amount for something far more listenable as aposed to watchable
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: October 15, 2009 20:12
....the smaller the better and Keith could do half the show on guitar the other on piano....ditch the huge ensemble cast....there's no better garage/bar band in the world than them.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: October 16, 2009 01:41
Small!!! forget the stadiums!
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
headly123
()
Date: October 16, 2009 02:48
My two cents worth. After seeing what McCartney did I think they should do the same. Mini tours so to speak. McCartney did like 7 shows and that was it. The Stones could hold it together fot at long I would hope. Then take a little time and do a few more. They won't get to burned out then. I mean these guys just couldn't do another HUGE tour.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: October 16, 2009 09:00
Unfortunately money rules the world. And it is not only the Stones who would like to earn, but to many people of the entourage hold they hands wide open to see cash.
However a Licks Tour would be nice or at least also arena shows in Europe.
I assume we have to wait and if they are able to go out again at all.
However a Licks Tour would be nice or at least also arena shows in Europe.
I assume we have to wait and if they are able to go out again at all.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
stevecardi
()
Date: October 16, 2009 09:54
Quote
headly123
My two cents worth. After seeing what McCartney did I think they should do the same. Mini tours so to speak. McCartney did like 7 shows and that was it. The Stones could hold it together fot at long I would hope. Then take a little time and do a few more. They won't get to burned out then. I mean these guys just couldn't do another HUGE tour.
You're right, money does indeed rule the world, and I don't think any rock star knows that better than Mick. He even commented before 1989 that the only reason he's back with the Stones was for the money. I just hope they do decide to do a "small" arena tour (hopefully this next tour, especially since the legendary Cobo Arena is going to be demolished next year...how cool would it be if the Stones were the band to close this legendary rock temple).
And you're also right about the uncertainty of whether or not these guys could do another huge tour. The fact that at one time the Stones could draw 90,000 people to a single show in the U.S. remains a great source of pride for me. But with oversaturating the market and high ticket prices, I don't know if they could get these numbers again. If they do decide a stadium tour, they should keep the prices as low as they can. In this poor economy, I really don't see how the Stones could charge the prices they usually do.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: October 16, 2009 13:12
I'd like to see them up close!
Magdalen College Ball, Oxford, June 1964
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 13:30 by Deltics.
Magdalen College Ball, Oxford, June 1964
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 13:30 by Deltics.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 16, 2009 13:34
The stones ARE big. Too many fans to go small only, unfortunately...
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: October 16, 2009 14:10
An arena tour would be preferable. I personally, wouldn't like a theatre tour - wouldn't happen anyway - because of the ticket fiasco that would ensue.
Re: Should Stones go big or small ?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: October 16, 2009 14:37
Quote
Grison
Unfortunately money rules the world. And it is not only the Stones who would like to earn, but to many people of the entourage hold they hands wide open to see cash.
However a Licks Tour would be nice or at least also arena shows in Europe.
I assume we have to wait and if they are able to go out again at all.
Its not like the Stones owe hundreds of people a living when they're inactive. The amount of crew and hangers on for a theatre tour should be a lot less. Unfortunately every time they DO play a theatre show, around 40-50% of the tickets are kept over for relatives and industry people - especially if its in places like London, LA or New York. That figure would be less when instead of the novelty of 3 or 4 theatre shows per tour and all in major cities, they'd be doing 50-60 of them all over the place.
they could actually overcome the lack of cash generated by ticket sales by other methods - closed circuit TV broadcasts, Pay per view, merchandise specific to each show, releasing recordings of each show through a dedicated website like The Who do.
Quote
Big Al
An arena tour would be preferable. I personally, wouldn't like a theatre tour - wouldn't happen anyway - because of the ticket fiasco that would ensue.
In the era of paperless tickets and having seen how it worked when Tom Waits did his tour last year its perfectly doable. Even more so when you have a fan club thats taking people's money and giving nothing back. They managed to use a workable system for club shows on the Licks tour. Seriously, its not that hard to put 2,000 tickets with a 2-ticket limit on sale for every show, and have it box office collection only.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-16 14:40 by Gazza.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
amsteltje , Big Al , Broesel2404 , Domonkos , glmmr_twn , hj3009 , john lomax , matatu , philrock90 , pooroldgrandad , rayrad , RG , Rokyfan , steenhorst , VenusLoon , vlaci66 , wiredallnight , Wuudy , zwilling
Guests:
1706
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10