This is from Wiki regarding ABB:


"There were five different ticket options at each concert in the USA: Gold Seating $100, Diamond Seating $350, Premium Seating $175, General Admission $100 and Side Seating $50. In the United Kingdom, the price levels were £40, £60, £90, £150 and £340."


What's this to complain about really? A initially paid 70 euros for Charlie's concert in Finland last sunday, that is four guys with their instruments - nothing more. That's not too far from what RS charged for ABB in Finland.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-06 11:28 by Bärs.

£150 plus booking fee in the UK. Gets pricey if you take a partner / go to more than one show.

1. Buy a cheaper ticket.
2. Go to one show.
3. Don't pay for your partner

= Not expensive.

Quote
Mathijs
Stones in Amsterdam Arena: 50 euro's for a field ticket. Stones in Ahoy: 40 euro's if I remember well.
Mathijs

Well, there you're wrong. I paid 126 euros per ticket for Ahoy 2003 (and that is excluding 'service fee') for quite awful seats (first ring very far in the back). Tickets for the 'standing area' were 120 euros.

I'm quite sure that tickets for stadium shows (which I stopped visiting by then) were about 85 euros on average.
Vredenburg (theater show) was very cheap compared to that (50 euros).

Tickets for the Bigger Bang shows were about 90 euros (Amsterdam Arena/Goffertpark Nijmegen).

I see no "hate for Keith" at all around here but there is a considerable degree of bitterness for a couple of obvious reasons. First, many of us come to realize that the touring days of the once greatest R'n'R act on earth and, more so, the band they have been following and worshipping for decades, may be finally over and tend to blame that on Keith in the first place. It is the question whether he can rightfully be blamed for his dramatically deteriorated guitar skills (this may come from arthritis, mental illness or a combination of the two) and whether the thoughtless insults at the man who has, on many levels, been covering his lazy ass for years and years actually gave reason to scrap the plans for future band projects. He has, however, without any doubt made some stupid moves that have done irreversible damage to the public perception of his persona and his role in the game that he just has to live with. Could he just stop "acting the Keef", frankly admit that he is done as an artist and enjoys his existence as a wealthy retiree and, maybe the most important thing, let go of his resentment against Mick (which comes off as a tragic obsession) or at least keep quiet about that in public, maybe there still would be a graceful way out for him. But he seems trapped in his box.

Licks theatre shows were 50 to 60€ - which is quite cheap because the cost of theatre shows on Licks were compensated by splitting stadium fields and charging more for the GA front section.

People have absolutely no right what so ever to feel bitterness towards RS or Keith. How spoiled can you be?

I do think some people have personal issue that they don't really understand, and that they take it out on the Stones because that's safe.

I never had a dad growing up, and I wished it would have been Keith!!

Quote
Bärs
This is from Wiki regarding ABB:


"There were five different ticket options at each concert in the USA: Gold Seating $100, Diamond Seating $350, Premium Seating $175, General Admission $100 and Side Seating $50. In the United Kingdom, the price levels were £40, £60, £90, £150 and £340."


What's this to complain about really? A initially paid 70 euros for Charlie's concert in Finland last sunday, that is four guys with their instruments - nothing more. That's not too far from what RS charged for ABB in Finland.

Hell of a difference between paying the same price for a show in a club than for a nosebleed at the back of a stadium to watch a TV screen.

And most tickets were in the £150 range. A lot of those tickets were classified as category 2 (£80) in 2003, and on the '99 tour they were all around £40.

What planet are you on. Really?

Quote
Mathijs
Gazza, concerning the ticket pricing -the Stones have never -in Europe at least - been THAT expensive. Did you ever go to Disneyland Paris? 54 euro's for a one-day ticket. Ry Cooder or Tom Waits in Carre, Amsterdam? 110 and 150 euro per ticket. Black Crowes in Paradiso? 45 euro. Two days Camping Flight to Lowlands? 165 euro. Dylan in Heineken Music Hall, Amsterdam -65 euro.

Stones in Amsterdam Arena: 50 euro's for a field ticket. Stones in Ahoy: 40 euro's if I remember well. What did we pay for the club shows in 2003? 30 euro's per ticket?

Rediculous was the Golden Circle tickets in the US, for $600. But what was a ticket for an arena shows in 1999 in the US? $45 or so?

Mathijs

Arena shows in the US cost from $40 behind the stage up to $300-350. The average was $109. That was the first tour where the ticket prices went through the roof (there were isolated shows prior to that).

The average ticket price in the US on the last tour was $167. The top price was $450 (plus charges). The amount of seats in that category varied from city to city - most tickets at MSG would have been that price, whereas there would have been a smaller % in lesser markets.

Tickets in the UK have been WAY more expensive than in continental Europe since the Licks tour. Most tickets for the UK dates in 2003 were £135 and (I think) £85. Plus for the Twickenham shows (and all stadium dates since) they dictated that the shows would be all seated so that they could maximise revenue by hiking the prices up. They have since done this in other markets - ie making German shows all seated in 2007 even though they werent in 2006.

The UK dates in 2006 had price ranges of £40-£150. There were some £60 tickets in the front ten rows (they had done the same concession with $99 tickets in the US), apart from that most block A & B tickets were £150. The value concession tickets were dropped for the 2007 shows. The 02 tickets were £150 and £80 (or thereabouts) and there were no fan club tickets made available in the first few rows. These were all kept aside for brokers and Fan Asylum packages, so it was actually misleading to say the top price was £150 as it would have actually cost you a four figure amount to get a ticket at the front.

Quote
Bärs
People have absolutely no right what so ever to feel bitterness towards RS or Keith. How spoiled can you be?

I do think some people have personal issue that they don't really understand, and that they take it out on the Stones because that's safe.

what a load

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs
This is from Wiki regarding ABB:


"There were five different ticket options at each concert in the USA: Gold Seating $100, Diamond Seating $350, Premium Seating $175, General Admission $100 and Side Seating $50. In the United Kingdom, the price levels were £40, £60, £90, £150 and £340."


What's this to complain about really? A initially paid 70 euros for Charlie's concert in Finland last sunday, that is four guys with their instruments - nothing more. That's not too far from what RS charged for ABB in Finland.

Hell of a difference between paying the same price for a show in a club than for a nosebleed at the back of a stadium to watch a TV screen.

And most tickets were in the £150 range. A lot of those tickets were classified as category 2 (£80) in 2003, and on the '99 tour they were all around £40.

What planet are you on. Really?

Nothing you write seem to confirm that the Stones are extremely expensive to watch compared to other major acts. That's the relevant thing, not what RS charged 15 years ago.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs
This is from Wiki regarding ABB:


"There were five different ticket options at each concert in the USA: Gold Seating $100, Diamond Seating $350, Premium Seating $175, General Admission $100 and Side Seating $50. In the United Kingdom, the price levels were £40, £60, £90, £150 and £340."


What's this to complain about really? A initially paid 70 euros for Charlie's concert in Finland last sunday, that is four guys with their instruments - nothing more. That's not too far from what RS charged for ABB in Finland.

Hell of a difference between paying the same price for a show in a club than for a nosebleed at the back of a stadium to watch a TV screen.

And most tickets were in the £150 range. A lot of those tickets were classified as category 2 (£80) in 2003, and on the '99 tour they were all around £40.

What planet are you on. Really?

Nothing you write seem to confirm that the Stones are extremely expensive to watch compared to other major acts. That's the relevant thing, not what RS charged 15 years ago.

Didnt mention anything anywhere about '15 years ago'.

Would you care to list all these acts who are more expensive? Ok..I might let you off with that other great rock n roller like Barbra Streisand, but lets hear it for the others.

And by the way its perfectly 'relevant' if the price of a seat is doubling from one tour to the next. Or worse. To give an example. On the Licks tour I bought tickets for a January 2003 show at Madison Square Garden. Pretty good seats up to the right of the stage. $164. A bit pricey, but by no means ridiculous. Fast forward to the next tour and I find myself searching for tickets for the same venue exactly three years to the day later. Amazingly, I get offered tickets in the exact same row I was in before. For $450.

As far as I'm aware, the US economy hasnt descended to having Zimbabwe-like levels of inflation. I've no objection to anyone earning a lot of money for something they do very well, but when a band grosses $560 million over the course of a tour and then pays something like 1.6% in tax on that income (which they're at perfect liberty to do if they can find a way of managing it), then its a bit f**king much to demand that their fans should be paying the highest ticket prices in the history of rock music to see them. It's money the band will never spend in ten lifetimes, which makes it clearly little more than an ego-inflating exercise.

But hey, as you said in another thread, the more they charge for tickets, the more this shows they're respecting their fans. Who am I to argue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-06 15:37 by Gazza.

I remember reading in USAToday in 1999 about the Stones going on tour again for No Security and the journalist commented on the severe price increase compared to the Bridges tour and asked Keith if he would pay that much to see the Stones.

His response was short and to the point: No.

The Stones choose to price their show on the edge.

It became really visible from Licks on, they preferred to maximize the gross even if this meant filling stadium only 2/3 with richer (and often older) people.

Instead of opting for cheaper tickets affordable to their younger fans and selling out venues... I know younger fans who where stuck behind the b-stage because they could not afford the gold field tickets.

all i can say is as much as I love the Stones- if they tour again- I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the show...

I can see a lot of shows in clubs and bars for what one stones show costs..

@#$%& Keith. He can stay in his residence in connecticut holding Pattis hand while Wood plays the rythmguitar and Taylor do the solos on the Stones 2011 tour. I guess it would have sounded better than the recent stones tours. Keiths gone. He did his time in hell

At Giants Stadium in New Jersey during the Licks Tour tickets in the eight row next to the cat walk were $350, but increased to $450. by the time of ABB Tour. At the time of ABB I guessed they are charging more because . . .. they know they can. Surprise! Simple as that. Perhaps they monitor scalpers prices and figured "why let scalpers make an extra $100?" "We'll just charge more and give 'em a 'Laminate")." Fair play to the band. Market economics.

When you pay that kind of money, however, The Stones owe the audience a musically competent show. Mick,Charlie, Bill, Daryl, even Chuck, deliver, but those guitars don't. I do give them a break do to age and health. Yet for egos, lead vs. rhythm, and too much drinking and drugging, no, no, no.

Quote
deadegad
When you pay that kind of money, however, The Stones owe the audience a musically competent show.

No, they don't.
They can ask whatever they want, and the audience can pay whatever they want, or simply don't.

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

Quote
gwen
Licks theatre shows were 50 to 60€ - which is quite cheap because the cost of theatre shows on Licks were compensated by splitting stadium fields and charging more for the GA front section.

they were indeed great value. No arguments there and credit to them for making those gigs fan-friendly experiences. However, you're talking about a dozen shows out of a tour which had around, what, 120 concerts?

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
deadegad
When you pay that kind of money, however, The Stones owe the audience a musically competent show.

No, they don't.
They can ask whatever they want, and the audience can pay whatever they want, or simply don't.

no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

Nice anecdotes Gazza, but it is the average price that's interesting, and not only compared to other rock bands, but compared to other leading artists overall. Make a global comparison and you'll most probably find that RS are not in their own astronomic league concerning ticket prices.

That case is probably that some strain their economy by travelling and seeing multiple shows, and when the fun is over and it's paytime they blame the Stones for it. Homever, the normal behavior is the see one (1) show per tour or decade or lifetime. In the long run it means nothing if that show is priced 59, 89 or 159 euro. It's all about priotrities and cutting down on other expenses for a while, e.g. stay home a weekend instead of going out. Frankly, I'd rather pay 150 euro if it means slower sales and that I can be sure to get my ticket, instead of taking the risk to be without one when RS come to Finland next time. Travelling the Sweden etc. for a single show, THAT is expensive.

I'd also like to stress the fact that A B C and D of BW was initally priced 70 euro for two hours of acoustic jamming. I think it's perfectly reasonable to pay the double for a full blown stadium show with RS. Music and culture is expensive.

Quote
StonesTod
no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

That's not what I said. I replied to deadegad's statement.
Although your suggestion could be very funny.

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

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
deadegad
When you pay that kind of money, however, The Stones owe the audience a musically competent show.

No, they don't.
They can ask whatever they want, and the audience can pay whatever they want, or simply don't.

no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

Didn't they do just that?

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
StonesTod
no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

That's not what I said. I replied to deadegad's statement.
Although your suggestion could be very funny.

ok - but what do they owe the audience if not a musically competent show?

Quote
stones78

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
deadegad
When you pay that kind of money, however, The Stones owe the audience a musically competent show.

No, they don't.
They can ask whatever they want, and the audience can pay whatever they want, or simply don't.

no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

Didn't they do just that?

be serious. keith said said some incohent stuff (something about gold rings) to the audience that caused great euphoria and rapture and everyone went home to tell the grandkids how great it was and there was peace in the land again.

Cut and paste from ticketone.it


Bon Jovi (for Gazza): stadium, GA 84 - 42 €
Sting: theatre, all seated, 174 - 82 €
Bob Dylan: club, GA, 79

Football

Fiorentina - Milan 190 - 30 (ordinary season game)

C

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
StonesTod
no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

That's not what I said. I replied to deadegad's statement.
Although your suggestion could be very funny.

ok - but what do they owe the audience if not a musically competent show?

They owe the audience an honest effort to do their best as performers and musicians. Wheter that is musically competent or not in someone's mind that very night is beside the point.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
StonesTod
no obligation at all? seriously? keith and ron could just stand there and pose the whole show and that would be fine?

That's not what I said. I replied to deadegad's statement.
Although your suggestion could be very funny.

ok - but what do they owe the audience if not a musically competent show?

They owe the audience an honest effort to do their best as performers and musicians. Wheter that is musically competent or not in someone's mind that very night is beside the point.

makes sense. but then it follows that if, in someone's mind, it's musical incompetence, they have every right to feel they were not given what was owed.

No, only if the band didn't bother to do their best.