Quote
Bärs
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.

Now you're second guessing my personal financial welbeing or lack of it. Thats not my point. And my finances are none of your business. I take full responsibility for those and how many or how few shows I choose to go to. I'm not judging the value for money on what I personally can or cant afford.

There's no logic in my mind for charging £150 to sit with a side view of a video screen in a football stadium. And it doesnt have to be expensive (they werent expensive up to 1999 - then it just became an exercise in gouging). Especially when your costs are underwritten to a massive degree by corporate sponsorship and when you pay next to no bloody taxes on your income.

Saw Springsteen play in the same size of venues last tour for half the price of a Stones ticket (or less in some cases) and HE plays almost twice as long a show, despite being 60 years old. No sponsors either.

No reason why the Stones cant do the same - although I'd accept its unreasonable to expect them to play for three hours. Those all-so-important explosions and fireworks must be extremely expensive, I suppose.....

The unfortunate thing is that with the Stones leading the way in price gouging, several other acts have decided in recent years to follow suit and try the same. The end result is that it pretty much kills the concert industry for everyone else as most people are going to be very selective about the number of acts that they will pay top prices for.

I'm not the least interested in your finances, my statements are generic. I don't buy that stuff that RS is the blame for high ticket prices either and I don't think that you have the facts to prove that RS in general charge astronomic prices compared to other acts. You are simply wrong

Every cent they have on the bank is rightfully earned by hard labour. Stones + $ ftw!

+1 - excellent summary of my opinion as well.

Quote
Duane in Houston
I don't know about "Hate" but I will say that a lot of eyebrows were raised when it was known that Keith ridiculed the size of Mick's todger in his autobiography for no good reason. That goes beyond the pale of diplomacy and showed the thoughtlessness of the man. The other thing that people are getting tired of is the constant posing and pretending he's a bad-ass and carrying a "blade" in case he finds himself in a knife fight. Puh-Leeeze. What a load of manure. Thirdly is his propensity to embelish the facts to make it seem like everything revolves around him or enemanates from his talent and everyone else is a wannabe (plus the man simply makes a lot of shit up). His declining guitar playing abilities are, actually, last on the list of things we hold against him. Getting old, damaging your brain and getting arthritis are simply things that happen to everyone eventually. We're not blaming him for that.

Over the years, I have seen tickets in the after market sell way above the printed ticket value. Thus, some guy who has nothing to do with the band makes a lot more money per ticket than the band itself. It kind of tells the band what their real
market value is. Since they are the song writers and performers, it stands to reason this value belongs to them, not some guy on the street. Unfortunately this does push away fans that can't afford the prices, whether charged by the band or a scalper. I'd rather see the money go to the band.

Interesting read. the writings on the wall
Mick fans vs Keith fans ever since Keith's book.
The divide is growing everyday.

Quote
StonesTod
they have every right to feel they were not given what was owed.

Everybody has every right to feel whatever he/she wants to feel. Blaming somebody else for what you feel or how you feel is a total different story.

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

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

if their best is musical incompetence in the eyes/ears of the paying customer, then i disagree....

Quote
Bärs
I'm not the least interested in your finances, my statements are generic. I don't buy that stuff that RS is the blame for high ticket prices either and I don't think that you have the facts to prove that RS in general charge astronomic prices compared to other acts. You are simply wrong

Every cent they have on the bank is rightfully earned by hard labour. Stones + $ ftw!

oh, please....

and you are a brave soul to call gazza on his facts.

Quote
copsnrobbers
Interesting read. the writings on the wall
Mick fans vs Keith fans ever since Keith's book.

There are also plenty of us who dont give a damn about that, book or no book.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bärs
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.

Now you're second guessing my personal financial welbeing or lack of it. Thats not my point. And my finances are none of your business. I take full responsibility for those and how many or how few shows I choose to go to. I'm not judging the value for money on what I personally can or cant afford.

There's no logic in my mind for charging £150 to sit with a side view of a video screen in a football stadium. And it doesnt have to be expensive (they werent expensive up to 1999 - then it just became an exercise in gouging). Especially when your costs are underwritten to a massive degree by corporate sponsorship and when you pay next to no bloody taxes on your income.

Saw Springsteen play in the same size of venues last tour for half the price of a Stones ticket (or less in some cases) and HE plays almost twice as long a show, despite being 60 years old. No sponsors either.

No reason why the Stones cant do the same - although I'd accept its unreasonable to expect them to play for three hours. Those all-so-important explosions and fireworks must be extremely expensive, I suppose.....

The unfortunate thing is that with the Stones leading the way in price gouging, several other acts have decided in recent years to follow suit and try the same. The end result is that it pretty much kills the concert industry for everyone else as most people are going to be very selective about the number of acts that they will pay top prices for.

Sales of a good CD by a top artist - used to be 10 million, now 1 million. Lack of sales 9 million. Lack of revenue 9*15 million = 135 million. Where to get the money: Higher ticket prices.

U2's recent album, seen by many as a bit of a commercial failure, has still managed to shift 5 million copies. The biggest selling album of the last decade was a 2002 Beatles compilation ('1') which has managed to shift 31 million despite consisting of songs that were three to four decades old and which have been reissued and repackaged lots of times. Amy Winehouse's 'Back to Black' has sold over 10 million since 2006 - and she was a breakthrough act. Sales are STILL there to some degree.

In principle you're correct about the fact that all acts have a problem with declining sales and that the knock-on effect has been higher ticket prices (even if we can split hairs about the extent of the fall in sales), but the price hike in tickets pre-dates the arse falling out out of the record industry by a few years IMO.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
copsnrobbers
Interesting read. the writings on the wall
Mick fans vs Keith fans ever since Keith's book.

There are also plenty of us who dont give a damn about that, book or no book.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
Gazza

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?

Completely agree - it was a nice gift, but also a great marketing concept. People failing to get theatre tickets would be trying to get arena or stadium tickets instead.

My point was that the price of the theatre shows cannot be used as a clue that the Stones are cheap. The cost of theatre shows was not covered by these shows ticket sales but rather by increasing other shows' prices. The gross for theatre shows probably didn't even cover crew hotel fees for the additional two days.

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?

I'd give 'em both the blade! Rip offs!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Bärs
I'm not the least interested in your finances, my statements are generic. I don't buy that stuff that RS is the blame for high ticket prices either and I don't think that you have the facts to prove that RS in general charge astronomic prices compared to other acts. You are simply wrong

Every cent they have on the bank is rightfully earned by hard labour. Stones + $ ftw!

oh, please....

and you are a brave soul to call gazza on his facts.

Apparently Bärs is obscenely wealthy and doesn't know about being ripped off because he be blind to badly played music...

Quote
skipstone

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Bärs
I'm not the least interested in your finances, my statements are generic. I don't buy that stuff that RS is the blame for high ticket prices either and I don't think that you have the facts to prove that RS in general charge astronomic prices compared to other acts. You are simply wrong

Every cent they have on the bank is rightfully earned by hard labour. Stones + $ ftw!

oh, please....

and you are a brave soul to call gazza on his facts.

Apparently Bärs is obscenely wealthy and doesn't know about being ripped off because he be blind to badly played music...

hmmmm....perhaps he is also deaf to works of beautiful art

The Rolling Stones are not to blame for the high prices? Did Bars go to the No Security tour? They played smaller places then the Briges tour and the prices went UP. Maybe that does make sense. But come on. Gee, the Stones have NOTHING to do with that. With the price going up. What the hell is that? Supply and demand? No, more like taking advantage of demand. People will pay it. So why not charge a lot more? Well why not. At least they played some other songs on that tour. But in hockey arenas, less seats and the price went up. How cool is that.

It's one thing if you can afford the expensive tickets and it doesn't bother you. It's another thing if it bothers you - and the music, well...from what I've read and heard from that tour that they were pretty good but it seems to be more about since then, in particular the Bang tour as far as the results of paying a lot of money for a ticket to see a band firing on 1.5 cylinders...

Quote
skipstone
The Rolling Stones are not to blame for the high prices?.

Jagger has specifically stated that the band set the prices (source - Forbes Magazine interview, November 2002)

The Stones basically get a guaranteed amount per show. Going by the grosses of the last tour, that figure would appear to be in the region of $4 million per gig.

Its then up to the local promoter to sell enough tickets to break even or make a profit. There's a deliberate lack of transparency on ticket sales which means that when tickets go on sale for an individual show, the ticket buyer doesnt know the pricing structure for each area of the venue, as it varies from one venue to another. As I said earlier, you might find (this is a hypothetical example) that out of 18,000 available tickets in a major market such as New York or LA there might be 12,000 'category 1' priced tickets at $450. In a 'weaker' market such as, say, Boise, Idaho, the number of category 1 tickets may only be around 3,000. As you may recall, on the last tour (especially the final US leg in late 2006), sales were a bit underwhelming so the promoters resorted to a lot of gimmicks like '2 $99 tickets for the price of 1' or student discounts in order to get rid of tickets that were selling slowly.

Originally the ABB tour was intended to have a much higher % of shows in arena sized venues than what actually transpired. Many arenas simply chose to pass on the Stones because the amount of money the band were demanding for guarantees would have left them out of pocket. So, rather than making no profit worth talking about on a Stones arena show in front of 20,000 people, they chose the alternative of putting them on in a stadium instead even though there was no chance of a sell-out. With a bit of selective tarping and a few giveaways or cut price deals they could maybe sell 30,000 tickets and make a bit of a profit. And announce it afterwards as a sell-out to make it sound better (Soldier Field in October 2006 was listed as a 'sell out' at 30,000 even though the Stones had played there to a crowd of 55,000 a year before and it's a venue which can hold 61,000 for a Bears game)

Quote
skipstone
The Rolling Stones are not to blame for the high prices?

I'm talking about the general trend with more expensice tickets overall. The average ticket prices for a RS concert are not THAT expensive compared to other leading artists.

The problem with ABB was not the ticket prices themselves. The problem was that the only new thing was higher ticket prices, and that is not good. They didn't bother to try new stuff after a while, the album sounded badly and was unfinished, they didn't play rare songs in any greater degree, and they had not developed musically. 40L was a pure nostalgia tour, but it could have worked had it been their farewell tour. The different stages and songs was a sort of metaphore for their own career going from clubs to stadiums. With ABB they delivered nothing but a worse variant of 40L to higher prices. I'm sure they entertained a lot of people with their shows, but legacy-wise ABB turned out to be a bad project. They should have worked really hard together with the album, perhaps given Ron a song, and then constantly pushed several of the new songs live night after night.

They didn'i just keep the high prices though - They charged the top price for a higher percentage of seats. I seem to remember the O2 seats were all about £150 +fees for all but the nosebleeds.

When they go back to GA, like say at Slane they sell out and pack the place AND probably drop the average age of the audience by 20 years. A LESSON THERE SURELY.

SC UK

Quote
Bärs

Quote
skipstone
The Rolling Stones are not to blame for the high prices?

I'm talking about the general trend with more expensice tickets overall. The average ticket prices for a RS concert are not THAT expensive compared to other leading artists.

The Stones havent toured for four years, Bars. Five years in the US. Last time they did, they most certainly WERE more expensive than any rock/pop act. If other acts are charging comparable prices NOW, then its a pretty safe bet that if the Stones were touring in 2011, they'd raise the bar even higher.

Quote
Bärs
The problem with ABB was not the ticket prices themselves. The problem was that the only new thing was higher ticket prices, and that is not good.

Well, in fairness it wasnt the first tour where they did that. Maybe in some markets, though but this was certainly the case in the US since '99 and the UK since '03. I think the 2nd European leg saw them do that in Germany and Scandinavia, which is what I assume you're alluding to. But yeah, higher prices for the same thing. A fair point.

Quote
Bärs
They didn't bother to try new stuff after a while, the album sounded badly and was unfinished, they didn't play rare songs in any greater degree, and they had not developed musically. 40L was a pure nostalgia tour, but it could have worked had it been their farewell tour. The different stages and songs was a sort of metaphore for their own career going from clubs to stadiums. With ABB they delivered nothing but a worse variant of 40L to higher prices. I'm sure they entertained a lot of people with their shows, but legacy-wise ABB turned out to be a bad project. They should have worked really hard together with the album, perhaps given Ron a song, and then constantly pushed several of the new songs live night after night.

This I agree with. The ABB tour was basically a rerun of the stadium shows on the Licks tour, ie a run through the hits and pretty much devoid of new material. Great analogy of the 'career metaphor' of the Licks tour - never thought of it quite that way before.

What happened to "The hate for keith and his current guitar skills" thread ?

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

The alleged 'haters' have been taken out and shot, I think.

Well, I know that they haven't toured for years. But when they toured last I don't believe they were that much more expensive than other major acts. Every quick search I do seem to confirm this. For example:

"December 30, 2005 -- AP

The average Stones ticket was $133.98. The tour sold around 1.2 million tickets.

U2 generated the second most gross receipts, $138.9 million, with an average ticket price of $96.92.

McCartney's tour earned $77.3 million in gross receipts, with the average ticket selling for $135.46. The tour sold around 570,000 tickets"

[homepage.mac.com]


True or false, I don't know.

Quote
Gazza
Well, in fairness it wasnt the first tour where they did that. Maybe in some markets, though but this was certainly the case in the US since '99 and the UK since '03. I think the 2nd European leg saw them do that in Germany and Scandinavia, which is what I assume you're alluding to. But yeah, higher prices for the same thing. A fair point. .

I meant that 40L had it's own profile of digging into a lot of previously not played material which excused the nostalgia act, while NS had a special stripped down profile in the arenas. They tried something new in both cases musically and artistically.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Gazza
Well, in fairness it wasnt the first tour where they did that. Maybe in some markets, though but this was certainly the case in the US since '99 and the UK since '03. I think the 2nd European leg saw them do that in Germany and Scandinavia, which is what I assume you're alluding to. But yeah, higher prices for the same thing. A fair point. .

I meant that 40L had it's own profile of digging into a lot of previously not played material which excused the nostalgia act, while NS had a special stripped down profile in the arenas. They tried something new in both cases musically and artistically.

Yep.

So are they not touring...because of the crisis in america?

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-10 09:31 by Rik.

Quote
Rolling Hansie
What happened to "The hate for keith and his current guitar skills" thread ?

It's impossible to hate Keith! The man has a heart of gold! Mick had a heart of stone for years until recently and we can thank Keith for opening his eyes to that fact. It was rough justice on him but someone had to get his attention!

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

Well, that's not correct

Arena in 2003 was €70-€90
Ahoy was €120-€140
The seated were the most expensive.
That was really expensive for some and the first time it crossed the 100 euro mark