Tell Me :
Talk
you sure? i could swear it was something short of it.
but sposin' it's like golf where the lower number tops the higher number?
Er ..... don't know. Then 2013 is going to be shite, and 2012 tops it I guess ?
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Do you mean one last great Stones album to be one above the amount of great albums The Beatles have or do you mean in general? Regardless of which one it is, it won't happen because no one but you cares. And, really, if it took them 40 some years later of making albums after The Beatles called it a day it has even less relevance than it ever did since it never did.
You really need to stop watching the replay of the last 2012 show. Those Gregory drummers are history.
Yep, I think anyone here that might be thinking "O well I missed the November and December 2012 shows, but I'll see them in 2013 on the cheaper tour" might be holding on to false hopes. As much as I'm looking forward to seeing them again somewhere or other in 2013, I see no reason to imagine that I'm not going to be asked yet again to cough up the same £400 or $800 plus per ticket.
I've just bought tickets for the WHO at the O2 in June this year, got better seats in block 112 than I had in either 112 or 101 for the November 2012 O2 Stones shows, and these cost just £82 each. I can hardly imagine I'm going to see the Stones anywhere on the face of this planet in 2013 for £82 !!
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
What, do you mean in overall record sales? Wouldn't the next album have to sell 800 million units?
Still, with 7 billion people on the planet, THIS IS DOABLE!
Look, lay off Keith. He was simply factoring in the fact they were going to have to pay that layabout Wyman for the 'guest appearances'.
They won't worry about that for the 2013 run.
What, am I invisible?
Look two posts up.
OK, wait....HERE!
What, do you mean in overall record sales? Wouldn't the next album have to sell 800 million units?
Still, with 7 billion people on the planet, THIS IS DOABLE!
OK, note to self, I am in fact invisible.
Damn...I'm obviously fading in and out. I seemingly can't control this thing.
Wait, when I slip the ring on me precious treaclefinger, and add a bit more treacle...oh me precious...OH....
I just can't be offended by the ticket prices. They are so far out of my reality (ie value) that it's not even a consideration. I'd rather cut a cheque for $1000 to a charity. That would make me feel WAY better.
Some people obviously feel there is that value...what, are we going to be mad at them for feeling that?
Johnny B. Goode Earth Angel on the guitar. Then your fading will cease and you'll come back!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-29 19:04 by GumbootCloggeroo.
I have no access to a De Lorean...I'm hooped.
NO!
No, I am not talking about record sales. That said, now what do YOU think I meant when I said the Stones would push past the Beatles?
I think you mean in average age.
Every once in awhile you sound sincere, so I will indeed explain in detail sometime over the next few days. Gotta run for the moment but I will get back to you soon.
It $25 was Million — can I have the difference? ;—)
Peanut
PeanutGallery
Exactly. I have several friends (on & off this forum) who went to the shows. I am certain that it was a fun experience but I just can't see it being worth $1600. For 'entertainment' value, I could go on a trip/cruise etc...
I have seen plenty of great shows over the past 20+ years, but I would never pay over $250 for a ticket to ANY event. $250 is an incredible amount of money for a seat to an event!! $100 felt right on the last few tours. This tour, I'd say $200 feels 'about right', with the pit being whatever they want to charge.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 29, 2013 08:37
2012 was nothing short of fabulous, but 2013 is going to be even better! 2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles) followed by more shows. Both Mick and Keith will reach their historic 70th birthdays in 2013. I can see the headlines: Still Rolling At 70! I am predicting a huge year for the Rolling Stones that will be filled with action and high drama! I am also predicting a banner year for IORR! Also, the Lone Ranger returns in 2013! Johnny Depp plays Tonto!
Can you hear the beat of the distant drummers (wearing Gregory masks) off in the distance? I can.
Can you hear the beat of the distant drummers (wearing Gregory masks) off in the distance? I can.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: January 29, 2013 08:57
If they will past The Beatles it's bloody 'bout time...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
spsimmons
()
Date: January 29, 2013 14:31
Johnny Depp playing Tonto actually makes 2013 the worst year ever. But the Stones passing the Beatles will be great! It only took them 30 albums and 50 years to do it. Congratulations, boys!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: January 29, 2013 14:34
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2012 was nothing short of fabulous
you sure? i could swear it was something short of it.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: January 29, 2013 14:36
2013 is going to top 2012 because 2013 is a bigger number than 2012, simple.
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: January 29, 2013 14:37
Quote
paulywaul
2013 is going to top 2012 because 2013 is a bigger number than 2012, simple.
but sposin' it's like golf where the lower number tops the higher number?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: January 29, 2013 14:44
Quote
T&AQuote
paulywaul
2013 is going to top 2012 because 2013 is a bigger number than 2012, simple.
but sposin' it's like golf where the lower number tops the higher number?
Er ..... don't know. Then 2013 is going to be shite, and 2012 tops it I guess ?
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: January 29, 2013 14:52
2013 is not looking terribly promising so far with Mick just "listening to offers", i.e. waiting for some dumb ass promoter to give him the same $4 million guarantee they got for the 50th. Actually knowing Mick (and Keith) they probably want to push up the ante to stay interested, why not $5 million, that probably would sound "about right" to Keith.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 29, 2013 15:13
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2012 was nothing short of fabulous, but 2013 is going to be even better! 2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)...
Can you hear the beat of the distant drummers (wearing Gregory masks) off in the distance? I can.
Do you mean one last great Stones album to be one above the amount of great albums The Beatles have or do you mean in general? Regardless of which one it is, it won't happen because no one but you cares. And, really, if it took them 40 some years later of making albums after The Beatles called it a day it has even less relevance than it ever did since it never did.
You really need to stop watching the replay of the last 2012 show. Those Gregory drummers are history.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: January 29, 2013 15:24
Quote
gotdablouse
2013 is not looking terribly promising so far with Mick just "listening to offers", i.e. waiting for some dumb ass promoter to give him the same $4 million guarantee they got for the 50th. Actually knowing Mick (and Keith) they probably want to push up the ante to stay interested, why not $5 million, that probably would sound "about right" to Keith.
Yep, I think anyone here that might be thinking "O well I missed the November and December 2012 shows, but I'll see them in 2013 on the cheaper tour" might be holding on to false hopes. As much as I'm looking forward to seeing them again somewhere or other in 2013, I see no reason to imagine that I'm not going to be asked yet again to cough up the same £400 or $800 plus per ticket.
I've just bought tickets for the WHO at the O2 in June this year, got better seats in block 112 than I had in either 112 or 101 for the November 2012 O2 Stones shows, and these cost just £82 each. I can hardly imagine I'm going to see the Stones anywhere on the face of this planet in 2013 for £82 !!
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 16:56
Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2012 was nothing short of fabulous, but 2013 is going to be even better! 2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles) followed by more shows. Both Mick and Keith will reach their historic 70th birthdays in 2013. I can see the headlines: Still Rolling At 70! I am predicting a huge year for the Rolling Stones that will be filled with action and high drama! I am also predicting a banner year for IORR! Also, the Lone Ranger returns in 2013! Johnny Depp plays Tonto!
Can you hear the beat of the distant drummers (wearing Gregory masks) off in the distance? I can.
What, do you mean in overall record sales? Wouldn't the next album have to sell 800 million units?
Still, with 7 billion people on the planet, THIS IS DOABLE!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 16:58
Quote
gotdablouse
2013 is not looking terribly promising so far with Mick just "listening to offers", i.e. waiting for some dumb ass promoter to give him the same $4 million guarantee they got for the 50th. Actually knowing Mick (and Keith) they probably want to push up the ante to stay interested, why not $5 million, that probably would sound "about right" to Keith.
Look, lay off Keith. He was simply factoring in the fact they were going to have to pay that layabout Wyman for the 'guest appearances'.
They won't worry about that for the 2013 run.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 29, 2013 17:16
Have you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 17:25
Quote
GumbootCloggerooHave you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)
What, am I invisible?
Look two posts up.
OK, wait....HERE!
What, do you mean in overall record sales? Wouldn't the next album have to sell 800 million units?
Still, with 7 billion people on the planet, THIS IS DOABLE!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 29, 2013 17:32
JumpinJackOLantern, let me ask you a question nobody has asked before. are you talking about record sales? is it record sales? record sales, right? record sales?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 18:00
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
JumpinJackOLantern, let me ask you a question nobody has asked before. are you talking about record sales? is it record sales? record sales, right? record sales?
OK, note to self, I am in fact invisible.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 29, 2013 18:50
Use your power wisely, treaclefingers!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 18:52
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Use your power wisely, treaclefingers!
Damn...I'm obviously fading in and out. I seemingly can't control this thing.
Wait, when I slip the ring on me precious treaclefinger, and add a bit more treacle...oh me precious...OH....
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: January 29, 2013 18:57
Let's go for a record. Guys.. we need one 2013 Tour thread a day. We can do it!
If they charge the same offensive prices for the 2013 Tour as the gigs last year, I'm done. Most people will feel the same way. Let's see them sell out Soldier Field at $700/ticket.
If they charge the same offensive prices for the 2013 Tour as the gigs last year, I'm done. Most people will feel the same way. Let's see them sell out Soldier Field at $700/ticket.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 19:01
Quote
flacnvinyl
Let's go for a record. Guys.. we need one 2013 Tour thread a day. We can do it!
If they charge the same offensive prices for the 2013 Tour as the gigs last year, I'm done. Most people will feel the same way. Let's see them sell out Soldier Field at $700/ticket.
I just can't be offended by the ticket prices. They are so far out of my reality (ie value) that it's not even a consideration. I'd rather cut a cheque for $1000 to a charity. That would make me feel WAY better.
Some people obviously feel there is that value...what, are we going to be mad at them for feeling that?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 29, 2013 19:02
Try playingQuote
treaclefingersQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
Use your power wisely, treaclefingers!
Damn...I'm obviously fading in and out. I seemingly can't control this thing.
Wait, when I slip the ring on me precious treaclefinger, and add a bit more treacle...oh me precious...OH....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-29 19:04 by GumbootCloggeroo.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 19:10
Quote
GumbootCloggerooTry playingQuote
treaclefingersQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
Use your power wisely, treaclefingers!
Damn...I'm obviously fading in and out. I seemingly can't control this thing.
Wait, when I slip the ring on me precious treaclefinger, and add a bit more treacle...oh me precious...OH....Johnny B. GoodeEarth Angel on the guitar. Then your fading will cease and you'll come back!
I have no access to a De Lorean...I'm hooped.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 29, 2013 21:22
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
JumpinJackOLantern, let me ask you a question nobody has asked before. are you talking about record sales? is it record sales? record sales, right? record sales?
NO!
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 29, 2013 21:35
Quote
GumbootCloggerooHave you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)
No, I am not talking about record sales. That said, now what do YOU think I meant when I said the Stones would push past the Beatles?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 29, 2013 21:51
It's not about me. I'm not the one that thinks there's some sort of imaginary race. Nice try, though. Now, please, indulge us. What is this moving past The Beatles thing all about? How is one last album by The Stones going to move them past The Beatles? Did A Bigger Bang move them into a tie? Or did it push them back a bit? I want to know what is going on in your brain. You bring this "pushing past the Beatles" thing up time and time again. Explain it, please.Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GumbootCloggerooHave you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)
No, I am not talking about record sales. That said, now what do YOU think I meant when I said the Stones would push past the Beatles?
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 29, 2013 21:58
Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GumbootCloggerooHave you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)
No, I am not talking about record sales. That said, now what do YOU think I meant when I said the Stones would push past the Beatles?
I think you mean in average age.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: January 29, 2013 22:06
Quote
GumbootCloggerooIt's not about me. I'm not the one that thinks there's some sort of imaginary race. Nice try, though. Now, please, indulge us. What is this moving past The Beatles thing all about? How is one last album by The Stones going to move them past The Beatles? Did A Bigger Bang move them into a tie? Or did it push them back a bit? I want to know what is going on in your brain. You bring this "pushing past the Beatles" thing up time and time again. Explain it, please.Quote
JumpinJackOLanternQuote
GumbootCloggerooHave you ever explained to us just exactly how The Stones will "push past the Beatles"? What does that even mean? Are you talking about record sales? Please explain.Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
2013 will see one last great Stones album (which will push the Stones past the Beatles)
No, I am not talking about record sales. That said, now what do YOU think I meant when I said the Stones would push past the Beatles?
Every once in awhile you sound sincere, so I will indeed explain in detail sometime over the next few days. Gotta run for the moment but I will get back to you soon.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
PeanutGallery
()
Date: January 29, 2013 23:25
Quote
gotdablouse
2013 is not looking terribly promising so far with Mick just "listening to offers", i.e. waiting for some dumb ass promoter to give him the same $4 million guarantee they got for the 50th. Actually knowing Mick (and Keith) they probably want to push up the ante to stay interested, why not $5 million, that probably would sound "about right" to Keith.
It $25 was Million — can I have the difference? ;—)
Peanut
PeanutGallery
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: January 30, 2013 00:52
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
flacnvinyl
Let's go for a record. Guys.. we need one 2013 Tour thread a day. We can do it!
If they charge the same offensive prices for the 2013 Tour as the gigs last year, I'm done. Most people will feel the same way. Let's see them sell out Soldier Field at $700/ticket.
I just can't be offended by the ticket prices. They are so far out of my reality (ie value) that it's not even a consideration. I'd rather cut a cheque for $1000 to a charity. That would make me feel WAY better.
Some people obviously feel there is that value...what, are we going to be mad at them for feeling that?
Exactly. I have several friends (on & off this forum) who went to the shows. I am certain that it was a fun experience but I just can't see it being worth $1600. For 'entertainment' value, I could go on a trip/cruise etc...
I have seen plenty of great shows over the past 20+ years, but I would never pay over $250 for a ticket to ANY event. $250 is an incredible amount of money for a seat to an event!! $100 felt right on the last few tours. This tour, I'd say $200 feels 'about right', with the pit being whatever they want to charge.
Re: Why 2013 Is Going To Top 2012!
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: January 30, 2013 03:31
One thing the Stones could do to truly enhance their legacy would be to play larger venues in more locations, thereby allowing younger generations to attend.
There is definitely an audience of younger fans that would like to see the show, and popularity among younger demographics is one area where the Stones "pushed past" the Beatles a LONG time ago. I'm a pretty avid concertgoer, and have seen over 40 Stones shows and over 20 Paul McCartney since 1989. The one constant - there was always a much greater percentage of young people at Stones shows. McCartney shows had more families (with very young kids), but the Stones shows had groups of guys in their 20's and 30's, and young couples. It was very noticeable at shows that I attended in three continents - North America, Europe and Asia (especially noticeable at the GA standing shows in Europe) - and judging from video footage, the Stones crowds were even younger in South America.
It was different at the shows in 2012. I attended in London and NJ, and the crowds were, on average, much older. There were a handful of banker types, young girls with older guys, and younger guys attending solo, but clearly, by playing arena shows in limited locations (and charging incredibly high prices) the band has left a generation or two of potential fans unable to afford tickets. Really a shame.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-30 04:22 by drbryant.
There is definitely an audience of younger fans that would like to see the show, and popularity among younger demographics is one area where the Stones "pushed past" the Beatles a LONG time ago. I'm a pretty avid concertgoer, and have seen over 40 Stones shows and over 20 Paul McCartney since 1989. The one constant - there was always a much greater percentage of young people at Stones shows. McCartney shows had more families (with very young kids), but the Stones shows had groups of guys in their 20's and 30's, and young couples. It was very noticeable at shows that I attended in three continents - North America, Europe and Asia (especially noticeable at the GA standing shows in Europe) - and judging from video footage, the Stones crowds were even younger in South America.
It was different at the shows in 2012. I attended in London and NJ, and the crowds were, on average, much older. There were a handful of banker types, young girls with older guys, and younger guys attending solo, but clearly, by playing arena shows in limited locations (and charging incredibly high prices) the band has left a generation or two of potential fans unable to afford tickets. Really a shame.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-30 04:22 by drbryant.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
crholmstrom , DEmerson , joguema , LFSDoc , Mabru , Manofwealthandtaste , mariano , pg592003 , Woody24 , yeababyyea
Guests:
905
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10