For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
tomcat2006
Looks like a great show, wish I could have been there!
Quote
tattersQuote
proudmaryQuote
Green LadyQuote
proudmaryQuote
tattersQuote
Green Lady
Yes, there's a good crowd - certainly not half empty in terms of "bums on seats". But it might be half empty in financial terms - it's obvious from the news and the reports here that a lot of the people there didn't pay the full price as originally advertised, and probably the $85 tickets saved the Stones' blushes.
Right. Being able to "fill" an arena (with no seating behind the stage) at fire sale prices in cities the size of Los Angeles and San Francisco is not really an accomplishment, and those arenas certainly would have been half empty if they hadn't drastically slashed prices at the last minute.
I do not really understand this logic. If the tickets would cost 150-200$ since the beginning and the arena was full -it would be okay. But full arena with some people who had been there for 150-200 dollars instead of 600 makes the audience as if non-existent?
No, of course not - but it shows that the prices shouldn't have been set so high, and the market has found its own level. Somebody, somewhere will have made a financial loss, but a lot of fans still got to enjoy the show, and I'm glad of that. The Stones shouldn't be an out-of-reach luxury for the average fan.
I see your point, Green Lady and agree with you. I was arguing with this statement- Being able to "fill" an arena at fire sale prices in cities the size of Los Angeles and San Francisco is not really an accomplishment
It isn't. Not for them. They used to fill stadiums in these cities. You know there's a difference between a stadium and an arena, right?
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
tomcat2006
Looks like a great show, wish I could have been there!
but did it sound like a great show? ...that's really the key to the show...
Quote
laertisflash
Tonyz, we have the same personal preferences... "Dead Flowers" and "All Down The Line", on the same night, is the definition of the exact meaning of the word "happines" to me...
Can't wait for the european leg of the tour, whatever dimension that leg will have.
BTW, what about all these "experts" and "prophets of evil" who have foreseen "a vast disaster", "half -empty venues", blah, blah, blah? Where are they staying in hiding now? Some of them were "explaining" why the Stones, "being in the grip" of their own ticket- prices stragedy, couldn't offer reasonable prices at the last hours. "Experts" my ass... But the question is, after the counterpart predictions witch have been written before the 2012 London shows, how the hell people on this board can take seriously these "experts"?? Just curious...
Quote
DoomandGloom
The videos I've seen from last night were great. After all the jokes about Chuck here I've really "keyed" on to him. He does a great job...AS far as ticket prices, it's unfair for those who payed triple for the same seats others get at a discount but I won't lose sleep over it. If they sell out or not it's not my problem as long as they continue to play well I'm psyched.
Quote
jumpontopofmebaby
Did the show open with a maching band like in LA?
Quote
Woz
The reviewer that wrote that sfgate piece was NOT at the show I was at, LOL, that's for damn sure!
Chip, meet shoulder. Jesus!
Quote
tattersQuote
proudmaryQuote
Green LadyQuote
proudmaryQuote
tattersQuote
Green Lady
Yes, there's a good crowd - certainly not half empty in terms of "bums on seats". But it might be half empty in financial terms - it's obvious from the news and the reports here that a lot of the people there didn't pay the full price as originally advertised, and probably the $85 tickets saved the Stones' blushes.
Right. Being able to "fill" an arena (with no seating behind the stage) at fire sale prices in cities the size of Los Angeles and San Francisco is not really an accomplishment, and those arenas certainly would have been half empty if they hadn't drastically slashed prices at the last minute.
I do not really understand this logic. If the tickets would cost 150-200$ since the beginning and the arena was full -it would be okay. But full arena with some people who had been there for 150-200 dollars instead of 600 makes the audience as if non-existent?
No, of course not - but it shows that the prices shouldn't have been set so high, and the market has found its own level. Somebody, somewhere will have made a financial loss, but a lot of fans still got to enjoy the show, and I'm glad of that. The Stones shouldn't be an out-of-reach luxury for the average fan.
I see your point, Green Lady and agree with you. I was arguing with this statement- Being able to "fill" an arena at fire sale prices in cities the size of Los Angeles and San Francisco is not really an accomplishment
It isn't. Not for them. They used to fill stadiums in these cities. You know there's a difference between a stadium and an arena, right?
Quote
The saddest casualty was the first half of "Gimme Shelter," with Keith Richards and Charlie Watts lost and confused-sounding in the reverberant soup
Quote
But Richards and Watts often seemed not to know where they were in any given song, with Watts letting the rhythm stutter or cave-in, and Richards forgetting to supply a needed chord or guitar lick.
Quote
Richards, who often wore the zonked-out expression of a zoo gorilla on barbituates
Quote
tattersQuote
proudmaryQuote
tattersQuote
Green Lady
Yes, there's a good crowd - certainly not half empty in terms of "bums on seats". But it might be half empty in financial terms - it's obvious from the news and the reports here that a lot of the people there didn't pay the full price as originally advertised, and probably the $85 tickets saved the Stones' blushes.
Right. Being able to "fill" an arena (with no seating behind the stage) at fire sale prices in cities the size of Los Angeles and San Francisco is not really an accomplishment, and those arenas certainly would have been half empty if they hadn't drastically slashed prices at the last minute.
I do not really understand this logic. If the tickets would cost 150-200$ since the beginning and the arena was full -it would be okay. But full arena with some people who had been there for 150-200 dollars instead of 600 makes the audience as if non-existent?
Oh, they definitely exist, all right. Unless, some of them were .... mannequins!
Quote
proudmary
It seems not all reviewers are happy with Richards and Watts
The Rolling Stones Overcharge For Imperfection at Oracle Arena, 5/5/13
[blogs.sfweekly.com]
those who were there - is it true or again the bias caused by the tickets
price?
Quote
andrewtQuote
DoomandGloom
The videos I've seen from last night were great. After all the jokes about Chuck here I've really "keyed" on to him. He does a great job...AS far as ticket prices, it's unfair for those who payed triple for the same seats others get at a discount but I won't lose sleep over it. If they sell out or not it's not my problem as long as they continue to play well I'm psyched.
Midnight Rambler was horrid. Keith doesn't even solo on Happy an anymore for crying out loud or even slash away at the rhythm, the song is dullsville now, some pedal steel licks from Ronnie and that's it.
I can't believe it's come down to showing an '89 video to remind people of better days but here you go
Happy '89
Happy Oakland
[www.youtube.com]
Little Red Rooster was a waste of Tom Waits and paint-by-numbers blues.
All Down The Line was allright, though.
Quote
desertblues68
A mate of mine who was lucky to see them in concert during their peak years mid 60s to 76 has told me that the Stones were either riveting or awful, no middle ground with them. Is that true?