Quote
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
tatters

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
proudmary

Quote
tatters

Quote
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?

Exactly, they've sold out multiple nights in Stadiums all over...Vancouver in 1989 and 1994.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 17:33 by DoomandGloom.

Ah, if only he was a rock'n roll pianist

Quote
GRNRBITW

Quote
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...

Back in the day we didn't talk about 'a show' but about 'a concert'. I don't need a show, I need a concert.

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...

As a courtesy we try not to turn every thread around that subject, but since you brought it up.... the $85 tickets were not an "offer", they were a desperate last gambit to avoid complete embarrassment. Check out the 85 dollar line from opening night, if these people didn't decide to say "@#$%& it" at the last minute and vultch some cheap tix imagine how barren the place would have been. On opening night. In Los Angeles.
[twitter.com]

The thing is, if they'd tried to pull the same stunt with ticket prices in 1989/90 (for example) as they have recently - the first big stadium tour with all the expensive screens and props etc - amongst the later others - I doubt they would have fill even arenas then either. The equivalent price of a 600 dollar (or £360) ticket today would have been $265 or £171............Urban Jungle tickets were £20..................£171? They would have probaly sold about 10.

They seem to have been diagnosed by the buying public this time round as having what I call "Urban seagull syndrome"....good but not that good.....(at getting out of the way of traffic)

Great videos of the Oakland show - what section, row and seat were they shot from? Also, how was the sound? Reason for my asking is that I have similar seats for the second Philly show.

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
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 17:50 by andrewt.

Did the show open with a maching band like in LA?

Quote
jumpontopofmebaby
Did the show open with a maching band like in LA?

barbershop quartet this time. good that they mix it up, i think.

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!

Well he certainly wasn't getting kickbacks from the PR people.

Sorry BV, but in the otherwise nice picture of the Stones you posted,Jagger looks kinda grim to me.

Did You notice any empty seats or was it sold out ?

They filled every seat by show time.

All Down The Line sound like Keith was barely in the sound mix! Just a bad angle?

Max, if someone wanted to get serious about it, they could just use the ustream app and broadcast the whole show live from their seat. It simultaneously records too....

Quote
tatters

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
proudmary

Quote
tatters

Quote
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?

But now they have chosen to perform in the arena and it was full with the people who paid the money asked from the beginning and the others who bought tickets at a discounted price. That's it, the same thing happened that always - when scalpers before the show cut prices. This time there are promoters and the band instead of scalpers

Both Keith and Ron were mixed up loud and out front where I was sitting. Bombastically so. It was fabulous.

Wonder where that sfweekly guy was located then [blogs.sfweekly.com]

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.

Dazed and confused?

Quote

Richards, who often wore the zonked-out expression of a zoo gorilla on barbituates

While I hate to admit it, that's a pretty good way of describing Keith's "glazed" look I experienced from about 2 meters away at the Trabendo last year...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 18:42 by gotdablouse.

I had a great time! I had excellent seats and thoroughly enjoyed myself aside from the guy in front of me that was so drunk he could barely stand by the 3rd song...

Tom Waits was a pleasant and definitely unexpected surprise.

I don't know how Mick does it at his age!

My seats were down on the floor. I spotted Kirk Hammett from Metallica down there and I saw Joe Satriani & wife in the lower level seats by the stage.

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?

Quote
tatters

Quote
proudmary

Quote
tatters

Quote
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!

i think that's the "guitar know it all" poster pouting in front.

Such a great show last night. My mystery ticket turned into a tongue pit. A life experience. I took 500 photos I'll tell my story and post little later.

"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".

I 'm doubtful of it, Green Lady. I think that, by these high prices, the gross prifit is still substantial, even after the $85 tickets offering. Of course, as you say, a lot of people didn't pay the full prices. But a 18,000 -19,000 crowd, paying prices which vary from $85 to &450 and partly to these …crazy $600, makes a good gross. Miles away from this “disaster” theory, spoken by the …all time classic “sources” that are always giving a “dramatic” tune on every common article. Even if the financial result is 5% or 15% (just supposing) lower than the REAL maximum expectiations the Stones had, who the hell would condider this as “big deal”? Not even the Stones themselves and their account clerks, i guess…

And, once again, i’m asking: Did some of these “sources” predict that the Stones couldn’t reduce the prices? Yes, as we have seen. And on this prediction has been based the other ridiculous prediction, about the “half –empty venues”…

Some of the prices were really crazy, but i don’t think the Stones are crazy or stupid. Not at all. They obviously had a particular stragedy. I’m not defend it, i don’t say there is fairness when a person pays &450 for a seat and other guy pays, after a few days, &85 for the seat beside. I’m just saying it’s a stragedy: “Let the people who are ready to pay high prices to pay them, let the scalpers out of the game (whether that’s a honest obiective or just an alibi for the annoying high prices, the removal of the scalpers is a fact) and on the last day or on the last hours we will give the number of $85 tickets we need in order that perform in a packed venue. Because we know that people are still insterested in our concerts, so many of them are waiting for cheaper prices until the last minute”.

And now, having the experience from the first gigs, they can regulate the things for the rest of the tour as they want (reducing earlier some prices or not, etc). What do you think they’re loosing with this stragedy? Money? OK, we have to wait and see the gross numbers (per show) of the whole 2013 northamerican tour… Reputation? Gimme a break… In the end of the day the factor that counts is whether they play or not in filled venues (and, unfortunately, for the industry the biggest measure is grossing…). If they need to remind industry of their ability to sell out fast, they have Hyde Park or whatever else massive gig (in Europe or Latin America) will decide to do by reasonable ticket prices.

Once again, i don’t defend this stragedy for the northamerican leg, I’ m just saying it’s understandable.

Tatters says: “those arenas certainly would have been half empty if they hadn't drastically slashed prices at the last minute”.

Right. Maybe half empty, maybe 30% empty- who knows and finally who cares. But IMO what counts is that people wait until the last minute to take a tolerable priced ticket and see the Stones. Otherwise, if we consider as measure of any band’s popularity people’s eagerness to pay high or insane prices, during the worst fanincial crisis in the human history after WW2, i’ m afraid it’s like we claim that music is for millionairs only. And i hope noone in this board would argue something like that.

I got 3 571$ tix,( sec 114 row 10) for 350$ each . Great seat's and A GREAT SHOW, not the best I've seen them , but well worth it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 19:47 by vincentwhirlwind.

Most of the reviews for this tour have been positive. Of course some posters will hone in on the one jerk who is probably a U2 fan and doesn't know squat about music that gives them a bad review.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

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?

The show was incredible. Gimme shelter was a train wreck though.

The worst for me is SFTD... and no need to come back in 1989... Can we still speak about a Keith solo ????

2006





2013. Awful. I love this legend but come on !

Quote
andrewt

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.

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?

Yes - Even in their so-called prime their concerts could either be transcendentally brilliant or horribly sloppy. Maybe if someone caught a bad show they might have said the Stones were finished decades ago. Maybe it depended on how well the drugs were working back then. So even today, never judge the Stones by one show. They have been more consistent in recent years but some nights are bound to be better than others. And one more thing...the record does show that when touring, they tend to get better and better as the trek progresses.