The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Quote
NoCode0680
"All Down the Line (With the Oakland African-American Gay Men's Choir)"

Loved that one! You gotta have a laugh in life!

Thanks Latebloomer

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 23:11 by NICOS.

Quote
NICOS
The complete set 2.22 hr

Wow, thank you NICOS! But, you might want to move this to the LA Staples thread.

Quote
Long John Stoner
The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Oh well,yeah time to hang it up guys,go on and enjoy all the money..><

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

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...

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.

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...

I am not an "expert" or a "prophet" but this article says it all from The Guardian:

Rolling Stones face pay cut as poor sales force them to slash US ticket prices

The rock giants are taking desperate measures to ensure full houses for their anniversary US gigs

Could it be the tour too far for the Rolling Stones? Insiders are even speculating that the band will have to renegotiate the huge guaranteed fees for their American tour, which opened on Friday, as ticket prices are radically reduced in light of poor sales. A perfect storm of management hubris, fan indifference and technology change is threatening to turn the tour into a disaster.

Last week the band said it was dropping the price of thousands of premium seats – "flexing" in industry parlance – rather than play to half-empty arenas. The situation was so dire, one insider revealed, that the band's own allotment of tickets was released because of a lack of requests.

"Total disaster. Too expensive and no vibe on the shows … it's a terrible way to go out," a source said. He added that the band could hardly refuse if their reputed $20m fees for the tour were revised. "What's the band gonna do? Say we're not going to play if you touch our gross?"

In the UK, by contrast, tickets for the groups's two Hyde Park shows, priced from £95-£300, quickly sold out, although £750-plus hotel package tickets remain. The , and they are also headlining the Glastonbury festival.

Although there was widespread grumbling about ticket prices after the Stones played in London and New York last year, it is since this tour reached the US west coast and heartlands such as Chicago that outright hostility has emerged towards the band and its promoter, the giant AEG Entertainment.

"I have to give them respect for what they have done, but now they seem like an embarrassment," fan Cameron Bowman told the San Francisco Chronicle recently. "Seriously, how much more money do they need? I feel like they are in Donald Trump or Gordon Gekko territory – just money for money's sake."

By setting prices at $170 (£110) for a cheap seat, $635 for a top seat or up to $2,000 for a VIP ticket, the band alienated blue-collar fans who have kept their tours profitable through the decades. Their 2005 tour grossed £350m.

This year is a different story. The Stones are playing in arenas holding from 10,000 to 15,000 people, not stadiums. In theory that should be more profitable – if fans will pay more for a closer view.

But the plan has backfired. The band has no new material to tour behind and its new management has allowed ticket prices, not the show, to become the story. By contrast, bands such as Fleetwood Mac and Tom Petty are selling out, but their tickets are a fraction of the price.

Playing in only a few cities – Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Toronto, Boston and Philadelphia – means it is less expensive to tour. But that plan relies on hardcore fans willing to travel – and they may not want to sit in an upper tier that's within their budget but is farther from the stage. So they are sitting out the tour.

"They did everything backwards," said one tour veteran. "It was a last-minute decision to celebrate their 50th anniversary. A bit more thought should have gone into it because now they are up against all this summer competition."

The Stones have a history of pushing the boundaries of ticket prices; they were one of the first bands to adopt multi-tiered pricing. But now legitimate secondary ticket sellers such as StubHub.com allow artists to see exactly what people are willing to pay to see their show.

The escalation in prices is partly testing the top of the market and partly an effort to squeeze touts out of the business. But touts may be a necessary evil. They took the risk in buying tickets for resale and priced that into their business. Now the Stones are taking on that risk, they also take the chance of getting burned.

"Price does matter," said Gary Bongiovanni, editor of the concert industry publication Pollstar. "The market is speaking."

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

For a better experience of the Rolling Stones put Exile on Main St in the car stereo and drive down Telegraph Ave.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 15:54 by tornnfrayed.

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.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
24FPS
They did All Down The Line with the guy on the record (Mick Taylor) in the wings and didn't call him out. Shame.

I thought it was stranger to have Taylor in the wings during a song he played on the record while having Gwen Stefani up there who was only a couple months old when it was recorded.

That says it all.

Quote
Long John Stoner
The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Quote

a boorish take on the overrated "Midnight Rambler"

That about says it all I think, a biased idiot.

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...

Dial it back not just a little bit, but a lot. Had the Stones not reduced prices at the last minute, neither of the first two shows would have anything near a sell out. Great seats can still be had for any of the remaining shows, but people don't want to pay for two tickets what amounts to a mortgage payment for some people. The fact is that whoever decided on these prices horribly miscalculated.

Good luck to Tom Waits but he added nothing to the tune. He was a visual distraction but an improvement over Gwen Stefani who messed up Wild Horses. Tom Waits did not ruin anything

I'm sure the Stones won;t worry too much about the West Coast shows, once they get up to Canada and then East Coast and the UK the crowds will be there and the reception will be amazing.

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?

I find the Gaurdian to be an annoying paper. While it does have its good points, overall They tend to over dramatize and seem to be anti-everything.

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
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!

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.

It is really great to read some of the good feedback from this show. Yesterday, after perusing so many negative posts about everything and anything associated with the tour, it was actually quite depressing and made me wonder if I made a mistake booking 1/2-dozen shows. I do think that they deserve being bashed for the ticket prices, but the people have spoken and AEG and The Stones have taken heed, and it may be too late to make amends, but at this point, I just plan on some good times.

Quote
bv
Mick Taylor was waving the four Stones forward, while Keith and the rest of the band said Mick you are part of us, come up and take the final bow with us. The result can be as seen in the new picture on the home page of IORR.com now...

A very nice gesture by the band.

Quote
Shawn20

Quote
bv
Mick Taylor was waving the four Stones forward, while Keith and the rest of the band said Mick you are part of us, come up and take the final bow with us. The result can be as seen in the new picture on the home page of IORR.com now...

A very nice gesture by the band.

Love it!

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Long John Stoner
The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Quote

a boorish take on the overrated "Midnight Rambler"

That about says it all I think, a biased idiot.

Other than the line you've bolded (overrated Midnight Rambler) I think the reviewer seemed fairly coherent and I didn't feel he was biased.

Any other reviews coming out yet?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Long John Stoner
The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Quote

a boorish take on the overrated "Midnight Rambler"

That about says it all I think, a biased idiot.

Other than the line you've bolded (overrated Midnight Rambler) I think the reviewer seemed fairly coherent and I didn't feel he was biased.

Any other reviews coming out yet?

The Rolling Stones Overcharge For Imperfection
[blogs.sfweekly.com]

Quote
Long John Stoner
The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

seems like a reasonable take...what makes you think he's predisposed?

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

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
Long John Stoner
The reviews for the Oakland show are starting to come in. Apparently not everyone agrees it was a great show. It sounds like this reviewer isn't predisposed to like the Stones anyway.

[www.mercurynews.com]

Quote

a boorish take on the overrated "Midnight Rambler"

That about says it all I think, a biased idiot.

then that goes for me as well. we biased idiots must stick together...

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?

Looks like a great show, wish I could have been there!