Logic always USED to be, the smaller the venue, the more varied the set list could be. Granted, Glasto was one show, and with a re- write of FG, 2,000 LY and shuffling the 'horses, that was as varied as any of the smaller venues.

My point is, at this juncture, although I used to faced arenas, I think they benefit greatly from the energy of a larger crowd. If I am going to get 18-20 songs set in stone, give me the cheaper tickets, and the "event" atmosphere.

I have also mentioned before, that if you need the hits for the casual/younger crowd, why did you mix it up(successfully) at Glasto? Mick, you have not only defied your logic, but in doing so, proved yourself wrong.

Lastly, IMO,hearing a deeper cut smoke, like say Bitch, or Sway is what MADE me a diehard, not the opposite. Maybe Mick is only interested in gaining casual fans from now on......

I say stadium. cheaper tickets, giant screens, screamin' sound systems.. Great energy at Glasto, the best show we could hope for.

Quote
DoomandGloom
I say stadium. cheaper tickets, giant screens, screamin' sound systems.. Great energy at Glasto, the best show we could hope for.

Agreed. My view may be a bit calloused, but it's starting to feel like the US, was treated like a cash cow. Geographically, they ignored @ 1/2 of the country, coincidentally, mostly ignoring the "poorer" areas. Charging outrageous prices for a greatest hits your and review, maximizing profits, etc.... although those in attendance say it was great, I would be disappointed if I had made the trip to DC. Last show in the states, no surprises, and played barely over 2hours.......felt like they couldn't leave fast enough. Rather off putting.

Stadiums, of course. And not seated Parks. By far. Cheaper tickets, much more young people in the audience, more enthousiastic atmosphere.

Some say, "stadiums are made for sports, not for concerts". Is this really an argument? By this logic, concerts should take place nowhere! Because arenas are made for basketball or Hockey too...

Look at Glasto and Hyde Park video...The Stones play "JJF" and tens of thousands people are dancing and singing the chorus. "But it all righthttttt..." Nothing compers to this.

And Rock n' Roll has nothing to do with agoraphobia...

Now that they play arenas like so many people wanted, for the "intimacy" and so on, people want to go back to the impersonal circus of the stadiums--that means the inflatable dolls may be back as well.

And to balance out the sound, may as well have Blondie and the rest of the army of side players.

But shouldn't they change the set lists for the stadiums? Just play rarities, outtakes, and B-sides instead of the greatest hits (aka 'warhorses')? Ah, but then people might complain about the rarities set list--"Hey, these rarities stadium shows have no fire, no bang. Pyrotechnics displays don't really work for the show-closing Gomper. They should go back to playing JJF".

Mick should bring back the lemon yellow tights as well, it seems to have been a real crowd-pleaser on those early stadium shows. That plain black shirt and pants he wears now look so drab under dull arena lighting. He should fire L'Wren and reinstate Jerry Hall--so she and the rest of the Stones wives can do their big stadium walk-on during Honky Tonk Women.

Let's make it the biggest possible bang. Ever.

Back to Vegas, here we come....

If we can't have small intimate theatres and clubs. I'm tempted to say outdoor stadia [so long as you're in a good forward position !]
The sound is so much better than the majority of big indoor arenas, which invariably have appalling acoustics and "slapback"

On ABB, stadiums didn't seem to be any less expensive. If you want to see the band well. I vote arenas for audio reasons. I will admit that the sound in the last stadium show I saw was superb but I live in Seattle & our football stadium was designed with sound as a major factor. Not many are. U2 played there & it was by far the best stadium show I've ever seen for both sound & visuals.

Having had the unbelievable good luck of seeing them four times in very different settings since October (25/10: Trabendo, 08/11: Bondy Rehearsal, 25/11: O2, 06/07: HP1) each time in prime locations, I'd say Club/Stadium, rehearsals being obviously out and Clubs as well, so that leaves stadiums.

I think this picture tells the story as to why they were on fire in Glastonbury and HP1. These guys have seen it all and at this point they need a "kick" to make it happen.

I was lucky enough to see a club show on 40 Licks in Vegas. Whilst it was a one of a kind experience, they were actually better the next night in an arena.

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
DoomandGloom
I say stadium. cheaper tickets, giant screens, screamin' sound systems.. Great energy at Glasto, the best show we could hope for.

Agreed. My view may be a bit calloused, but it's starting to feel like the US, was treated like a cash cow. Geographically, they ignored @ 1/2 of the country, coincidentally, mostly ignoring the "poorer" areas. Charging outrageous prices for a greatest hits your and review, maximizing profits, etc.... although those in attendance say it was great, I would be disappointed if I had made the trip to DC. Last show in the states, no surprises, and played barely over 2hours.......felt like they couldn't leave fast enough. Rather off putting.

To be precise they played 2 hours and just over 15 minutes. It is correct that there where now surprises and as the last show it did not touch the outstanding Philadelphia 2. Still ist was a very, very good show.

I do agree that the crown does have more energy like in glastonbury or Hyde Park. But stadium shows loose its momentums already sine 20 years ago. I do not want big screens I do not want big stages. I prefer arena shows by far and to me it is clear that the Stones also feel much more comfortable when being closer during the song.

Of course it is fun to see Mick or Keith going to the far end of the middle or side walks but it never can comply with the present tongue pit stage. And as we all know they won't built a stadium stage at all for now. So be it and either crab the cash for the arena shows which I enjoyed most since Stockholm 03 or Frankfurt 1982 or wait for another act like Hyde Park or Glastonbury.

Arenas vs Stadiae vs Park/festivals................maybe they get a taste for Festivals and just do a load of those again next year......the last 2 have certainly worked notwithstanding the warhorses..........mind you, maybe the cash wouldn't be there........ especially when it's someone else's established fest like Glastonbury..........normal band rates apply - or do they?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-09 14:19 by EddieByword.

IMHO what kills the atmosphere at stadiums and arenas is the seating.

It's much more lively and fun standing and dancing in Hyde Park or Glastonbury than it is imprisoned into a tiny seating area where the people behind you and the over-zealous security staff (that's the little jobsworths at places like the O2) do their level best to ruin the energy of the event.

Quote
tomcat2006
IMHO what kills the atmosphere at stadiums and arenas is the seating.

It's much more lively and fun standing and dancing in Hyde Park or Glastonbury than it is imprisoned into a tiny seating area where the people behind you and the over-zealous security staff (that's the little jobsworths at places like the O2) do their level best to ruin the energy of the event.

That's about it, FUN? "Not on our watch you won't"

One of my earliest memories of the Stones was an old guy - 75+ dancing in the aisle with his 'daughter' at Earl's court in '76, they led the way and soon the security gave up.................



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-09 15:11 by EddieByword.

Quote
tomcat2006
IMHO what kills the atmosphere at stadiums and arenas is the seating.

It's much more lively and fun standing and dancing in Hyde Park or Glastonbury than it is imprisoned into a tiny seating area where the people behind you and the over-zealous security staff (that's the little jobsworths at places like the O2) do their level best to ruin the energy of the event.

A seat does not really force you to SIT all the time. I do know that a lot of people do not like the seated ground floor. However I think it allows you a certain space in front of you and we have been dancing more than squeezed in a crowd in open fields, that's for sure. The space between the seats do also give shorties a chance to see more even if it's further back.

I do know of people which insist that people remain seated during the shows, but HEY!!! It's Rock and Roll and Fun even in the seats and not the playhouse orchestra.

Stadiums, and festivals for that matter, are sooooo 1970s. Stadium sound is terrible more often than not. And I hate screens. I pay to experience a live performance, not to watch a damn movie. So since we're not going to get clubs or theaters, I say stick with arenas.

I haven't been to any stadium shows for a long time, but what I mostly remember about them is not the music, but the atmosphere. I think arena shows are where you can better experience the music and I think the band is more comfortable in a controlled enviornment. Yes, the one off outdoor concert like Glastonbury is clearly a rush for them, but it would quickly get old if they did a full tour like that. They need the predictability of an inside space and, for me, I like the same thing. I don't want to be thinking about how hot and thirsty I am and straining to see the little Stone specks on the stage while I listen to the giant speakers.

The only reason this is even a discussion is the price and song selection. On Licks we knew that arena and clubs would have more obscure songs, themed sections, where stadiums were more hit oriented. This time around they varied the setlist very little and charged incredible amounts for tickets. My first show was a stadium. Although I prefer arenas, they can feel just as distant.

crholmstrom wrote: "On ABB, stadiums didn't seem to be any less expensive. If you want to see the band well."

Are you sure? Just saw some statistics from 2006. In the US and Canada, the average price per ticket for arenas was over $200 and sometimes much more than it. The average price per ticket for stadiums was, $91,63 at Foxboro, $86,45 at Halifax, $126,12 at Giants and $123,69 at Louisville.

A lot of good points here, I am frankly surprised by all of the stadium love. The set list is pretty static these days, pretty much a hit list anyway. I think at their age, the energy of 50,000+ is a lift. Sound wise, I am not sure arenas are that much better, louder, yes, but not always better. The price of a stadium ticket is much cheaper. Club gigs would likely be the best, but on this tour, those tickets would start at $18,000.......

Quote
crholmstrom
On ABB, stadiums didn't seem to be any less expensive. .

Really?

You must have gotten absolutely hosed on your ABB tickets in that case.

Arena...stadiums suck for music...

Quote
laertisflash
crholmstrom wrote: "On ABB, stadiums didn't seem to be any less expensive. If you want to see the band well."

Are you sure? Just saw some statistics from 2006. In the US and Canada, the average price per ticket for arenas was over $200 and sometimes much more than it. The average price per ticket for stadiums was, $91,63 at Foxboro, $86,45 at Halifax, $126,12 at Giants and $123,69 at Louisville.

Dodger Stadium ticket prices in 2006 were $450 down to $95. The worst $450 seats were about the same distance to the stage as the arena seats this past tour at $175.

In defense of stadiums (even though I usually prefer smaller venues) it seems over the past 10 to 15 years the sound has vastly improved compared to arenas.

The thing that is quite puzzling to me is that at arena shows, where the sound is often with too much echo and sometimes muffled, it's easy to understand what the artist saying between songs, where as in a 2,000 to 3,000 seat theater, while the sound of the music is a lot clearer, I can hardly undertand the talking between songs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-09 19:34 by BluzDude.

"In defense of stadiums (even though I usually prefer smaller venues) it seems over the past 10 to 15 years the sound has vastly improved compared to arenas."

That's the true, BluzDude. In addition, i would say that after all these years all of us know which stadiums have bad acoustics (Amsterdam Arena, for exaple). The band could just avoid these stadiums.

Obviously, we have the clearest sound when concerts are taking place in Parks, open fieldes, where nothing prevents sound from having good diffusion.


PS: Sorry folks, but i don't buy the theory that "small venues are for the music and big venues for show". Not at all. I have attended excellent gigs, i mean musically, i huge venues. This dogma sounds a bit like obsession to me.

Funny people mention intimacy. My first show was old Cleveland Stadium. I will estimate 60,000-70,000, and when Keith said "How'r ya doin" I thought he was talking to me........

Quote
kwf
Arena...stadiums suck for music...

Stadiums...arenas suck for music

I don't really care as long as the infield is not seated.

I've seen a ton of shows since the Licks Tour, and my conclusions are:

1. Usually (not always) the Stones play a bit better in an arena. The stadium stage places the individual band members too far apart and communication suffers.

2. Sound in an arena is better than in covered stadiums. Open air stadiums can be pretty good, however, you are at risk of weather conditions - when it is windy, sound can be terrible.

3. Stadiums in Europe are usually general admission on the pitch. Except for a few VIP's who pay to be allowed early entry, if you line up early, you can get close to the stage for a decent price; a huge advantage for those with the strength and endurance. US stadiums are a poor bargain, as there is no GA FOS, and VIP prices are charged for the very best seats (which are still far from the stage in a stadium setup, and $400 or more for most of front half of the vast field

Conclusion: agree that stadium shows can provide a good value in open roof stadiums (not Amsterdam Arena, thanks), but only in EU, where thy have GA FOS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-09 20:29 by drbryant.

Quote
drbryant
I've seen a ton of shows since the Licks Tour, and my conclusions are:

1. Usually (not always) the Stones play a bit better in an arena. The stadium stage places the individual band members too far apart and communication suffers. AGREED TO THAT ONE

2. Sound in an arena is better than in covered stadiums. Open air stadiums can be pretty good, however, you are at risk of weather conditions - when it is windy, sound can be terrible. I HAD A FANTASTIC OUTDOOR RAIN CONCERT IN BASEL 1990 AND MUNICH 1982 BUT DON'T NEED THAT AGAIN

3. Stadiums in Europe are usually general admission on the pitch. Except for a few VIP's who pay to be allowed early entry, if you line up early, you can get close to the stage for a decent price; a huge advantage for those with the strength and endurance. US stadiums are a poor bargain, as there is no GA FOS, and VIP prices are charged for the very best seats (which are still far from the stage in a stadium setup, and $400 or more for most of front half of the vast field

Conclusion: agree that stadium shows can provide a good value in open roof stadiums (not Amsterdam Arena, thanks), but only in EU, where thy have GA FOS.

THERE ARE NO ROLLING STONES CONCERTS ANYMORE SINCE 2003 WHERE YOU HAVE GENERAL ADMITTANCE OR FOS, ALL IS SEATED EXCEPT TODAY THE TONGUE PIT.

However I can't recall any seated Arena Show where People have been sitting, except for some rest of some minutes or some may have leaned on the back of the seat. Anyway this discussion leads to nowhere as it may e simply already decided by the Management what we get.

Grisom wrote: "THERE ARE NO ROLLING STONES CONCERTS ANYMORE SINCE 2003 WHERE YOU HAVE GENERAL ADMITTANCE OR FOS, ALL IS SEATED EXCEPT TODAY THE TONGUE PIT".

I suppose you mean in the US only, right?

Quote
Thrylan
Funny people mention intimacy. My first show was old Cleveland Stadium. I will estimate 60,000-70,000, and when Keith said "How'r ya doin" I thought he was talking to me........

You're one of these rare fools

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Thrylan
Funny people mention intimacy. My first show was old Cleveland Stadium. I will estimate 60,000-70,000, and when Keith said "How'r ya doin" I thought he was talking to me........

You're one of these rare fools

It's my lie, I'll tell it like I want it.