For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
The Worst.
I seriously hope they won't use this stage in Europe.
It's too small and boring for massive stadiums such as Stade de France and San Siro.
Mick and the boys always legitimized high ticket prices with huge stages and terrific shows.
Quote
LimbostoneQuote
The Worst.
I seriously hope they won't use this stage in Europe.
It's too small and boring for massive stadiums such as Stade de France and San Siro.
Mick and the boys always legitimized high ticket prices with huge stages and terrific shows.
No they haven't. I've never heard from them about the reason for high ticket prices. In fact, the Voodoo Lounge stage was one of the most spectacular stages ever, they had three of them being transported about in what was it, "150 trucks" or whatever they used to brag about. Still ticketprices were not even half of what they are now.
Other than that you're right of course. The reason they haven't had Fisher studios (I assume they are still at the job without the late Mark Fisher) design a spectacular stadium stage is because it's too expensive for just the few stadiumsize shows.
Why don't they do more shows? Because all the large worldtour acts in 40.000+ venues are essentially over, for all artists. There's no market anymore for all those shows in stadiums. Actually with the Stones in 2007 already this had come to an end. In 2006 lots of shows on the continent were cancelled (Keith' health was just one reason), and in 2007 many stadium shows were done along the long side of the field, thus decreasing the capacity ergo make the stadium look less empty.
It's not that stadiums can't be filled up anymore, it's that acts (or better still, promotors since the acts themselves have a guaranteed income) want to maximise profit. For example a 40.000 stadium would justify avarage ticketprices of 50 Euro. Which would lead to 2.000.000 revenue.
With avarage prices of 100 however, they'd probably only sell say 60% of the tickets. This would make a 2.400.000 revenue. Easy as that. It's better to not sell out. We've seen this happen with the Stones' 2006 and 2007 European tours.
Now let's say one can sell out 15.000 capacity arenas with avarage ticketprices of 200 Euros. You'd earn 3.000.000 and production costs are way less because you don't need a mammoth stage and you don't need the 150 trucks...
What would they do? Easy. They'd only have a nice arena stage designed. And for the few big gigs they still do, they either use the festival stage at hand (i.e. Glastonbury, Hyde Park, Pinkpop...) or set up a cheap stage. The last option was already done in South America and Australia in 2006.
Re. using festival stages: the Stones have hardly played any festival since the early seventies. They either bring all their own stuff or they don't come at all. Since 1989 musically they've never felt comfortable outside their own comfortzone which was created and custom made by Fisher. Furthermore they were too proud for the festival circuit.
So why are they doing all these festivals all of a sudden? Because it's the only way they can still play massive crowds.
Quote
The Worst.Quote
LimbostoneQuote
The Worst.
I seriously hope they won't use this stage in Europe.
It's too small and boring for massive stadiums such as Stade de France and San Siro.
Mick and the boys always legitimized high ticket prices with huge stages and terrific shows.
No they haven't.
Yes they have.
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
Good for you on those times, good for me for now timesQuote
Limbostone
Oh no, for me, the BtB stage was one of the reasons I became interested in the Stones as a touring band! It somehow proved they were the biggest, most extreme, boundary breaking band in the world... They just put down their castle for one day anywhere they seemed fit. And musically, they were up to it. Watch Keith in Bremen, 1998. Those were MY Stones!