I recently read the opening paragraph of a now archived article BW wrote for the NY Times after having (it seemed) recently attended a Dylan concert I think somewhere on the east coast of the States. The impression I gleaned from the opening paragraph was pretty negative - did anyone actually see the article in full, and if so, was Bill paying out on Dylan? Cheers

I'm a necessary talent behind ev'ry rock and roll band
I'm sharp...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-26 08:32 by Tom Petty.

I read Bill Wyman's piece on Dylan in a Sunday edition of the New York Times. The writer is not the Bill Wyman from the Stones; it's someone with the same name. Years ago, this writer wrote about having the same name as "our" Bill Wyman.

I'll post some of the text if I can find it. It was a fine piece of writing but I recognize that interest in Dylan among most members of this board is slim.

Gosh, I hope that no copyright rules are being bent by posting this.

Dylan Gives the People What He Wants

By BILL WYMAN
Published: June 12, 2005

The theater, 70 miles north of Lansing, Mich., was big
and boomy and boxy, and a third empty. The fans sat,
six to a side, at long tables perpendicular to the
stage. A few dozen yards away, slot machines jangled,
lights flashed, cards snapped. Onstage, the
frail-looking singer hunched over the keyboard and
bleated out a tune that the patient audience strained
to recognize. The singer, dressed as he always is in
courtly dark garb, said little to the audience, though
once or twice he emerged from behind the keyboard to
play a harmonica solo from center stage.

The place was the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, and
it was an odd rock 'n' roll show. But it was the kind
of show and the kind of site that Bob Dylan has
increasingly made his own.

Mr. Dylan, 64, plays big cities, of course. (In April
he played five nights in Manhattan.) But more and
more, he is choosing stranger settings: state fairs,
corporate events, urban street fairs and casinos (from
Indian casinos like the Turning Stone in Verona, N.Y.,
and the Soaring Eagle to more traditional ones in Las
Vegas and Reno). He is now in the middle of his second
summer barnstorming tour of minor-league baseball
fields, like the Osceola County Stadium in Kissimmee,
Fla., with Willie Nelson in tow.

Mr. Dylan may be in the final phase of his long and
iconoclastic life as a star, and for it he has chosen
a very long and very iconoclastic tour: 1,700 shows
and counting, beginning in 1988. Caught in an artistic
crisis then, he decided to defibrillate his career and
go back on the road. Accompanied by a small combo, he
reintroduced himself to fans, sporting a lean energy
and a commitment to exploring his nonpareil song
catalog. He shows no signs of slowing down, though he
has lately replaced the guitar he has played for more
than 45 years with a keyboard, causing speculation
that back problems might be responsible for the
switch. (Through Mr. Dylan's publicist at Columbia
Records, his management said playing keyboards was
"just his musical preference" and declined to comment
otherwise for this article.) Mr. Dylan has turned his
act into one of the weirdest road shows in rock. He
rarely speaks to the crowd, and when he does, his
remarks are often gnomic throwaways. ("I had a big
brass bed, but I sold it!") He plays some of his
best-known songs, but often in contrarian, almost
unrecognizable versions, as if to dampen their
anthemic qualities. He highlights recent compositions
more than most of his 60's coevals, but these, too,
are delivered as highly stylized, singsongy chants. He
strives to play as many kinds of places as possible,
even playing successive nights in different theaters
and clubs in large cities.

In other words, Mr. Dylan seems to have developed an
unparalleled commitment to sharing his art, but only
on his own very specific terms.

Of course, a hundred shows a year is not unheard of in
the rock world; some well-known figures, Mr. Nelson
and B. B. King among them, play even more shows than
Mr. Dylan. But no performer of similar stature has
exhibited his decades-spanning commitment to the
stage. Acts like Bruce Springsteen, the Rolling Stones
and U2 tend to tour every two or three years as part
of a grandly themed marketing package, complete with a
new album, an intricate publicity strategy, tractor
trailers to carry their massive stage sets; later
there is souvenir bric-a-brac like a live album or an
HBO special for later DVD release.

Mr. Dylan does none of that. There are no themes,
little publicity and no tractor trailers; he just
plays shows. The writer Paul Williams, who founded
Crawdaddy, arguably the first rock magazine, in 1966,
said Mr. Dylan's focus had moved away from recording
in the last few decades. "This is his art form," he
said, "the performing."

These shows have none of the strict choreography of
the modern rock concert. Major touring acts will
charge hundreds of dollars for a tightly scripted
performance, with one or two opportunities for
spontaneity. By contrast, Mr. Dylan's small ensemble
plays confidently during each set's few anchors, but
watches somewhat warily during the rest of the show,
as Mr. Dylan decides which part of his huge repertory
to sample next.

"He would do anything from old folk songs, Civil
War-era songs, up to standards," said the guitarist G.
E. Smith, who played with Mr. Dylan at the start of
what has become known as the Never-Ending Tour. "I
remember once, we were playing in Hollywood, and he
played 'Moon River.' "

UNLIKE some of his peers, Mr. Dylan doesn't seem to be
motivated primarily by money. His ticket prices
average a bit over $40, according to Gary Bongiovanni,
editor of the concert industry magazine Pollstar;
that's significantly below the industry average. "Bob
is one guy who's realized it's not all about the
money," said Jerry Mickleson, of Jam Productions in
Chicago. "It's about making music and making people
happy. It's not about charging $100 a ticket."

For the Bob and Willie tour, in 2004, he added,
tickets were $45. This year, they were $49.50.

Still, finances may play a part in Mr. Dylan's touring
strategy. Casino shows are highly remunerative; the
Soaring Eagle had an uncharacteristically high $150
top ticket price, reflecting a high upfront fee for
the artist. He will never starve, but Mr. Dylan did
not come out of the 1960's and 70's with what could be
called McCartney money. Howard Sounes, in his Dylan
biography, "Down the Highway," writes that Mr. Dylan
has had four generations of Zimmermans and Dylans to
house at various times, besides two wives and, it
seems, the odd mistress. If Mr. Dylan plays 100 shows
a year before 4,000 fans at an average price of $40 a
ticket, he may walk away with more than $5 million
profit. And of course, that's on top of the million or
so albums he sells a year.

Yet money doesn't fully explain the restless nature of
the touring, and it certainly doesn't explain Mr.
Dylan's refusal to give the audience what it wants to
hear, his casual approach to publicity, the small
clubs or the costs involved in playing at different
sites in the same city. For some of his 1960's peers,
whose tours can gross in the nine figures, it's hardly
worth leaving the Hamptons for $5 million.

One clue to what Mr. Dylan is doing may be found in
the liner notes to "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan," one
of his early albums: "I don't carry myself yet the way
that Big Joe Williams, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly and
Lightnin' Hopkins have carried themselves," he said.
"I hope to be able to someday, but they're older
people. I sometimes am able to do it, but it happens,
when it happens, unconsciously." These figures aren't
merely musical heroes; they're also counterpoints to
Mr. Dylan's casually decadent rock star peers, who
happily cater to their fans' demands. Unlike them, Mr.
Dylan offers the audience only what he thinks they
should want: an opportunity to see an artist work.

He has even become something of a proselytizer for the
road's healing powers. A call from Mr. Dylan
encouraged the singer Patti Smith to go back on the
road after a 16-year hiatus. "He told me I should
share what I do with the people," she said. "I think
that resonates with his philosophy."

The journey Mr. Dylan is on has eerie premonitions in
his songs, nowhere more so than in "Like a Rolling
Stone," whose refrain of "no direction home" can sound
both ominous and triumphant. "I think when he sang 'no
direction home,' he's talking about being lost, kind
of a stranger in a strange land," Mr. Williams said.
"And then ironically, it's how he chooses to live his
life."

Jonathan Cott, the author of "Dylan," said: "I've
thought about it, and I know it's a cliché, but I
think he finds himself on the road - 'finds' in both
senses of the word. I think for him the goal is the
road."

There is a final issue, and a more sensitive one,
given the singer's penchant for privacy. Beyond his
relatively well-chronicled relationship with his first
wife, Sara, little is known about his private life.
Until very recently, biographers were unfamiliar with
the basic details of his family, and many fans don't
know that Mr. Dylan was married for a second time, in
the '80's, to one of his gospel-era backup singers,
with whom he had a child.

The question, bluntly put, is what Mr. Dylan is
running away from, or to. At the height of his fame,
in the late 60's, he famously took himself off the
road for almost seven years to raise a family in
something approximating peace. What personal demons
could compel a man to spend his late 40's, then his
entire 50's and now his 60's, away from home?

"Is it running away or finding your own path?" Mr.
Cott asked. "I don't know."

nice read - thanks Pserchia!



"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

I hardly find the piece 'negative.' And it seems just from my friends (& even on this board) many Stones fans are Dylan fans - wouldnt any serious music lover appreciate the importance of both? I hope so...Thanks for posting

Great find and thanks.

I was also thinking of some social/musical Stones/Bob connections, like Bob hanging w/ Brian. Bob has guested at Stones shows in recent years, duetting w/ Mick on LARS. Ron & Keith backing Bob up (?) at the infamous Live Aid show. Both Ron & Mick Taylor are on more than one Dylan album, MT was part of that great ("Real Live") touring band, and Ron has guested at Bob shows. Then there are the more - or less - subtle cross influences...

Here's a connection between Dylan and the Stones: In 2002, Dylan regularly performed Brown Sugar.

I saw Dylan and his band do Brown Sugar three times at the Wiltern Theater in L.A. Less than three weeks later, at the same theater, I saw the Stones perform Brown Sugar. (And they performed Like a Rolling Stone two days earlier in Anaheim.)

I really hope Bob is at MSG in Sept. That would be really great!!

I just saw Dylan last Thursday night at a place in town, Pittsfield Ma, called Wahconah Park, a baseball field. It was packed, 10,000 and I can't tell you how bad I thought Dylan was! His band was tight and yet seemed so deliberately out of touch I felt disgusted! Now Mick and Keith are ICONS, McCartney is an ICON, yet they SPEAK to the crowd and try to establish report.Dylan's distancing himself from the folks that have kept him RICH is a testimony to exactly how full of himself he is. Or is he simply deranged, so warped after years on the road that he couldn't connect if he wanted to?? The songs he performed were not identifiable and they eventually all sounded like one long drone. I really used to like Dylan ALOT! Now I truly wished I'd stayed home! I didn't mean to turn this into a ranting review but I had to share my recent experience.

I saw Bob about 3 weeks ago in Zebulon, NC. I've seen him 8 times and once for the last four years. He rarely speaks to any audience. Dylan has lived a much different existence from The Beatles or the Stones. They all had the other band members to share thier experiences with but Bob is a solo artist and while he's had bands perform with him, they change fairly frequently and, to some degree, I think his fame has been different from the Stones or The Beatles, particularly in America, since the Stones and Beatles were writing from a British perspective and Bob writes from the American perspective. While both groups were inspired from time to time by Dylan, Dylan, lyrically speaking, has written some of the most profound things in the history of rock. He's been hounded and persecuted by the press probably more than The Stones or The Beatles. No, he's never had the screaming throngs of girls that they did, but I think his battles with the press were much more difficult because of the things he writes. I'm not knocking either group. I love the Stones and Beatles and I think there are brilliant song writers in both groups, but let's face it, "She Loves You" and "Sex Drive" are not quite "The Times They are a Changing" or "Not Dark Yet".

Dylan is the last American troubadour. Bob's audiences consist of two types of people: The ones who want to hear "the hits" and the ones who are there for whatever he plays. One of the joys of going to see Bob is trying to figure out what song he is doing, or to see how he will rearrange a piece of music to suit his current muse. Of course this is made much easier if one owns all of his records. If you go to see the Stones or McCartney this year, the songs they do will be near the sound of the original recordings. Nothing wrong with that. That's what they do and they do it damn well. But I think Bob's concerts are a bit more challenging. When I saw him in Zebulon, he DROVE the band from his keyboards, directing musicians with a subtle nod of his cowboy hat covered head. He growled, groaned and sang with plenty of emotion and enthusiasm with a perfect sound mix that allowed for one to hear every wonderful croak Bob made. Bob is not on stage for us, he's there for him. All we have to do is listen.

Bill

Well said Captkirk (btw, where is Zebulon?). I think I have to disagree with Debra a little bit. The Bob tours all the time, plays everywhere (Pittsfield and Zebulon for instance) and charges you $45 to see him. That is "connecting" with his fans to me. I mean what do the Stones do to "connect" with their fans? A few "how ya doin", "are ya feelin good" comments? They definitely do connect to your VISA. I can understand your points, but as the capt says above, Bob does his own thing, and promises nothing different. Some people don't enjoy it, but to his fans it's thrilling the way he works his art.

Karl

Zebulon is in North Carolina, a few miles east of Raleigh.

Bill

Well not to belabor my point(but I WILL) I want the artist I pay to see to play for ME! I AM THE CUSTOMER, I AM THE ONE WHO BUYS THE CDS! I do not go to see Bob or anyone else, TROUBADOR or not, to challenge myself, to see if I can perhaps GUESS WHAT HE'S PLAYING! Sorry, it's not a guessing game, it's a concert and a place I go to hear music that I know and love! AND DO NOT SAY " WEll STAY HOME AND PLAY THE CDS!" I am not in the minority here because fans, and I say that not in jest, were leaving in droves! Half of the crowd did NOT stay to hear Dylan play " It Ain't Me Babe", which I do know and " Like A Rolling Stone" which most said was not recognizeable at all. Fun? Enjoyable? Not in our book.

Yes, you're the customer but the artist has to have room for some level of artistic expression - not just pay lip service to what some fans 'demand' that they play. Can you imagine what it must be like for some of these older artists from the 60s and 70s who havent had a hit for years and who basically have to play the same setlist year in year out because their audience wont let them develop?

Each to their own, I can see your point of view Debra but most people who go see Dylan after all these years are aware that one thing he is not is a greatest hits jukebox where you get a carbon copy of the originals. Might be frustrating if its the first time you've seen him, but Bob's audiences do tend to have all of the albums (unlike Stones' audiences) and know the material, no matter how 'obscure'.

As far as he's concerned, the original songs are merely a template and the songs get re-invented and re-arranged down the years, with room for improvisation. Jazz artists have done this for decades and their audiences have been able to deal with it. Unfortunately, some rock audiences tend to want a safe kind of show. No matter how many Dylan shows I've seen down the years (about 25-30) and regardless of how good or bad the performance was, there have always been people afterwards who just didnt 'get it' for that reason whereas others thought it was brilliant.

Some fans like predictability, whether it be in a 'safe' setlist or the same arrangements of much the same songs year in year out (like the Stones do). (cant agree that "like a rolling stone" is unrecognizable. ive heard several shows from this tour and its quite obviously NOT by any standards)

Personally, as much as I enjoy seeing the Stones and they do what they do very well, I wish they'd take more chances with their setlist and the arrangements like Dylan does. Sometimes it doesnt quite work, but personally I prefer that he's still trying to keep it fresh. Performance art is about keeping your music evolving year in year out - not just regurgitating it in an unchallenging manner.

And he sure connects with his fans more than the Stones do for the reasons that Kark and Bill say above. Great an entertainer as Mick is, there's more to 'connecting' than a few "are ya havin a good time" type comments between songs. Some artists just have different ways of doing it. Decently priced tickets, regular touring and wildly varying setlists are certainly a good way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-29 01:34 by Gazza.

There are entertainers, and there are artists. And there are those who fall into both camps.

And then there is Dylan. I'm in awe of him. I feel fortunate that he is accessible to his audience as he is. And I think it is Dylan's right and privilege for him to reinterpret his songs any way he wishes.

There is a mystery to Dylan that defies explanation. And I am aware that Dylan would probably mock me for holding that point of view.

If Dylan were to stop touring, that would be a huge loss. If you have never seen him perform, go now, while you have the opportunity to do so.

there'a reason it's called "PITTS"field ya know...

Ah Rovalle, the CHEAP SHOT, I guess I'll consider the source! And Gazza,Excuse ME, but Stones fans, at least the real ones,BUY ALL STONES MATERIAL, including the solo cds! And guess what? When the Stones PLAY the songs in concert, we actually recognize the song, BEFORE it's over! THe reason ole Bob charges $49.50 and not $300+ is not that he is a GREAT GUY concerned about the fans, but because that is the MAX he CAN charge and still play to an audience! Different strokes for different folks, I just wanted you to recognize that artists who play ONLY for a tiny segment of the audience will continue to frustrate MOST Of the audience. It was not just MY opinion, it was held by 98% of those I spoke with, and we are not HAYSEEDS! We are music lovers who were sorely disappointed! Bob connected with Bob and his band, no one else! Not even a THANK YOU, GOOD NIGHT! Talk about ARROGANCE! Bob is NOT a MYSTERY!He is a BORE!

how can you consider the source when you don't know anything about the source?....typical...and as for REAL stones fans, ha!....where were you in '65? the time i spent in pittsfield wasn't bad though but the chemical plant there must have added something to the water all these years....hasta

Debra - sorry but youre wrong about Stones fans. You, me and the vast majority of people on this site might know all the material but from every Stones show I've been to down the years I've seen HUGE parts of the audience completely lost or disinterested when they unearth genuinely classic songs from popular albums like "Moonlight Mile" - and dont even get me started on the thousands who rush to the bogs en masse when Keith is doing his mini-set. Its a complete disrespect for the band and their material and its absolutely unique to any band I go to see. The target audience for the Stones in the 21st century is not people like us, its the corporate casual fans who come for the hits and pay hundreds of dollars (or else their company does it for them) and who dont want to hear anything that isnt well known. The knock-on effect is that the band coasts by playing a high percentage of songs they could perform in their sleep. Thats fine if you like a safe kind of show chock-full of 'hits' but creatively, its lazy. Each to their own as I said earlier. I can respect the fact that people want that type of show. Personally, Id prefer a bit of both types.

We'll agree to differ on the average Dylan audience. It divides audiences for sure, but maybe thats a US thing and its more prominent where you are. At any Dylan show I've been at, the crowd are definitely into it for the most part. I dont live in the US, so I wouldnt even know what a 'hayseed' is, so please dont put words in my mouth by implying I insulted the audience you were part of as a group of them. Thanks.

The price argument is nonsense. Every artist has a varying degree of affluent fans who would be dumb enough to pay $300 plus for a ticket for a night out, whether there are 2,000 of them in a particular venue or 50,000. Thats an irrelevant arguement. Being ABLE to get away with those prices ISNT a badge of honour.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-29 14:56 by Gazza.

I have seen Bob many many times over the last 30 years and it saddens me to say that he is a pale shadow of the performer that he once was. I love it when he pulls out these obscure songs from his own catalogue or from some other writer so I have never been there just for the hits. The problem now is that his vocal delivery is dull and predictable and as Debra pointed out you cant really understand what he is saying most of the time and thats coming from someone who knows his catalogue backwards.

Bob will always be a great artist and deserves utmost respect but there are times when i have watched him recently and thought that if it wasnt Bob Dylan up there the audience would be chucking cans at such a lacklustre and uninspired performer. The songs themselves are classic but they need to be performed not recited in a monotone. As soon as he started to stand behind that bloody piano for the whole gig things got steadily worse in my opinion. Good luck to those who still enjoy him live (at least the ticket prices are reasonable) but this Dylan fan has finallly given up on him live. At least I have some great memories of his past gigs.

Andy

I think the venue and sound mix may be the problems in understanding the words as much as anything. I've seen him every year since 2002. In Winston-Salem in '02 and in Zebulon this year I was able to hear his vocals clearly, but in Cary, NC in '03 and Richmond last year the mix was not as crisp and Richmond suffered from echo throughout the stadium. His vocal delivery is anything but dull and predictable. Just try singing along with him at a concert. You can't, because he's going change the melody. As I said in a previous post, Bob really drives the band from his keyboard. And, I must say, the band he has is amazing. Maybe some have caught a bad show, Dylan is only human and certainly has one every so often. Talk to Keith or Mick and I bet they'll certainly agree that the Stones have one every now and again. I realize Dylan is not everybody's cup of tea and that no matter what he does, someone will have a problem with it, and as far as respect for the audience I think Dylan respects the ones who respect him. And that's always been true. Listen to The Bootleg Series, Vol. 4 Live 1966 album when an audience member calls Dylan Judas for going electric. Just before starting "Like a Rolling Stone" he turns to The Band, who are backing him up and says "Play @#$%& Loud". I bet Jagger or Richards has never been called Judas by an audience member. I think that's why Dylan says very little at shows. Why put up with that kind of behavior from an audience? Dylan has blazed his own trail and it's for us to either join him on it or find the nearest exit, he's not going to stop for us to get on the slow train coming.

Bill

One reason for the 'connections' post was to point out that the RS & BD are basically peers, artistically, socially, chronologically, etc - both with ups & downs - like some others I have nearly everything by both...and both have been victims of the press (past 20+ years, constant reminders of the Stones' ages) - its like arguing over Hemingway vs Fitzgerald.

Rovalle, I certainly don't WANT to know YOU, and I was not raised in Pittsfield and as far as chemicals are concerned, I'd bet you know quite a few, up close and personal. In '65 I was watching the Stones, thanks! Now as for Gazza, even though I may disagree with SOME of what you say, at least you are an intelligent gent. I disagree that those you describe as " disinterested" comprise such a large percentage of the crowd. I WILL SAY I do wish the Stones would take a few more chances because I live to hear the gems, those deep cuts they only play, ironically enough, for the wealthy corporate cats at the RARE theatre shows! Is a " Bog" a bar or a bathroom?? And a " Hayseed" is a country bloke who doesn't get out much!! LAZY?? Yes, the Stones can be called lazy at times for not stretching; I have often said, even on this site, that I am tired of the warhorses and yet I wonder if Keith can handle much more than that these days, and Ronnie, well who knows what kind of shape he'll be in. Back to Dylan; I wouldn't mind if he played a MIX of obscure songs and familiar tunes but he plays MOSTLY DEEP CUTS, or songs that he KNOWS most of the audience has never heard. I call that spiteful! He could give some of the casual fans a bit of a break and play " Maggie's Farm", " Tangled Up In Blue", " Make You Feel MY Love', Love Sick" or even " Just Like A Woman" but NO! So you see Gazza, I really don't think I'm wrong at all about the Stones or Dylan; we disagree not in theory as much as in the degree to which the artists play those unknown songs.

waaugh!!!!!! gazza at least you got the intelligent gent remark....

I'm honoured. Thank you, Debra.

BTW - the "bog" is what you Americans (for some reason) politely call "the bathroom" (although the image of someone relieving themselves in a bath is too horrible to contemplate) or, in less dignified circles, "the crapper".

For the Stones, actually from what I've read and what interviews I've seen, its Mick who is less likely to want to vary the setlists from the tried and tested formula. Keith is happy enough to go along with what Mick wants to do because he's the singer and he's the guy who has to work the crowd and stretch his vocals to the limit each night.

the theatre shows arent aimed at corporate fans, Debra - thats why the tickets cost $50 and youve next to no chance getting them without being a fan club member. However, its worth noting that of the theatre shows on the last tour, the odd one out of the bunch was the casino show in Las Vegas just after Thanksgiving in 2002. Tickets were priced at $1,000 and $500 and the setlist was something you'd expect in a stadium or maybe an arena on a good day, with barely a 'hidden gem' in sight. The link between the prices and the setlist was hardly coincidental.

Gazza, my dear gent, if we should meet on tour, I'll buy you a pint or two! Now, on to the matter at hand! I KNOW that theatre shows are not AIMED AT FAT CATS but that's usually how it ends up because the $50 seats are no where to be found by NON fan club members LIKE ME! I refuse to join the Fan Club because I determined it to be yet another way of getting ripped off. I live in Massachusetts and nearly had a break down over getting a ticket to the Orpheum, to no avail; the broker I was dealing with had me up to $2000 for a balcony seat and in the end, he couldn't even procure it by show time! I'll tell you one thing, I heard about the Las Vagas show, and if I doled out $1500 for a ticket and heard a stadium set list, I'd have thrown a FIT! I must see a theatre show this tour, just once before they stop touring forever! More later, off to earn ticket $$$.

well, youre correct in that if youre not a fan club member you have roughly a snowball's chance in hell of getting a theatre ticket in a public sale - but thats the whole point/justification in a fan club. For me, its the ONLY redeeming quality about it as I find it otherwise almost worthless. At the end of the day, youre paying a refundable fee of $100 for a membership, so if you get lucky for a theatre show, thats an extra $50 per ticket on the price of admission - effectively youre getting to see the Stones in a theatre for $100. That aint bad. But the nature of supply and demand is that only a few hundred people will get tickets this way - at theatre shows, so many are given out to family, friends and hangers on. Youre lucky if 60% of the crowd are fans. However, at most theatre shows last time around they released a few extra tickets on the day I think London and NY were the exceptions) so its still possible if you know how to work the system

From experience on the last tour, most DONT fall into the hands of brokers - maybe the reason why the broker in your case couldnt deliver by showtime for the Orpheum was because some unscruplous fan had sold him his spare ticket - and you cant pick the tickets up until near showtime anyway and he would have to have been with the ticketholder to get it.

I had a feeling they would do that kind of setlist at that Vegas show. Part of me was disgusted and part of me thought it was funny that people would be so daft to pay that money to see a concert ..and of course, not too many will admit publicly that they felt let down by seeing a greatest hits set for $1,000 as it makes them look foolish.

Dont count on too many theatre shows this tour. I was gonna shoot for the Beacon show in September if it came off but think I'll settle for MSG in January if theycome back to New York then. the way they sold Giants and then MSG weeks later made it too difficult to plan a September trip based exclusively on whether I could get theatre tickets or not. We can exchange beers if youre in NY in January or if you get a European theatre show next summer!

Actually Gazza, I may be doing MSG in January too, depending on how much $$$ I have left. A friend CLAIMS he has a connection at the Beacon but I've heard that all before! I will not get all worked up in advance like last tour over a theatre show! The disappointment was intense. I suppose if I knew I'd be able to BUY a Beacon ticket, I'd join the fanclub in a heartbeat but I have heard WAY too many horror stories from fans who ponied up the $100 fee and either got NO tickets or really bad seats. It really KILLS me when I hear of fat cat none-fans getting OUR SEATS and they leave before the set is half way through. Are you considering Montreal? I usually go there because the exchange rate is in our favor and the Stones love Canada, move about freely and are more accessible. I should know, I met Mick there in the Omni Hotel.He was awesome, flirtatious, funny, kept holding my hand! I ALMOST LOST IT but managed to appear calm. Long story for another day...over the beers! I'm not planning on going to Europe next year. I have a Godchild's wedding to help plan.