Why does the UK always seem to get treated like shit when the Stones tour, the UK dates always seem to be near the end of the tour, we only ever get a few dates compared to America and mainland Europe even the far east and Austraila do better than the Uk, what have we done to deserve this shoddy treatment.

Its the World Tour mentality that they have had since 1975/76. They tour as many countries as they can over a 12 month period and the biggest fan market is in the US so they always start there. The days when they would play 20+ gigs throughout the UK are long gone. They could easily do it if they wanted but they are just not interested and as a result have lost a lot of fans in the UK over the last 25 years. They could at least try to play more widespread venues accross this country rather than the usual London obsession.

Andy

They have lost a lot of UK fans over the years with that attitude, im old enough to remember going to see them at the old Empire Pool and the Birmingham odeon in 1973 i know we won't ever get back to those days but it would be nice to see them do at least smaller arenas and not all stadiums,, they don't even cover the whole country anymore im sure shows in Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, and a few shows in London would bring back the fans who find it hard to get tickets for the few stadium shows they have done over the last few tours



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-28 15:42 by Love In Vain.

The Stones do always announce the world tour in separate sections. First the US leg. Then the 2nd leg which is normally South America and Far East. Then Europe. Why risk a big operation and announce a lot of dates before they are ready? The fact that they announce the tour late does not mean "they don't give a shit"... Would it be better if you knew the dates 5 years in advance? And they sold the tickets 5 years in advance?

The European dates will be announced as usual when the tour is well and rolling in October or so, if they follow their usual procedure. If we are lucky then they will announce earlier. But the Stones are financially strong. They don't need to sell tickets one year ahead like many other bands. Also, in Europe, most people don't have a clue what they do next summer. Ticket sales 12 months ahead don't make sense. I bought my U2 ticket for the show in Oslo last night some month ago. Not one year ago.

I think people are just impatient. We just want the dates now. But it is not normal procedure to give them out this early. Not for the Stones. Not for other bands...

Bjornulf

Love In Vain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does the UK always seem to get treated like
> shit when the Stones tour, the UK dates always
> seem to be near the end of the tour, we only ever
> get a few dates compared to America and mainland
> Europe even the far east and Austraila do better
> than the Uk, what have we done to deserve this
> shoddy treatment.
>
>

up to 1999 you had a strong argument (especially regarding the postponed 98 tour which was supposed to see ten or twelve theatre shows nationwide in '99 as compensation)- however :

2002/2003

North America - 300 million people. 50 shows
Uk/Ireland - 60 million people. 11 shows.

Nine of those shows were in arenas or theatres, so it was a great chance to see the band on an intimate level that fans elsewhere rarely get.

they played to 190,000 fans on the last tour here. I'd hardly call that shortchanged. For the first time I didnt have to leave the British Isles during a European tour to get my Stones fix. I saw all I needed to see in my own country.

what has the stage of the tour they play here at got to do with being neglected? you can only play certain types of arenas/stadiums in certain countries at specific times of the year because they're used for other purposes

agree with Bjornulf..whats the point of announcing shows a year in advance. Would you rather pay several hundred pounds for tickets NOW knowing youre getting nothing for it for a year or pay it in 6 months time? Its a no brainer.

Japan has a population of 100 million and Germany (for example) over 80 million, Thats why they get lots of shows.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-28 15:49 by Gazza.

I think the biggest difference is that the US seem to get a more varied set list. I don't know if this is due to the fact that after a while, they sort od settle into bad habbits, or if it is because they think US audiences will prefer to see more varied shows.

For example, look at the set list for US No Security tour vs the setlist for UK and European tour. OK so we got MR and Route 66 on the B Stage (which the US got anyway), but the US also got Memory Hotel, Some Girls, Moonlight Mile etc.

With respect to the number of shows, it is simply supply and demand. The Stones play where they can sell out tickets. Perhaps they feel that they can't sell out a stadium in Norwich! (

If you look at Licks, they played shows in London, Manchester and Glasgow. OK so they could have fitted in an arena at Birmingham and possibly one in Cardiff, but that's not too bad seeing as the UK is probably the same land mass size as some US states!

The gripe that some of us have is that although they played 9 shows in the UK during the Licks Tour, 6 of those were in London. What about the rest of the country? In the US they spread their gigs around the country much better.

The Stones are a British band after all so you would think that they may wish to give their home fans a bit more. Perhaps I am being naive on that score and Mick and the boys consider themselves to be global citizens rather than British - unless of course Mick wants free tix for Test matches when it suits him to be British or is sucking up to HRH for his knighthood.

Andy

Good to see the positive streak still evident on this site.....

I know what you mean. I'd like them to play in Southampton.

However, the reality is that a vast majority of the UK's population lives in the South-East and it has by far the highest population density.

There are 60 million people in the UK. 84% of the population lives in England (i.e. 50 million people), 8% scotland (5 million people), 5% wales (3 million people) and 3% Northern Ireland (less than 2 million).

Of the 50 million people in England, 7 million live in London. This is more people than live in the whole of scotland. Therefore, I think it is self-explanatory why

However, after London, the next biggest cities are Glasgow and Birmingham with about 1 million each. After that, the biggest cities (with between 0.3 - 0.5 million) are Liverpool, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Leeds, Bristol, Manchester, Leicester and Hull. So I do see your point that they could fit in gigs in 4 or 5 of these towns, even if at a small arena. However, this would not be as profitable as lots of gigs in London which involves much less transport costs.

Forgot to add that in the US the gigs are centred on population cntres too (e.g. east coast).

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know what you mean. I'd like them to play in
> Southampton.
>
> However, the reality is that a vast majority of
> the UK's population lives in the South-East and it
> has by far the highest population density.
>
> There are 60 million people in the UK. 84% of the
> population lives in England (i.e. 50 million
> people), 8% scotland (5 million people), 5% wales
> (3 million people) and 3% Northern Ireland (less
> than 2 million).
>
> Of the 50 million people in England, 7 million
> live in London. This is more people than live in
> the whole of scotland. Therefore, I think it is
> self-explanatory why
>
> However, after London, the next biggest cities are
> Glasgow and Birmingham with about 1 million each.
> After that, the biggest cities (with between 0.3 -
> 0.5 million) are Liverpool, Edinburgh, Sheffield,
> Leeds, Bristol, Manchester, Leicester and Hull.
> So I do see your point that they could fit in gigs
> in 4 or 5 of these towns, even if at a small
> arena. However, this would not be as profitable
> as lots of gigs in London which involves much less
> transport costs.
>
>


But thats the same for all bands/artists Bob Dylan is doing 5 nights in Brixton but he is also playing Glasgow, Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham and Dublin which gives almost everyone who would like to see him the chance same with Clapton last year he did a run in London but also did shows in other citys up and down the country.

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know what you mean. I'd like them to play in
> Southampton.
>
> However, the reality is that a vast majority of
> the UK's population lives in the South-East and it
> has by far the highest population density.
>
> There are 60 million people in the UK. 84% of the
> population lives in England (i.e. 50 million
> people), 8% scotland (5 million people), 5% wales
> (3 million people) and 3% Northern Ireland (less
> than 2 million).
>
> Of the 50 million people in England, 7 million
> live in London. This is more people than live in
> the whole of scotland. Therefore, I think it is
> self-explanatory why
>
> However, after London, the next biggest cities are
> Glasgow and Birmingham with about 1 million each.
> After that, the biggest cities (with between 0.3 -
> 0.5 million) are Liverpool, Edinburgh, Sheffield,
> Leeds, Bristol, Manchester, Leicester and Hull.
> So I do see your point that they could fit in gigs
> in 4 or 5 of these towns, even if at a small
> arena. However, this would not be as profitable
> as lots of gigs in London which involves much less
> transport costs.
>

Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds would all have more than 0.5 million. Youre talking about three quarters of a million for a couple of those places, anyway - certainly Liverpool and Manchester. Belfast is also over 300,000 (double that for the Greater Belfast area).

Whilst youre right about London's population being densely populated ,the west midlands, lancashire and south yorkshire areas are as densely populated as the south and those cities arent really that far from each other compared to their distance from London

There just happens to be more money in the south, which is a probable reason why they get more shows. I agree with you that UK fans outside of London have been shortchanged over the years but by the same token the shows they have played north of London have always been easier to get tickets for than the London gigs




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-28 22:26 by Gazza.

I'm a musician and when i've toured the uk (small clubs) it costs a fortune to carry the equipment and the PA before the cost of accomodation. The Stones tours are 100 times the size of mine and they have mroe equipment a bigger pa more people and stage and screen and shitloads else as well. Maybe a huge uk tour is not finacially viable anymore. But at the same time Bon Jovi manage a stadium tour that takes in shows in the all the right places so no one feels left out and there last uk tour took more money and played to more people than the stones uk tour in the same year............

I'm about to be found murdered by (other) stones fans