In treesnake's original picture of the stadium plan I am curious to know what the Green Monster Seats were for. Giant Reptiles?

They did this back in '78 at Anaheim.

Ha, Four Stone Walls! There's a street running just beyond Fenway's leftfield wall, so leftfield is not as deep as it is in other parks. To avoid having too many home runs hit, they just built a very high green leftfield wall, "The Green Monster."

The seats up there were unused last night (for the obvious reason that they're behing the stage), but they're among the toughest tickets to get for Red Sox games. It's partly a novelty factor, since they only put seats in up there two years ago, I think. Quite the hazardous spot for your average beer-guzzling Red Sox fan!

What a bollocks. If you're not allowed to have people on the field due to a game comming up in a few days: don't play there! People pay 150 bucks to see the Stones, not to see an empty field and the Stones playing 400 feet away. In Europe there's a bunch of "holy grounds" too, but all fields are protected with wooden planks. And, for example in the Amsterdam Arena, the Stones are contractually obliged to pay for a new gass pit after the concerts are over. If you can't open in Fenway, there's a bunch of excellent hocky arena's that will be more than glad to have the Stones open the tour. You want history? OPen at the MSG in New York.

Mathijs

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-23 11:51 by Rik.

This picture does look like there is a huge gap between the stands and the stage . But as someone said this is the Baseball season and I am sure the Red Sox would not have liked it to much if there field got torn up for a concert.
As a matter of fact the probably made it a condition that no one sits there just for that reason or they would have stopped them from playing there . I mean it is there home after all. God I can't believe I said that . I am such a Yankee fan .

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in the Amsterdam Arena, the Stones are
> contractually obliged to pay for a new gass pit

I hope this is a typo ...

FYI, I attended both previous concerts at Fenway (Springsteen and Buffett) and he infield is always protected--and it has not been an issue as far as I've heard--I was behind the Visitor's dugout for Buffet and I'll be there for the Stones tomorrow night. And I'll be happy with the view, especially when the stage extends to almost second base. Or I could pay $400 to sit up close---those are the choices.

Manfred

The Red Sox would not allow them to go near the infield. This was the same for the Buffet and Springsteen concerts. The picture is quite deceiving as the park is very small - you could of sat just about anywhere and you were close to the action - very intimate setting.

What a complete waste. Why not hold the concerts elsewhere in Boston?

The stage itself however looks excellent.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

Great stage this time around but, having seen them in two baseball parks in 2002...Comisky Park (Cellular Field) in Chicago and SBC in SF, my feeling is never again. Soldier Field (a football field) in Chicago will be great and the areas, IMHO, are the absolute best!!!

I was there and this post simply tells me how meaningless it is to judge anything without actually being there. It is like reading about a wine and then telling us about the taste, without tasting it...

The house was packed. Nobody seems to have been bothered by the fact that a part of the back part of the field as seen from the stage was not sold, i.e. it was protected. So if you see apicture that looks empty then it was not in Boston for sure. I walked around the stadium 3 times while waiting for the warm-up and this area was not of my concern at all. So why worry?

PS. I would assume the stadium takes 36,000 people, less 4,000 behind Bobby Keys, plus 2,000 on the floor front half, less 1,000 not sold because seats blocked by light towers. I.e. 33,000 people at the venue. May be they could have sold 100 dollars tickets on that empty space for 1,500 people but they would be seated way back on a flat field. Not the best place to sit.

Bjornulf

Well, doing this (closing off the infield) is nothing new when it comes to
baseball stadiums and concerts. It depends upon the stadium management and the groundskeepers. As I said, they did it at Anaheim in 1978, but in 1975 they
didn't do it in Cleveland and Milwaukee. They just let the whole world in.
If it was a football stadium or have Astro Turf, it may have been different.
Trust me, I thought the same thing back in '78. WHy don't they let us stand here?
But in a stadium, or arena even, I'd rather be 50 yards back and up rather than
flat where you can't see anything. I remember reading an article years ago
where groundskeepers really hated concerts during baseball season. Imaging what
50,000 people can do (as opposed to 3 outfielders) can do to the grass,
and then pot would grow in the oufield from people droppong their seeds.
Plus, they get real anal about the infield. By the way, that's baseball.
In 1981 here in LA, the goundsskeepers seemed not to care as there was a
day off between concerts and USC played a football game on the Saturday
and that was at least 40,000 on the field. I have a photo with the stage
half-disassembled in the distance. Blame the Stones camp for picking Fenway to open.BTW, someone mentioned opening at MSG. You never open in a huge tour in New York nowadays That's showbiz 101...unless you're the Beatles.

>"I was there and this post simply tells me how meaningless it is to judge anything without actually being there. It is like reading about a wine and then telling us about the taste, without tasting it..."

Well I wasn't in the trenches of WW1 but have a damn good idea that it was terrible.
It's tantamount to saying "something didn't happen because I didn't see it". The logic is flawed.

"Nobody seems to have been bothered by the fact that a part of the back part of the field as seen from the stage was not sold".

With all due respect, how would you know given theren were 35 000 plus people at the concert?
I'm sure you enjoyed the show bv but I've never read anything even slightly negative from you regarding the Stones. I wouldn't expect you to say the venue was crap.

I have eyes that work and can pass judgement on many things with a glance - as can we all.
And to me it would have been strange to see.

As I asked, given that there are I'm sure plenty of big venues in Boston, why didn't they just pick somewhere else?

All I can say is that this thread is the most meaningful topic of discussion ever presented on this forum. I jackoff while reading this thread and I fall asleep with my laptop under my pillow for good luck. If I ever get lonely I just check and see what people think about the infield being roped off. I've had nitemares about the groundkeepers rolling through the crowd on riding lawnmowers...

Sure there are a lot of explanations, why the infield was empty. But it does look ridiculous and it is ridiculous. I had to laugh out loud when I saw this picture.... Doesn't mean I wasn't positively delighted about the Stones performance, as read in different concert reviews.

It's true the camera angle is deceptive. Look at both pictures. The off limits area is a semi-circle from home plate to the edge of the infield dirt. This is a diameter of about 33 meters. All of the grass section shown in green on the diagram picture was covered by fans. 20-25% of the field was not used. The Red Sox can't afford to have the infield damaged. Baseball is dangerous on a bad infield. To put the size of the field in perspective, more than half the seats in Giants stadium in East Rutherford New York will be farther away than the furthest seat away at Fenway.

Just my opinion, but it looks shit!

At least in Europe, when they play sports arena's most of the venues have 'festival seating, so if you wanna go stand on the pitch - you can'

I'll never forget when I went to see the Stones on the Voodoo Lounge tour at Wembley Stadium. Whopped my plod out and had a little shuffle - just so I can tell my grand kids that their Grandad 'played' and Wembley!!

There is a marketing angle to playing at Fenway that may only be appreciated by baseball fans in America. To Bostonians, the Red Sox and Fenway Park are as important and as much a part of life as family and religion. People in Boston's live are affected by the Sox, for better and worse. That being said, concerts at Fenway are a huge event. Springsteen in 2003 was the event of the decade in Boston and the Stones played that angle for these two shows. I believe they got a premium for tickets at Fenway because of this fact which i am sure caught Mick's attention. I saw Springsteen at Fenway and will be at both Stones show and I can tell you that it is a better atmoshere than a Stadium show. The ballpark is small, confined, and has 90 years of history that gives it a little something extra than being in a stadium named after companies that make bars of soap, Ipods, or female hygene products.

I understand it would be tough to imagine it a good venue if I was in another part of the world. Trust me on this one, it was a great place to open from a concert perspective and a marketing perspective. The Stones open up at America's Pasttime's most cherished ballpark the year the Sox become World Champs!! It makes perfect sense on all fronts.

As for the infield, the Sox fans would have stormed the gates if Stones fans ruined the infield. End of discussion

Treesnake2000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And please, it's "Fenway," not "THE Fenway."


it's shit. that's what it is.

One thing is for sure. The picture does it. If I take a picture with a fish eye lens (or something like that) of anybody's face, their noses would look like mountains. It enlarges what is close by. Its famous in real estate to sell houses: evéry room seems big... remember?

What would that picture look like if it was taken from the other site?

I disagree with Bjornulf that you have to have been there to get an impression. Just take a look at the seating map, and you can see it's obvious that the picture changes the proportions. The empty spot was there, thats for sure, but not as big as it seems.

I wasn't there. I am here together with my common sense, and I like to use it...

Its a pity you yanks dont play cricket with only the wicket being protected!!!

All in good fun.

Fenway Park is one of the most famous and treasured sites in the USA, it's not about whether or not its the most concert-friendly venue....which it certainly is not. If the Stones played at the Egyptian Pyramids or at the base of the Eiffel Tower, it wouldn't be because they're perfect places to stage an event -- but because they are historic and meaningful.

The Stones at Fenway are like the Beatles at Shea. It's an EVENT with capital letters, in bold print. It's something that people will be talking about for the rest of their lives.

According to Boston police around 29.000 tickets were sold!

I think that most people who went to Foxboro in 2002 and saw that monster stadium with so-called nosebleed seats there would rather see the Stones at Fenway. By the way they do TWO shows at Fenway. Not ONE. And they were offered a third show but they did not need it so they said no. 30,000 x 2 = 60,000 which works better than 1 x 68,000 for most of the people. And for those who did not go now there will be arena shows in Boston 2006.

By the way read the reviews and see if that "big gap" bothered anyone. There are a great deal of reviews out there now. I did not write any of these reviews so don't worry about that:

First stadium show Boston 2005:
[iorr.org]

First stadium show Boston 2002:
[iorr.org]

I think this "big gap" discussion is as interesting as watching paint dry. But since it is based on an impression as seen on picture, and also as it is based on an impression that in Europe we don't care about "inner field", I just had to comment on it. Personally I never question why a person is religious or fat or thin or vegetarian. Those things are facts. Same with seats or not seats on a small part of the rear field they call inner field. Or why Gretzky was no. 99. All facts.

Bjornulf

I agree this is meaningless. I sat right behind homeplate and where the infield is that was blocked off is not a large area. That picture sucks as far as getting an idea of what the set up looked like. And this sort of thing happens at most baseball venues if its still baseball season. I mean look at when the Beatles played at Shea Stadium, nobody was on the field. I saw them at Gillette last time around and this was 100 times better. Fenway is a small stadium so for them to play there is much better than most stadiums, every seat in the house seemed to be very good. There is only two levels at Fenway as opposed to most stadiums in the US that practically make you dizzy cause you are a mile in the air.

And by the way I never saw a crowd at a Stones show with such energy, even after the encore and fireworks nobody left their seats.