I remember Jagger making a comment to this effect at one point in the 90's or 00's about the production costs of Stones tour. Obviously, with a new (very nice) stage on a 14 show tour, the break even point is definitely not like 30 shows. Wonder where it actually is...

Ah, despite the purists, I miss the ridiculous stadium stages...

Quote
Send It To me
I remember Jagger making a comment to this effect at one point in the 90's or 00's about the production costs of Stones tour. Obviously, with a new (very nice) stage on a 14 show tour, the break even point is definitely not like 30 shows. Wonder where it actually is...

Ah, despite the purists, I miss the ridiculous stadium stages...

For this current setup I don’t imagine the break even point for the producers is this year...sometime next, probably. Stadium tours with several days off between shows have very high running costs.

Quote
Send It To me
I remember Jagger making a comment to this effect at one point in the 90's or 00's about the production costs of Stones tour. Obviously, with a new (very nice) stage on a 14 show tour, the break even point is definitely not like 30 shows. Wonder where it actually is...

Ah, despite the purists, I miss the ridiculous stadium stages...

Ticket prices have skyrocketed (not to mention overpriced VIP this and that)- that certainly helps.

I also used to enjoy the extravagant over-the-top stages in stadiums - it was part of what made those tours special and unique compared to other bands.
That said, the new stage is nice in a minimalistic way...it really looks great from many vantage points within the stadium.
Probably much easier to break down and move vs. Licks or A Bigger Bang stage for example which probably means a much smaller crew on the payroll.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

This stage is the best. Good visuals of the band anywhere in the house.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Send It To me
I remember Jagger making a comment to this effect at one point in the 90's or 00's about the production costs of Stones tour. Obviously, with a new (very nice) stage on a 14 show tour, the break even point is definitely not like 30 shows. Wonder where it actually is...

Ah, despite the purists, I miss the ridiculous stadium stages...

Ticket prices have skyrocketed (not to mention overpriced VIP this and that)- that certainly helps.

I also used to enjoy the extravagant over-the-top stages in stadiums - it was part of what made those tours special and unique compared to other bands.
That said, the new stage is nice in a minimalistic way...it really looks great from many vantage points within the stadium.
Probably much easier to break down and move vs. Licks or A Bigger Bang stage for example which probably means a much smaller crew on the payroll.

This is definitely better than Zip Code stage which someone on here (I forget who) once hilariously called "ye olde state fair setup" - which I have not since been able to get out of my head when I see it.

It does look like they've simplified things, which can't help but cut costs. No B Stage to be transported to, no Bridge to feed out way over the crowd. It should be about the music at this point and that's fine.

Quote
24FPS
It does look like they've simplified things, which can't help but cut costs. No B Stage to be transported to, no Bridge to feed out way over the crowd. It should be about the music at this point and that's fine.

The recent & current stage rigs must be much less of a money pit than the huge architectural B2B & BB sets were.

Quote
Spud

Quote
24FPS
It does look like they've simplified things, which can't help but cut costs. No B Stage to be transported to, no Bridge to feed out way over the crowd. It should be about the music at this point and that's fine.

The recent & current stage rigs must be much less of a money pit than the huge architectural B2B & BB sets were.

It used to be a standard part of Stones tour publicity to record the staggeringly huge number of trucks it took to move all that structure around, and they used to keep two copies of the stage going, so that they could leapfrog between venues in less time than it took for one copy to be built and dismantled. The fact that they aren't trying to impress us with logistics any more suggests that things are much simpler nowadays - probably much less than half the number of staff and vehicles.

I love the big screens, they are amazing . everyone in the house is involved.

The Stones play for a guarantee from the local promoter. I suppose they might get a share of the extra over the guarantee (after the local promoter's costs).

I'm sure they have a say in the actual prices of tickets but as we've seen this year they can vary enormously (eg PIT in Germany versus Stockholm). They (or their tour promoter) certainly came up with the lucky dip concept.

Of course they get merchandising and sponsorship as well, but you need to sell a lot of shirts to make the profit equal to a guarantee each show.

I doubt they ship around the scaffolding part of the stage - only the bits we all see, which makes it easier.

As for the breakeven point, I am assuming 8-10 shows based on recent tour lengths (because who wants to risk losing money), and the tiny bit of information that has been in the public domain.

i love the fact that they made a new stage. They didn't have to, so it's not all about the money.

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack
so it's not all about the money.

Oh yes it is!

According to a Pollstar article, it takes 18 hours to pack up the stage for the next show (!)

Quote
Captain Teague

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack
so it's not all about the money.

Oh yes it is!

It is the same as for everyone of us who is lucky enough to have a profession that is fulfilling. Of course the money matters but what you actually do is equally important.
Keep on rocking Rolling Stones.
Rockandroll,
Mops

Quote
Captain Teague

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack
so it's not all about the money.

Oh yes it is!

No it's not.

They suprised us with a new costly production while they did not have to and could use the previous stage.

If it was all about the money, why would they do this? Shows sold out before anyone could see the stage.

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack

Quote
Captain Teague

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack
so it's not all about the money.

Oh yes it is!

No it's not.

They suprised us with a new costly production while they did not have to and could use the previous stage.

If it was all about the money, why would they do this? Shows sold out before anyone could see the stage.

Because the new stage was more cost efficient.

Although you see a "new" stage and assume that it was a totally new expense from the last stage, truth be told, you have no way of knowing how much of it was "repurposed" from another stage... Just because you haven't seen the parts that make up the stage assembled in the way they currently are, doesn't mean they weren't assembled in a different way prior to your seeing them in this configuration.

In fact, unless the screens were made up of a new technology, I don't remember seeing anything in the current Stones stage configuration that couldn't have been part of the last stage. Do you? Does anyone else?

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack

Quote
Captain Teague

Quote
PaintMonkeyManBlack
so it's not all about the money.

Oh yes it is!

No it's not.

They suprised us with a new costly production while they did not have to and could use the previous stage.

If it was all about the money, why would they do this? Shows sold out before anyone could see the stage.

Because the new stage was more cost efficient.

Although you see a "new" stage and assume that it was a totally new expense from the last stage, truth be told, you have no way of knowing how much of it was "repurposed" from another stage... Just because you haven't seen the parts that make up the stage assembled in the way they currently are, doesn't mean they weren't assembled in a different way prior to your seeing them in this configuration.

In fact, unless the screens were made up of a new technology, I don't remember seeing anything in the current Stones stage configuration that couldn't have been part of the last stage. Do you? Does anyone else?

Peace,
Mr DJA

The old stage was the most standard stage in rock n roll. It was used by Guns and Roses, and AC/DC (not their last tour) and a lot of other bands. A new production would be more expensive. It was just a standard one, modified a bit.

The new stage was developed and made for the Stones. You are arguing that nobody can know, then why are you saying the new stage is more costs effective?

From the seventies the Stones always used new a stage on a new big tour. Not because of cost effectiveness but because they want to keep doing new things. I love them for it.












Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-24 16:03 by PaintMonkeyManBlack.

Everything you see on stage, apart from the instruments, seems generic to me. I would assume the stage equipement is owned by Stageco Belgium. or some other company.

No investment by the band of the promotors required so the circus could be profitable from show 1.

It was different in the era of Bridges or Voodoo, I guess when they had huge bespoke stage designs.

That said, I really like the stage with the big screens.

<why are you saying the new stage is more costs effective?>

It's documented that it needs way less manpower to build, and that it's modul-based (aka very easy to mount).

That must be cost-effective, surely?

"30 shows to break even" was during the 90's using the old ticket costing formula.

On these last tours, with the current ticket costing, my guess is more like 8-9 shows. They are doing just fine, as they deserve to be.

Less expensive structures, better and cheaper technology, less labor/manhours, more expensive tickets and shorter tours = faster money.

The Rolling Stones are incredible capitalists with a sincere late-in-life love for us diehards. Lucky Dips are a reward for our lifelong passion.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a different stage set up next year in the UK.

It depends on what is meant by 'breaking even'.
I can't imagine even in the early days the group made a loss on any tours.
Mick and Bill have both at times displayed a lack of satisfaction over the 'financial returns' from certain ventures....then when they quote the figures, you think 'What the @#?!

I do miss the old "Blow up" Characters though.

i went to exhibitionism last week (quite good for most part). they had some cool models of some of the stages.