For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Green LadyQuote
hockenheim95Quote
grzegorz67
Well maybe this cuts it then. I was actually present at all 8 UK shows and saw for myself. There were visible empty seats at Every one of them, especially Manchester, Cardiff and Edinburgh. And Dublin? Don’t make me laugh. There were whole swathes of empty seats there. The venue was far too big.
At several shows, People couldn’t give away their spare Lucky Dips outside, including some Pits!!!
That’s not to say it wasn’t a very successful tour which it clearly was but sold out it was most certainly not and to claim it was is complete nonsense.
They even had a second round of Lucky Dip ticket sales for the U.K. gigs and that didn’t fill the gaps.
All impressions depend on so much different Things. I've seen all UK shows but Manchester and Southampton and for me Cardiff seemed to me the most packed venue while Twickenham and London 1 Had the most empty seats (in the UK). Of course Dublin was the show with the most empty seats.
Cardiff certainly had a few empty areas in the stands, but the floor was packed.
Quote
bye bye johnny
J. Bouquet
Keith Richards added 16 new photos to the album: No Filter Tour 2018.
[www.facebook.com]
Quote
bv
Please please there is no reason for fighting about these matters. Some fans love this other fans love that. We can't all love the very same thing, then everybody would be on Keith side, or Ronnie side, if you see what I mean.
Some say the Stones are only in it for the money. Well if that was a fact then they would never have played Southampton or Coventry. They would have played Las Vegas, NYC, LA, Chicago all the time, then Frankfurt, Berlin, Munich, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Tokyo and a few more big cities. Certainly not any smaller cities, and certainly not Havana.
Still, the Stones are not a charity programme. They did not donate all their income to stop malaria or to world peace. Neiher did I. Neither did any of us. The Rolling Stones are a rock act, a very successful one, operating in the capital and commercial world, where most people involved try to maximize the income. No big surprise. The T-shirts are 30 or 35 Euro, not 10. The T-shirts at 10 are sold in the streets. The pit is hundreds of dollars or Euro, not 10 pounds like the club show tickets. If you think it is too expensive then do something else, or play their songs from their records.
Quote
potus43Quote
bv
Please please there is no reason for fighting about these matters. Some fans love this other fans love that. We can't all love the very same thing, then everybody would be on Keith side, or Ronnie side, if you see what I mean.
Some say the Stones are only in it for the money. Well if that was a fact then they would never have played Southampton or Coventry. They would have played Las Vegas, NYC, LA, Chicago all the time, then Frankfurt, Berlin, Munich, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Tokyo and a few more big cities. Certainly not any smaller cities, and certainly not Havana.
Still, the Stones are not a charity programme. They did not donate all their income to stop malaria or to world peace. Neiher did I. Neither did any of us. The Rolling Stones are a rock act, a very successful one, operating in the capital and commercial world, where most people involved try to maximize the income. No big surprise. The T-shirts are 30 or 35 Euro, not 10. The T-shirts at 10 are sold in the streets. The pit is hundreds of dollars or Euro, not 10 pounds like the club show tickets. If you think it is too expensive then do something else, or play their songs from their records.
So naive
Quote
PaddyQuote
potus43Quote
bv
Please please there is no reason for fighting about these matters. Some fans love this other fans love that. We can't all love the very same thing, then everybody would be on Keith side, or Ronnie side, if you see what I mean.
Some say the Stones are only in it for the money. Well if that was a fact then they would never have played Southampton or Coventry. They would have played Las Vegas, NYC, LA, Chicago all the time, then Frankfurt, Berlin, Munich, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Tokyo and a few more big cities. Certainly not any smaller cities, and certainly not Havana.
Still, the Stones are not a charity programme. They did not donate all their income to stop malaria or to world peace. Neiher did I. Neither did any of us. The Rolling Stones are a rock act, a very successful one, operating in the capital and commercial world, where most people involved try to maximize the income. No big surprise. The T-shirts are 30 or 35 Euro, not 10. The T-shirts at 10 are sold in the streets. The pit is hundreds of dollars or Euro, not 10 pounds like the club show tickets. If you think it is too expensive then do something else, or play their songs from their records.
So naive
That my man is the reality now. Acceptance of the world as it is, not how it should be. The above is what’s happening regardless of if it should be or not. And the Shirts in the street were E10. I bought 2 of them. Compare The Stones to a band like Guns N Roses. Their ticket prices are a joke. It’s PROMOTERS, the band just go on stage. Yhe Stonss at least make sure there is lucky dips. Yeah the pit is expensive, but like any bullshit first class thing I’ve attended, I’m paying for the experience. Nobody makes you buy those tickets. Buy a £30 and get on with it.
Live music has evolved from 15 min shows on a bill of 8 being ripped off by some businessman to the multi million industry it is now. The Stones are the prima money making live act going. I’ve never known anyone to not want more money.
Welcome to the machine.
Which is the way he wants it.
So he Gets It.
And I don’t like it anymore than you men.
Quote
potus43
To say he Stones play small venues because they are so "generous" to their fans is beyond ridiculous.
Quote
potus43
To say he Stones play small venues because they are so "generous" to their fans is beyond ridiculous.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
So playing a small venue is nothing to them? Interesting.
I'll never understand the "everything belongs to the people, everything should be free" contingent. The Stones have been out of my price range for a long time. Put more honestly, I've chosen not to see them since 2002. My choice. I'm happy to get CDs and DVDs. I'm happy for those who go see them. Those are great memories and it's worth it to them or they wouldn't do it.
Not once would I think, they owe the fans to knock down those ticket prices. If you have an ounce of self-respect for yourself and your work in life you pursue what the market will bear. You adjust down when you price yourself out of the market or you decide you have a standard and won't work for less. Either choice is their artistic right.
I'm not sure what some of you do for a living. I'm a contractor. I haven't worked in the state I live in for nearly a decade. I travel because I get the best salary I can that way and my client pays for travel and accommodations. If I wanted to be home every night, I would make less than half of my salary (substantially less than half) because of the job market where I live. Why do I do this? To provide for my family and earn the most money I can with what limited skills I possess. Should my company or clients say, you owe it to us to work for less than the market will bear? That's what some of you ask of the Stones. You get paid what you can in life.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
You're very correct, 35love and my apologies to Hairball. I have a good friend in hospice right now. He's only 50 years old. I've been visiting every day and it wears you down. No excuse for my bad behavior, though.
As for you liking both money and sex, 35love, that makes me happy. I wish you nothing but the best. And the same to Hairball who writes with great passion and humor and didn't deserve to be snapped at.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
...my apologies to Hairball...who writes with great passion and humor and didn't deserve to be snapped at.
I agree on everything, but I would avoid comparisons with concerts of 40 years ago, not because you do not have to, but because in my opinion it makes little sense whether you think like you or think otherwise.Quote
buttons67
ive been watching on youtube a lot these past few weeks of the latest tour, particularly gigs from warsaw, berlin, prague and stuttgart and particularly songs such as street fighting man, midnight rambler and paint it black, and ive come to the conclusion the band are playing with an intensity not seen for many years. ive seen many versions of songs over the years on youtube and been to concerts where the guitars are not as intense or micks just going through the motions. The band were on fire in the recent gigs and micks performance was much more energetic than usual,he seemed in complete control too and also ronnie and keith were excellent and looked as if they were really enjoying the experience. i thought some of those performances were better than many more legendary gigs from the 60,s and 70,s. and think how shabby love you live sounds at times despite being a popular album.
would like peoples opinion, especially those that have been to multiple gigs over the years and have experience of being in different parts of the stadium or venue and from those that watch plenty of youtube videos as well.
it could be im wrong ofcourse and its the quality of filming compared to past years which is producing this effect or the position i was in the stadium in warsaw compared to previous gigs where ive been high up in the stands.
hopefully get an interesting debate going.
cheers for any info supplied.
Quote
Hairball
Playing setlists made up mostly of songs that date back to 1981 and prior give a fuzzy warm feeling of nostalgia. As far as the performance itself, maybe a step above the last decade, but not as good as the Licks Tour or any tour before that. Intensity? Depends on how you define it I suppose. Keith is pretty much in the background (though there's an occasional spark), while Ronnie, Chuck, and even Darryl have become the leaders - after Mick of course.
Will I see them again? Of course I will as it's tradition, and I always enjoy a bit of nostalgia - especially when hearing and seeing Midnight Rambler and Happy performed.
From Oxford dictionary: Nostalgia
1. A sentimental longing or wistful affection for a period in the past.
1.1 Something done or presented in order to evoke feelings of nostalgia
Quote
grzegorz67Quote
Hairball
Playing setlists made up mostly of songs that date back to 1981 and prior give a fuzzy warm feeling of nostalgia. As far as the performance itself, maybe a step above the last decade, but not as good as the Licks Tour or any tour before that. Intensity? Depends on how you define it I suppose. Keith is pretty much in the background (though there's an occasional spark), while Ronnie, Chuck, and even Darryl have become the leaders - after Mick of course.
Will I see them again? Of course I will as it's tradition, and I always enjoy a bit of nostalgia - especially when hearing and seeing Midnight Rambler and Happy performed.
From Oxford dictionary: Nostalgia
1. A sentimental longing or wistful affection for a period in the past.
1.1 Something done or presented in order to evoke feelings of nostalgia
That’s not an unfair assessment. I think they’re now at their best since the Licks Tour but it would be ludicrously unfair to compare them with 30/40 years ago when they were clearly far more energetic. They’re still well worth seeing and I will continue to do so for a price I’m willing to pay.
The pattern of shorter tours with longer gaps between shows enables them to give it their all on show day with plenty of recovery time afterwards. On the final ABB Leg in Europe in 2007, they were still touring for 3 months at a time with some shows spaced just 2 days apart, which they probably ought not to have been doing by then.