The stones I reckon shouldn't have to drop their prices. I know people will disagree but its their worth as a band and if thats their worth then let them show the world that to see them you must coff up simple as that.

To drop their prices would be to say that they are not worth their true value. If they sell out shows based on their ticket prices then their value is correct -simple as that.

its like trying to watch madrid play football or any other big club. Its what they are worth and value is everything not some tosser who can't accept it but still pays the money.

Other peopl will argue that the rest don't charge the same as the stones YE well it's because they know no-one will go to see them and basically their value is no-where near the Stones.

The stones could do more but well we all could do more but we don't.

"stonecowboy"

balls

Do you think they will sell out a big stadium in europe at 450€/ticket for FOS-tickets? I've been to a lot of stones shows but for sure I'm not going to pay more than 150€ to see them in a stadium.

And not more than 15 Eur for tickets in the Arena Amsterdam :-), 25 Eur Koning Boudewijnstadium, Brussels

It is not my task to think about the band's "value", but it is certainly my task to think about what a stadium show packed with warhorses is worth for me...certainly not more than 75 to 100 dollars maximum.

My own thoughts on ticket prices aside ... it is common business sense to price high because it looks better if you reduce your prices than put them up.

what do you mean it looks better

They are...to take one of their lines...out of control charging close to $500
for a ticket; and for that matter Cream; there are only a handful of acts these
days who can sell-out large venues by themselves and I guess that's why they can
demand it..and get it as well. It's a joke..

But then again, I just saved a bundle on my car insurance.

would you rather sit in nose bleed or up front???? i think it sucks that most people cant afford the expensive seats ....but for me the closer the better

stonecowboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The stones I reckon shouldn't have to drop their
> prices. I know people will disagree but its their
> worth as a band and if thats their worth then let
> them show the world that to see them you must coff
> up simple as that.
>
> To drop their prices would be to say that they are
> not worth their true value. If they sell out shows
> based on their ticket prices then their value is
> correct -simple as that.
>
> its like trying to watch madrid play football or
> any other big club. Its what they are worth and
> value is everything not some tosser who can't
> accept it but still pays the money.
>
> Other peopl will argue that the rest don't charge
> the same as the stones YE well it's because they
> know no-one will go to see them and basically
> their value is no-where near the Stones.
>
> The stones could do more but well we all could do
> more but we don't.
>
> "stonecowboy"

Can't really agree with this. I don't know what the ticket prices are going to be for UK and Europe, but I really can't see them charging the Sterling equivalent of these top price $450 seats that are currently being sold in the States. That's about £250 at the current exchange rate. Sorry, I just can't see a lot of people paying that in the UK, certainly not for a stadium. POSSIBLY some first class seats in an arena, but in general - no way. If they price themselves that highly in Europe, I really do think they might actually be shooting themselves in the foot to some considerable extent.

When I said it looks better to lower than raise prices: you go to the shops and buy your favourite beer/paper/magazine, if the price goes up you're going to be a little peed off, if the price has come down a little happier. And businesses want happy customers. When was the last time you shopped around to pay the HIGHEST price eh?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> balls


Sorry Gazza, but I have to agree with this. If they can put a**es in 95% of the seats at $160 - $450 per, then the price is worth it. It's pure capitalism. Anything else is just an extraneous argument. Further, I agree that selling tickets for less than they can get cheapens their worth.

dj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > balls
>
>
> Sorry Gazza, but I have to agree with this. If
> they can put a**es in 95% of the seats at $160 -
> $450 per, then the price is worth it. It's pure
> capitalism. Anything else is just an extraneous
> argument. Further, I agree that selling tickets
> for less than they can get cheapens their worth.


Balls

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > balls
> >
> >
> > Sorry Gazza, but I have to agree with this.
> If
> > they can put a**es in 95% of the seats at
> $160 -
> > $450 per, then the price is worth it. It's
> pure
> > capitalism. Anything else is just an
> extraneous
> > argument. Further, I agree that selling
> tickets
> > for less than they can get cheapens their
> worth.
>
>
> Balls

Cheapens their worth? Bob Dylan doesn't charge these ludicrous prices.

A ticket is worth what people are willing to pay for them. Don't like it, don't buy them. Euros don't like it, send them back to the States sooner.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A ticket is worth what people are willing to pay
> for them.

Of course. Can't argue with that. Nobody can I think. But Keith shouldn't say "you can have the money". We are not in for the money. Well, it's the main reason for touring.

Still, I'll go. We all love them

I might go to 1 stadium show in the U.S. Will pay $20 for upper deck, $60 for floor or $99 for first few rows. Otherwise I can hear just fine outside. Probably see the after show fireworks better too,

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A ticket is worth what people are willing to pay
> for them. Don't like it, don't buy them. Euros
> don't like it, send them back to the States
> sooner.


if you believe that shite you'll believe anything

Does High Ticket prices help with crowd control?

Gazza..

You're gonna have to come up with something more substantial than balls to argue against my post. I am,not having a go but its what this site is really about.Why just say that. If you have a better argument then lets hear it. Otherwise this board would be dull. I had a spat with someone the other day and he didn't put any real argument forward.

Whats the point????

stonecowboy

Sometimes I feel this discussion is so ridiculous.... seems like people here enjoy to exagerate the price level, just to be able continue the ongoing critisizing of the Stones......

I have been to several Stones shows in Europe and never paid more than around 65-70 EUR (2003 price level).... I have been on sitting on the sides of the field (good places) or standing in front of the stage... the latter case, I would have to come very early into the stadium....

The difference in Europe or at least in DK compared to what I saw in Chicago is, that you don't have seats on the field - people are alloved to walk around - there are no fixed places.....

Of course there are a few number of VIP places (not a lot of them) that are more expensive, but these include other things as well....

I agree. Because if they sell tickets cheap, then scalpers will buy them up and sell them expensive. Already by now around 30% of all tickets in the US are sold by agencies and scalpers. Not a nice way of distributing tickets. Imagine how they should have sold 50,000 tickets to a stadium at 25 dollars to the "ight" people, and how they should avoid scalpers from buying up the lot and selling them n at 100 dollars or more?

Bjornulf

I'm sorry,but this is ,as Gazza says BOLLOCKS.

They have built up a fan base for live shows since 1989 and watched it start to decline after the Voodoo tour.
This worrying trend was threatening their touring bucks until colh came up with the "guarenteed income " proposal,which put the band in a win win position.

They are now mainly relying on us poor deluded (I include myself) saps to finance their pension plans,when we can't even finance our own.

I can't afford the cash to pay for one show this tour,but I know I'll be going to 5 or 6 on @#$%& credit !

I used to get to shows early and sit on stadium steps for hours to get a good spot. Those days are sadly over,except maybe on mainland Europe.

I need to practice self control as far as the Stones go.

How many top acts could you see for near-stage Stones prices ?

Probably 5+ Dylan gigs or AC/DC or Clapton (without the over rated Cream) and many many more

we need help !

sc uk - I thought I'd got over this ticket price stuff GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

I'll say it again. If the Stones can virtually fill the arenas and stadiums charging up to $450, then that's what the tickets are worth. Entire Economic textbooks have been written on the topic (of supply and demand). One can argue the "relative worth" to them all day long. But if that means that the ticket is too much for THEM to spend, then evidently someone else is buying it.

Also, I don't think the Stones are really all that worried about their pensions. They have descendents into the next century who won't be worried about their pensions. Mick pioneered the business of rock n roll tours. I think he knows what he's doing. Why is running a profitable enterprise such a bad thing? The Stones gave up on "art for art's sake" somewhere around 1966.

stonecowboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza..
>
> You're gonna have to come up with something more
> substantial than balls to argue against my post. I
> am,not having a go but its what this site is
> really about.Why just say that. If you have a
> better argument then lets hear it. Otherwise this
> board would be dull. I had a spat with someone the
> other day and he didn't put any real argument
> forward.
>
> Whats the point????
>
> stonecowboy
>
>

Waste of time. I dont "have to" do anything. I've argued this for years until i'm blue in the face, so if you're really that desperate to look for my opinions on ticket prices at length, I'm sure a quick dig through the archives should find plenty of posts from me on the subject.

The argument that its "capitalism" or "supply and demand" may be true, but it doesnt detract from the fact that what is THE motivating factor is pure naked greed and disrespect for your fanbase just to satisfy some vain egotistical urge to outgross every other act and attain money they'll never spend in 5 lifetimes. Other acts could get away with charging higher prices but dont - the Stones dont give a shit and basically charge what they feel they can get away with.

And as I've mentioned before, charging such prices excludes a large amount of people (for example, a young audience) and leaves them with an ageing fanbase - and the sort of audience who because theyve paid such high prices, come along expecting and demanding a creatively unchallenging greatest hits show. Which is what they seem to be getting (although thats an argument on setlists for another thread) - playing such shows for such an audience stagnates the band's artistic and creative growth as a live act (ie - if people pay less for a ticket, they wont be so fussy about what songs they hear for fear of not getting their moneys worth)







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-26 23:52 by Gazza.

the stones could become respected by the youth if they lower their ticketprices, and now they will be rememberd as: that band that wrote satisfaction or Angie. Just like many know the Eagles from Hotel Califorinia.
and they went to U2, and why they can afford it to be on the field




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-26 23:53 by Rik.

>
> Waste of time. I dont "have to" do anything. I've
> argued this for years until i'm blue in the face,
> so if you're really that desperate to look for my
> opinions on ticket prices at length, I'm sure a
> quick dig through the archives should find plenty
> of posts from me on the subject.
>
> The argument that its "capitalism" or "supply and
> demand" may be true, but it doesnt detract from
> the fact that what is THE motivating factor is
> pure naked greed and disrespect for your fanbase
> just to satisfy some vain egotistical urge to
> outgross every other act and attain money they'll
> never spend in 5 lifetimes. Other acts could get
> away with charging higher prices but dont - the
> Stones dont give a shit and basically charge what
> they feel they can get away with.
>
> And as I've mentioned before, charging such prices
> excludes a large amount of people (for example, a
> young audience) and leaves them with an ageing
> fanbase - and the sort of audience who because
> theyve paid such high prices, come along expecting
> and demanding a creatively unchallenging greatest
> hits show. Which is what they seem to be getting
> (although thats an argument on setlists for
> another thread) - playing such shows for such an
> audience stagnates the band's artistic and
> creative growth as a live act (ie - if people pay
> less for a ticket, they wont be so fussy about
> what songs they hear for fear of not getting their
> moneys worth)
>
>
>
Gazza - I respectfully disagree with you. However, I acknowledge that you've made some good points in this post. But I don't get the last line. You seem to be contradicting yourself when you say ..."if people pay less for a ticket, they won't be so fussy about what songs they hear for fear of not getting their money's worth."

That seems to be essentially what I said earlier in this thread when I said that if they charge less than they could get, it diminishes the worth of the performance.

Maybe now we should wait and see what ticket prices will be next year and discuss it then.
Yet and don't believe the Stones charge high prices to protect us from the scalpers.

I wish I liked Bon Jovi - it's cheaper....and they're opening Wembley- BA**ARDS !

> Gazza - I respectfully disagree with you.

no problem

However,
> I acknowledge that you've made some good points in
> this post. But I don't get the last line. You seem
> to be contradicting yourself when you say ..."if
> people pay less for a ticket, they won't be so
> fussy about what songs they hear for fear of not
> getting their money's worth."
>
> That seems to be essentially what I said earlier
> in this thread when I said that if they charge
> less than they could get, it diminishes the worth
> of the performance.

Ok..my argument is connected to the debate on the type of setlists they're playing on this tour (that old chestnut!)

There's this expectancy/demand amongst a lot of the audience that they play a show thats high on 'greatest hits' because thats what the bulk of the audience has come to hear. What I'm saying is that because they're charging such high prices, they're letting the audience dictate the sort of show they play - ie, if they dont play a certain 10-12 'essential' hits that everyone knows, then a lot of people are going to whine about paying $450 to hear songs they didnt know and because they didnt hear 'satisfaction'. The same people are less likely to complain about that if they paid a lot less.

IMO a band as great and as legendary as the Stones have long ago earned the right to play whatever the hell they like onstage. By charging such a high ticket price, its like theyre afraid to take chances with the setlist and feel obliged to play certain songs to keep a large % of people who dont really know much of their work happy. They should be above being little more than a jukebox for that type of audience (thats what a lot of people are getting at with these 'Vegas' jibes). To me, that diminishes them as a band.

I'll compare that to two other acts I happen to go and watch a lot - Dylan and Springsteen. Both basically play what the hell they like, and charge a lot less than the Stones do. Granted, they dont sell as many tickets as the Stones do (although Bruce does in certain markets and can still fill stadiums) but if someone goes to one of their shows and doesnt hear "blowin in the wind" or "born to run" (which both acts havent played recently) theyre less likely to bitch about it if they havent paid a week's wage for the privilege of being there.

By charging so much money, any act, far from 'diminishing the worth of the performance' actually becomes a prisoner to playing a certain type of show. If anything, I think that charging MORE diminishes the worth of the show.

And I dont think you can say a performance loses its worth if you dont charge what you can get. I think that by charging so much, you raise the expectancy to ridiculous levels and it becomes harder to put on a show that delivers it

I saw 13 shows on the last tour and enjoyed pretty much all of them. Apart from the Astoria show, all were highly priced arena/stadium gigs. Whilst I enjoyed them all (its hard not to enjoy a Stones gig), I didnt think they were value for money however, especially considering the fact that on the previous tour the tickets cost a third or half as much. Its not like the shows were THAT much better. So, the argument that if people pay it, then its worth it doesnt add up for me personally.


Dont get me wrong. I think the Stones are still a great live band and I have no problem with the fact that a "top" name live act is going to cost more to see than your run of the mill artist. But this is somewhat excessive. And talking of 'diminishing' anything - to me, it diminishes their legacy and reputation because they're being remembered more as a cash cow to a lot of people (not me personally) than a great rock n roll band who made some of the best music and gave some of the best shows of all time.

To get some kind of perspective. I'm going to see the Stones in New York in January. The price of most tickets for that show ($454) is actually $100 MORE than the cost of my transatlantic return flight. That's pretty screwed up!