Quote
ribbelchips
We must not forget that the tour only consists of 14 shows. It must be profitable. Sure, the Bigger Bang stage was much more impressive, but the costs of that thing could be spread over about 140 shows...

This stage certainly has a cheap and disposable look to it as if there was very little creativity, effort, or money that went into it.
Sort of a generic "El Cheapo" stage for lack of a better term.

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

The stage says "the end"

Quote
ribbelchips
We must not forget that the tour only consists of 14 shows. It must be profitable. Sure, the Bigger Bang stage was much more impressive, but the costs of that thing could be spread over about 140 shows...

mmm 14 shows
I think probably at least 42

Quote
AntoineParis

Quote
ribbelchips
We must not forget that the tour only consists of 14 shows. It must be profitable. Sure, the Bigger Bang stage was much more impressive, but the costs of that thing could be spread over about 140 shows...

mmm 14 shows
I think probably at least 42

Perhaps SIXTY? (Europe, South America, North America, Australia, NZ, Japan?)

I hate to bash anything about The Rolling Stones - but this stage appears to be truly dreadful. I always appreciate BV putting a positive spin on all things Rolling Stones - but this doesn’t look good. But - we will all have to wait and see until the first show.

Quote
ribbelchips
We must not forget that the tour only consists of 14 shows. It must be profitable. Sure, the Bigger Bang stage was much more impressive, but the costs of that thing could be spread over about 140 shows...

Man that stage looks so cheap it will be fully paid for after the first show.

Quote
john lomax

Quote
ribbelchips
We must not forget that the tour only consists of 14 shows. It must be profitable. Sure, the Bigger Bang stage was much more impressive, but the costs of that thing could be spread over about 140 shows...

Man that stage looks so cheap it will be fully paid for after the first show.

We will have to wait for the first show if there are some hidden surprises, but from what i can see in those pictures, its all standard stuff you can rent from any tour supplier. Standard tent, rigging, screens, lights, everything, only the cladding is custom made. If there are no surprises, this is by far the lowest costs production I have ever seen for a stadium show of the stones.

Regarding the spare capacities regarding transport/logistics and even man/womanpower I can fully understand if they chose to go with something simple.

It might look a little bit better if the roof above the stage would be decorated somehow.

But as stated above - let's judge when the whole thing comes to live.

Maybe Mick got some attractive deal worked out where they actually get paid for using the stage

Quote
john lomax

Quote
ribbelchips
We must not forget that the tour only consists of 14 shows. It must be profitable. Sure, the Bigger Bang stage was much more impressive, but the costs of that thing could be spread over about 140 shows...

Man that stage looks so cheap it will be fully paid for after the first show.

Not even a rental - they will own it after the first show.

As mentioned before, I think, I wonder if Charlie's absence has affected the design of this stage.
Well, it still might be better in action.

~"Love is Strong"~

Let me repeat here what I put elsewhere on the forum — in a way it can be a benefit or a relief for us, those who are only attending the Hyde Park shows as we may end up not missing much.

Even BST’s default festival stage — the trees, the leaves and such — may be more favorable than this, perhaps

Quote
RisingStone
Let me repeat here what I put elsewhere on the forum — in a way it can be a benefit or a relief for us, those who are only attending the Hyde Park shows as we may end up not missing much.

Even BST’s default festival stage — the trees, the leaves and such — may be more favorable than this, perhaps

I totally agree! Looking forward to Hyde Park #2. A few days in London is always special!

I've been to BST Hyde Park twice (Stones in 2013, Dylan and Young 2019) and always liked the treehouse/stage, as it is basically one huge screen, even the sides of the stage facing the musicians are screens, if I remember correctly. So there is plenty so see no matter where you are standing.

Quote
firebird
... If there are no surprises, this is by far the lowest costs production I have ever seen for a stadium show of the stones.

Maybe even the lowest costs production any stadium act would dare...
That takes us back to the Licks tour: "the tour only one band would dare to attempt"

I am happy with any stage as long as the Stones are on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-05-30 16:53 by shattered1978.

Quote
RisingStone
Let me repeat here what I put elsewhere on the forum — in a way it can be a benefit or a relief for us, those who are only attending the Hyde Park shows as we may end up not missing much.

Even BST’s default festival stage — the trees, the leaves and such — may be more favorable than this, perhaps

Yes I agree

Quote
shattered1978

Quote
firebird
... If there are no surprises, this is by far the lowest costs production I have ever seen for a stadium show of the stones.

Maybe even the lowest costs production any stadium act would dare...
That takes us back to the Licks tour: "the tour only one band would dare to attempt"

I am happy with any stage as long as the Stones are on it.

Stones since 1989 has been very attractive due to the concert productions

Is this supposed to be a rock and roll show or what?

If the screens are good enough to allow people in the back to enjoy the show, and the PA is loud enough to cover the chatter / singalongs around me, then I am happy.

Leave the Urban Jungle / Voodoo / Bridges stage nonsense to Pink Floyd and alike!

C

Maybe the Stones are in cahoots with the NFL bringing games to Europe and are Joe Burrow fans.

Quote
shattered1978

Quote
firebird
... If there are no surprises, this is by far the lowest costs production I have ever seen for a stadium show of the stones.

Maybe even the lowest costs production any stadium act would dare...
That takes us back to the Licks tour: "the tour only one band would dare to attempt"

I am happy with any stage as long as the Stones are on it.

Yeah, same for me, don't get wrong, my intention was not to complain about the stage, my post was more an answer to people trying to justify the ticket prices with the production costs. I mean how can other acts tour with way lower ticket prices if you have to charge that kind of money even for a low cost production.

I hope that is not the stage they’re going to use - it looks rubbish

Quote
angee

As mentioned before, I think, I wonder if Charlie's absence has affected the design of this stage.

Not only Charlie - also the absence of Mark Fisher.

Quote
Irix

Quote
angee

As mentioned before, I think, I wonder if Charlie's absence has affected the design of this stage.

Not only Charlie - also the absence of Mark Fisher.

But with Charlie the design goal of the stage may not have been lowest production costs. With this, I don't think Mark Fisher could have done really more than what we have seen from the stage so far.

Quote
tomcat2006

I hope that is not the stage they’re going to use - it looks rubbish

Would be nice if they use it only for the 1st show because the actual stage with the superior design wasn't quite ready - like the telescope-bridge in 1997.

Maybe because of labor shortage their crew team is now really small so they can only build a lousy small stage

Quote
firebird

But with Charlie the design goal of the stage may not have been lowest production costs. With this, I don't think Mark Fisher could have done really more than what we have seen from the stage so far.

As others already said: it's the Rolling Stones & it's their 60th Anniversary - this stage feels we get only a pizza instead of a feast/banquet.

I'm quite sure it would have been possible to design a modern & interesting looking stage without too high costs, maybe mainly based on large displays.

There is a bit of entitlement going on here..Nobody owes you anything, if you willingly pay these high prices for Pit, Golden, or Platinum Tickets, that is on you. The No Filter stage doesn't make sense anymore without Charlie. Want to see fireworks? Maybe try Rammstein. Want to see bigg light show and stage props? Mr. Waters will take care of you.
With the Stones you just want the thrill of the music. And that ain't nothing small. Actually it seems quiet big still, considering all circumstances.

Yeah but after all this is a thread dedicated to the stage as they have a history with stages. People had expectations too in 2017 and everyone was excited to see that thing go up. It's perfectly reasonable to have some questions when it seems so clumsy in comparison.

Quote
Nikkei
Yeah but after all this is a thread dedicated to the stage as they have a history with stages. People had expectations too in 2017 and everyone was excited to see that thing go up. It's perfectly reasonable to have some questions when it seems so clumsy in comparison.

Yes exactly. And the other point to note is that Stones ticket prices are massively higher than anyone else's ( even Paul McCartney).....and, yes, it is the Stones, and they are special and unique, but I would also say that they have always been expensive partly because have delivered high production values. This stage, in contrast, looks like a very cheap, basic festival stage, and so I would expect that ticket prices should reflect that....Put it this way - I spent a lot on No Filter and I felt that I got value for money. I am spending even more on this tour and I am worried that I will get a second-rate experience.

Think we need to wait and see what it's all like during show time. At the moment it is looking very underwhelming

Shouldn't be about the tix costs, but at these prices we should be getting world class production and staging

i am hoping that on the night with the amazing music, all the screens on and cool lighting etc etc, and it comes to life, then we get a fantastic experience

Stones were always cutting edge and ahead of the pack when it came to stages. Bigger n better than everyone. Would hate for them for their last tour(s) to be sub-par for them......