If you pay the money then you have only yourselves to blame for helping to perpetuate this. If No Security or Licks bombed, prices would be lower this tour, if they tour at all.

Yeah! Mick & Keith on Beale Street (wherever it is) for 5 $ that would be great! BV forgot to mention that it wasn´t important some years ago to make profits from the tours. Profits were earned from record sales. Tours were seen as marketing costs for the records. Now it´s hard to make big money from record sales, yes there are still the 25+ who buy records, but very few below that age. So now money is maid from touring and it will only get worse. The Stones are the guinea pigs. If this tour is successful, be sure prices will go up for all tours that the more well known artists are doing. And the next Stones tour (if there will be any) will be even more expensive.

OK I´m opening up another nice bottle of wine, seems like a quite inexpensive pleasure.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Without the business skills of Michael Cohl
> the
> > Stones would have been bankrupt many years
> ago and
> > never toured again. They lost money on every
> tour
> > they made before he came along. It is pretty
> well
> > documented. But because he made it possible
> to
> > make profit from these large rock tours
> through
> > contracts, pre-payments and sponsorships you
> can
> > now still enjoy the Stones live. Quite unique
> in
> > rock-history actually.
>
> Sorry but that's utter Bullshit. At least Mick and
> Keith have been in the guild of rock millionaires
> long before 1989. The Stones' whining about having
> no money was always a hoax. It just meant they
> couldn't buy another Bentley or another mansion on
> some exotic island.

Captain,

bv's main point is dead on: Cohl's the primary reason that the Stones are still touring and that we can still see them live (as a band, not as solo artists or in other groups).

Historically, concerts were not profit centers for bands, they were cost centers, marketing and communications vehicles used to promote the album (as others have noted). Cohl flipped that music business orthodoxy on its head and today we see the results: The Stones on tour making money at what they do best and what many fans (not all) most want to see.

camper88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Cohl's the primary reason that the Stones are still touring and that
we can still see them live (as a band, not as solo
artists or in other groups).

The primary reason the Stones are still touring as a band is that the Stones themselves want to, they love it, and that the fans want them to.

Or Cohl is the primary reason for that? Without Cohl the Stones would be touring as "solo artists or in other groups"...? Sorry, don't think so

Love should be for free!!they have to make money ,i understand,what kind of crowds will be attending!!gives me the shivers.period.

Beale Street is the famous dining and entertaining street in Memphis, where the Stones are playing the next door 14,000 capacity FedExForum tonight. Every bar down the street has got their own jazz or blues entertainer. So Mick and Keith would be playing two of these bars, not together, but with their separate poor boys band, in this street or any other street you had not ever heard about and you would not even know where they were. But thanks to Michael Cohl many people can come tonight and enjoy the greatest rock'n roll band in the world at the FedExForum instead. And those who don't like the ticket prices can go to a Beale stret bar instead. It's way cheaper. But is it better?

By the way... What is wrong with Michael Cohl actually? He is a nice guy, a gentleman in fact, he is organizing the tours, somebody has got to do it, and he is the best at making tours work. remember if the economy is failing the projcet is failing. The fact is Stones fans don't know how spoiled they are. Some time ago I had a ticket that was refunded because the performer cancelled the show. Reason? Too few tickets sold. The last two warm-up acts pulled out. Stones fans just buy tickets and go to shows and take everything for granted. Some do even complain about high prices. But the fact is they could have stopped touring as The Rolling Stones in 1982.

Bjornulf

They really made money on the 81-82 tour! Want to see them, always loved them an im real pissed of this time!Once again bv im willing to pay 80 or a bloody 90 e, but this is a shame for r&r indeed.period.Thanks to that promoter who looks like he s one surviver of that run away altamont great full dead shit dead heads!

A little more than a half year ago, it was the Americans that wanted to boycot. And now... Suddenly they are the defenders. Pretty cool.

> But the fact is they could have stopped touring as The Rolling Stones in 1982.

That would have been the best what could have happened!! We would still have them in our best memories.

If it weren't for Michael Cohl then the Steel Wheels tour would have been promoted by Bill Graham presents but he is a shrewd businessman who drives a hard bargain so the Stones chose him. His job is basically to work for the STones and do the legwork to book the venues and secure the guarantees. He is an employee of the Stones doing exactly what they want him to do. Its not like he is paying them $7 an hour and pocketing the rest.

Also I believe he can be spotted without security. I saw him briefly in the pit during David Bowie at the Wiltern. He had a big grin on his face and seemed to be enjoying himself. Wanted to say hello to him after the gig (WAY too loud at the time) but never saw him again.

And if you think Stones ticket prices are high wait until Pink Floyd finally accepts his long standing and occassionally increasing offers to do a tour.

[iorr.org]

Cohl is just the messenger,The Stones are the ones pulling the strings.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Of course. Bv's post is so out of place it's impossible to believe it's meant seriously.
I thought we were talking about the Rolling Stones - they need someone to make them play together? Gimme a break, lol.

And yeas, rknuth, the Stones quiting playing in 1982 is indeed the "best thing that could have happened." I wasn't even born at the time, but I regret it didn't happen. What's been so appealling on the Stones ever since 1982, to these days?
Sorry, if you don't see it, too bad. I'm perfectly happy I'll have them "in my best memories" because of what they do know. There's still something about them, you know. It didn't fade away, maybe for some older fans it did, sorry, but for some it didn't. Let's roll in 2006

I applaud the loyalty of Stones fans. $300 million from people who go not to enjoy themselves or revel in the moment, but out of some misplaced sense of obligation. All these people spending way too much money to subject themselves to all these dreadful songs that for some stupid reason ended up being the Stones biggest hits. Why? You people are just way too loyal.

If you don't like the Stones as they are post 1982 them I am impressed you are still hanging in here today 23 years after trying to find or dig back into your old days. They are gone. This is 2005. This is your wake-up call. As Keith says: "It's better than suicide".

PS. You don't just kill yourself because you want to preserve the image of yourself as when it was in your younger days. The band have never sounded better and if you don't agree with that then it is not my problem. Go find another band.

Bjornulf

BV - since when did this board become one that required a love of the 2005 Stones? I must have missed that announcement....

BV did not say you HAD to love the current set up....but like me he is amazed that so many people come here and whine that nothing has been good since MT left...or since 1982.

Imagine pining away 30 years after a divorce! It must be hell.

Yes, but how can artists like Robbie Williams offer his best seats for 69 bucks, Eric Clapton for 54 bucks? They're also top notch acts, aren't they? What makes the Stones sell at such absurde prizes?

If they'd sell at 70 bucks, they'd have 3.64 million dollars. I know they have a big stage and all, but isn't that already a truck load of money?

Now, since the average ticket price here in holland is 120 bucks and the Amsterdam Arena packs 52.000 people, they receive 6.24 million dollar. Seing as there are allot of people have to be payed expect for the Stones themselves, let's take off 2.24 million dollars(which is already allot). The Stones earn(yeah I know Mick and Keith earn more than the others) about 1 million each. For 1 night. 1 million. Nobody makes that much money.

I know it's not strange for them to want to make money, but 1 million a night, isn't that just absurd? I mean, you'd have to work really hard spend that at this rate.

OK. You may stick to your 1965 or 1982 Stones but you are not supposed to take away the joy for those of us who are still able to love them as they are today. There is a saying: "If you don't have something nice to say then don't say it." If I don't like your face or your look or your wife then I don't tell. I am polite and I have manners. If you don't like the Stones as they are now 2005 then we don't need to hear it 10 times per day. We are sick of it. Find another band or sit back enjoying Mick Taylor 1971. I am sure this is possible to understand.

PS. This is not a "I hate the Stones" board. In fact if this is your attitude you are not welcome. Why not start your own board with that as a concept? Pople who are looking forward to the tour being over has no respect from my side. They are rude and they don't pay respect to the millions who can still enjoy the Stones 2005.

Bjornulf

If the Stones sold their tickets at 50 or 100 dollars I am sure you know they would be all bought up by scalpers and sold on at 200 dollars. Same reason why they don't sell oil at 20 dollars per barrel anymore. Well except for the Venezuela stunt to poor people in the US I heard about. Very special. But it's supply and demand. I would like to see 90,000 tickets at Wembley sold with wristbands. They were sold out in one - 1 - hour! At the price some people hate, but which seems to be market price.

Bjornulf

supply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demandsupply and demand

By the way. To all those of you who are so clever and want lower ticket prices. What should the price be at Wembley? I mean the right price for you? If you hate hight ticket price then tell me. Give me the price.

Then ask yourself. If the show sold out. And you did not get any ticket. What would you be willing to pay?

Bjornulf

That's not a very fair question, BV. All Stones fans all around Europe want to see the Stones in their Hometown, to enjoy for maybe the last time a great London night hearing their favorite songs in the temple of music. There is nothing more magic like smelling the atmosphere of London with the Stones. But I agree with your remarks about scalpers and your other statements. The real test for Stones audience is what is going up right now in Holland and Germany. If any decline, what will it be ?

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all those of you who are so clever
> and want lower ticket prices. What should the
> price be at Wembley?


If people wouldn't be drinking liquor while posting, we'd avoid reading this kind of nonsensical and arrogant arguments.

When I look back at my Stones-tickets from 1970 onwards it appears that they were almost always the most expensive compared with other top groups. So high prices are nothing new.

There are plenty of opportunities on this tour to buy rather cheap tickets. Ie. €55 for a FOS-ticket in eg. Poland and probably also in other East European countries. And the money you would need for staying there, food and drinks in these countries are much much cheaper than eg in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Yes, I know that's a lot for eg Polish fans, but it could be that these "relatively" low ticket-prices are paid by most in the Western part of our Europe. I don't know. Perhaps a silly theory.

I have just checked prices for upcoming concerts of Clapton and Santana in Denmark. Most expensive tickets for Clapton is €110 and for Santana €125. Not that far from the Stones-prices. Pretty similar I would say. And both of these acts don't have transport costs as the Stones do. Then you may argue that we don't need the big stages etc. But it's really more of a rip-off when bands perform at stadiums with a stage nobody can hardly spot. With the Stones it's for everybody.

I'm not necessarily defending the current level of pricing. Certainly not the fees taken by the ticket companies. But the prices are not as extremely high compared with others as they appear to be in some of the threads here.....

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't like the Stones as they are post 1982
> them I am impressed you are still hanging in here
> today 23 years after trying to find or dig back
> into your old days. They are gone. This is 2005.
> This is your wake-up call. As Keith says: "It's
> better than suicide".
>
> PS. You don't just kill yourself because you want
> to preserve the image of yourself as when it was
> in your younger days. The band have never sounded
> better and if you don't agree with that then it is
> not my problem. Go find another band.

It seems the Stones don't like themselves as they are past 1982. Have a look at their setlists, where are the new songs? Have a look at the frequency they are releasing new albums - 8 years since the last one. That was no labor of love. That was just clever, selling the new Mick Jagger solo album as a "Rolling Stones album" since Keith is no more interested in the group. That's why even the ongoing fight between Taylor/Wood-fans is absolutely valid. Have a look at the setlists and tell me how many of the songs are originally played by Taylor. Face it: the Stones are no fresh creative virile new group. They are selling nostalgia, over and over. And they are not as good as they were. They're just as good as they are. Their marketing behaviour hasn't turned to the better. But I want less baseball caps. Less stadium gigs. Lower ticket prices. Less waiting for new studio albums. I want is more music.

Once the Stones had the smell of being different. They said they fought against petty morals, against Woodstockism, against big business like Decca... that's what they are selling to this day. Post 1982 it was long clear it was all a lie.

I think Michael Cohl is a great tour director and he handles the Stones' stuff quite well.

JumpingKentFlash

They turn their backs to their true fans, that´s my point.
It appears too easy for causual fans to get better places than
the fans for just slightly higher prices.

400 SKR is a the aching limit for any ticket at stadium or arena show.
Theatre or club gig is another thing.

I also believe Norway & Sweden is at such different economic
levels that it´s hard to discuss this; I see my uncle travels all around
Europe several times a year. I cant even afford one trip a year.
I think you earn twice our wages generally:
your the Saudies of Scandinavia. Tough but true.
Maybe some poetic justice in it; in the 60s & early 70s
it was the opposite, right?