As a Stones fan since growing up in england in the 60's, now living in oz.
The Bigger Bang tour dates have floored me,ok they play the states first, big deal,
and play everywhere from venues holding 6,000 to 85,000,north ,south east & west.
then to South America & mexico, then 5 more gigs in the states in 10 days(what a waste),then to orient and finally to oz, for a lousy 2 gigs in 2 cities,
(yes i've got tickets for both).after leaving here it's 2 in New zealand(joke)
and after 39 days off,off to European leg.
it seems that the managaemnt of the stones seriously need to see what fans want.
in every country, not just pamper to the USA market as i see the 2 hardest countries
hit from all dates announced are Australia and England (only 3 gigs) forget wales,scotland,Ireland,
and yes i'm gonna get hate mail,but i don't care,this forum is open to tell all,
and trust me demand in oz is strong for tickets.
so hope the Stones management enjoy the 39 days off.
Sean
p.s. Melbourne gig is a 13,000 seater, with 3 gigs last time(LICKS) in the same venue, and before that 2 at the MCG(VOODOO),We deserve more

The Stones' management can't take a look at themselves because vampires can't see their own reflection.

I agree my angry, Union Jack waving friend. Why don't they ever start a tour in the UK? I'm not that smart about such things. Gazza, what's up? What's your opinion of why snibbs 1234 feels snubbed? Why not the UK first? Is it the money thing again?






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-05 16:46 by Lukester.

In order to escape the corrupting influence of money, I blow mine as soon as possible. This also cuts down on the accumulation of material posessions, which I hear is frowned upon in some religions.

atta boy, ohno...

Maybe because they live here and most of the sponsors have strong US ties. Plus the US has a lot of venues with, green dollars.

The equipment can be trucked easily, Canada is a toll booth distance from US, they can make more money touring California than Australia.

There was once a famous US bank robber named Willie Sutton, and they asked him why do you rob banks? and his reply was:

Because that's where the money is.

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree my angry, Union Jack waving friend. Why
> don't they ever start a tour in the UK? I'm not
> that smart about such things. Gazza, what's up?
> What's your opinion of why snibbs 1234 feels
> snubbed? Why not the UK first? Is it the money
> thing again?
>


Yes. 100%..logistics also come into it, however (a US tour is simply easier to organise as you dont have to deal with multiple promoters and different regulations in each country) plus the fact that they can charge more money in the US and recoup the initial tour costs quicker. Worth also mentioning that the last tour ended in Europe...so the 'demand' would naturally be greater in a country that hasnt seen the band for a longer time.


its also why there are a higher proportion of US shows this time around and also why they dont play anything but stadiums in almost every other market.

Last tour they actually played a similar amount of shows in Europe than they did in North America (51 in North America (47 US/ 4 in Canada), 46 in Europe, 8 in Australia, 12 in Asia)


This time, its 55 in the US, 5 Canada, 1 P.Rico, 2 Mexico, 2 Argentina and 1 Brazil - with a mix of arena and stadium shows in North America (40 of the shows in North America have taken place in arenas, including the Puerto Rico show..there were only 19 stadium shows in the US/Canada)

Europe gets 35 shows this time - all of them stadiums - plus 5 in Japan, 4 in Australia/NZ and 1 in China (two arena shows - because it wasnt logistically possible to do stadiums - and 8 stadiums)

This tour is - even more than last time - quite more obviously geared towards going where the maximum profit is. They havent helped matters by doubling prices in many European markets to try and hike them to a similar level to US prices, which means sales have been slower in some countries as more people have smelled a rat - and making the tour a stadium-only tour.

The fact that South America (supposedly one of their favourite audiences) got such an insultingly tiny number of shows despite the overwhelming demand for tickets plus the fact that theres even talk of a short run of shows late in 2006 in a few major US markets proves this even further.

If the Stones tour again after 2006, I expect this trend to continue. Unless they can get away with charging non-US audiences what Americans pay for tickets, you'll see a smaller % of shows in future tours taking place outside the US. I would expect future tours to have a larger % of multiple night stands in a small, select number of financially lucrative markets (New York, Chicago, LA, Vegas etc). I would also be surprised if, after this tour, they play anywhere but North America, Europe or Japan again. The number of one night stands in out of the way places in this tour (plus the nostalgic, hits-orientated, type of shows theyre presenting) gives me the impression its a 'farewell' to many of the "B" and "C" markets.

The only way this trend will stop will be if the Stones completely change their touring habits and business ethic which is primarily driven by maximising profits - and re-invent themselves as a performing act a la Dylan, Springsteen, The Dead etc.

However, I think the die has been cast too long ago and thats never going to happen.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Maybe because they live here and most of the
> sponsors have strong US ties. Plus the US has a
> lot of venues with, green dollars.
>
> The equipment can be trucked easily, Canada is a
> toll booth distance from US, they can make more
> money touring California than Australia.
>
> There was once a famous US bank robber named
> Willie Sutton, and they asked him why do you rob
> banks? and his reply was:
>
> Because that's where the money is.


"because they live here"? Not sure if you mean the management or the band. The only member of the band who lives primarily in the US is Keith.

the rest of your post is absolutely spot on.

"....Why don't they ever start a tour in the UK? I'm not that smart about such things.... Why not the UK first? Is it the money thing again?

The touring pattern is part of the Stone's successful business plan. I've seen Mick and Keith both mention it in interviews. The US leg of the tour pays for all the start up expenses like stages, lights, transportation, marketing, salaries (for 300+) and so on. Once they bank all the loot from the US, the "take" from the rest of the world is gravy.

I was born and live only a few miles from where all the Stones were born. I feel like they are mine. But on nearly every modern tour me and the rest of my country have to wait till the end of the tour. OK, someone has to wait for so long but why always me and UK. I feel that USA get the biggest chance of seeing a few shows. Yes, It's a huge country, but just one country. Logisitics are in play. But when they play London it feels like a special show. Remember Mick saying at Twikenham we started just down the road. Where else can he say that. So UK gigs,
and I'm biased London gigs are special. It's like a piece of history. They started not far from Wembley and perform at Wembley. I don't know who's fault it is, but shouldn't us Brits get more of the slice. After all, they are our boys.

If only they would adopt the Dylan /Springsteen attitude to touring ....................NOT A F**KING CHANCE !!!!!!!!!!!!

The USA is the biggest market for the Stones and thats where most of there fans are and thats where they make most of there money plain and simple thats why the USA gets the most dates.

biggest market - yes. Without question

most of their fans? - if you compare it on a country by country basis, then there are more fans there than any other country (which is different than "most of their fans")- but comparing the US to Europe as a region, they can play to as many fans in Europe (which has a larger population) and more people there buy their records these days

The difference is that they can play more shows in the US because they can charge higher ticket prices to a region where more people can afford to buy them

I totally agree with Jagger50. All London Gigs are special. There is a taste you would not find elesewhere. I mean in Europe. UK is their hometown where it all started. Even if they are universal, and Rio was exceptionnal with that regard, they have the UK touch. You can smell it at Wembley. Now, even if they get more money in the US, I think they might draw more cah here as they will attract moreaudiences than in the US. All the gigs are not all announced. They could extend it in September. Why not Europe. To travel theses days accross this continent is as easy as to cross the United States. The only issue I can foresee is linked to the fact that you have to deal with more promoters than on the other side of the Atlantic .

phd, nice to hear you share my sentiments. When I last saw the Stones it was at Wembley arena. An English band playing in England to English fans. There's something so intimate about that.

jagger50 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An English band playing in England to English fans.
> There's something so intimate about that.

Oh yes....And I am french. But feel at home in England.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jagger50 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > An English band playing in England to English
> fans.
> > There's something so intimate about that.
>
> Oh yes....And I am french. But feel at home in
> England.
>
>
> Please feel welcomed.
>
>
>

I heard on this board that fan's the reception at Twickenham in 2003 was far from overwhelming. I also noticed on the Four Flicks DVD that there appeared to be a lot of sitting going on . . .don't understand why, the show rocked, and the set-list was WARHORSE after WARHORSE.

nikkibong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard on this board that fan's the reception at
> Twickenham in 2003 was far from overwhelming.

depends on who you ask. I didnt notice it any different from the other stadium shows I saw on that tour at Anaheim and at Giants Stadium

I
> also noticed on the Four Flicks DVD that there
> appeared to be a lot of sitting going on . .
> .don't understand why, the show rocked, and the
> set-list was WARHORSE after WARHORSE.

you get that at any Stones show, these days. Its a natural result of playing to older audiences

Christ then I am worrying abot Hampden if they are all going to sit !!!.

I hope no one sits.

Did feel peed off it was sitting but its my country Scotland that is so not going to miss it.

They should have standing FOS everywhere.

Scottish crowds tend to be more 'enthusiastic' than London ones, in my experience

is just me or has nobody mentioned the US is roughly in population AND area the size of all europe, of course they do big shows and big money here!

as for oz and nz , theyre islands perched on the edge of the world the logistics must be hell , the costs astronomical!

as for 39 days off , not bad when youve been at work for most of the year!

OLDKR

SHIDOOBEE

US population is about 300 million, Doug - Europe considerably more (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain combined would be about the same as the US)

Lot of costs for Australia and South America indeed, though. Cant see them exactly making a loss, though!

Audience in Glasgow rocks.... but how many fans will afford £150 ticket for the pitch.

Few. Which is why its the easiest ticket of the whole UK tour.

Strange thing is, Maxx - I went for Glasgow tickets on the presale and there was NOTHING in the first few rows for £60 even though I got in straight away, so I passed on it

A week later managed to get a pair at 4th row centre for £60 each on the secc.com website. No need for spending any money on a presale.

The day England or say even OZ can sell out 30+ gigs at $99-450 per ticket and reduce the taxes on the band is the day THOSE countries get 30+ gigs. Stop whining all the time about the US & start to use your brain about the reasons why. The Stones didn't just dream up "hey, let's give most of our gigs to the US from now onw"...it's money! The Americans buy the tickets, pay the most but the most records (not saying Stones records these days, but records as a whole). If these facts are too hard for you to see, then you'll always be frustrated.

After reading the Keith Richards biography by Victor Bockris- Keith hasn't been happy living in the UK since 67. He's been living in the USA for over 20 years. So ask him what the problem is if there is any.

Nobody "owns" any band.

sdstonesguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The day England or say even OZ can sell out 30+
> gigs at $99-450 per ticket and reduce the taxes on
> the band is the day THOSE countries get 30+ gigs.
> Stop whining all the time about the US & start
> to use your brain about the reasons why. The
> Stones didn't just dream up "hey, let's give most
> of our gigs to the US from now onw"...it's money!
> The Americans buy the tickets, pay the most but
> the most records (not saying Stones records these
> days, but records as a whole). If these facts are
> too hard for you to see, then you'll always be
> frustrated.


youre a tad defensive. The 'whining' isnt 'about the US' and as for 'using your brain' - youre basically saying the same thing as the rest of us in this thread - ie, its about where you can make the most money.

relay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After reading the Keith Richards biography by
> Victor Bockris- Keith hasn't been happy living in
> the UK since 67.


Keith isnt a happy guy. He hasnt been 'happy' with Mick for about 30 years either

He's been living in the USA for
> over 20 years. So ask him what the problem is if
> there is any.

ask Mick, Charlie and Ronnie...lol
>
> Nobody "owns" any band.

This is true. Understandable to feel a sense of attachment to a band from your own city or country though

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> relay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > After reading the Keith Richards biography
> by
> > Victor Bockris- Keith hasn't been happy
> living in
> > the UK since 67.
>
>
> Keith isnt a happy guy. He hasnt been 'happy' with
> Mick for about 30 years either
>

On the contrary, I think Keith is a happy guy overall. He may have conflicts with Mick, but it's only natural to have conflicts with your creative/business partner after so many years. That's the spark that keeps the Stones going. Keith seems content to me, while Mick still seems to be searching, a wandering spirit as he describes himself.