Gazza Wrote:
>
> I find the whole notion of 'the greatest rock n
> roll band in the world' doing one month seasons in
> Las Vegas to be a REAL sign of the end of
> civilization as I know it. It would be a final
> naili in their coffin as far as credibility is
> concerned.

I don't think it would be terrible. In the future, I think it would be more likely to see them set up shop for a month or two somewhere and have people come to them, than to get Charlie to go out on a world tour. It doesn't have to be Vegas. Could be anywhere. But if it is Vegas it doesn't mean they'll have showgirls on stage and start selling the $1.99 Prime Rib. Vegas makes sense because the casinos will pony up the massive amount of dollars it would take to get the Stones to do it. I don't know where else it would be feasible. As far as credibility goes--who cares? It's all about the music. I could give a flip what others think about the band. As long as I get in the door to see the show, people can think what they want. I'd much rather see a Rolling Stones concert that people think is lacking in credibility than no Stones concert at all. One day this ride will end I want to squeeze every drop out of it as long as I can. If they decide to play next to the Celine Dion Theatre or the Wayne Newton Theatre so be it. The only thing I'll have to say is "When do tickets go on sale?"

jomo297 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could give a flip
> what others think about the band. As long as I
> get in the door to see the show, people can think
> what they want. I'd much rather see a Rolling
> Stones concert that people think is lacking in
> credibility than no Stones concert at all. One
> day this ride will end I want to squeeze every
> drop out of it as long as I can. If they decide
> to play next to the Celine Dion Theatre or the
> Wayne Newton Theatre so be it. The only thing
> I'll have to say is "When do tickets go on sale?"


Well, it's not all about you.

Some Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, it's not all about you.


True. It's all about the music.

jomo297 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Girl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Well, it's not all about you.
>
>
> True. It's all about the music.


And playing Vegas is far from being all about the music. And losing all credibility would be detrimental to the music.

Some Girl Wrote:
> And playing Vegas is far from being all about the
> music. And losing all credibility would be
> detrimental to the music.


I guess I don't get it. How is playing Vegas detrimental to the music? Does it change how it sounds? How does the band lose all credibility by playing Vegas? It is show business. They want to make money, fans want to see them. Seems logical to me. As long as there's a stage and the band can still play on it, I think it's great. Doesn't matter where. Sorry, but I guess I'm in the minority here. That's alright. It's still all good. The summer tour starts soon and Vegas isn't on it so everyone should be happy.

Nope, because when they feel the need to score a ton of $$$$, they'll be on the road again!

jomo297 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Girl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Well, it's not all about you.
>
>
> True. It's all about the music.


if it boils down to playing a month in some soulless casino in Las Vegas so that they can make maximum $$ for next to zero effort, playing in front of an audience thats more predominantly made up of non-fans there to see a 'big name' that is even the case at present, then "the music" is right at the BOTTOM of the priorities

Vegas and all it represents has zero connection with rock 'n' roll. I dont know where you're from, but maybe your enthusiasm at the prospect is connected to it being relatively accessible to where you live. Would you feel the same if the Stones only concert activity each and every year was a month of shows in Tokyo?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-25 02:29 by Gazza.

No more afraid but hoping!

You're hoping?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> if it boils down to playing a month in some
> soulless casino in Las Vegas so that they can make
> maximum $$ for next to zero effort, playing in
> front of an audience thats more predominantly made
> up of non-fans there to see a 'big name' that is
> even the case at present, then "the music" is
> right at the BOTTOM of the priorities
>
> Vegas and all it represents has zero connection
> with rock 'n' roll. I dont know where you're from,
> but maybe your enthusiasm at the prospect is
> connected to it being relatively accessible to
> where you live. Would you feel the same if the
> Stones only concert activity each and every year
> was a month of shows in Tokyo?


When I said, "It's all about the music" I was referring to me. For the band it's big business. The point I was trying to make is "I don't care where they play, as long as they play, I'll be there." If it's a Vegas showroom or a high school gym, I'll be there.

Yes, Vegas would be a lot easier for me to attend, but if it's Tokyo, then I'd make the trip.

I'm not saying Vegas is the ultimate venue for the band. I'd rather see them do a month at the L.A. Forum or Madison Square Garden, but I doubt that's feasible. Vegas just makes sense. The theatres are built for sound. We all know the Stones aren't going to play for anything less than an exhorbatant amount of money. Vegas would allow them to do that via a casino sponsorship. Tickets would still be expensive, but most likely, less than they are now. If they were to set up residence on their own for a month, ticket prices would be a lot pricier.

I know Vegas has a "cheesy" reputation, but the days of it being all polyester and sequins are gone. We'll have to agree to disagree about this one. I don't live in Vegas or frequent Vegas, but I did just get back from meeting my brother there for a convention.

I hate to think this band would lose fans if in five years they decided to play Vegas. These guys are getting old. We, as fans, have to accept that we're not going to get the shows of the 60's, 70's, or 80's. We'll be getting the Stones in their 60's and 70's. It can never be the same, but I still bet it will be pretty darn good. I couldn't just turn my back on the band I've loved for years because they decide to play a specific location.

To make a long story short, all I've been trying to say is I don't think they will tour forever, but I hope they set up a month or two long residences in one location so the fans can still get a chance to see them. Make it whatever city makes you happy.

Again, sorry if upset anyone with this. That wasn't my intent at all. Gazza, Some Girl, if I see you at a show, I'll buy you a beer.

rknuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No more afraid but hoping!


What? Pardon? Hoping it's the last tour??? Some of us take that very offending.

"Are you afraid this is the last Stones tour?" That's a funny question...so am I really afraid?
My feelings are quite similar to Gazza's. A couple of years ago, the sheer thought of a life without Stones shows would have scared the shit out of me. But now I am not exactly taking it easy, but something inside me tells me I could live with it. This has something to do with the impression that their live act formula seems to be more or less outworn. It's more or less the same songs, the same arrangements, the same basic set structure since a couple of years and with stage designs and ticket prices being the most signifact changes between tours. I may sound cynical, but I ask myself about their motivation to continue. If there is still something in them that goes beyond pure economical reasoning, I'd gladly go out and see them in the years to come. But if it will be more or less the same procedure as every year, I can imagine that I would prefer to keep them in good memory.

jomo297 Wrote:
>
> When I said, "It's all about the music" I was
> referring to me. For the band it's big business.

well...the point I was trying to make is that for the band the music should be a large part of it too...the 'vegas only' scenario would to me indicate that it means next to nothing

>>
> I'm not saying Vegas is the ultimate venue for the
> band. I'd rather see them do a month at the L.A.
> Forum or Madison Square Garden, but I doubt that's
> feasible. Vegas just makes sense. The theatres
> are built for sound. We all know the Stones
> aren't going to play for anything less than an
> exhorbatant amount of money.

why not? havent they got enough? Their collective worth is now in excess of $1 billion.. why does it have to take extortionate amounts to motivate them to play even a note? Do they dislike what they do or something and theyre so exclusively driven by money that it has to be the be-all and end-all of everything?


Vegas would allow
> them to do that via a casino sponsorship. Tickets
> would still be expensive, but most likely, less
> than they are now. If they were to set up
> residence on their own for a month, ticket prices
> would be a lot pricier.

just what we all want to hear. Jesus, how desperate to people have to be to pay lip service to such a scenario?
>
> >
> I hate to think this band would lose fans if in
> five years they decided to play Vegas.

theyre doing so already and lets face it, if they limit their appearances to one city in one country, its hardly going to reverse the trend


These guys
> are getting old. We, as fans, have to accept that
> we're not going to get the shows of the 60's,
> 70's, or 80's.

I've long accepted that. I dont live in the past or yearn for it. However, its reasonable to expect high standards in exchange for high prices and high reputations


We'll be getting the Stones in
> their 60's and 70's. It can never be the same,
> but I still bet it will be pretty darn good. I
> couldn't just turn my back on the band I've loved
> for years because they decide to play a specific
> location.

the location isnt the main issue...its what it represents and what is represented by the band's motivation to do so. I'd never 'turn my back' on the band's music (even though THEY have done the same with their fanbase to some degree) but I could certainly envision a time when I would no longer get excited at the prospect of a tour because I no longer recognised the band I've grown up with and followed around the world for many years. The scenario youre describing would be an example of that. I'd have zero interest in it for numerous reasons and I think the public appeal of it would be limited anyway
>
> To make a long story short, all I've been trying
> to say is I don't think they will tour forever,
> but I hope they set up a month or two long
> residences in one location so the fans can still
> get a chance to see them. Make it whatever city
> makes you happy.

at 6,000 miles away and at those prices, thats where I'd say 'thanks, but no thanks' and be happy to walk away with what Ive got over the last 30 years.
>
> Again, sorry if upset anyone with this. That
> wasn't my intent at all. Gazza, Some Girl, if I
> see you at a show, I'll buy you a beer.


LOL..youre not upsetting anyone at all....its a healthy discussion and what a mesage board is all about. However, I'll hold you to that beer...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-25 04:37 by Gazza.

Having seen them in Las Vegas a couple of times this tour, as well as in the Midwest and the East US, I agree with Jomo that it is nice to hear them in a theater built for sound, as in the MGM Grand. Also, with Las Vegas just one stop on the tour, I'm not sure there are more non-fans than elsewhere. What I've seen is a lot of diehard fans from all parts of the US and even from the world, okay, the Netherlands and Germany. It's also nice to walk to the venue and walk back to your "home" for the night.

All that might change if Las Vegas were the *only* place they played.

I've seen them twice in Vegas. It's the tackiest, most vulgar piece of white trash assembley territory anywhere in the world. (No style - lot's of lights. No good taste - lots of free, fattening food - and it shows!) When that is said, I just loved the show at the MGM Grand! Sound was great. Crowd fantastic. Not as many "non-fans" as in Madison Square Corporate Garden, good crowd. The trip to VEGAS was even cheaper than to New York, (I live in Norway) where hotels are ridiculously expencive. I'd go to Vegas to see the Stones any time. Then I'd shut my eyes, mouth and ears to all the trash there. Don't wanna see it. Dont wanna eat it. Don't wanna hear it.

If many of you decide not to see them in the future I am OK with that. It will be easier to get good tickets and lower demand may help hold down ticket prices.

Great question, Gazza! " Do they really hate what they're doing THAT MUCH " that it takes absurb amounts of money to get them out on the road?? Maybe some of us can accept the inevitable easier now than 5 or 10 years ago because we're weary of paying thousands to see a few shows. I know I cringe when I get my credit card bills,especially the last tour in the USA! OUCH!!!!! I used to get physically sick when I though about the LAST TOUR but not so much now. I still think the Stones will do occasional shows, aiming at the big stuff, the quick hits that generate billions! Think about it; two weeks in Vagas that will earn them as much as 2 months on the road! WHY NOT? Look, I am not any happier than any of you die-hard, long-suffering fans! I AM ONE! I just believe that the hassles of touring, this mishap with Keith, has taken a more serious toll than we're being told. It's an emotional toll for Mick, a real headache that he's had to deal with and fix the best way he could to salvage at least some of this summer tour. Mick has got to be pissed, stressed and ready to hang it up at this point! I know I would be.

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If many of you decide not to see them in the
> future I am OK with that. It will be easier to
> get good tickets and lower demand may help hold
> down ticket prices.


I would have thought the opposite, Steven, to be honest.

The Stones will always be able to sell out arenas in most major markets, even if their ability to sell stadiums might diminish further. The reason they played so many stadiums on the last American tour was more to do with their financial demands being so high, many promoters wouldnt take a risk on an arena show - so they would play a stadium show instead (the problem with Europe is that arenas here are smaller than in the US - but stadiums are bigger - so whilst it would be maybe easier to sell out an arena in Europe, its harder to fill a stadium. In the US the jump is from maybe a 20,000 seater arena to a 40,000 seater stadium - whereas here its from maybe a 12,000 seater arena to a 50-60,000 capacity stadium)

Whilst GETTING tickets would be easier, the fact that they demand such a high guarantee per show will only drive prices for shows higher.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great question, Gazza! " Do they really hate what
> they're doing THAT MUCH " that it takes absurb
> amounts of money to get them out on the road??
> Maybe some of us can accept the inevitable easier
> now than 5 or 10 years ago because we're weary of
> paying thousands to see a few shows. I know I
> cringe when I get my credit card bills,especially
> the last tour in the USA! OUCH!!!!! I used to get
> physically sick when I though about the LAST TOUR
> but not so much now. I still think the Stones will
> do occasional shows, aiming at the big stuff, the
> quick hits that generate billions! Think about it;
> two weeks in Vagas that will earn them as much as
> 2 months on the road! WHY NOT? Look, I am not any
> happier than any of you die-hard, long-suffering
> fans! I AM ONE! I just believe that the hassles of
> touring, this mishap with Keith, has taken a more
> serious toll than we're being told. It's an
> emotional toll for Mick, a real headache that he's
> had to deal with and fix the best way he could to
> salvage at least some of this summer tour. Mick
> has got to be pissed, stressed and ready to hang
> it up at this point! I know I would be.

I think you are right..

not the last tour, but without a doubt the last WORLD TOUR

Being afraid that this is the last tour is part of being a stones fan, I think. Saw them for the first time in 1990, and promised myself that if the Stones were able to play, I would attend every tour. I have kept my promise!

Amsterdam 31. My seventh show. Yeeeeeeeeees!

Ray
15 and counting. No stopping. Stockholm next.

Sure the feeling was there everytime...but this time is different...I wont say darling you see...tell me.

Whenever this gets talked about, inevitably the hopefull mention scaling back. Cut the length of the tour, do more of a blues based show rather then rock, arenas and theaters not stadiums, scale back on travel. I think implied by much of this is a ridculous hope.

No matter what happens the one thing I guarantee, ticket costs will not scale back! No matter where or if you ever see the Stones again, I promise tickets will not be any cheaper than they are on this tour.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-26 08:48 by kahoosier.

In a word...

Yes.

But at the same time I don't want to say that I am. I feel to admit to feeling that way is to give fuel to the fire somehow. I know they'll never stop, but I feel like I wasted time when I could've seen them before. I had the chance to see them on the Licks Tour, but I threw it away, and felt stupid for not going. I didn't know or wasn't a fan when the Bridges tour was going on, and was too young to do the Voodoo shows.

But I feel like we need to live in the moment, and not worry about now. Lord knows I'm sure we've got worse things going on. At least I know I do.

shidoobee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen them twice in Vegas. It's the tackiest,
> most vulgar piece of white trash assembley
> territory anywhere in the world. (No style - lot's
> of lights. No good taste - lots of free, fattening
> food - and it shows!)
> time. Then I'd shut my eyes, mouth and ears to all
> the trash there. Don't wanna see it. Dont wanna
> eat it. Don't wanna hear it.

Hey, Vegas can be fun, you just have to lighten up a little bit. Just sit down at the black jack table, give the coctail waitress a $10 and let the drinks keep coming! Chat it up with people at the table, Vegas is a gas!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-26 06:57 by ryanpow.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find the whole notion of 'the greatest rock n
> roll band in the world' doing one month seasons in
> Las Vegas to be a REAL sign of the end of
> civilization as I know it. It would be a final
> naili in their coffin as far as credibility is
> concerned


I just wanted to know: The other nails in that coffin you speak of came from where and is based on what?

JumpingKentFlash

Prices are ultimately set by what people are willing to pay, not what the Stones want. Promoters won't lose money for long which explains why they won't return to many venues. The Stones will always charge the maximum they think the market will bear. Who knows, perhaps they will eventually get to Streisand's pricing with a limited tour every 10-15 years at super high prices, but this really reflects very low demand only supported by the very wealthy. You can have front row Streisand seats if you want them. It isn't like there are that many people willing to pay those prices. I understand the best seats going for big bucks, but it will be interesting to see if Cohl can sell the rest of the house at the current pricing. I think there will be many ticket drops reflecting low demand at the current price structure.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I find the whole notion of 'the greatest rock n
> > roll band in the world' doing one month seasons
> in
> > Las Vegas to be a REAL sign of the end of
> > civilization as I know it. It would be a final
> > naili in their coffin as far as credibility is
> > concerned
>
>
> I just wanted to know: The other nails in that
> coffin you speak of came from where and is based
> on what?


I obviously havent 'whined' coherently and frequently enough for you of late ;-)

based on my humble f**king opinion and taste. Which, as a paying consumer faced with the choice of deciding whether a 'product' thats on offer is to my liking or not, is the only one that matters.

and (of course we're talking hypothetically here) if the Stones wish to turn into Barbra Streisand, then you're welcome to them. I REALLY dont think I'd be missing anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-26 15:48 by Gazza.

Yes, the Stones tickets are worth what people are willing to pay. Even though they're whining and screaming an awfull lot.
However, Madonna has tried to climb to the same price level. That does NOT work out. Her fans are obviously not willing to pay the price. In that case, I must agree that her tickets are over priced.

Just say no!