Some of you say that the stones kee doing it for the money. I dont agree. Of course the ticket prices are too high. But I think this is more a responsibility of the promotors (Cohl for instance). In their perpective we must pay high prieces because we are seing legends. And thats true. But we, hardcore fans, also want to hear some music.

The stones are still playing because its a drug. They love to be loved. Thousands of people screaming for them. But they know that to fill a stadium its necessary to play the warhorses. Not the songs we wanat to hear or they even want to play. Remember the theater shows? Like in Four Flicks. There they can play ohter songs.

When I went to see them in Oporto i knew that the songs were not going to be played like in 72 or 81. Or even 90. But when you look to the stones we see all the things they done. And even if they dont play so well is still the best live gig on earth. And we should be thantkfull for that. The joy they gave us is priceless.

stillife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And even if they
> dont play so well is still the best live gig on
> earth. And we should be thantkfull for that. The
> joy they gave us is priceless.


I'll go with that.

I think the issue is that we were also seeing 'legends' on every tour up to 1999 and the prices - while a bit higher than most acts as befitting their 'legend' status - were still reasonable.

and you dont need warhorses to "fill a stadium" as people dont know what theyre going to play when they buy the tickets. Of course people expect to hear them, but Ive never known anyone to walk out of a Stones show because they didnt play enough hits or because they played a few songs that a casual fan didnt know.

This belief that you have to play hardly anything but your greatest hits seems unique to Stones audiences, compared to any other act I know. And more so its unique to this tour as far as Stones audiences are concerned. If i go to see any act whose material I'm not THAT knowledgeable about, I dont expect them to play just their best known stuff. I think most music fans grasp that concept.

I agree to some extent that playing is a drug. They dont NEED the money but I think the ego is a major factor in why they still do it.

Plus - what the hell else are they gonna do? They dont know anything else as theyve been doing it since they were teenagers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-18 02:32 by Gazza.

Beast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stillife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And even if they
> > dont play so well is still the best live gig on
> > earth. And we should be thantkfull for that.
> The
> > joy they gave us is priceless.
>
>
> I'll go with that.

Mee Too.

Though on the Not playing so well comment.
They have their moments.
When you are there FOS and one of these moments happens.
Nothing else matters.
You have been blessed.
All the shit life has thrown at you dont matter a damn.

Money is part of the reason, but I believe with creative people, it is never the full reason. There are many business people who strike it rich then retire, but even a good amount of them still use their money to invest in other things and still feel they are in on the game. Creative people seem to want to continue to create, because that drive that was there originally is still strong.

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are now a couple decades into where they could have retired and lived off their wealth, yet both of these guys continue to work hard. If they stopped, what would they really do? I think it's the same with the Stones.

The thing I truly respect about the Stones is that when they tour, they always create new studio music, even though the sales of their albums are not huge anymore. They feel the need to have new music even if they may not play as much of it in shows as us hardcore fans would like. This sets them miles apart from bands like the Beach Boys and the Moody Blues, among many others, who continually tour and almost never release new music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-18 03:52 by Halup.

Money isn't the reason? Ah ha ha ha ha ha, ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, seriously, they are doing it for the love of the music.


Ah ha ha ha ha ha, ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

George Lucas has only directed 6 films in his life, and 4 of them are Star Wars movies.

I wouldn't say he has been breakin his ass.

It's true Lucas has only directed 6 feature films. Where the majority of his time goes while not actually directing films is in teh running of several companies that are involved in multiple projects like ILM and THX among others. He is a billionaire and has no need to earn anymore money in his lifetime. I'm of the opinion he does it more because being creative, whether directing an actual movie or trying to push the boundaries of technology in film, is part of his overall personality.

Concert tickets are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them.
No, if the Stones were in the business for the money, they'd never have lasted 44 years. And they could have taken an early pension years ago. They're in this with their hearts. They love playing their - and other peoples' - music. Look at their faces after a successfull performance! Shere happiness. Pride, humble men who love doing what they're doing - giving us their gems and pearls.

If you look at artists, young, up and commming, today's youngsters... How many of them will be doing their thing in 44 years? Did they become musicians because they had to? Out of love for the music? No - they wanna be famous, they wanna be rich - real quick. That's why they won't last. Writing the 2006 rock encyclopedia will be really easy. How many artists / bands deliver? And who amongst them will we remember in 5, 10 , 15 or 44 years? Tricky? Not really.

shidoobee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concert tickets are worth whatever people are
> willing to pay for them.
> No, if the Stones were in the business for the
> money, they'd never have lasted 44 years.


They would have lasted about 20 years. And I still contend thats what they really lasted as a real band and an artistic unit. I think it was the lure of more money than they ever could have imagined that led them to put aside their differences and come back together for the common good. I don't really think of them as a band any more, preferring Keith's own description of "Virtual Corporation."

Gazza Wrote:

>
> and you dont need warhorses to "fill a stadium" as
> people dont know what theyre going to play when
> they buy the tickets. Of course people expect to
> hear them, but Ive never known anyone to walk out
> of a Stones show because they didnt play enough
> hits or because they played a few songs that a
> casual fan didnt know.
>


I snuck into Hollywood Bowl 1 using the ticket of someone who was walking out during Midnight Rambler. I didn't ask him why he was leaving so early, I was just happy to get the ticket.

Dan Wrote:

> I snuck into Hollywood Bowl 1 using the ticket of
> someone who was walking out during Midnight
> Rambler. I didn't ask him why he was leaving so
> early, I was just happy to get the ticket.

You did even better than a friend of mine who had to pay $20 to get into the show during the 5th song. For the first night I bought a $60 from Ticketmaster as that was back when the 3rd are show was still listed as being the Palladium, so I thought the Bowl would end up being a hot ticket and tough to get into. I snuck into section F, that night just behind the boxes, so at least I got a better seat for the money that I had to spend.

I didn't buy in advance for the second night and due to how great that first Bowl show was, tickets were not as cheap outside. As I did not want to miss any songs, I had to drop $75 outside, but I had friends in a terrace box, so once in the door, I was able to be in the box with them.

I never intended to hit the Bowl shows since almost every single show I attended there was sorely lacking in volume. The plan was just to drink beer and listen from outside. The picnic area is closer to the PA than many of the seats. But I was surprised how loud and clear it was even outside. It was just luck and a bit that nerve that I was able to make it in both nights.

I've been pleased with the sound at the Bowl since the remodelling in 2004. I've snuck in there without a ticket a few times, most recently for the Flaming Lips show. I've found it easier to due for Bowl sponsored events than for lease events.