bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't really see the problem. The Stones are
> stacked with money. If there are 30,000 or 50,000
> it does not really matter.

...which is precisely the reason why they should have gone for smaller (and warmer) quality shows in indoor arenas, providing them with the opportunity to play more adventurous setlists for the 20,000 "hardcore" fans.

I mean, just how long are they going to go on milking this "greatest show on earth" nonsense?

A fair number of these shows are also mid-week shows instead of weekend shows, That can have an affect on attendance also.

In contrary to LOGIE, i don't like the idea of playing basically smaller venues -with higher (of course) prices- to "hardcore fans" and VIP. The dogma that the Stones belong to us, to hardcore fans, sounds very selfish to me...

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't really see the problem. The Stones are
> > stacked with money. If there are 30,000 or
> 50,000
> > it does not really matter.
>
> ...which is precisely the reason why they should
> have gone for smaller (and warmer) quality shows
> in indoor arenas, providing them with the
> opportunity to play more adventurous setlists for
> the 20,000 "hardcore" fans.
>
> I mean, just how long are they going to go on
> milking this "greatest show on earth" nonsense?

My sentiments exactly. They should be concentrating on stacking the hardcore fans with fond memories of the last major tour of the greatest rock and roll band in the world.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In contrary to LOGIE, i don't like the idea of
> playing basically smaller venues -with higher (of
> course) prices- to "hardcore fans" and VIP. The
> dogma that the Stones belong to us, to hardcore
> fans, sounds very selfish to me...


"of course" ? they shouldnt need to have higher prices because its an arena show. Making a guaranteed x millions of dollars for every show, regardless of size, shouldnt be the motivation to perform at this stage in their career. THAT is more selfish. The stadium thing has been done to death and as can be seen in recent months is losing its appeal

I almost didn't buy tickets for Gillette because I detest stadium shows! It may RAIN, or be freezing, as in Chicago, too many people, sound can be off, etc. Glad I did go, one of the best Stones shows EVER!

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In contrary to LOGIE, i don't like the idea of
> playing basically smaller venues -with higher (of
> course) prices- to "hardcore fans" and VIP. The
> dogma that the Stones belong to us, to hardcore
> fans, sounds very selfish to me...


I take your point stickydion, but I doubt very much whether many punters, beyond the hardcore fans, are actually attending these expensive overblown outdoor extravaganzas. From what we are hearing, it seems that the only way of inflating these attendance figures is by offering half price tickets, tickets-with tee-shirts or simply giving them away. I mean, really? Who are they trying to kid? And all of this nonsense is used to justify them putting out what is nothing more than a golden oldies setlist.

Everything is about compensating. Compensating for the fact that they are playing in a baseball stadium. Compensating for the fact that the acoustics are dreadful. Compensating for the fact that the whole stage and lighting has to be paid for. Compensating for the fact that 70% of the audience are much too far away from the stage. Compensating for the fact that a fair few are far too lazy to have gone out of their way to hear anything beyond 40 Licks. Compensating for the fact that the real reason and motivation behind the tour is BIG MONEY.

You're a fan. Probably a fanatic. Great. So am I. So why make excuses for them? Don't you wanna hear something different? Well do you, or not? Or do record breaking attendances really matter to you that much more than quality shows? I'm beginning to think that they do.

Sheesh...it's a good thing ya'll can't get a hold of me--I'd be hung, drawn and quartered (for a sheep just as well as a lamb!).

I was having a terrible day and was just venting...on top of everything else crappy going on in my life at the moment I just hated reading that a Stones show was only 40% full.

I didn't mean to rile everyone up so badly. I am weird--and slightly schizophrenic--in my posts, I will admit. AND a drama queen at times, Lord knows!

Are we still friends? Just ignore me when I post dumb things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-16 03:35 by Jack Knife.

Hey Jack dont be so hard on yaself....you know what they were
tellin' us way back in 1965...it's all there tucked away on da tail of US Out Of Our Heads

Sit down shut up don't dare to cry
Things will get better if you really try
So don't ya panic don't ya panic
Give it one more try
Don't ya panic don't ya panic
Give it one more try



ROCKMAN

I'm calling off the snipers as we speak...

-Drake

They could have played arena shows only on this Fall Tour in North America. With an average of 15,000 people at arena shows and slightly over 20 shows they would have been able to reach out to 300,000 people. Now they are able to perform to more than te double, as they do stadium shows. If you ask those 400,000 I am sure they would rather seen the Stones than being left out on a sold out over-scalped arena show. Just think about Regina. 90,000 people at two stadium shows. How many arena shows would that take? Or if you wanted to cover Chicago 30,000 people with two arena shows... what city would you remove? You know they do only have time for roughly 20 shows now. If you do two arena then you have to take away another city...

Bjornulf

x



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 06:18 by Beelyboy.

No question they over did the Chicago market. I was shocked to hear this concert announcement when it appeared. They still are a terrific draw in most cases. I also feel that most of the ABB tour has been very well done, musically and otherwise. A little disappointed in the UK setlists though. Was hoping for more,after making the trip over from the US.

Bottom line.....glad they are still on the road and playing for fans who are still interested in seeing them. The number of fans attending is still astounding I believe.

Good morning Jack...you sure hit a nerve.

Jack Knife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the saddest thing I've ever seen/read
> about in my 40 years of being a Stones fan. Mick
> said in an interview with Matt Lauer before the
> LICKS tour that the band would "just know" when it
> was time to stop. It's time. With this and the
> sad European sales--especially Germany--it's over.
> Sorry they had to go out on such a humiliating
> note.

The BAND said they would know when to stop, but you have a say in this because....?
A humiliating note? You surely didn't attend a show? And the stadium in Chicago wasn't exactly empty now was it? It's so easy to sit here and say that a stadium is empty even though it sold way more than half the tickets. That's not empty unless your definition of it is different from ours.



> My apologies to MickSteven. You were right and I
> was wrong. The attendance was worse than U2's
> "Lemon" tour. Had I been there, I would have hung
> my head in embarrasment and shame, no matter how
> good the show was.

Hung your head in embarrasment? Come on. You're crazy. Try hanging your head from a rope tied to a tree instead (That was a joke).


> Bye, guys. Too bad no one will care that you're
> gone.

Worst post of the year so far. I hate that "IT'S ALL OVER NOW, WE MUST GET SENTIMENTAL NOW" comments. Absolute BS.

JumpingKentFlash

LOGIE wrote: “take your point stickydion, but I doubt very much whether many punters, beyond the hardcore fans, are actually attending these expensive overblown outdoor extravaganzas. From what we are hearing, it seems that the only way of inflating these attendance figures is by offering half price tickets, tickets-with tee-shirts or simply giving them away.”

Come on LOGIE, don’t provoke me to mention attendances number again! If I’ll do it, you’ll be responsible for this… (Just kidding)

“The only way of inflating these attendance figures…”. You must be kidding now. What are we hearing , LOGIE, is true. But it refers to cases which could be counted on the fingers. For example, some shows in Germany, or when the Stones visit an american city for 4th or 5th time during the tour, etc. In the rest of the cases this policy is non- existent or refers to an infinitasimal number of tickets. Do you really think that so many million people (OK, don’t worry, i don’t mention numbers of attendances!) are going to the Stones concerts due to offers? Do you see so many offers around, worldwide?

Ultimately, they don’t offer cars, referigarators, or washing machines. I mean, a guy who expects a half price ticket to see the Stones takes for sure an interest in them. Maybe he is a fan who can’t affort the so high @#$%& prices. Or a casual fan. Or someone who has heard many good words about their concerts. Or, or, or… Otherwise, he hasn’t reason to spend his time and some money seeing them. In every case, the conjunctive tissue between these people and the Stones music, Stones legacy and Stones performances are something really good.

LOGIE, we can discuss for hours about venues and, first of all, about the industrial, profitable side of R ,n’ R. Rock and Roll always had-and have- two “hypostases”. Music and music industry. Passion and business. From it’s start to nowadays. But that’s a long dicsussion- let us refer it to another time. I wish i had time today, but I haven’t. Now i must go to a polling station, because today in Greece we have local elections.

Just a note: What you call “nonsense”, these tours, to me are marvellous proffers of R’n R.And IMO the music is into the core of this huge phenomenon, perhaps deeper than ever. Why? Because, as i said weeks ago on another thread, today they don’t tie in the stupid “epidermic” rules and criterions of music industry. Are they sex- symbols or just young and beautiful, like Robbie Williams or Shakira? Are they famous for other activities, like Bono? Are they playing a leading part in stories for scandal magazines, like George Michael and others? Are they getting some publicity using stupid statements against other bands, like Oasis or Macca do against them? To all these questions the answers are “no” and in some cases “no anymore”. If not the music, then what? The legend? Yes, but what keeps the legend alive? I guess the music has to do with it. A lot.

See you tomorrow, time for voting now…

wow those days of 90k plus stadium shows from 81-82 are long gone arent they,
but hey they still pack them in today also, 30k-40k is not to bad either

Wasnt there a 81 show in the snow?? I can remember the pictures of it!!!

Sounds like Jack Knife wants to get jacked in the face and then knifed

Filling up 50 % was not that bad after all. But I would be really puzzled if the 2 Texas shows, Oakland and LA have that fate. I don't believe that the 90 K stadiums period is over. Other groups or artists achieve that. Maybe it's over for The Stones in the US. Nevertheless I feel it's an obviuos huge success to drive 60 K audiences when you didn't have any # 1 single for 25 years or if your latest opus only sell slightly over 500 KUnits. Europe, SA will provide more rewards if not cash.

melillo wrote : "wow those days of 90k plus stadium shows from 81-82 are long gone arent they, but hey they still pack them in today also, 30k-40k is not to bad either"

Different method, today. But look at the final result: in 1981 they played to 2 million people in the US. Today the number is going to be a bit bigger. Also, in 1981 there were two cases of 90K plus crowds. Acrually were four-not more. Two Philadelphia shows, 90,782 each one. And two LA shows 90,000 each. In Europe 1982, Leeds 150,000- if i remember correctly the gig was free. Hugest audiences never had been something usual. And they aren't missing completaly today. Remember Molton, 89,260 and Horsens 85,300.

dont forget RIO's 1,300,300.

Look at this catalogue, as at 2001. Since then we have the hugest audiences at Toronto 2003 and Rio 2006, Molton and Horsens.



Rolling Stones' biggest ever-audiences:

Attendance figures: Stones' largest paying audiences ever
(as at 2001)

200,000 Knebworth 21 Aug 1976
150,000 Leeds 25 Jul 1982
126,742 Prague 5 Aug 1995
107,000 Prague 18 Aug 1990
93,000 Philadelphia 17 Jun 1978
91,590 Nuremberg 13 Jun 1998
90,871 Hockenheim 19 Aug 1995
90,782 Philadelphia 25 Sep 1981
90,782 Philadelphia 26 Sep 1981
90,017 Los Angeles 18 Oct 1989
90,017 Los Angeles 19 Oct 1989
90,017 Los Angeles 21 Oct 1989
90,017 Los Angeles 22 Oct 1989
90,000 Los Angeles 9 Oct 1981
90,000 Los Angeles 11 Oct 1981
90,000 Wolfsburg 25 Aug 1995
90,000 Hamburg 30 Aug 1998
89,963 Hanover 26 Jun 1998
87,500 New Orleans 5 Dec 1981
86,470 Zeltweg/Spielberg 1 Aug 1995
86,000 the Hague 5 Sep 1998
85,913 Mannheim 12 Sep 1998
84,896 Bad Bentheim/Schuettorf 12 Aug 1995
83,105 Leipzig 15 Aug 1995
83,000 Naples 17 Jul 1982
82,500 Cleveland 14 Jun 1975
81,000 Kansas City 6 Jun 1975
80,302 Paris 30 Jun 1995
80,302 Paris 1 Jul 1995
80,173 New Orleans 13 Jul 1978
80,000 Orchard Park/Buffalo 8 Aug 1975
80,000 Orchard Park/Buffalo 4 Jul 1978


Please note:
Amusement Business figures used where available.
The free concerts in Hyde Park and Altamont in 1969 beat
all of the above. Nobody counted the visitors, but there were
at least 300,000 in Livermore and at least 250,000 in London.
The 4 LA dates in 1989 (listed above) had a total of 360,069
people paying. This means that at least on one concert there were
more than 90,017, which I have used here as average.
For same reasons, the two Paris concerts in 1995 had a total of
160,605.
Some of the figures above are estimated.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>In Europe 1982, Leeds 150,000-
> if i remember correctly the gig was free.

you remember incorrectly.

> Look at this catalogue, as at 2001. Since then we
> have the hugest audiences at Toronto 2003 and Rio
> 2006, Moncton and Horsens.
>

in fairness, Rio was free and Toronto was an all day bill with multiple artists and a ticket price of something like $20.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-15 21:39 by Gazza.

OK Gazza, i was remembering incorrectly about Leeds, so thought the catalogue include free concerts. As you can see, there are notes about Hyde Park and Altamont- but there aren't exact numbers. And, in fairness, atleast at Altamont there were various famous artists. By the way, do you remember the ticket price for Leeds 1982? Just curious.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK Gazza, i was remembering incorrectly about
> Leeds, so thought the catalogue include free
> concerts. As you can see, there are notes about
> Hyde Park and Altamont- but there aren't exact
> numbers. And, in fairness, atleast at Altamont
> there were various famous artists. By the way, do
> you remember the ticket price for Leeds 1982? Just
> curious.


Ticket price for Leeds was £10.

As a general response to posts by stickydion, beelyboy and others, I stand firmly behind my argument that even in the absence of concrete statistics (sorry sticky!), there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that for some gigs at least, the desperate measures being taken by promoters to shift tickets has been so drastic as to beg the question of whether an arena tour would have been more suitable than one consisting of outdoor stadiums. In my opinion it would. But then you know that already.

Of course, the argument that the apologists use yet again is that more people are turning out to see the band than could possibly fit into a tour of arenas, and that it would be unfair on those casual fans who would miss out. God bless’em! However, as many of these casual fans take months making their minds up over whether to buy a ticket or not, before being wooed by some special offer, I can’t really see many of them being too bothered at missing the Stones.

Then there’s the equally absurd argument that the Stones simply couldn’t afford to play before such comparatively small audiences without losing money. My heart bleeds! Has anyone ever considered what the break-even attendance figure must be for a stadium gig in order to meet the costs for their over-blown lighting and stage? More to the point, are they actually reaching that target based upon current attendances?

Most baffling of all however, is how quick the apologists are to defend the golden oldies setlists, as if, by implication, they themselves have no faith in the Stones’ ability to deliver a decent gig or win over new audiences without having to spoon-feed the casual fans with countless warhorses.

What would have been wrong, I ask, with a strategy of kick-starting the tour with eight or nine songs from A Bigger Bang and working on the material through a series of arena dates, in much the same way that Springsteen does with his tours. If the shows become successful and the casual fan wants a piece of the action, then by all means, take the tour to stadiums. In other words, let the popularity grow naturally, allowing the fans to come to them, as opposed to deliberately going out of their way to merely pander to, and exploit, a market opportunity.

However, if the Rolling Stones are NOT capable of doing this anymore, or simply not interested in their new material, or would prefer to exploit new markets at the expense of artistic credibility and the disregard of their more fanatical followers, then let’s all concede that this may in fact be the case. And by virtue of that sad truth, let us concede to, that even more depressingly, they are no longer an important happening band, but instead, a mere commercial parody of their former selves.

You asked for it…you’ve got it.

I think Logie has just hit a home run......

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Logie has just hit a home run......


Absolutely. Great post, Logie. In fact one of the best I ever read here.

i'll never understand why some people are so interested in the 'numbers'

we're fans, there to see a gig. we shouldn't be interested in the business side of things. it has nothing to do with rock n roll

and that should be the reason we go to a gig

if there are 500 or 50,000 people at the show i couldn't give two @#$%&