Re: Finally
Date: October 21, 2006 23:35
melillo : "they make more money and more attendance since 89 cause the tours are longer and the prices are higher, not because there is more demand to see them"
Forget the money they make- who cares? Just look at the other factors.
(a) Yes, since 1989 Stones tours are longer. So what? If a band is able to visit more cities of the same countries and to play in packed stadiums, i suppose that does mean "vast popularity". If a band can visit during a tour four of five times an american city attracting many people, i think we have another popularity's figure.
(b) During the seventies tours were shorter, because the band was doing them very often. 1989/90 was the first tour after 8 years and it included a huge "virgin" market- Japan (attendance 500,000). Voodoo Lounge was the first round after 5 years and it included another huge "virgin" market- South America (900,000). But now? The frequency of tours in the last years reminds us of the seventies. The Stones aren't a rare act anymore, never had been since 1994. In contrary, everyone who just wanted to see a mythical band while he could, without taking any real interest in their music, had not one or two, but a lot of opportunities. But the band still attracts million people. If this doesn't mean "popularity", what the hell does mean? In 2005/07, IMO this success is more remarkable than what we have seen in the past dacades. For the reasons i mentioned.
(c) I'm bothered by the ticket prices, of course - as anyone. On the other hand, the fact that the band plays to so many people despite these prices means something too. Unless you believe that the Stones are attracting 4-5 million "millionairs" all over the world. I went to 4 gigs in Europe. I have seen a notable number of enthousiastic young people in the stadiums. Despite these prices. Nice to see it.
In every case, the Stones don't need a "smash hit" to attract million people. Is not a "smash hit" what people asking for. Since 1989 people ask from the Stones great performances, energy...and they have it!
Remember the last Floyd's tour. It was very successful, of course. Had they a "smash single" like "Another Brick On the Wall" in their pocket? No. Have U2 a real "smash hit" since 1991 ("One")? I don't think so. Noone remembers today "Lemon" or "Discoteque". But they're a very successful live act since then, even if sometimes (USA 1997) they played in half empty stadiums many times...