BV,

The fact that too few people would be able to see them would push to demand and anticipation to an unbelievable level. Hence, the pressure would be on them to perform at their very best. I think it would be a total rejuvenation for the band.

Anyways they could always book a couple nights of shows in the same venue to satisify demand at some locales. Forget $50 a ticket, charge more, would you pay $100 or more to be there? I would.

Whats even cooler is that a guy in the balcony could yell out a song and actually be heard on stage at the right moment. A very intimate setting.

Lukestar,

A couple more weeks and I'll be finished but I'm saving some sardines for you.

bv wrote:
----------------------------
I would much rather have a show without cameras really.


Agreed that can be rather annoying, what i meant was; maybe record a couple of shows for possible dvd use, and record all shows on multitrack (which they already do I think)

Don't know if this true, but I heard That Bruce Springsteen let all his shows being recorded on video for possible dvd use, after finding out he had very little on video in previous tours. (maybe Gazza knows)

>They could, but I don't think so, because:
1. They will loose money, because a lot of the crew is the same, the ticket price of 30-40 dollars do not pay for the real cost.
2. Very few people will be able to see them. It would be very un-social. Who should decide who should get tickets? Only VIP's? Only people with internet? Only rich people? There is a big gap between supply and interest when they play theatres.
Bjornulf





You are of course correct, Bjornulf but another way of addressing the problems you indicate may be as follows :

1. Ditch most of the crew. These people dont work for the Stones 365 days a year anyway and the vast majority dont work for the band exclusively. They dont depend on the continued existence of the Rolling Stones and their decision to play huge stadia in order for them to make a living. Neither should the Stones feel the need to tie themselves to this type of schedule and size of shows year in year out in order to oblige anyone. Ticket prices of 30-40 dollars is somewhat unrealistic to expect, but there are a lot of acts out there who play nothing bigger than theatres and who dont charge the earth for tickets, yet still undoubtedly manage to have a comfortable lifestyle. Ticket prices are a fraction of the band's income anyway. Even if they slashed them, theyd still be able to generate a fortune in revenue from merchandise - and THOSE prices wouldnt be going down. They could even do what The Who do and sell a recording via their website of every show. That would certainly generate a considerable amount of extra income. They simply dont need to outgross everyone anymore. Been there done that - time to move on. It shouldnt be the be all and end all of everything.

2. Most people by now have had ample chance to see them. If the band really want to do it primarily for the music, they could do so. Remember the commotion on previous tours when they would play a theatre show and all the press it got? Imagine a tour where it was like that for every gig. It would be fantastic. For a fan club that costs $100 a year for access to one presale there really should be enough capital and staff there to devise some kind of effective system where they can manage to get a sizeable percentage of tickets for shows like that to the 'right' people. Fact is, that the plan they used to sell tickets for the theatre shows on the Licks tour generally worked OK. Theres no reason why a similar system couldnt be used for each and every show if they chose to play exclsuively in theatres.

Youre correct about a gap between supply and interest but the more significant bridge to cross is the one between the band and their management's ability to pull something like this off and their desire to actually do so.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-03 14:25 by Gazza.

Speaking of a club show, I saw Lucinda Williams yesterday at the Paradiso. Absolutely a brilliant gig! go see her if you can, she's on tour in Europe now.

I'll be seeing her in Manchester in 9 days time. Cant wait. The 1/11/06 show is up on Dimeadozen so I guess the one from last night should be there soon too

Have a great show in Manchester! The sound in Paradiso was brilliant by the way.

I'm with bv on this one. Whilst I'd LOVE to catch them in a theatre or a club, the ticket fiasco which would ensue would drive me nuts and like he said, who'd end up going? Hard core Stones fans (big, big fan I am, but its not me) or the filthy rich.

Or I ask from the Stones is arenas. More of those would do me nicely.

They always planted someone with a licence plate that says STONES for every concert video in the 90s!

An entire tour in theatres? For crowds of models, VIP's and some "harcore fans"? Without the young people i still see (fortunately, despite these ticket prices) in stadiums?

Do you call "energy" this idea? This horrible kind of "elitism"? No thanks. That would be a nightmare to me. Sorry, but Rock music has nothing to do with agoraphobia! Stones, Pink Floyd, Springsteen and U2 proved that and i consider it as a very interesting part of their contribution to Rock Culture.

If Stones do an entire tour in theatres, sorry, i will not be there. I don't want to see guys like Naomi, Clinton, B. Gates being the 50% of the crowd. Brrrr...

Kind of a silly question, I think. The Stones can seemingly do anything they want to. The real question is..WOULD they? And the answer is...NO, of course not. Not enough $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> They've got a few dollars in the bank by now.
> Maybe they'll do such a tour, with cheap tickets,
> just to show how much they appreciate us.


You, my friend, are dreaming...

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An entire tour in theatres? For crowds of models,
> VIP's and some "harcore fans"? Without the young
> people i still see (fortunately, despite these
> ticket prices) in stadiums?
>
> Do you call "energy" this idea? This horrible kind
> of "elitism"? No thanks. That would be a nightmare
> to me. Sorry, but Rock music has nothing to do
> with agoraphobia! Stones, Pink Floyd, Springsteen
> and U2 proved that and i consider it as a very
> interesting part of their contribution to Rock
> Culture.


please explain what exactly rock music has to do with football stadiums? Not exactly purpose built for that purpose are they?

Of course the shows shouldnt be 'elitist' and for models and VIPs. Thats the whole point. Whats the problem with it being full of hardcore fans who know and care about the band's music?


It should be primarily about the music - after all theyve often been quoted as saying how much a driving factor it is in them continuing to tour and perform - not this absurd and artistically pointless penis-envy inspired "look how many of us there are" or "look how much we can gross" competitive nonsense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-03 21:57 by Gazza.

Could they?YES Will they? NO

keef_nerd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could they?YES Will they? NO


very.....Kill Bill Vol. 2...only the opposite........

ps.....Prince just signed to do a series of shows a la Celine Dione/Elton John/Cher at the Rio in Las Vegas..........so I suppose the Stones could book The Beacon for 45 days........or a theatre on Broadway........Oprah Winfrey could produce it or David Geffen maybe........

Would be incredible if they did a theater's only tour, however I would think in some of the larger markets they'd have to do an arena show as well because of the ticket demand. Like Gazza said above they don't need the whole entourage of backing musicians. Maybe just Bobby Key, Tim Reis, Bernard and Lisa (unless you can get Keith and Ron to do backup vocals which I doubt would work now.) And screw the whole assembly of people from the stage crew that put together these massive stages, just use whatever the theater provides and keep the crew to a minimum.

One thing I noticed from the Beacon shows is how much better the warhorse work when they are scattered around a bunch of gems that they don't play all the time. With these small shows the Stones would have no limit to what they can play. I mean a song like Connection got one of the biggest crowd reactions on Wednesday. And that's not a song on any greatest hits album. I was in the upper balcony and everyone was singing along to all the songs. And people were going nuts when they broke into Some Girls and Far Away Eyes.

And with ticket prices, I will say this. Ian Anderson played around here not too far back and his tickets were $80 a pop. I think the Stones are far more worth that than Ian Anderson and I love Jethro Tull. I guess the bottom line is I'd rather pay $100 to see them at a place like the Beacon that go sit in the upper deck of Giants Stadium and watch them on the video screen and hear echos after every note Keith hits while they run through a set of the same warhorses.

MicknSteven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is not happening unless they charge $200
> dollars a ticket. The Stones only care about
> making money!!!!


FINE WITH ME

I would pay 200 to see the boys in a small hall ANY TIME

Sign me up, too....

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> £€t'$ g€t th€ $ton€$ Ro££ing !


Great one, Erik!

Gazza wrote:

(A) "please explain what exactly rock music has to do with football stadiums? Not exactly purpose built for that purpose are they?"

Oh, yes, also fields and parks don't exist exactly for concerts, but rock music made history in them. From Woodstock and Hyde Park to Letna Park, Molton and Rio... Gazza, i expected a better argument from a very smart guy like you...

( "Whats the problem with it being full of hardcore fans who know and care about the band's music?"

Theatres aren't enough even for a decent number of the so called "hardcore fans", you know that. And, ultimately, who the hell has the right to dissociate "hardcore fans" from the others- common fans, casual fans or just people enthralled by Stones concerts? Who, really?

Gazza, in this board there are fans who discovered the Stones music thanks to a stadium gig in 1989, 1995, 1998 or 2003 (the last case, a young fan from Prague, if i remember correctly). My girlfriend listens to the Stones albums now, at the age of 40. Why? Because she was at Porto gig, a few months ago. Her enthousiasm became a bridge to the "Stonesland". I don't care if these cases are the 2%, the 5% or the 10% of the big audiences. Their subsistence is enough to me. So, to me right question is: What's the problem with venues being full of "hardcore fans" who know and care about the band's music and of many others who know less band's music or just want to see the most legendary rock band live?

That's exactly what i mean saynig "AGORAPHOBIA"... What always troubles some fans is the idea of someone jerking Rolling Stones from us, the "real fans"! Who is the grabber ? One -two years ago the usual answer was "backstage musicians"... Now the answer is "the big audiences"! Why? Because Stones belong to us!... Because Stones are our property!... Real sickness...
Who the hell do we think we are? Gazza, the pointless penis-envy inspired "look how pure is this crowd of 2,500 people" nonsense to me means not only agoraphobia but also DISEASED SELFISHNESS, if not a kind of LATENT RACISM...

Oh, yes "an entire tour in theatres"... OK, atleast let's do good job: Noone "stranger" between us, the "real" fans... "What? Do you want a ticket, mister? Fine. But we have some examinations here: Tell us in 60 seconds the lyrics of Heart Of Stone, Sway and Winter. Otherwise, sorry. No answer, no ticket. The show is only for hardcore fans who know and care about the band's music".
Like Clinton and models, i guess...

They should do what The Allman Brothers do EVERY March at The Beacon, they play just about the entire month.

The Stones should go back to smaller venues, AND the band should be the 4 Stones plus Darryl Jones - Bass (Ideally, we would want Bill back), Chuck Leavell - Keyboards, Bobby Keys-Sax. That's it.

The main thing would be, at least for me, you would have to have an affordable ticket prices for the average seat in the balcony.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza wrote:
>
> (A) "please explain what exactly rock music has to
> do with football stadiums? Not exactly purpose
> built for that purpose are they?"
>
> Oh, yes, also fields and parks don't exist exactly
> for concerts, but rock music made history in them.
> From Woodstock and Hyde Park to Letna Park, Molton
> and Rio... Gazza, i expected a better argument
> from a very smart guy like you...


I'll take that as a back handed compliment. However, they dont exist and werent created as entertainment venues, so its more a case of 'what parks have to do with rock music' than the other way round.
>
> ( "Whats the problem with it being full of
> hardcore fans who know and care about the band's
> music?"
>
> Theatres aren't enough even for a decent number of
> the so called "hardcore fans", you know that. And,
> ultimately, who the hell has the right to
> dissociate "hardcore fans" from the others- common
> fans, casual fans or just people enthralled by
> Stones concerts? Who, really?
>
> Gazza, in this board there are fans who discovered
> the Stones music thanks to a stadium gig in 1989,
> 1995, 1998 or 2003 (the last case, a young fan
> from Prague, if i remember correctly). My
> girlfriend listens to the Stones albums now, at
> the age of 40. Why? Because she was at Porto gig,
> a few months ago. Her enthousiasm became a bridge
> to the "Stonesland". I don't care if these cases
> are the 2%, the 5% or the 10% of the big
> audiences. Their subsistence is enough to me. So,
> to me right question is: What's the problem with
> venues being full of "hardcore fans" who know and
> care about the band's music and of many others who
> know less band's music or just want to see the
> most legendary rock band live?
>

No problem at all. But IMO its past the stage where the band should be lowering themselves to pandering to the lowest common denominator. It detracts from the music and becomes a spectacle above anything else. To me, theyve nothing left to prove when it comes to stadium spectacles, so doing it over and over again is treading water

I dont expect or want the right to a better chance of a ticket just because I may have seen 30 or 40 shows more than someone else. However, I would certainly rather have the people YOU are talking about (like your girlfriend) getting into a theatre show and standing next to me than some poseur of a celebrity who is just there to be seen and who leaves halfway through having spent most of the night sitting on their arse. Supply and demand dictates that certain shows are going to be harder to get into than others, so theres always going to be some kind of elitism. Did you buy any fan club memberships this tour? Those who did did so in the belief it would get them a head start for some 'special' events. Thats the only kind of preferential treatment I'd expect anyone to get. By your yardstick, youre effectively suggesting that its wrong to keep a few tickets aside for fan club members.



> That's exactly what i mean saynig "AGORAPHOBIA"...
> What always troubles some fans is the idea of
> someone jerking Rolling Stones from us, the "real
> fans"!

they already have!!!


Who is the grabber ? One -two years ago the
> usual answer was "backstage musicians"..

not from me


. Now the
> answer is "the big audiences"!

Wrong interpretation again.. more a case of the band and their management seeking a different "type" of audience and pandering to it. And they do that whether theyre playing in front of 2,500 people on Sunday night (mostly full of VIPsm hangers on and actors) or whether they do it in front of 25,000 people with a sizeable percentage of the best tickets being siphoned off to an audience that doesnt care much about their music, but who they feel for some reason obliged to tailor a show around

Why? Because Stones
> belong to us!... Because Stones are our
> property!... Real sickness...


wrong again. I dont want the Stones to belong to "me". I'd much rather theyre true to themselves and whatever musical or creative muse they have left. I've said it on here countless times, but IMO this band has long ago earned the right to play what songs they want at any show - if their target audience is too backward to respect that and make that jump with them, thats their problem. IMO its time for the STONES (not me, not you) to reclaim "The Rolling Stones" back from Scorsese, Cohl, Clear Channel, Steve Bing, Clinton, American Express, Ameriquest, Days of Our F**kin Lives or whoever else theyre content to whore themselves to for the biggest wad of cash available.. whatever musical path they choose, I'll follow it.


> Who the hell do we think we are? Gazza, the
> pointless penis-envy inspired "look how pure is
> this crowd of 2,500 people" nonsense to me means
> not only agoraphobia but also DISEASED
> SELFISHNESS, if not a kind of LATENT RACISM...

oh gimme a f**Kin break. and whats this obsession with getting as many people all together as possible? Some kind of pseudo-Marxist collective? That would be an equally absurd description
>
> Oh, yes "an entire tour in theatres"... OK,
> atleast let's do good job: Noone "stranger"
> between us, the "real" fans... "What? Do you want
> a ticket, mister? Fine. But we have some
> examinations here: Tell us in 60 seconds the
> lyrics of Heart Of Stone, Sway and Winter.
> Otherwise, sorry. No answer, no ticket. The show
> is only for hardcore fans who know and care about
> the band's music".
> Like Clinton and models, i guess...

No comparison. Sorry. Youve missed the point by a country mile.
See what I said earlier about the system used for Licks shows. presales for fan club members, public sales for the rest. With less tickets going to hangers-on and freeloaders. Gotta problem with that? Racist, my ass.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-04 02:39 by Gazza.

Thanks Bingo. You verify IMMEDIATELY what i wrote: "What always troubles some fans is the idea of someone jerking Rolling Stones from us, the "real fans"! Who is the grabber ? One -two years ago the usual answer was "backstage musicians"... Now the answer is "the big audiences"! Why? Because Stones belong to us!... Because Stones are our property!... Real sickness..."

Sorry, Bingo, i forgot that one more guy who jerked the Stones from us is Darryl Jones... We would want Bill back... Maybe we would want M. Taylor back too... Maybe we would want Brian's ghost back too...

I could accept the idea of doing some (more) theatre shows. But the idea of an entire tour in theatres, not even in arenas/stadiums/theatres, sounds childish in my ears. I already explained the reasons.

Hey, guys, if you believe in the dogma "the smaller venue the purer Stones", think about some other ideas. Why not gigs in school yards, bridges, terraces and caves? Mmmm?

I would kill to see them in a small venue, I'm Salt of the Earth could never afford it. I just hope they go one more time. I'll sacrafice but would go in a heartbeat. Let it Rock.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One -two years ago the usual answer was "backstage musicians"... Now the
> answer is "the big audiences"! Why? Because Stones
> belong to us! ... We
> would want Bill back... Maybe we would want M.
> Taylor back too... Maybe we would want Brian's
> ghost back too...

So you're gonna include every opinion people may have about RS speak on your behalf? There's lotsa different opinions...

Peanuts...for they!!!

Hmmmmm....Gazza, do you think whatever i wrote refers to you? No. I'm talking about the whole "atmosphere" as for the guys who want only theatres.

Just two answers

(A) "and whats this obsession with getting as many people all together as possible? Some kind of pseudo-Marxist collective?"

No. Just a big rock concert that will be for sure great, if the Stones are on stage. And, as Stanislaus Jerzy Lec said, "humanity cannnot go back, to the caves. We're so many now...".

( "IMO its time for the STONES (not me, not you) to reclaim "The Rolling Stones" back from Scorsese, Cohl, Clear Channel, Steve Bing, Clinton, American Express, Ameriquest..."

M.Cohl is R. Loewenstein's "son". American Express is a "descendant" of a lot older sponsors. The @#$%& ticket prices nowadays are "descendants" of the @#$%& ticket prices of 1969 tour- you know very well that the Stones played Altamont to propitiate their fans who were enaged at the high prices. The fireworks since 1989 are "sons" of the 1981/82 baloons and "grandsons" of the Hyde Park's buterflies...
I'm trying to say that what we see today is evolution of of what had been always. Rock and Roll had two hypostases, from it's beginning. Music/music industry. Art/spectacle. Passion/business. Just remember the negotiations in Monterey and Woostock. Just remember how Dylan sold his presence at Isle of Wight Festival...
The Stones became what are they today, just because they step, with their talent and adroitness, on both sides of Rock 'n Roll. I think is pointless to ask "hey, return to the innocent past". The past was innocent only in the nostalgic rock mythology. Of course, we have to demand creativity. But i never thought that creativity is related to venues, small or big. It's something deeper. Ultimately, i think the big majority of fans in UK consider the 2006 stadium shows as better (by far, i guess) than 2003 Astoria gig. No?

As for Clinton and the whole Beacon thing you know very well that i agree with you. As i said, not 100%, but 1,500%...

Anyway, Gazza, with this thread me and you return to the strong disagreetments! As at the old(er) "good times"...

LOL...hey its all in fun, as you well know! Youre a good guy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-04 04:22 by Gazza.

Well, Stickydion's compliment - Gazza's compliment 1:1

Frrrrrr...End of the game...

I supppose they could, but they wish too. But I suppose like to play in front of Stadiums even if it restricts their musical talent. I take the theater events as a breath of air, a change in their sometimes like a day-today activity. But my view might be impaired by my prisma of a Stones big show lover. Since the 80's, Stones <===> Stadium, in Europe anyway.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've heard how energetic and awesome the Beacon
> shows were. Can someone that attended a Beacon
> show and also went to a 40 Licks Club/Theater show
> compare them?
>

I agree with some of the others reviews. It was GREAT to attend the Beacon on Nov 1 and I was THRILLED that I was able to get in. That said, in comparison with the Licks theater shows, I did not think it was as good. I saw Wiltern, Roseland and Olympia and would rank those ahead of Beacon 2 on both setlist and performance with Olympia being my BEST SHOW EVER. Describing it to friends, I would say the Beacon did not live up to the preceding hype whereas a show like the Olympia or Roseland definitely did live up to the hype.

Don't get me wrong this was a great one to see and would rank in my top six or seven shows but performance-wise, I thought the LA Forum was actually better. The Licks theater shows would get higher marks from me for both setlist and nailing the performance.

I Know I was very fortunate to get in and I am sure it was a combination of things that left me feeling not 100% satisfied: It may have been the fabricated feel of the EVENT with the actors in front and the posing by Mick and Keith which was VERY exagerated for the cameras. It might have been Jagger's voice which he did not push very hard in the first half of the show missing many challenging parts in songs like Shattered and She was Hot. It might have been the mistakes by both Mick and Keith (and there were many) whereas Ronnie had a perfect night. Or, perhaps it was the stress and exhaustion caused by the delay in the show and the scramble to change and rebook travel plans.

Set-wise, I loved hearing rarities like ATGB, Loving Cup, I'm Free, Connection and also not frequently played songs like Some Girls, Just My Imagination, Shattered, Far Away Eyes. With the latter four, however, I have heard them play stronger versions on other tours. We were near the back of the orchestra and it might have been the sound but the guitars were down in the mix and you could not hear Bobby at all during Brown Sugar.

It sounds like I am complaining but I am glad we traveled the 3000 miles to get there and the struggle to try and book when the show was postponed. I think I had too high of expectations after seeing near perfection on the Licks shows.