Bingo wrote :

"6/18/95 - The Grateful Dead become the first band in history to surpass the one million mark in attendance at a single venue.
The Grateful Dead have played there 14 times, using simple math, 1 million people divided by 14= 71,428 as an average number of people seeing 1 show at Giants Stadium.....almost double of The Rolling Stones attendance numbers this year."

Interesting, indeed. But that's not the rule at Giants, i guess. If i remember correctly, when Bruce Springsteen played there 10 times, selling out the venue 10 times, the total number was 560,000 people. That means 56,000 at each show. (If you can find out the exact numbers, correct me or confirm me). Every time the Stones are playing there since 1997, they sellout with 59,000 tickets, expect the last gig (48,715). This, last number (48,715) is close to 1994 numbers: Voodoo Lounge, four sellouts, 201,547 tickets, 50,386 as an average number of people seeing one show.

Anyway, in any case sellout has to do with the number of tickets available. And what makes the differences is field's attendance. The Grateful Dead in 1995 probably were filling the field "to death", in an extraordinary way. The Stones, who don't seek a specific record like "one million mark in attendance at a single venue", who are playing varius city's venues (MSG, Albany, etc), who care about 80 gigs totaly in USA- Canada, have not reason to do that.

But yes, you're right as for that: differences between sellouts at the same venue can be serious! When the Stones played at River's Plate stadium, in Buenos Aires, in 1998, total attendance was 271,765: 54,353 people at each show. In 2005, two gigs, 141,092 tickets, 70,546 people! A human flood, a real human "sea" in the field...

Yes, we see two different schools of thought between performers/managment and their fans.

The Rolling Stones charge $450 for good seats in a STADIUM, and limit the amount of seats availble to their fans. They have an equation "X" amount of fans at "X" amount of money will generate a certain profit.

The Grateful DEad also have an equation, let us give our fans the oppertunity to see us, as many as possible, at an affordable price. Again, "X" amount of attendees at "X" amount of money. That "X" factor in monetary value is around $25 in the late 1980's money, $50 1995 money.

I'm sure Bruce lies somewhere in between, if your numbers are right. I would guess high price would be $150? and low price $30? for a concert with close to 60,000 for attendance.


The Grateful Dead do not seek out 1 million concert goers at a venue, it just happens. They give their fans a great show at a great price and treat them to a good time. They treat their fans differently.

Life is not fair, and different people/groups do different things, some bad, some good and some ugly. There are people here who defend the ugly, The Stones are a great band, but their methods sometimes are not fan friendly.

If one is lucky enough to plop down $450 for a good seat and see several shows a tour, more power to you, you're the fan they are catering to, because those good seats will always be availble.

If you have $50 - $100 to plop down to see as many shows as you can on tour, your odds are not in favour for a Stones show, those seats sell out 1-2-3.


That's why when the original question was asked...."were these shows half empty?" People like myself who have seen The DEad, The Stones and Bruce @ stadium shows, the obvious answer is..."Yes, I see a notable difference in crowd size."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-02 06:05 by Bingo.

buffalo7478 wrote:
«Toronto in 2005 where they only played one show instead of the usual 2, was maybe 70% full. It's a great city, and the Stones love it...but an awful venue for sound (...) Reduce the price to about $21.00 (like SARSfest was) and they would draw a hell of a lot more....not 490,000....but a lot more than 30,000...and would turn on a LOT more people to the World's Greatest Rock-n-Roll band.»

Of course, if you compute the crowd at 30,000 only, you can easily say “was maybe 70% full”. But the most conservative estimates i found out looking at reviews (Press included, of course) were “more than 40,000”. Also a lot of “more than 45,000” and “more than 50,000”. Official number published on Billboard, 50,872 (sellout). I haven’t serious reasons to believe that this number is “inflated”, because i think i know what exactly Cohl’s policy is about! I mean, if he wants to present a gig as soldout or near soldout, even it isn’t like that, his method is to reducing real capacity’s number, presenting lower number of “tickets available”, not to revealing unsold tickets as sold ; besides something like that would be very inadvisable from a …tax point of view! An example is last gig at Giants stadium. Another example, BC Place , Vancouver, on B2B tour : then the tickets sold were only 37,058, so M. Cohl presented as “capacity” the number of 40,000. But anyone knows that the real venue’s capacity is 50,000 atleast. And, according to the reviews, at last Stones gig in Vancouver the crowd was 50,000 +

So, as for Toronto, to me the question is whether the number 50,872 is close to the REAL venue’s capacity, or not. I don’t know what was happening during 70s, but i see that in 1994 the Stones had there a sellout with 54,986 tickets. In 1994 another one sellout with 49,129 tickets. In 1989 two sellouts, having as average number 58,723 people at each show. In every case 50, 872 seems very good number to me.

Yes, Toronto is a great city, the Stones love it and probably the city loves the Stones. Yes, they played one show only. Logical: they did so many gigs there in the last years. Ticket prices are higher than what they should to be, no question about that. I suppose prices were high also for Ottawa, Regina, etc. But the sales have been very good and very fast there, just because these cities were “virgin” as markets. And “thirsty” for seing the Stones. “Unusual” places on the tour’s map, like Moncton, Ottawa, Regina, Halifax. Look at the result: the Stones played to 400,000 people in Canada, totally, which is really remarkable for a country that has a population of 28 –29 million. So, why do you feel so sad, seeing that the Stones played one show only in Toronto instead of two?

Bingo wrote:

(A) "The Grateful Dead do not seek out 1 million concert goers at a venue, it just happens."

Mmmm... How can you be sure? Personally i can't accept the theory that everybody in music and music industry (as you know, both sides have "indissoluble bonds", since R'n'R birth!) is "saint" and selfless, except these "devils", the Stones... In contrary to you, i suppose the Grateful Dead in 1995 were seeking a record ; fine, nothing wrong with it. As the Stones wanted something special, something very impressive, when they diceded to do a massive free concert at Copa Cabana: to make bigger their biggest audience, ever.

( "The Stones are a great band, but their methods sometimes are not fan friendly."

Yes, i have said it 1,000 times. But that doesn't make the others "saints". Simply, noone else can draw worldwide so many people by these prices. Noone else can find out a balance between "attendance" and "prices" at so high level - for both.

(C) "That's why when the original question was asked...."were these shows half empty?" People like myself who have seen The DEad, The Stones and Bruce @ stadium shows, the obvious answer is..."Yes, I see a notable difference in crowd size."

OK, that's your analysis. Respectable analysis, but "a notable difference in crowd size" doesn't mean "half empty" venues. Otherwise, as i said, the Stones are playing in a "half- empty" Giants stadium always, atleast in the last 17 years (because they never had an audience of 70,000 there). River Plate Stadium was "half- empty" in 1998. Also the venue at which "Toronto/SARS" concert took place in 2003 was "half empty", because Pope once attracted 800,000 people there, not only 490,000...

This talk about "half empty" stadiums is pointless. The Stones did 80 gigs in North America on ABB tour playing to 2 + million of people. They played at packed venues during the two first northamerican legs. As for the 21 gigs of the last leg, they filled 16 venues, just reducing some usuful sections in two cases (Foxboro, Giants). The rest six venues were filled at 80% atleast, except Soldiers Field, that was the only real "half empty" stadium. End of story.

And now, good morning Europe...

Just a restoration. Allow me to correct ...myself. I wrote: "As for the 21 gigs of the last leg, they filled 16 venues, just reducing some usuful sections in two cases (Foxboro, Giants)." Count only Giants. As i wrote earlier, 45,000 is the normal Foxboro's capacity, judging by previous tours.

"As i wrote earlier, 45,000 is the normal Foxboro's capacity, judging by previous tours."

2002 & 2006 is a different stadium

I think BV makes a good point. The two No Security shows in Hartford were sold out in a couple of hours. I've often wondered what the logic is of keeping the ticket supply less than the demand for tickets. If I were the Stones I would have added more shows in Hartford, and every other venue, until I performed one to a half empty arena. They could easily have sold out three plus, or four plus, shows; so why not do four or five shows so everyone who wants to go can go? There are also fans like me, who would have attended them all.

"make up your mind, 'cause I gotta go"

" I've often wondered what the logic is of keeping the ticket supply less than the demand for tickets."

Since the Stones only have about 100 available dates a year total, I think the high prices are meant to reduce demand to a degree, but there is a fine line where demand is supposed to match the amount of tickets available but has fallen short a few times.