We all know what the Stones ticket prices are...could you imagine what the Beatles would get if all four were still alive and playing together in the band? $1,000 a cheap seat perhaps? Egads...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 00:44 by NumberOneStonesFan.

$ 25,-

They would be right in line with what other big name acts are getting. A couple hundred dollars per ticket.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

If they had been around the whole time doing big tours like the Stones have...they might have a very hard time selling tickets. There are many bands that were once huge that folks don't care much about anymore. The Beatles would have had to keep writing albums people really cared about...or they'd fade away. Keep in mind the Beatles gave up on touring long before they quit as a band. If they couldn't hack touring after 66', it's hard to imagine they'd be able to cut it now...AND keep writing albums people cared about. Now if they were all alive & just decided to tour again, it would be HUGE...mostly b/c of the freak show factor (come & see the band that you have never been able to see...)...which is very different than the beatles being a touring/recording band for 45 years.

The Stones haven't made an album people cared about in 25 years! But they have always been great performers. The Beatles were known for their incredible live show.

sdstonesguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they had been around the whole time doing big
> tours like the Stones have...they might have a
> very hard time selling tickets. There are many
> bands that were once huge that folks don't care
> much about anymore. The Beatles would have had to
> keep writing albums people really cared about...or
> they'd fade away.

Not a chance. Even now, theyre still the biggest band in the world

Keep in mind the Beatles gave
> up on touring long before they quit as a band. If
> they couldn't hack touring after 66', it's hard to
> imagine they'd be able to cut it now...AND keep
> writing albums people cared about.

The Beatles stopped touring in 1966, not because they 'couldnt hack it' but because it was pointless performing as they couldnt be heard. The Stones were in the same position around that time (although unlike the Beatles, they werent regularly playing football stadiums). When they returned to performing in 1969, the introduced new state of the art and elaborate sound systems to enable them to be amplifued properly, plus by that stage their audience had matured with the music to the extent that they actually wanted to HEAR them instead of just screaming for half an hour. Had the Beatles returned to touring around the same time instead of breaking up, no doubt the result would have been similar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 03:18 by Gazza.

true, Gazza - but both Ringo and especially John had a fear of the stage - John never did get over that.

The question is ridiculously theoretical, but there's NO question that had they survived and followed the same course of the Stones over the past few decades, it would be The Beatles that would set the standard for ticket prices, not the Stones. No question.

yep..plus to add to that, George had severe stage fright too....I think after 1974, the only time he toured again was a Japanese tour with Clapton in the early 90's

George was lazy (self-admittedly), too.

Wow, the threads get more and more surrealistics these days.

Right, Gazza. I am always baffled to see how people underestimate the Beatles and their achievements. The Beatles are no band that "was once huge", they are still huge, and they did stop playing live because it made no sense anymore. Technology could not keep in step with the Beatles rapid evolution of their sound, it was simply impossible to recreate this sound on stage. Hell, even the Stones did not perform 2000 Light Years From Home, She's A Rainbow or We Love You at the time. The only difference is that the Stones return to the roots worked (Beggar's Banquet) and the Beatles similar attempt (Get Back Sessions) did not, it did not create the desire to play live again.

THE Difference is the Beatles were recording artists...the art of recording...

THE STONES ARE A THE GREATEST BAND HANDS DOWN!

"The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts"

PECMAN

The beatles have also said on record that they sucked live. Not just the 'trying to be heard' issue but they point to some of the recordings of them live and they sound bad.

They would have had to work on that one small detail.

You would need more than love to buy one, that's for sure.

I guess it was 1965 when I first heard about The Rolling Stones. I was on 14th Street in Greenwich Village when I overheard some kids talking about this new band from England. I was already into that other band from England, The Beatles. In fact, the reason I was on 14th Street was to buy a pair of Beatle boots. I had a crisp ten dollar bill in my pocket, ready to spend at Flagg Bros. shoe store. But these kids kept raving about The Rolling Stones. "Who were they?" I thought. "Satisfaction" wasn't on the radio yet, so The Stones weren't too well known in the States. (Besides, I mostly liked folk music at that time.)
A little further down the street, I bumped into a girl I knew. She said she had two tickets she wanted to sell for that night's Rolling Stones concert at the Academy of Music. She was asking ten dollars for the pair. I thought for a minute, and decided to go without Beatle boots that year.

Quoting from Bob Gruen's preamble.

Ticket prices for both would be higher than boots.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> true, Gazza - but both Ringo and especially John
> had a fear of the stage - John never did get over
> that.
>
> The question is ridiculously theoretical, but
> there's NO question that had they survived and
> followed the same course of the Stones over the
> past few decades, it would be The Beatles that
> would set the standard for ticket prices, not the
> Stones. No question.

I don't think so. I think the Beatles legend has grown greatly because they did break up and never got back together again. If they had stayed together (and not died) and toured every few years, they would be right about where the Stones are at now.

Des Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The beatles have also said on record that they
> sucked live. Not just the 'trying to be heard'
> issue but they point to some of the recordings of
> them live and they sound bad.
>
> They would have had to work on that one small
> detail.


They probably 'sucked live' because they had for years been playing shows where they didnt have to work at being a live band because no one could hear them. Try playing Shea Stadium with a PA system that would barely have been adequate for a theatre

dont forget, theyd learned their trade as a pretty good live act long before they ever got a record contract or went near a studio, in places like Hamburg, playing for hours a night for a month at a time at around the same time that Mick and Keith were in short trousers jamming in a back room in Dartford. Any shortcomings in later years were down to being able to coast because it was the easy route to take.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 03:25 by Gazza.

Alas, the world will never know what the definitive version of "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" would have sounded like. Pity.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alas, the world will never know what the
> definitive version of "Why Don't We Do It In The
> Road" would have sounded like. Pity.


Yeah,but did we really need the definitive version of "Streets of Love"?

Pecman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Difference is the Beatles were recording
> artists...the art of recording...


no they werent. They simply developed into that and moved away from being a live act as well.. a mythical stereotype

>
> THE STONES ARE A THE GREATEST BAND HANDS DOWN!

so what? Nothing to do with the subject

the beatles ticket prices would be higher, but the tour would be much smaller,
the fab four could never handle a tour of steel wheels magnitude, the liverpool bunch did not have the toughness nor the energy to do so

mucho dinero



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 03:39 by Leonard Keringer.

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [i31.photobucket.com]
> th_money.jpgmucho dinero

That would about cover the service charge and the parking. If you were going to get a T-shirt and beer you'd need more (never mind the ticket):

not to mention the loan i'd have to take out for that beatles wig i've always wanted

That's Funny

Would the Beatles have played at Altamont??

No, they turned down Woodstock...

If you wait until after the show has begun, maybe you'd get lucky outside the stadium and get a ticket for only $40,000.

That's also assuming that the band has not sold out. That usually makes a difference.

StonesTod Wrote:

it would be The Beatles that
> would set the standard for ticket prices, not the
> Stones. No question.



I agree StonesTod. The Beatles were superior to the Stones on many levels.

Too bad they couldn't keep it going longer.

I also believe that their legend kept spreading because of the break.If they were here,they would be like Stones and stuff.On the other hand Beatles for me was superior to Stones only in numbers.I don't like a single song from their stuff while I love the Stones.Maybe I don't like also the early Stones,because for example I don't like at all Between the Buttons.