Why are the Stones playing only large venues in Europe this summer?

I'm not even talking about Club shows - forget that. Why aren't there some smaller indoor venues? For example, Royal Albert Hall, or Ahoy Hall in Rotterdam and there are plenty of others throughout Europe. Something with a hint of intimacy.

I think London's 02 arena is the smallest venue all summer and that seats 23,000.

I guess one positive way to look at it is that it's the best opportunity for more people to see the shows by utilizing large outdoor venues.

It sure would be nice to see them in a smaller venue, but I'd never get a ticket if they did.

Most of the male fans now days have beer guts....



ROCKMAN

Euro 2007, why such large venues ?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Euro 2007, why such large venues ?
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Took the word right out of my wallet!

In this case, make that

euroseuroseuroseuroseuroseuroseuroseuroseuros.....................

You really didn't have a clue?

1cdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are the Stones playing only large venues in
> Europe this summer?
>

> I guess one positive way to look at it is that
> it's the best opportunity for more people to see
> the shows by utilizing large outdoor venues.


You answered the question.

Because they are working on a new record crowd figure for this tour. Largest crowd total on a tour. Also, because they want to reach out to as many people as possible. By performing 3 shows at the O2 in one week they are able to perform in front of only 60,000 people. Stadium shows would have the capacity of 200,000 during the same week. If they used the same arena policy all over Europe 1/3 of the places only would be able to see them, i.e. 1/3 only of the people. Very simple. They are too popular. The Licks tour was great, unique, but this is another tour, a different one, a pure stadium tour.

Also, ask yourself this question: Somebody walks up to you and want to give you some money. It is all perfectly legal and ok. It is because you are such a nice guy. Like a lottery. You can choose between 1 million dollars and 3 million dollars. What would you take? The one or three million dollars gift?

Bjornulf

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because they are working on a new record crowd
> figure for this tour. Largest crowd total on a
> tour. Also, because they want to reach out to as
> many people as possible. By performing 3 shows at
> the O2 in one week they are able to perform in
> front of only 60,000 people. Stadium shows would
> have the capacity of 200,000 during the same week.
> If they used the same arena policy all over Europe
> 1/3 of the places only would be able to see them,
> i.e. 1/3 only of the people. Very simple. They are
> too popular. The Licks tour was great, unique, but
> this is another tour, a different one, a pure
> stadium tour.
>
> Also, ask yourself this question: Somebody walks
> up to you and want to give you some money. It is
> all perfectly legal and ok. It is because you are
> such a nice guy. Like a lottery. You can choose
> between 1 million dollars and 3 million dollars.
> What would you take? The one or three million
> dollars gift?

In other words ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And some other currencies as well this summer :-)

The O2 is not a stadium. They're playing three arena shows in a week.

I guess another reason aside from the $ is because there is still the demand. If there is still the demand, then why not? Wembley Arena in '03 Is probably the best show I have attended in terms of both prformance and intimacy, so I am looking forward to the O2 gig. Greenwich is a great town too. Lots of pubs only a short bus ride from the venue.

Rockman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of the male fans now days have beer guts....


I believe you might have an important point, there, Rockman. How many 500- pounders can one cram into an arena? Not to mention a club? Guess the only alternative's stadium shows...

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because they are working on a new record crowd
> figure for this tour. Largest crowd total on a
> tour. Also, because they want to reach out to as
> many people as possible. By performing 3 shows at
> the O2 in one week they are able to perform in
> front of only 60,000 people. Stadium shows would
> have the capacity of 200,000 during the same week.
> If they used the same arena policy all over Europe
> 1/3 of the places only would be able to see them,
> i.e. 1/3 only of the people. Very simple. They are
> too popular. The Licks tour was great, unique, but
> this is another tour, a different one, a pure
> stadium tour.

a pure ego-fest then. Christ, Im glad theyre still touring and all that, but your insistence that its purely driven by how much much money they can make is depressing, in all honesty. Is this a rock n roll band or an ATM?

>
> Also, ask yourself this question: Somebody walks
> up to you and want to give you some money. It is
> all perfectly legal and ok. It is because you are
> such a nice guy. Like a lottery. You can choose
> between 1 million dollars and 3 million dollars.
> What would you take? The one or three million
> dollars gift?


You've overlooked one salient fact. If I was already worth a billion dollars, it wouldnt matter a shit to me, because I'd never live long enough to spend it.

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because they are working on a new record crowd
> > figure for this tour. Largest crowd total on a
> > tour. Also, because they want to reach out to
> as
> > many people as possible. By performing 3 shows
> at
> > the O2 in one week they are able to perform in
> > front of only 60,000 people. Stadium shows
> would
> > have the capacity of 200,000 during the same
> week.
> > If they used the same arena policy all over
> Europe
> > 1/3 of the places only would be able to see
> them,
> > i.e. 1/3 only of the people. Very simple. They
> are
> > too popular. The Licks tour was great, unique,
> but
> > this is another tour, a different one, a pure
> > stadium tour.
> >
> > Also, ask yourself this question: Somebody
> walks
> > up to you and want to give you some money. It
> is
> > all perfectly legal and ok. It is because you
> are
> > such a nice guy. Like a lottery. You can choose
> > between 1 million dollars and 3 million
> dollars.
> > What would you take? The one or three million
> > dollars gift?
>
> In other words ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EEEXactly!

I mean, in former times they played 3 times Wembley or 2 x Twickenham with a capacity of 120000-180000 people a week. They know they can't sell that much tickets on a market like London with these ticket prices!! So don't tell they want to play in front of as much people as possible. What they want is to play in front of as much $$$$$$$$ as possible. They give a shit on crowd amount. If you pay them 10.000.000 bucks they even play for you alone in these days.

It is easy to be sarcastic about rich people on May 1st, but I do still think there is more than one reason why they tour. They do still love it, they don't know what else to do, we don't know what else to do, they are hooked, we are all hooked, otherwise we would not sit bent over our computer talking about old guys taking all our money. It's the magic still. Bet I see you all on tour!

Bjornulf

Agree 100%!!!!!!!

They´re rich, so what?

Enjoy while it is possible!

I think the whole spectrum has been addressed. The Stones still love to play; they love to make a lot of money playing; and they love to break records. Seriously, I think every Stones fan has to be aware of the first two things I mentioned. Whether it's money or love of playing tipping the scale, I'll go with money because they are pretty old now to still be playing stadiums.

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is easy to be sarcastic about rich people on
> May 1st, but I do still think there is more than
> one reason why they tour. They do still love it,
> they don't know what else to do, we don't know
> what else to do, they are hooked, we are all
> hooked, otherwise we would not sit bent over our
> computer talking about old guys taking all our
> money. It's the magic still. Bet I see you all on
> tour!


Its not a case of being sarcastic and I didnt see anyone complaining that theyre still doing it. We're all happy about that and if we're not we have a simple choice as to whether or not to buy a ticket.

However, you're the one who said above that their motivation for touring is basically to set a record for how many people they can play to. (personally, I think the 'highest gross' figure is more important to them, but thats another argument).

your second post though (which I've quoted above) is more logical however, and I'd basically agree with it. Its more than JUST ego and money - they still enjoy it and can still do it - plus they dont know anything else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 13:15 by Gazza.

Why this whole argument? It's easy:
They love to tour.
They love getting money.
They like big crowds and the fact that it brings them more money, and the fact that they can reach more people that way.

Shouldn't be that hard to comprehend mates.
Peace....

JumpingKentFlash

OK, we pretty much agree that the Stones love to play, make big money and set records. Perhaps another reason for a stadium tour could be that this really is the last time, and they want to give as many people as possible the opportunity to see them.

Most professionals like to "go out on top," and what better way than a huge stadium tour while giving a reasonable chance for the general public to take part?

I'm not predicting anything here, in fact, I hope I am wrong. Just an idea to consider.

To get back to the original question, the simple answer is down to their guarantee and the type of venues that are available in europe

In America, almost every major city (and many small ones) has an indoor arena that holds about 15-20,000 people and which are used for indoor sports such as ice hockey, basketball etc - sports which wouldnt attract those sort of crowds in Europe.

In Europe, there are only two or three indoor venues that hold as many as 20,000.

In the US, there are still a few cities where the promoter can charge the sort of prices for an arena show and still generate a large enough gross to pay the Stones guarantee and make a profit. Many cant do that so will take the chance on a stadium show instead.

In Europe, there simply arent the arenas to get away with that and there isnt the same amount of revenue to justify promoting an arena show. So, in most cities the only alternative is to play a stadium show instead (or even worse, a field show).

European stadiums - used for football - tend to be bigger than most US stadiums which are used for baseball or American football, so with the ticket prices being lower in average, the promoter needs larger crowds to break even.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-01 14:24 by Gazza.

No problem, to me. I love large venues- especially huge fields, where the sound is -usually- almost perfect. I wish they were playing with higher frequency at fields. Yes, i love large venues. All of them. I hate "VIP's gigs" model. I don't think that Rock and Roll and agoraphobia should have something in common.

If they can draw five million people on a tour (not including Rio's free gig), where on earth should the band play, basically? In caves? Or doing 350 theatre- arena gigs during a tour?

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No problem, to me. I love large venues- especially
> huge fields, where the sound is -usually- almost
> perfect. I wish they were playing with higher
> frequency at fields. Yes, i love large venues. All
> of them. I hate "VIP's gigs" model. I don't think
> that Rock and Roll and agoraphobia should have
> something in common.
>
> If they can draw five million people on a tour
> (not including Rio's free gig), where on earth
> should the band play, basically? In caves? Or
> doing 350 theatre- arena gigs during a tour?


Some valid points, although rock n roll and football stadiums dont have a lot in common either, in fairness.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some valid points, although rock n roll and
> football stadiums dont have a lot in common
> either, in fairness.


Since Queen sports and music have had something in common.

JumpingKentFlash

A lot of very valid points.

I would think though that the Stones themselves would miss playing or would enjoy playing a mix of larger venues and smaller ones. I hear, read and understand the issue of larger venue = more $$$ but I don't think anyone on the Stones bandwagon (Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie) are actually hurting for money. Stadium only performances would seem kind of a "distant" way for an artist to perform all summer.

I mean it's a 2 way street here. It's not just how we the fans see or view the stage during a show. There is the feedback the feel the band has from the stage every night as well.

Maybe the Stones though are just numb from the touring experience of the last couple of years.

Anyway I am glad the Stones are out and touring and I hope to travel from the USA this summer to see at least 1 show @ 02 Arena.

I think you'll find quite a few other English beat combos - including one much discussed in this thread - were regularly playing stadiums before Freddie was able to grow a decent moustache..!

rknuth wrote:

"In former times they played 3 times Wembley or 2 x Twickenham with a capacity of 120000-180000 people a week. They know they can't sell that much tickets on a market like London with these ticket prices!! So don't tell they want to play in front of as much people as possible. What they want is to play in front of as much $$$$$$$$ as possible. They give a shit on crowd amount."

Sorry, but i can't accept this argument... The Stones played last year in front of 100,540 in London and the prices were highest. Gross, $ 13,526,368. Also the Stones played in 2006 to 215,057 people in the whole Great Britain. They visited Great Britain in 2003, too. So the market is satiated to death. That's why they do three arena shows, now. Three O2= one Twicks (plus). Do you really think that plans for another 60,000 in London, after having attracted 215,000 in the GB and 100,000 in this city particulary, last year, are proving that the band "gives a shit on crowd amount"?? Pointless...

To me, saying that the Stones care ONLY for the money is as childish as allegeing that the Stones don't give a shit for money... Rock and Roll have two hypostases, since it's birth. Mucic and music industry. Passion and business. Take it or leave it. If the Stones were minding only the money, they could make money, easily, in 1,000 different ways. Without touring. Books, movies, promoting various producs, etc. Or realizing their unknown stuff. But, as you see, they have the balls and the passion to do at their 65 what they always love to do. And, IMO, they do it very, very well... Otherwise, do you think that these richest musicians have serious reasons to torture themselves, doing things they don't like anymore?? Pointless, again...

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It sure would be nice to see them in a smaller
> venue, but I'd never get a ticket if they did.


I'm with Erik. We're not all gifted with the apparent ability to get tickets for any gig we choose ;^)