like other's i've got myself tickets to see prince at the o2.

never seen prince but for just £31 this was too good to turn down.

i was thinking if the stones had set a price of £31.21 for there shows at the o2.

how many night would they sell??

more than prince????

Easy

Theres a generation of fans who have never seen them and feel priced out of doing so - plus a lot of big fans who would find it easier to go to multiple shows

probably ten or so. not as many as prince i'm sure.

gotta remember though Andy - London is the only city in Europe where Prince is playing

Imagine the Stones in London in an arena at £30 a head (including the CD!) and no shows anywhere else?

No question they could outsell pretty much anyone...and definitely Prince, whose peak as a concert draw was in the late 80's.

This tour was never going to be anything like that. The whole way its structured and priced is to make a maximum financial impact in one night as opposed to playing multiple nights.

Its quite possible that in years to come you could see the Stones booking a 'residency' somewhere and playing there multiple nights instead of a widespread burst of touring. They could easily fill an arena for weeks on end in a major city like New York or London with sensible ticket prices - or alternatively play a casino in a resort like Las Vegas for weeks on end with sky high prices - and which would probably require less work re: rehearsing different songs as fewer customers would be going to multiple shows due to the costs.

I know which of the two I'd prefer, but unfortunately it's the one thats the less likely.

Gazza wrote...

>>>Its quite possible that in years to come you could see the Stones booking a 'residency' somewhere and playing there multiple nights instead of a widespread burst of touring.

Yeah Gazza...have read Jagger interviews where he has stated this is something he
longs to do..Set up in a major cities and the fans come to the Stones instead of
dragging stages etc around the world...



ROCKMAN

Yeah that makes sense. Although I can't really see them doing the Las Vegas thing. Where they play a nightly show like celine dion are some crap like that. But why not set up in major cities play smaller venues multiple shows. Probably make it easier on fans as well. Espicially those who travel and follow tours from city to city. Just see multiple shows in one city.

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

sweetcharmedlife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah that makes sense. Although I can't really see
> them doing the Las Vegas thing. Where they play a
> nightly show like celine dion are some crap like
> that. But why not set up in major cities play
> smaller venues multiple shows. Probably make it
> easier on fans as well. Espicially those who
> travel and follow tours from city to city. Just
> see multiple shows in one city.


Loike the Pope in Rome...

after all - Keith was declared as...

sweetcharmedlife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah that makes sense. Although I can't really see
> them doing the Las Vegas thing. Where they play a
> nightly show like celine dion are some crap like
> that.

I can. Seriously

But why not set up in major cities play
> smaller venues multiple shows. Probably make it
> easier on fans as well. Espicially those who
> travel and follow tours from city to city. Just
> see multiple shows in one city.

This tour has proven if anything that theyre not really interested in catering for such an audience. They'll do whatever is the most profitable for minimal hassle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-13 04:10 by Gazza.

Gazza. Seriously. You reallly think that they would set up shop in Vegas and do the nightly show, long term run, type of deal like Celine Dion,Elton John,Barry Manilow. All due respect man. There is no f'ing way. Keith would shoot himself first.
Now I can see maybe setting up in New York. A 5-7 night run at the Beacon,charging nice hefty prices.
I'm not even sure that their is a place in Las Vegas willing to pay them stupid money. Espicially since they can't do back to back nights. Can't do more than 3 shows a week. I'm not even sure that their would be a decent market for that kind of show.
Yes they do well now when they play Vegas.It's a good market for them. But really it has just become an extension of the LA market. Since that is where most of the Vegas crowd comes from.

sweetcharmedlife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza. Seriously. You reallly think that they
> would set up shop in Vegas

would? No...but 'could possibly'? Yes.

and do the nightly
> show, long term run, type of deal like Celine
> Dion,Elton John,Barry Manilow. All due respect
> man. There is no f'ing way. Keith would shoot
> himself first.

Not the 200-300 shows type run like those artists do (for a start, they cant play every night anyway as you correctly point out), but certainly a lengthy stint. I dont buy this "Keith would shoot himself" uber-rebel schtick for one minute. The Stones have done so many things in recent years that goes against what a rock n roll band would be expected to stand for, and he's gone along with every one of them. If they dangle enough cash in front of him, like the others he wont care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-13 17:13 by Gazza.

As long as the fans have an opportunity of seeing the Stones performing in any future setting albeit a Las Vegas Residency of 10 shows per month , I am sure most of us would be happy?

As it would be exclusively in Las Vegas and would therefore most likely be at exorbitant prices - thanks, but no thanks.

I wonder if the stones could ever do this. Do they not have 10 times more hangers on to pay than Prince? I think the stones charge what they do, not for them but for the huge entourage that go with them.

They had a similar sized entourage/crew prior to 1999 when this high prices thing started and it obviously wasnt a problem then......they still managed to outgross and outsell everyone else.