monkeyman07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > You would pay EVERYTHING to see the stones
> playing .

Nonsense. And despite what you say, I bet you WOULDNT.

> ( if youre a good fan , of course , not like
> someones around here!!)


Who are YOU to define what a 'good fan' is?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-01 18:02 by Gazza.

James Kirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know I'm wasting my breath (It's clear that the
> Stones don't care about the fans at this point)
> but I can only speak for myself.
>
> I will be in Europe several weeks this summer, but
> will not be buying tickets just on principle. As a
> matter of fact I hope they play to empty stadiums
> this time around.
>
> Nothing says rock and Roll better than a $400
> ticket (or whatever the equivalent is these days)
>
> If the Stones cared about playing to packed houses
> they would price their tickets reasonably.
>
> The Stones need to get back to the basics in the
> studio + on stage if they want to be taken
> seriously going forward.


That spectacular stage, sound, lights and video system wasn't provided to them free you know. Their staff of nearly 400 doesn't work for nothin' either.

James Kirk:

Just don´t go to their shows, you are not obligated

You will be happy.

Good vacations.

PayPay said "Some day you will look back and wish you could pay ANY amount to the Rolling Stones"

yep, that's what I'm thinking too.

andy js Wrote:
>
> they do put on a good show still i agree. but lets
> not kid ourselves that this is the same band of
> the late 60's / early 70's
>
> musically it couldn't be more different, its
> completely sterile now. people only go out of
> habit, they don't go to feel the music surely ?
>
> how many times does anyone need to sit/stand in a
> stadium and watch a pretty stage but with no real
> musical element to the show ?
>
> what happened to the groove ?

The grooves are still there, especially in the songs that haven't been played to death. Even though I didn't like the CD version, "Streets of Love" was excellent on stage. Mick's voice is stronger now than it ever was, and I would argue much better than 78 or 81 tours (he sounded drunk or winded alot back then).

While I don't mind paying 200 euros for a ticket, the fanclub charge for each concert you bought tickets to was ridiculous. 100 Euros I think. Had it not been there I would have bought tickets to more than four shows and been happier with the offical site.

Mick's onstage singing is better since 1989 because prior to that he was so intent on covering every inch of the stage and wiggling and pouting for two hours and generally knackering himself - since '89 his ability to pace himself has improved and his singing is better as a result.

Very true.
We just need Keith & Ronnie to pay a bit more attention now ;^)

Useless discussion.

If something is too expensive for someone, j u s t d o n ' t buy it.

It's as simple as that.

Go and watch a Stones cover band.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> That spectacular stage, sound, lights and video
> system wasn't provided to them free you know.
> Their staff of nearly 400 doesn't work for nothin'
> either.


They dont have a "staff of nearly 400". Its a similar size of crew and the stage isnt really that much different than it was prior to 1999 when their tickets were a fraction of what they are now, even allowing for inflation. Its not like the show suddenly became expensive to stage from 2002 or 2005 onwards.

A tour that is brimming with corporate sponsorship up to it's ears before a note is played and which will gross $500 million in 150 shows over two years simply cant lose money even if their tickets were a fifth of what they happen to cost. To suggest they have to have ticket prices that high because of the cost of the production is ludicrous.

That said, I agree with the principle that if someone is sufficiently annoyed about how much it costs, its their choice to go or not. Its too bad that quite a few fans have little option however.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its too bad
> that quite a few fans have little option however.

Totally agree with that my friend, but on the other hand what options did we have 20-30 years ago?

I gotta be honest here. I didnt go see the stones because I couldnt afford it. For me to the see the Who it coest a total of 200 for two tickets, and that was sitting stage left in the nosebleed section. To see Roger Waters next weekend it cost me 200 and Im sitting all the way in the back of the arena.
Now comparitivly to see the stones it was almost 100 dollars more for two tickets to sit in the same areas. When i went to try and get tickets to see them at the United Center in Chicago in 2006, i was about to shell out close to 300 dollars to sit in the very back of the arena. I ended up not going because i didnt have that kind of money.
I dont agree with the idea that the cost of hauling around all this equipment and crew forces the tickets to be higher. It would seem that if you really wanted to lower ticket prices you could scale the show back (e.g like the Who, who's stage is very simple). For me what it amounts to is missing the chance to see one of my favorite bands simply because i cant afford to.

Roadster32 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its too bad
> > that quite a few fans have little option
> however.
>
> Totally agree with that my friend, but on the
> other hand what options did we have 20-30 years
> ago?


Cheaper ones! LOL

hahahhaha....good one.

But anyway I rmember 82 the ticket prices were in Munich 39 german marks and that was a lot of money for me at these times.

And also getting informations and travelling around from show to show wasn't that easy.

UGot2Rollme Wrote:
"yeah, their prices are high, but they're legendary and still put on a damn good show".

Yes, the Stones is still the best live act. But always they were the best band, regardless of the prices. So, why do they need soooo high prices? I'm not hearing persuasive answers so far...

andy js wrote:

(1) "they do put on a good show still i agree. but lets not kid ourselves that this is the same band of the late 60's / early 70's"

Of course this isn't the same band of 1969 or 1972. Why do you think they should be the same? If the band was the same during 45 years, having the same manner, sound and style, then the Stones would be a dead dinosaur. Fortunately, they are not!!

(2) "musically it couldn't be more different, its completely sterile now. people only go out of habit, they don't go to feel the music surely ?"

With respect, i don't buy this boring clishe. I'm so tired of it. IMO the Stones are very good musically. Your opinion is different. Fine. After all it's a matter of taste. But how can you say that million of people are paying so much, again and again, from force of "habit"?? Are they crazy?? Are they stupid?? Of course not. Do you know something? The so called general public does really appreciate the Stones, their musical ability included, just because it is not in the power of old boots and old manners. Noone says "oh, Keith's solo on this song sounds different, why does not he plays like he did in a particular 1972 concert?". Because life does mean "differences", that's why...


(3) "what happened to the groove ?"

If you can't feel it, you have lost it! You, not the band. Sorry...

rknuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> monkeyman07 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Who would pay 1000 usd to see Jimi Hendrix?? ,
> or
> > someone legendary?
> > He is dead.
>
> What? 1000 USD to see the dead Jimmi Hendrix?
> Not me!
>
> > What would you think about them in 20 years???
> > You would pay EVERYTHING to see the stones
> > playing .

Hendrix might be dead, be he stills deserves having his name spelled correcrtly:
Jimi Hendrix.

Golly...I do hope that I have achieved "good fan" status. Like wow.

I know one thing for sure. I've been seeing, hearing The Rolling Stones in concert for more than half my life, and I've always gotten more than my money's worth.

You must love losing money if ya think its a fair price or too low!
Only unappropriate in this thread is the second sentence in the headline.

Boring.

IQ level of Stones fans must be considerably low:

Here we have a thread where we can speak out off our hearts
about the blood-suckin' prices.

Only people do: type "Boring." and "Don't go".
Wouldnt we all be able to attend more concerts,
if the price was lower?

...Too few Scotsmen on the board?
If Jagger was a fan, he sure would have complained a long, long time ago.

Very Boring.

So are you.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> ...Too few Scotsmen on the board?


What exactly do you mean by this statement ???

Economic awareness.

Tickets for many of the Stones and other leading bands cost plenty, and it isn't always easy to afford them. But isn't that life?


Great cars are expensive. Perfume. Homes. C'est la vie.

Everything is pretty relative these day's! The Stones were expensive in some market's espeicially the US,But Europe has it pretty easy except Poland and the UK, i must say! you can get front row for 80 to a hundred Euro,Fos or GA that is. You can't beat that!

stonesfrk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything is pretty relative these day's! The
> Stones were expensive in some market's espeicially
> the US,But Europe has it pretty easy except Poland
> and the UK, i must say! you can get front row for
> 80 to a hundred Euro,Fos or GA that is. You can't
> beat that!


well, its all relative according to each country's average wage and what each country's going rate for concert prices are. The ticket prices on the continent seem a lot cheaper in my eyes than they are in the UK, but then again they might be considered more expensive to the folks in THOSE countries than the UK ones are to me or the US ones are to Americans.

I think it was calculated that in real terms the most expensive tickets on the entire tour where those in Mexico, believe it or not, although I would personally imagine that Shanghai must have been more expensive.

Yes Mexico was very expensive,I think i paid 320 dollars,that is a lot,but everything is'nt peaches and cream in the US,like some people might think. Unemployment is way up and the Dollar is in the Fu**ing toilet!

>> Wouldnt we all be able to attend more concerts, if the price was lower? <<

right, and bitch more about setlists.
attending multiple shows is not being encouraged, even if some of us can't get it through our thick heads.

seeing even one show isnt exactly being 'encouraged' either, even if Cohl cant get it through HIS 'thick head' ;-