stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TooTough wrote:
>
> "The only loss caused is the damage of reputation
> for the Stones
> as a band. The headlines are bad, they leave the
> business as a band
> that does not "sell out anymore". That´s even
> worse than losing money."
>
> That's a completely pointless statement as for a
> band that attracts 4,500,000 people worldwide,
> despite these annoying prices. They leave the
> business (now or two years from now- who knows?)
> as the THE MOST ATTENDED LIVE ACT IN THE PLANET
> and that's great for their reputation. Actually,
> they draw much more people than they did during
> seventies, if you haven't notice this...
>
> Every band's reputation, i mean as live act,
> depends on two figures in addition to the quality
> of the performances which is the most important
> factor, of course. Attendance and gross.
> Unfortunately gross comes first today in the music
> industry: gross and attendance,. In this order.
> The Stones know it of course, even that's no
> resaon to justify the prices. The Stones are #1 in
> both terms and you are sniveling all the time
> here...
>
> Tell me, TooTough... Who the hell considers
> Springsteen's tour in 2003 as an unsuccessful
> round, with the argument that he soldout only 47
> from 82 gigs? The important thing was that Bruce
> played then in front of 2,804,169 people. Who the
> hell said "The RHCP 2003 tour was a disaster as
> they had only 14 out of 57 sellouts"? Noone, of
> course. Who the hell said the same for Metallica
> who sold out only two out 20 gigs? Noone. Do you
> know why? Because the most important figure is
> attendance. On Licks Tour the Stones had 69
> selouts out of 115 shows. So what? They attracted
> 3,470,945 people...
>
> This childish if not stupid "theory" about how
> serious factor selling out is, takes no account of
> some really serious factors, like: frequency of
> tours in the last years, venues (big or smaller),
> number of gigs the band did in the same country
> during the same tour.
>
> By this rediculous logic, my little brother's band
> that sold out twice a small ball room is more
> successfull than the Stones attracting 145,000
> people in Spain doing gis which weren't sell out!
> By this logic, if the Stones were doing just one
> spanish gig selling out Barcelona's or Madrid's
> stadium and playing to 55,000, then they would do
> more successful job than attracting 145,000 people
> in this country!
>
> BTW, in 1990 in Rome the Stones played twice
> Flamino Stadium (capacity 25,000) and the shows
> weren't near to sellout. I suppose their
> reputation is "dead" since then...
>
> Gimme a @#$%& break...



I don´t give a shit about your brother´s band or Springsteen
or the Chili Peppers. Who are those? (Sorry, gazza!)

We are talking about the Stones here, they are the world´s
greatest band. And I want them to leave that way!

In 1998 the prices were nearly doubled compared to 1995: 50 €.
But they sold 90.000 each for both Hamburg and Hannover, distance
160 km. Both were fields! The prices were high, but still
moderate compared to other artists ("20 € higher than XY!")

But last year and this year the promotion is the worst ever.
Together with ridiculously high prices (€ 190 for pitch seats).

They are not even close to selling 40.000 for Hamburg. People
who know that I´m a Stones ask me why they don´t sell out.
They don´t know anything else about them, but that they will
keep in mind.

Once again: It would be easy to sell out a n y venue here, if
they wouldn´t be so greedy and charge amounts from Cohl that that
guy wants back from the locals and so on.

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They were the hottest band in town during
> Licks?
> > Funny I thought this was the record breaking
> tour.
>
>
> Not where I live.
>
> 4 sold out stadium concerts in Holland during
> Licks (plus 1 arena and 1 club)
>
> 1 concert in 2006: not sold out.
> 1 concert in 2007: not sold out.

With all due respect it doesn't matter what the sales are where you or I live. It was the biggest tour in the end regardless of what spots were hot and what spots were not. Maybe a lot of people in Holland saw them during Licks and didn't want to pay high prices to see them again.

rknuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WilcoMick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > gstone Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > And when did 40.000 people in a stadium
> > classify
> > > fr the use of @empty stadium@?
> >
> > Well if the stadium can hold 70.000 like in
> Rome,
> > 40.000 is rather disappointing and does look
> > empty.
> >
> > Wilco
>
>
> Well, they closed half the stadium which means
> 35.000 max.
> The same like in Germany. Sorry to say that but NO
> OTHER ARTIST
> at the moment can top this.

You're wrong: Stones in Nijmegen 25.000. Red Hot Chili Peppers 50.000 at the same venue (sold out).
They close half the stadium in Rome and in Germany because the ticket sales is bad, not because the promotor is aiming at less people. And the reason is of course the sky high ridiculous ticket price.

Wilco

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mr edward Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > 4 sold out stadium concerts in Holland during
> > Licks (plus 1 arena and 1 club)
> >
> > 1 concert in 2006: not sold out.
> > 1 concert in 2007: not sold out.
>
> With all due respect it doesn't matter what the
> sales are where you or I live. It was the biggest
> tour in the end regardless of what spots were hot
> and what spots were not. Maybe a lot of people in
> Holland saw them during Licks and didn't want to
> pay high prices to see them again.

Holland once was Stones country! They almost sold out
any @#$%& show there until 2006.

So it doesn´t matter that their Dutch fanbase isn´t going anymore
(ticket prices?) - as long as "a record-breaking gross of money"
is there in the end?

I think the other way round. I would shit on the 10 or 20 million
bucks more, as long as every fan can afford to see and hear them.

>> Once again: It would be easy to sell out a n y venue here <<

yep, it sure would! and yet they've chosen not to do that. isn't it interesting to ponder
why they've made that choice, instead of the "obvious" one of easily selling out every show?

(and to the slower among us: it's not because it's "all about money to them"; the Stones get paid the same anyway.)

If you truly enjoy and need overcrowding, then go ride a subway!


The less people attending a show the better, I always say...

Shorter lines to concessions and restrooms...easier to find a parking stall...less people standing on your toes and pushing & shoving during the show...

It amazes me that there are people who will post and complain about not enough people... a-ba-duh



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 21:59 by NumberOneStonesFan.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Filet Mignon costs more than ground chuck. You get
> what you pay for. That's not to say the prices
> have to be this high but you are going to pay more
> for the top acts.

A capitalist view of the (music) world. That means that
you can´t see the Stones when you are not wealthy?

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so which venue in Rome is the right size for 40
> thousand people, Wilco?
> you got one show date for Rome, and you got 40
> thousand people who want to be there -
> where do you suggest they play?

Never been in Rome, but I'm certain there's another suitable place for 40K people, right? Playing in a stadium half empty/half full is a disgrace for the Stones.

Wilco

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you truly enjoy and need overcrowding, then go
> ride a subway!
>
>
> The less people attending a show the better, I
> always say...
>


I think we have all those seats and all those prices
because of people like you. Thank you!

WilcoMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > so which venue in Rome is the right size for 40
> > thousand people, Wilco?
> > you got one show date for Rome, and you got 40
> > thousand people who want to be there -
> > where do you suggest they play?
>
> Never been in Rome, but I'm certain there's
> another suitable place for 40K people, right?
> Playing in a stadium half empty/half full is a
> disgrace for the Stones.
>
> Wilco

Oh please let me get my violin out. Too much melodrama. Disgrace? Please get a grip.

And don't compare The Stones to RHCP. You compare one venue why not compare the entire tours?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 22:10 by FrankM.

TooTough Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Filet Mignon costs more than ground chuck. You
> get
> > what you pay for. That's not to say the prices
> > have to be this high but you are going to pay
> more
> > for the top acts.
>
> A capitalist view of the (music) world. That means
> that
> you can´t see the Stones when you are not wealthy?


Are you freeking kidding me? Wealthy? My ticket at Giant's Stadium cost a little over a hundred bucks. You have to be wealthy to afford that?

You make is sound as if the tickets cost as much as a Ferrari.

>> but I'm certain there's another suitable place for 40K people, right? <<

odd thing to feel certain about, if you don't know of one.
(what city do you live in, that you take it for granted that there are
all different sizes of rock-concert-friendly venues everywhere?)

>> in 1990 in Rome the Stones played twice Flamino Stadium (capacity 25,000) <<

so Wilco, you're the promoter. this time you've got the Stones for one date only.
which venue are you going to book - the one that's too big or the one that's too small?
(note that booking the small one means charging even more for the tickets, since the Stones get paid the same regardless.)

i wish the Rolling Stones were my local pub band. but they're not.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WilcoMick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > with sssoul Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > > so which venue in Rome is the right size for
> 40
> > > thousand people, Wilco?
> > > you got one show date for Rome, and you got 40
> > > thousand people who want to be there -
> > > where do you suggest they play?
> >
> > Never been in Rome, but I'm certain there's
> > another suitable place for 40K people, right?
> > Playing in a stadium half empty/half full is a
> > disgrace for the Stones.
> >
> > Wilco
>
> Oh please let me get my violin out. Too much
> melodrama. Disgrace? Please get a grip.
>
> And don't compare The Stones to RHCP. You compare
> one venue why not compare the entire tours?

I don't compare the Stones to RHCP, but someone asked if there's a band selling more tickets and yes there is one, in fact The Police is selling more tickets as well. The Stones or should I say Michael Cohl is selling much less tickets, he simply @#$%& up. Now you can play your violin again!

Wilco

The prices aint adapted to each countries wage- and price level.
If they were, Norweigan & Danish ticket prices would be 50% higher
than the Swedish.

Listen I'm not defending the high prices but let's keep things in perspective. My ticket at Giant's Stadium cost about the same as the following;

-Two new tires for my car (cheapest tires available).
-Ticket to a Broadway show.
-Three new video games

Get the point? Yes the prices should come down but they don't exactly break the bank.

I'd take a show or shows at the Beacon Theater in NYC with 2,000+ seats give or take over a stadium with 80,000 people any day!
and if I remember correctly...the Beacon prices were quite reasonable...
I was unable to travel from Hawaii to NYC at the time otherwise I would have been there in a New York minute!
I also remember the Beacon shows sold out quickly!!

I still don't get why some people are complaining about underfilled stadiums...

Remember...sometimes, Less in More



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 22:26 by NumberOneStonesFan.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> but I'm certain there's another suitable place
> for 40K people, right? <<
>
> odd thing to feel certain about, if you don't know
> of one.
> (what city do you live in, that you take it for
> granted that there are
> all different sizes of rock-concert-friendly
> venues everywhere?)
>
> >> in 1990 in Rome the Stones played twice Flamino
> Stadium (capacity 25,000) <<
>
> so Wilco, you're the promoter. this time you've
> got the Stones for one date only.
> which venue are you going to book - the one that's
> too big or the one that's too small?
> (note that booking the small one means charging
> even more for the tickets, since the Stones get
> paid the same regardless.)

Knowing that the Stones have a bad track record in Italy (remember 1982, 1990 and last friday) I'd book them at Flamino once with an option for a second show. No fields available in Rome that you can rebuild into a nice venue? In Holland we do that in Nijmegen, Landgraaf, Den Haag.
Italy has a zillion stadiums, why not book them in Verona or Genoa, both cities with much more intimate stadiums. Olympic in Rome is terrible.

Wilco

Wilco

Its all a matter of multiplication. Got several family members going =
bank will be broken. And tires aint cheap either ...
My wish is a price level where I could go see them at least 3-4 times
and not having to cancel all other amusements or small trips.

WilcoMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WilcoMick Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > with sssoul Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > -----
> > > > so which venue in Rome is the right size
> for
> > 40
> > > > thousand people, Wilco?
> > > > you got one show date for Rome, and you got
> 40
> > > > thousand people who want to be there -
> > > > where do you suggest they play?
> > >
> > > Never been in Rome, but I'm certain there's
> > > another suitable place for 40K people, right?
> > > Playing in a stadium half empty/half full is
> a
> > > disgrace for the Stones.
> > >
> > > Wilco
> >
> > Oh please let me get my violin out. Too much
> > melodrama. Disgrace? Please get a grip.
> >
> > And don't compare The Stones to RHCP. You
> compare
> > one venue why not compare the entire tours?
>
> I don't compare the Stones to RHCP, but someone
> asked if there's a band selling more tickets and
> yes there is one, in fact The Police is selling
> more tickets as well. The Stones or should I say
> Michael Cohl is selling much less tickets, he
> simply @#$%& up. Now you can play your violin
> again!
>
> Wilco

What are you talking about? RHCP and The Police ARE NOT SELLING MORE TICKETS!!!. You picked one venue and compared them.

Go look at the ticket totals for ABB, the last tour of RHCP or the end of this one if they are still touring and The Police at the end of their tour. See which tour sells the most tickets.

You don't need a violin you need a loud trumpet to wake you up my man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 22:37 by FrankM.

I remember going to see U2 at Aloha Stadium in Hawaii last December and let me tell you something boy, that stadium was PACKED!! Pitch GA tickets were $50 USD and I feel they "overfilled" the pitch area as it was jam-packed to da max!

The lines to the concessions were extremely long...nevermind the lines to the WC's/restrooms. My wife saw the lines to the ladies rooms and decided to hold it in rather than wait an hour or two. Parking was a nightmare, although we secured our spot 3 hours before Pearl Jam and left just before the masses exited.

60,000+ fans were jammed in a stadium that holds 55,000 and while Pearl Jam and U2 were absolutely fantasic with musical and crowd energy levels I had never witnessed before, we really could have enjoyed it more if there were say 30,000 or so instead...

So I find it hard to believe that there are people who truly complain about a venue not being overcrowded. Makes no sense to me.

mr edward wrote:


stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every band's reputation, i mean as live act,
> depends on two figures in addition to the quality
> of the performances which is the most important
> factor, of course. Attendance and gross.

Says who?

I don't meet that much music lovers who care how much money a band makes. Perhaps only in a negative sense: "So the Stones are THAT rich and still charge that much?!"

Mr edward, look at my post carefully. I mentioned music industry's criterions. Not the criteria of music lovers. And as you know i don't justify these prices.

>> with an option for a second show. <<

there is no option for a second show in this scenario, Wilco - they're booked elsewhere.
so you've got your 25,000 seater - good for you, now 15 000 people who would love to see the Stones in Rome
are left out in the cold, and the 25 000 tickets you do have will be WAY high priced,
so fans on international message boards will be bitterly cursing you and the Stones.
sure, that's a way better idea than a show that 40 000 people could enjoy the hell out of.

and meanwhile let's not forget that it's the 10 000 - 20 000 folks in every locale
who decline to pay face value for the tickets who are conveying "to whom it may concern"
that the prices are too high. that's how it's done.
smile: so what do you think i should put on - Salt of the Earth or Dirty Work?

i wish the Rolling Stones were my local pub band. but they're not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 23:06 by with sssoul.

Stones ticket pricing:

1. Tons of equipment to truck and ship around.
2. 100's of crew members to pay
3. Many back-up musicians/singers to pay their wages and travel cost.
4. The legendary name: "The Rolling Stones"

Add it all up.
Enjoy!

I doubt either U2 or The Police or Genesis or Coldplay would have embarked on the 2006 Fall Tour The Stones performed.

"We are talking about the Stones here, they are the world´s
greatest band. And I want them to leave that way! "Agree on that, FrankM. It seems they knocked out Rome.

Funny how people here are struggling to talk the Stones' current ticket sales into a success when it is obviously not the case. A half empty stadium is a half empty stadium is a half empty stadium. Counting the total number of sold tickets does also not say a lot without considering the total number of shows; after all this tour is running since two years now. By that criteria, Bob Dylan's Never Ending Tour which runs since the, uh, early nineties of the last century (!) must be the most successful tour ever. And they were not aiming at sell-outs ? Why the f**k do they feel the need to do cheap tricks by moving the stage around to let venues appear smaller than they are (and thereby creating sheer chaos and more angry fans like in Frankfurt most recently) and give away thousands of tickets for free to let venues appear more crowded in a quite obvious desperate attempt to hide the signs of fading success? They are obviously aware that current ticket sales desasters are not good for their reputation....

...comes a time when they are planning a new tour, asking huge bucks for guaranteed payment again - and promoters laugh in their faces like "....uh, you demand this guarantee? and what about half empty stadiums last around? well, please re-consider your market value...thanks for the offer...but...no...sorry!".

And if a scenario like this takes place sometime in the future, I'll doubt that we see another tour. Does this make you happy?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 23:19 by retired_dog.

WilcoMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rknuth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WilcoMick Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > gstone Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > And when did 40.000 people in a stadium
> > > classify
> > > > fr the use of @empty stadium@?
> > >
> > > Well if the stadium can hold 70.000 like in
> > Rome,
> > > 40.000 is rather disappointing and does look
> > > empty.
> > >
> > > Wilco
> >
> >
> > Well, they closed half the stadium which means
> > 35.000 max.
> > The same like in Germany. Sorry to say that but
> NO
> > OTHER ARTIST
> > at the moment can top this.
>
> You're wrong: Stones in Nijmegen 25.000. Red Hot
> Chili Peppers 50.000 at the same venue (sold
> out).
> They close half the stadium in Rome and in Germany
> because the ticket sales is bad, not because the
> promotor is aiming at less people. And the reason
> is of course the sky high ridiculous ticket
> price.
>
> Wilco

Nijmegen 40.ooo 25.000??? 40.ooo!!! how come you say that?...if it was true...so what?? but its not!

>> And they were not aiming at sell-outs ? <<

yes, dear - why else have they kept the prices so high, particularly on this leg of the tour,
when it was obvious what the market would be like? they had the perfect excuse to lower them gracefully -
to make amends for having to cancel last year - and they didn't do it. they've barely promoted the tour.
they barely even announced it, after waiting until virtually every act in the business had started selling tickets.

everyone here finds it so utterly obvious that the Stones could easily sell out every show
and make even more money by just lowering ticket prices. so why haven't they?
the Stones and Cohl are many things, but they are not stupid or unaware of what's going on.

and please don't wave laughing-promoter scenarios at me as if i'm cheering for overpriced tickets.
i'm simply observing that Stones Inc has been making choices that don't add up to evidence
that selling out stadium after stadium is an aim of theirs this time, even if it's a fond aim of lots of people here.

i wish the Stones were my local pub band. but they're not.

ps: last year the Milano, Vienna and Berlin shows had the stage "sideways" - as far as i know,
that arrangement was the plan right from the beginning, not rearranged after the ticket sales had started.
why was that? and whose idea was it - Stones Inc's or the promoter's? just curious)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 00:19 by with sssoul.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how people here are struggling to talk the
> Stones' current ticket sales into a success when
> it is obviously not the case. A half empty stadium
> is a half empty stadium is a half empty stadium.


So if the stadium was the size of Jupiter and was only half full, the fact that it was half empty would still bug you despite the fact that they sold three trillion tickets? Makes no sense. Forty thousand tickets is a success even though it's not as big a success as other shows they have played on this tour.


> Counting the total number of sold tickets does
> also not say a lot without considering the total
> number of shows; after all this tour is running
> since two years now. By that criteria, Bob Dylan's
> Never Ending Tour which runs since the, uh, early
> nineties of the last century (!) must be the most
> successful tour ever.


Well the tour did start nearly two years ago but they haven't been touring for two years. How many long breaks have they taken due to needing a break or various mishaps? Right now they have probably only done about the same amount of shows as U2 did on their Vertigo tour so let's not make it sound as if the Stones total ticket sales are just a product of longevity.


>And they were not aiming at
> sell-outs ? Why the f**k do they feel the need to
> do cheap tricks by moving the stage around to let
> venues appear smaller than they are (and thereby
> creating sheer chaos and more angry fans like in
> Frankfurt most recently) and give away thousands
> of tickets for free to let venues appear more
> crowded in a quite obvious desperate attempt to
> hide the signs of fading success? They are
> obviously aware that current ticket sales
> desasters are not good for their reputation....


Current ticket sales disasters? On this last leg after thay have been visiting the same areas over and over again they are still probably averaging 35-40 thousand per venue. What a disaster.


> ...comes a time when they are planning a new tour,
> asking huge bucks for guaranteed payment again -
> and promoters laugh in their faces like "....uh,
> you demand this guarantee? and what about half
> empty stadiums last around? well, please
> re-consider your market value...thanks for the
> offer...but...no...sorry!".
>
> And if a scenario like this takes place sometime
> in the future, I'll doubt that we see another
> tour. Does this make you happy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 00:02 by FrankM.

rooster Wrote:

> Nijmegen 40.ooo 25.000??? 40.ooo!!! how come you
> say that?...if it was true...so what?? but its
> not!

Before the show started I asked a security guy how many tix were sold. He said on monday (June 3) 20.000. Now do you believe that in one week they sold another 20.000 to make it 40.000? No way! The field was very empty. It took more than an hour to fill up the FOS. I saw people leaving the FOS at 4.30 for some drinks and returning without any problem. Ever seen that?!?

Wilco



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 00:23 by WilcoMick.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> with an option for a second show. <<
>
> there is no option for a second show in this
> scenario, Wilco - they're booked elsewhere.
> so you've got your 25,000 seater - good for you,
> now 15 000 people who would love to see the Stones
> in Rome
> are left out in the cold, and the 25 000 tickets
> you do have will be WAY high priced,
> so fans on international message boards will be
> bitterly cursing you and the Stones.
> sure, that's a way better idea than a show that 40
> 000 people could enjoy the hell out of.

They are doing 3 shows in London, at a 20.000 seater, right?

Wilco