>> Ever seen that?!? <<

yes, in 98. seemed all wrong to me too.
but it was a great show - historic, even!
and here we all are nine years later. :E

If you wanna see sell outs , lets make a mega concert with all tickets at 5 dollars , and you'll see they can fill a really big field with millions of people!
They havent lost their reputation as the best rocknrollers , all the problems are the ticket prices

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 00:31 by monkeyman07.

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

sigh: yes. that doesn't mean they give every promoter in every town an option for multiple small shows.
your scenario was one show, in Rome, in either an oversized venue or an undersized one.
the option that leaves a lot of fans out in the cold so that you can rejoice that it was a sell-out
is what you said you prefer. i don't see the beauty in it. but that's okay -
in 78 fans were bitching because the Stones chose to play such small venues in some towns
that miles of fans who were pining to see them couldn't get tickets - and life went on anyway.

so did the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 00:43 by with sssoul.

Wilco man I'm not trying to pick on you but it sincerely worries me that right before you see a Stones show you are so worried about ticket sales that you are walking around asking security guards about how many tickets were sold. Just enjoy the show.

Yeah, enjoy the show and relax you guys! What's wrong with half empty stadiums anyway. If I'd be into fully packed stadium shows
I'd go watch Metallica or Robbie Williams. It's only rock'n'roll after all.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wilco man I'm not trying to pick on you but it
> sincerely worries me that right before you see a
> Stones show you are so worried about ticket sales
> that you are walking around asking security guards
> about how many tickets were sold. Just enjoy the
> show.

I was asking because for a minute I thought the complete crowd would be able to stay in the FOS section ;-) And I did enjoy the show, no wories.

Wilco

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


Oh my god, you're truly struggling by inventing totally non-sense comparisons like this!

For what it's worth: If the stadium was indeed the size of Jupiter and always sold out during previous tours than filling this "Jupiter-size" stadium only by half would still mean a sign of fading success! But let us move away from fiction and stay in reality: You know that the stadium sizes did not increase since their previous tours, fact is that the attendance decreased.

"A half empty stadium is a half empty stadium is a half empty stadium." And it always remains a half-empty stadium, not matter how you look at it. Even on Jupiter.

In the U.S. at least when the Police tour ends in the Fall (or next year) I wouldn't be surprised if they sell more units (tickets) than the Stones. They sold 90,000 here in LA in the same week which I don't think any band has pulled off in about ten years.

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.


They were the "top act" for decades before that and werent charging three or four times what most other acts were charging prior to a few years ago. Thats the difference.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.
>
>
> Oh my god, you're truly struggling by inventing
> totally non-sense comparisons like this!
>
> For what it's worth: If the stadium was indeed the
> size of Jupiter and always sold out during
> previous tours than filling this "Jupiter-size"
> stadium only by half would still mean a sign of
> fading success! But let us move away from fiction
> and stay in reality: You know that the stadium
> sizes did not increase since their previous tours,
> fact is that the attendance decreased.
>
> "A half empty stadium is a half empty stadium is a
> half empty stadium." And it always remains a
> half-empty stadium, not matter how you look at it.
> Even on Jupiter.


Really? Attendance has decreased as the tour has went on? You have yourself a scoop there but what does it mean? Obviously as a tour drags on and you visit the same areas over and over again the attendance will decrease- especially with high ticket prices. It doesn't take Einstein to figure this out. Half empty doesn't mean anything to me if the half that's full has forty thousand people, but believe what you want, you are obviously stuck in your glass half empty thinking.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the U.S. at least when the Police tour ends in
> the Fall (or next year) I wouldn't be surprised if
> they sell more units (tickets) than the Stones.
> They sold 90,000 here in LA in the same week which
> I don't think any band has pulled off in about ten
> years.

Well The Stones have sold probably at least two million tickets in the U.S. during their two legs there. That's a conservative guess on my part. We'll see if The Police sell two million tickets. I doubt it.

Gazza 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.
>
>
> They were the "top act" for decades before that
> and werent charging three or four times what most
> other acts were charging prior to a few years ago.
> Thats the difference.

I never meant to suggest that the prices were justified. I just meant you should expect to pay more to see them.

Of course ticket pricing for major acts in general has gotten out of control. Paying more to see them could mean seventy bucks instead of fifty for another act. That would be a more reasonable price.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? Attendance has decreased as the tour has
> went on? You have yourself a scoop there but what
> does it mean? Obviously as a tour drags on and you
> visit the same areas over and over again the
> attendance will decrease- especially with high
> ticket prices. It doesn't take Einstein to figure
> this out.

And it does not take Einstein to figure out that Rome is not exactly an area that has been visited "over and over" recently!

> Half empty doesn't mean anything to me
> if the half that's full has forty thousand people,
> but believe what you want, you are obviously stuck
> in your glass half empty thinking.

Well, this glass half empty - glass half full thing reminds me of political party spokesmen who have to talk bad elections results into a success (while everybody is aware that bad elections results are bad elections results)...or of psychologists who try to convince people to see things in a more positive way...again, no matter how you look at it, half emoty, half full, if your shows were always full or at least nearly full, then half-empty, SORRY: HALF FULL!!! does not exactly sound like an overwhelming success. But, hey, next time around, when ticket prices will be even higher than this time but venues only filled by a quarter, than I'd suggest the Stones to employ you as their spokesman and psychologist: "Full, half full, quarter full - what does it mean? Who cares? But quarter full means that still twenty thousand people came to see you!"

Be assured that the Stones themselves don't take this matter all too easy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 02:55 by retired_dog.

The ridiculous prices have one crap band to thank--- The friggin' Eagles! Thanx Henley, Frye and the rest of the scumbags!

A few weeks into the tour, not counting Live Earth, it's at over half a million for 21 shows. 18 more this leg with 1, possibly 2 legs to follow. I think they can sell 2 million if they haven't already though I think the hype has died down a bit.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ridiculous prices have one crap band to
> thank--- The friggin' Eagles! Thanx Henley, Frye
> and the rest of the scumbags!

I think you're right J.J....if I remember correctly, The Eagles were the first band to charge $100 a ticket back in 1994 and it's only gone up since.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Really? Attendance has decreased as the tour
> has
> > went on? You have yourself a scoop there but
> what
> > does it mean? Obviously as a tour drags on and
> you
> > visit the same areas over and over again the
> > attendance will decrease- especially with high
> > ticket prices. It doesn't take Einstein to
> figure
> > this out.
>
> And it does not take Einstein to figure out that
> Rome is not exactly an area that has been visited
> "over and over" recently!
>
> > Half empty doesn't mean anything to me
> > if the half that's full has forty thousand
> people,
> > but believe what you want, you are obviously
> stuck
> > in your glass half empty thinking.
>
> Well, this glass half empty - glass half full
> thing reminds me of political party spokesmen who
> have to talk bad elections results into a success
> (while everybody is aware that bad elections
> results are bad elections results)...or of
> psychologists who try to convince people to see
> things in a more positive way...again, no matter
> how you look at it, half emoty, half full, if your
> shows were always full or at least nearly full,
> then half-empty, SORRY: HALF FULL!!! does not
> exactly sound like an overwhelming success. But,
> hey, next time around, when ticket prices will be
> even higher than this time but venues only filled
> by a quarter, than I'd suggest the Stones to
> employ you as their spokesman and psychologist:
> "Full, half full, quarter full - what does it
> mean? Who cares? But quarter full means that still
> twenty thousand people came to see you!"
>
> Be assured that the Stones themselves don't take
> this matter all too easy.

Listen if you can't understand the basic principle of oversaturation then there is no point in arguing about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 03:12 by FrankM.

Who cares how many people attend the shows unless you're a fund recipient from ticket sales?

We're all consumers here.
The less people at the show the better for me!

FrankM Wrote:
> I never meant to suggest that the prices were
> justified. I just meant you should expect to pay
> more to see them.
>
> Of course ticket pricing for major acts in general
> has gotten out of control. Paying more to see them
> could mean seventy bucks instead of fifty for
> another act. That would be a more reasonable
> price.


agreed on both counts

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Listen if you can't understand the basic principle
> of oversaturation then there is no point in
> arguing about it.

Oversaturation! Now we're talking! While I am not exactly unaware of basic economical principles, as far as I remember it, we could not agree that their success is fading to a certain degree. Now you start to talk about the reasons...

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wilco man I'm not trying to pick on you but it
> sincerely worries me that right before you see a
> Stones show you are so worried about ticket sales
> that you are walking around asking security guards
> about how many tickets were sold. Just enjoy the
> show.


LOL!!!
True...

retired_dog wrote:


(1) "Counting the total number of sold tickets does also not say a lot without considering the total number of shows;"

Really? Why? If a band is able to do several shows in the same country or in a particular area (East Europe, for example), during a few weeks, months or even during a year, that does mean "popularity". Why the hell do you think that attracting 2,000,000 people in North America with 40 gigs (Stones 1981) is a triumph, while drawing 2,150,000 people with 80 northamerican gigs (Stones on ABB tour) is something that "not says a lot"!!??? Just because by the first "touring model" (much fewer gigs) the whole attendance is falling into bigger audiences on each show? Sorry, it sounds childish to me...


If the Stones were visiting some countries just once on the tour, especially small countries like Denmark and Portugal, they would fill all the venues playing to fewer people. Why do you think they should do that? Why to play in front of 85,000 in Denmark if you can attract 120,000 totaly?. Why to play to 49,000 in Portugal if you can draw 80,000 totaly, there? Just because some grizzlers, "hard core" fans, are counting empty seats?

(2) "After all this tour is running since two years now."

Yes, and the total number of shows will be 146. So what? You know, 1997-99 tour was composed of 153 shows. Oh, yes, probably once again the total attendance "did not say a lot"...

(3) "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."

Funny. If i remember correctly Never Ending Tour started in 1989- right? Since then the Stones have played in front of 26 million people - without including Rio's free gig. If Bob has played to 26,000,001 then yes, his Never Ending Tour is the most successful (i don't count grosses, @#$%& them). But i doubt a bit...


Some more points:

(A) On the current tour's leg the Stones are paying something for three factors: first, ticket prices. They should be lower. Second, their managment's inability (just remember the opening gig, in a middle of nowhere, without transportations, on Tuesday!). Third, the cancellations of the last year, with just one exception: Gothenburg. But even so, they are attracting remarkable numbers of people.

( In Germany and Holland, where the Stones have played to death in the last years, the markets are obviously satureted. Main markets, both. But IMO that makes more remarkable the figure "ABB tour- two millions people in Europe". When all is said, we are talking about a band that was on the road in every year in the last 13 years, except four: 1996, 2000, 2001, 2004! Please, name just one band or artist who could attract the half of the Stones audiences with this high frequency of tours. NOT EVEN THE STONES OF THE YEARS 1969- 1978 COULD DO THAT!

(C) Sorry, but the promoters could kill for working with an act that can attract 35,000 - 40,000 people in Rome charging THESE prices. Simple as that. Sometimes it seems like people have no idea about what is "succesful" and "unsuccesful" by the criteria of music industry in 2007... Do you think that playing in front of 33,000- 36,000 people is a "disaster"? Then allow me to inform you that U2 on their entire Vertigo tour had an average attendance figure per show 35,260! With cheaper tickets than the Stones, of course. And it was the biggest and most successful U2 tour ever.

(D) I'm really tired of hearing HERE (fortunately, "out there" there is much more logic and much stronger relation with the reality) about "so many bands selling more tickets than the Stones", blah, blah, blah... Actually, the Stones and U2 are on the top of this game- noone else. It's funny how people here are impressed by solitary gigs. If Shakira tomorrow plays in front of 120,000 somwhere in Latin America, then Shakira "does sell better than the Stones". Even her entire tour is under 1,5 million. Funny.

(E) You know something? People out there, big majority of Press included, are estimating the things much more logically than some "hard core" fans do, here. I recently saw an article published on a big greek newspaper. It was about the rock and pop "veterans" being on tour. The article said that only the Police and the Stones are doing really successful tours. The journalist probably does estimate the mentioned above factors.
In Barcelona, Press seemed to consider the crowd as real success of the band. "The Stones and Barcelona made friends again- the Stones attracted 42,000 people despite the cancellations". At the same time people on this board considered the attendance as "disaster". Or almost... WHAT AN ILL TEMPER!

Well of course they are selling less tickets on this leg of the tour due to saturation imo, but imo it is a temporary saturation. In other words they have toured extensively since 94' with high ticket prices. I didn't mean saturation in the sense that the world was forever tired of The Stones.

If they were a younger band then the ticket sales problem would disappear if they were to go away for awhile and then come back. If they didn't tour for eight to ten years they would be in high demand again and ticket sales would be at the max again.

Of course this is what would happen if they were younger. Now if they wait that long they would in their mid seventees. My main point is that it isn't a huge embarrassment if every stadium isn't packed due to all the circumstances (frequent touring, high prices, The Police and Genesis beating them to the punch this time etc. etc.).

That was my main point. Of course they could have forseen that on this leg sales might start to slide and they could have cut the prices but they chose not too.

NumberOneStonesFan wrote:

"We're all consumers here.
The less people at the show the better for me!"

Are you serious? I hope you 're just kidding...

Well, would you rather pay to see them in a big stadium with 70,000 people or so or in a theater such as the Beacon? I prefer to pay for tickets in small theaters or clubs. But that's just me. I don't enjoy all the hassle that goes with the HUGE crowds. But it's cool if you do.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 05:15 by NumberOneStonesFan.

-



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-08 05:52 by Erik_Snow.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares how many people attend the shows unless
> you're a fund recipient from ticket sales?
>
> We're all consumers here.
> The less people at the show the better for me!
>


I agree with you on that NumberOne. I'm of that mind too. I don't neccessarily need to spend the evening elbow to elbow with 75,000 of my less than closest friends..........Plus during the fall US leg when everyone kept predicting gloom and doom,the shows I went too were very full. Name another band that 45 years after they first got together are still drawing this many people to their shows? Beatles,Kinks,The Who anybody else...........Nope.

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

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NumberOneStonesFan wrote:
>
> "We're all consumers here.
> The less people at the show the better for me!"
>
> Are you serious? I hope you 're just kidding...

I certainly feel the same way. Less people usually means shorter beer and piss lines and a better chance at good or cheaper seats. I don't need my presence at any gig validated by tens of thousands of other people and if playing a half empty venue hurts the pride of the performer, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

So, yeah, I was serious and I wasn't kidding...
Smaller crowds are the best!

Yeah I regret not going down to AC since it's very close to me. I saw them at Giant's Stadium but it would have been nice to see them in that smaller venue.