SOMEONE should be heading back to law school..

the heck with the critics and idiots that perpetuate this kind of crap,at the end of the day let's count the money shall we and then we will know who is uncool by most people nowadays .how can you be a stones fan on a stones site and ask this question?

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Lady Jayne
But you can't get away with blaming them for all seater arrangements in in door UK arenas. It most certainly is the law and not the Stones that insists on all seats at the O2.

It most certainly is NOT the law. Not at the 02, not at Twickenham. not at Wembley arena, not at MEN arena, not at Hampden Park, not at the Millenium Stadium and not at Don Valley Stadium

All UK venues which have staged all-seated Stones shows since 2003 and which have staged shows by other artists in that time which have allowed standing.

They had standing on the floor at the SECC in Glasgow in 2003 and that's the only arena or stadium shows theyve put on in the UK in the last tours which werent all seated.

The decision is theirs, and theirs alone. Likewise when they decided to make the German shows in 2007 all seated when they didnt so in 2006.

Quote
Lady Jayne
Well, what could I know - I'm only a lawyer! Let me know if you are actually interested in the truth and I'll list the legislation and regulations for you!

Go right ahead, and I'll list several acts who have played at all of the venues listed above and whose shows WEREN'T all seated. Like many others here, I've been at some of the shows in question.

Seating/standing arrangements in public places of entertainment are, in part governed by local government regulations. They differ from local authority to local authority, and usually according to size of venue and capacity. I'm sure you have stood at Twickenham (I have), Hampden Park etc - they are outdoor stadia and so you are not comparing like with like. Similarly talking about shows in 2003/4 isn't anything to do with O2 last summer, which was the original comment I queried. I note that Adrian says he stood at O2 but then talks about Indigo - a much smaller venue. I can only comment on what could and could not have been licenced in O2's main arena last year at full or near full capacity and can do so for professional reasons. You may have inside knowledge as to the Stones personal negotiations - I certainly do not, but whatever they did or didn't want I can say that they could not have performed to O2's main arena at capacity with standing of more than a handful licenced.

EH?
Rolling Stones at the 02, August 2007 - all seated
Prince at the 02, August-September 2007 - all seated
Led Zeppelin at the 02 in December 2007 - standing
Bruce Springsteen at the 02 in December 2007 - standing

Its down to the artist/promoter. To say the Stones wouldnt have been allowed to have standing tickets for the 02 when other artists did so before and after them is nonsensical. Its the same for the US - they insist on all seated venues, whereas many of the venues allow general admission.

If youre not comparing like with like for stadiums, then why can you stand at a U2 show at Twickenham or Hampden Park in 2004 and not a Rolling Stones show in 2003 and 2006?

Youre right about each council having its own authority. However, that avoids the fact that none of the venues the Stones had all seated shows have banned 'general admission'. The fact that there have been acts playing such shows AFTER the Stones shows is proof of that.

You're defending the indefensible here. What next - the ticket prices are set by ticketmaster and the big, bad promoters despite the Stones' protests to peg them at £40?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-14 00:26 by Gazza.

Let's not forget the rental of the stadia. That is not cheap. And it is a reason why acts will avoid certain cities. New Orleans for one. When the Stones played here in 1994 they had less than 22,000 (around there, I remember it was VERY low) and it cost them 3 days of rental.

U2 played there in 1997 to less than 20,000 people and it cost them $100,000 a day to rent the Supe (I heard that - I do not know that for a fact as in I can not find any source to quote) and that it was costing U2 a million dollars a day to operate the tour (I think that was in Rolling Stone or something).

No matter if that is correct or not, it ain't cheap to put on these big tours with the big stages etc...so I think there is a lot of overhead put into the ticket prices. To cover everything and anything.

Ticket prices would be lower if they'd play without all the bullshit. 300 trucks, a crew of a thousand people, a million lights, a fireworks display, and so on.. but for some reason they think they need it.

lower down the prices, youngsters can see them and no problem. Even little kids that I teach know the stones, but won't get to see them: too expensive!

The Stones need to remember the 'profit parabola'. You can sell a couple of expensive tickets or sell a ton of cheap tickets.

I don`t care of "most people".Most people don`t know Stones music.Those who knows have respect and (or) love for them.I think that Stones are way cooler then rest of whole music business and they style is simply sophisticated . i mean all records , musical developement , attitude etc are on higher level - that`s why contemporary mass entertainment belongs to shitty performers and cheesy stars.
But they are the most famous living rock legend that`s why media are on their side.
Stones have many luck.As Charlie said "5 years of hard work and 20 (now 40)years of
lazyness ( or something like this) .
Stones are like our old wife on catwalk.

Quote
skipstone
Let's not forget the rental of the stadia. That is not cheap. And it is a reason why acts will avoid certain cities. New Orleans for one. When the Stones played here in 1994 they had less than 22,000 (around there, I remember it was VERY low) and it cost them 3 days of rental.

U2 played there in 1997 to less than 20,000 people and it cost them $100,000 a day to rent the Supe (I heard that - I do not know that for a fact as in I can not find any source to quote) and that it was costing U2 a million dollars a day to operate the tour (I think that was in Rolling Stone or something).

No matter if that is correct or not, it ain't cheap to put on these big tours with the big stages etc...so I think there is a lot of overhead put into the ticket prices. To cover everything and anything.

Of course its an expensive business to put a show like that on, but it was just as expensive prior to 1999, and they managed to do more than OK (The BTB tour cost a million dollars to run per WEEK, thanks to the high expense incurred on the machinery involving the use of the b stage)

Any band whose tour is financed up front by corporate sponsorship and who are guaranteed a mininum (7 figure) amount per show regardless of how many tickets the promoter manages to sell are not going to be in any danger of running at a loss. The risk factor for the band is negligible.

Mick said the Bridge cost a million bucks. That's crazy! I find that very hard to believe.

Ever noticed the details in the staging? Lots of little things here and there? Do they really need all that shit?

No. Of course not. The spectacle should never take priority over the substance IMO.

I dont recall Mick mentioning the cost of the bridge, but I remember reading an article at the time which stated that the weekly cost of assembling and operating that bridge (and of course the Stones have maybe 3 stages on tour at any one time) was in the region of $1 million a week when the band were on the road - all for what was probably about an hour's actual use a week. The bridges used since have, I suppose, been a bit less elaborate and more cost effective.

They still managed to do this on a tour where the ticket price was a flat $65.

Most people don't care about them. Those that do, the hardcore fans, are their bread and butter and the band caters to them. What most youngsters don't realize is how infamous The Stones were in the sixties. Less so in the seventies when they were drugged out, remote and rich. But still nasty. ><

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
What most youngsters don't realize is how infamous The Stones were in the sixties. Less so in the seventies when they were drugged out, remote and rich. But still nasty. ><

And they shouldn't give a @#$%& either. It's about liking the music.

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
Most people don't care about them.

You could say that about ANY act or celebrity on the planet, no matter HOW famous or respected they are. They're always going to have a minority appeal, and most people, by nature, arent going to have any interest in (or even have an active dislike for) their work.

Tricky to stay cool in one's sixties...

..especially in an age-obsessed industry where fame and marketability tends to be very fleeting....

I like the Stones and I'm cool, so therefore the Stones are cool. I'm sure the same is true for each and every one of you. See, wasn't that easy? You all are making things waaaay too hard.

Good answer. I think that should be enough to close the thread.

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED..................Thanks Gazza

__________________________

not cool to abruptly delare threads closed.......

If peeing your pants is cool, then conisder me Miles Davis.

LMAO

Something you wish to share with the group, ryanpow?

Quote
Gazza
LMAO

Something you wish to share with the group, ryanpow?

depends...

Gazza, catching up in here, one small point:
I don't recall that any/many(?) of the shows in the US on ABB saved out some front rows at lower prices for the fans from the fanclub. I'm not counting the on-stage tickets which were put up directly on Ticketmaster, I believe. I dunno, I could be wrong. I know the lower-cost seats were there in previous tours.

If true, this doesn't make the situation any better, of course.

I can understand dedicated fans liking the band and everything to do with them but COOL is hardly a word that can be used to describe Stones in 2008.

Bit of objectivity required here i think.............

Hi Angee

as far as I recall, there were $99 tickets available for the US shows which were in the front ten rows..most of these would have been made available in presales. Some were available on the public sale date and then maybe later in ticket drops. Obviously the amount of such tickets may have changed from venue to venue and depending on the size of the venue.

The same applied for the seated stadium shows in the UK in 2006, only the price was £60 (the normal category A prices were £150).

The practice was discontinued for the 2007 shows in London, but if I remember right, there were reasonably priced seated tickets for the front few rows at the stadium shows in the other European countries (Germany and parts of Scandinavia I think) where the field areas had been changed from GA in 2006 to all seated in 2007 - with overall prices being considerably increased of course. I wasnt at any of the all seated stadium shows in Europe 2007, so maybe someone who was can confirm if there were 'cheaper' tickets available for the front few rows.

For previous US tours, the front ten rows on the No Security tour had $90 tickets, whereas the top price ticket was usually around $300-350. There was no fan club presale on that tour however. The fan club was launched in may 2002 for the Licks tour. The front block were priced at Category A levels (£150 in the UK)..I presume the same system applied in the US. The theatre shows of course were the big selling point for fan club memberships on that tour, with them being pegged at (from memory) $50 a ticket (£35 in the UK, I think it was).

On BTB and before that, I think there was a 'flat rate' price for tickets for the most part across the venue ($65, I think)..if there were differences, it wasnt a significant amount (there were a few 1998 US shows where they 'experimented' with ticket prices as a test run for the system used from 1999 onwards - ie, MSG, Chicago UC)

Quote
Gazza
there were a few 1998 US shows where they 'experimented' with ticket prices as a test run for the system used from 1999 onwards - ie, MSG, Chicago UC

Also the Las Vegas shows in 1994 had a top ticket price of $300.

One sentence stood out from a very serious article about aging in today's Times:

"The Rolling Stones are there to give us hope that our mojo will still be in working order at pensionable age."