|
|
| sandrew |
I agree that the Stones over-estimated the market this time around and could've sold more tix at lower price. But I think Bruce is a pretty unique phenomenon. Fans are good to him, because he's pretty good to them.
No one takes a rock show more seriously than Bruce -- the guy never slacks off and plays longer than anyone in the business. While the Stones are playing fewer than 20 songs for less than two hours these days, Bruce is playing like 25 songs for 2 hours and 45 minutes. On the '99-00 tour, he was passing the three-hour mark.
Granted, he's several years younger than the Stones... |
|
|
| Moonisup |
paul passes the 3-hour mark also, |
|
|
| sandrew |
I didn't know that, but Macca hasn't toured in years, so he should have some pent-up energy. And he certainly isn't as physical a performer as Bruce, either. |
|
|
| jb |
No..Springsteen is closer to 2 hrs now ...not the marathons of days gone by..And despite our poor attendance and ticket sales we will outgross him and macca when all is said and done. |
|
|
| GimmeExile |
1999-2000 Reunion Tour was just under 3hrs. 2002 Rising Tour's first twenty or so shows were about 2hrs, 25mins; then they became 2hrs, 45mins. I'm sure by the summer he'll be at 3hrs again.
No one can touch his show at the Nausau Coliseum on December 31, 1980...4 hours!
Nevertheless, Mick is still an animal. No one can match that energy! |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
jb wrote:
No..Springsteen is closer to 2 hrs now ...not the marathons of days gone by..And despite our poor attendance and ticket sales we will outgross him and macca when all is said and done.
JB I can't let you keep repeating the poor attendance and
ticket sales. Just ain't true.
|
|
|
| sandrew |
Tele, I'd agree that ticket sales aren't "poor" by normal standards, but by Stones standards they've been less than stellar.
Compared to the '89 tour -- where stadiums would sell out in record time -- this tour has been the hardest sell of their career. I saw them at Municipal Stadium in Cleveland in '89 and, while it wasn't a sell-out, there was a sizable crowd. Now they can barely pack an arena there.
I remember the '94 tour starting pretty slowly, but then it picked up and eventually became their highest grosser. I don't see that happening these days. I hate to say it, but I think the Stones' popularity -- enormous though it still is -- has waned appreciably.
Macca and Bruce, having toured relatively infrequently over the last 10 years or so, are benefiting from lots of pent-up demand. The Stones have been pretty consistent, touring about every five years since '81.
You can only go to the well so many times before it dries up. They're a long way from that, of course. But for the first time in 40 years, that drying process has begun. And there ain't no shame in that.
[Edited by sandrew] |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
sandrew wrote:
Tele, I'd agree that ticket sales aren't "poor" by normal standards, but by Stones standards they've been less than stellar.
Compared to the '89 tour -- where stadiums would sell out in record time -- this tour has been the hardest sell of their career. I saw them at Municipal Stadium in Cleveland in '89 and, while it wasn't a sell-out, there was a sizable crowd. Now they can barely pack an arena there.
I remember the '94 tour starting pretty slowly, but then it picked up and eventually became their highest grosser. I don't see that happening these days. I hate to say it, but I think the Stones' popularity -- enormous though it still is -- has waned appreciably.
Macca and Bruce, having toured relatively infrequently over the last 10 years or so, are benefiting from lots of pent-up demand. The Stones have been pretty consistent, touring about every five years since '81.
You can only go to the well so many times before it dries up. They're a long way from that, of course. But for the first time in 40 years, that drying process has begun. And there ain't no shame in that.
[Edited by sandrew]
Proof. Give me proof not emotion. The three shows I went to were overflowing and they sold out all 5 stadium/arena
shows in Chicago. |
|
|
| glencar |
"The Rising" album is Bruce's best work in two decades. I'm not going to see him (never have) but someday I'd like to. I think the high ticky prices are what tamped down the Stones' attendance rates. And even though they don't tour every three years here like they used to, it's more frequent than either Brucie or Smacca. |
|
|
| sandrew |
In the major metro areas -- New York, Chicago, LA, San Fran -- yeah, they're doing fine. But even in Philly, things have trailed off a bit.
In '89, they sold out the Vet for two shows in minutes -- but can't fill it today.
How 'bout Miami in 94 versus today? A sold-out Joe Robbie stadium show compared to one arena show that doesn't sell out at all.
Look, it doesn't make me happy to talk like this, but I'm just trying to be objective. |
|
|
| glencar |
Again, I think it's the relative frequency of tours combined with high ticky prices. I'd never go to see Smacca but if I was even a casual fan, I'd see him if he hadn't toured for a decade previously. BTW Did that ugly-on-the-inside new wife play the keyboards on this tour? |
|
|
| sandrew |
Glencar, I agree. I try to take that into account in an earlier post. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Who the hell would want to hear about the steel mill closing for 7 nights in a row?
I would. Quite happily too. Get it into perspective. Its certainly more credible than charging a 4 figure fee for a ticket and having the gall to perform a song claiming "its ONLY rock n roll" and claiming youre a "Street fighting man"
Josh : Bruce's shows are 2 hours? youre talking bollocks mate. Every show I have from the current tour fills 2 x 80 minute discs and several of them run into a 3rd disc. "Do the maths". The Stones have hardly ever played a show that would run that long. Apart from the solo shows from 6-7 years ago which were around 2 1/4 hours, the shortest Springsteen show I've ever been at ran for 165 minutes - the longest (Wembley stadium'88) being around 220
I think what some people have said earlier makes sense. The Stones are touring every 3 years or so and with ticket prices being so high,most people can only afford one show and are unlikely to pay for many more as there isnt the novelty factor anymore. The band are basically appealing to the casual or corporate fan with a large disposable income who will go to one show, not hardcore fans with limited funds who ideally would have liked to have seen multiple shows. Thats reflected in the "play safe" setlists in the larger venues. Most people who go to those shows arent familiar with the likes of "Moonlight Mile" or "Torn & Frayed" and would whine and bitch if they didnt get a set which mostly included songs lifted from "40 Licks".
|
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Yeah Gazza but can Bruce cut his own steak and eat it too? lol.
Cheers. |
|
|
| glencar |
The steel mill comment was probably in reference to the fact that many of Bruce's songs have a sameness to them. I don't necessarily think that's true at this point but it was true in the late 70s/early 80s. As for the Stones, they can charge what they want. But by the end of this tour (Pitt & MSG Jan. 16) I was tired of the set list. I'm not one of those set list whiners that we run across but it haas become apparent that they need to mix it up a bit. And I think they only played about 15 Licks. Even much of that collection was ignored on this tour. Ironically, the opening shows were filled with chestnuts that needed to be heard. By the end, it was the same old same old. |
|
|
| MRD8 |
I just got an email saying that two more shows will be added to his Giants Stadium stand bringing the total to nine, tix go on sale Saturday morning...that shouldm bring the total to 400,000 amazing no matter who the band is! I have seen Bruce over a dozen times over the years...first time in '75...its always been about the music with him...no frills at all...the screens at his Rising shows aren't much bigger than a home theater...no fireworks or blow up dolls or anything...and the E Street Band are an amazing collection of great musicians...I have several boot video's from this tour and they are wonderful shows he puts on! He changes his setlists by as many as seven or eight songs a night, will sometimes play something he hasn't played in 25 years...if ever!  |
|
|
| LadyJane |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I would. Quite happily too. Get it into perspective. Its certainly more credible than charging a 4 figure fee for a ticket and having the gall to perform a song claiming "its ONLY rock n roll" and claiming youre a "Street fighting man"
Gazza, I'm shocked! Are you really that disenchanted with the Stones? You really think it's galling for them to sing IORR and Street Fighting Man?? I certainly don't.
I AM a hardcore fan, with VERY limited funds and I am working my ass off to pay off the debt from the 3 concerts I saw. Any I'd do it again, in a heartbeat! Why? Because no one knows how much longer they are going to be doing this! You seem to think it's a safe bet that the Stones will tour every 3 years. Who's to say the hand of fate isn't going to step in and prevent that from happening? Even a member of the Unholy Trinity doesn't have that kind of insight.
When I'm at a Stones show, I feel like I'm 18 again. I hear songs that are the soundtrack of my life. Sure, I'd like to hear some old gems, but I'll take the warhorses! For 2 plus hours, my troubles are gone. And that, my friend, is priceless!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I appreciate yours and I hope you can appreciate mine.
LadyJ.
PS. Leave it to a Brother from Belfast to get my Irish up!! 
[Edited by LadyJane] |
|
|
| chevysales |
no show bruce played will ever beat his 2300 seat gusman hall (Miami) performance during his "1975 born to run" run.
3 hours 10 minutes and can bigman blow a horn? oh fuckin' yes! up close and personal baby oh yea!
what a show... one i will never forget as long as i live.
|
|
|
| marko |
I don�t understant whats the point to play 3-4 hours??
I think 2,5hours is still ok.I think from stones 2hours
20mins is the best length,or 2h 15mins.I�m happy with 2hours
but no 3 or 4 hours.
But i agree,they really should mix set list,a lot actually. |
|
|
| jb |
Gazza, I like Springsteen too...first saw him in Jacksonville, Florida for "The River" tour, which, IMHO, may have been his best(he still had not gone commercial ala "Born in the USA"). I was disenchanted with his 9/11 theme, but, never the less, saw him at the AAA in Miami and truthfully, it was an average show(also ruined by Bonos and Dions appearence). It did, however, sell-out, unlike the 12,000 or so who had attended the Stones miami concert(Ft. Lauderdale was "officially" a sell-out with 15,000, despite the fact that in 1999, No Security was a sell out there with over 21,000 and same B-stage present.
Early on in this tour, I pointed out, much to everyone's chargrin, that the reality was that this tour was not selling as well as previous tours...not terribly mind you, but certainly not at the pace of 81, 89, 94, 97, and even 99 . This was substantiated by Cohl's uncharacterictic refusal to report the gross/attendance to billboard fro the first time ever on a Stones tour. As pointed out above, except for major markets, many arenas did not sell out, or the "sell-out" criteria was reduced tocrowds of 13 to 15 thousand in arenas that could easily hold up to 20k .
Indeed, Veterans stadium was a major embarrassment and the same could be said for venues in Miami, Cleveland, Tacoma, San Antonio, Nashville, and many others. We did not even beat Macca for tour of the year!!!
Obviously, the Stones overestimated their ticket prices and suffered at the gate. While they grossed around 90 million for the 2002 dates, this was b/c of the numerous shows in New York , Chicago, and California which really padded the take.
The sad truth is that their popularity among casual fans has diminished appreciably....This does not bode well for future tours as I think that they pretty much have milked this market dry over the past 12 years. |
|
|
| telecaster |
Jesus JB, at this rate you will be promoting McCartney.
I will grant you this: It was an incredibly dumb thing to do playing Ft Lauderdale and then Miami.
Just play 2 shows in either location. Basically the same
market
Is the Elbo Room still in Ft L? My spring break hang out
I got kicked out of the Holiday Inn twice. |
|
|
| jb |
I believe the Elbow room closed some time ago..remeber "The candy store", Art Stocks playpen, and the Botton? |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
jb wrote:
I believe the Elbow room closed some time ago..remeber "The candy store", Art Stocks playpen, and the Botton?
YES!!!!!!!!
That was my hangout. Art Stocks Playpen! Fuck that brings back memories. Free hotdogs and 50 cent beers. |
|
|
| jb |
Yep..that also closed years ago.....When I first moved to Florida(1971), we use to hang out at all those places..also the Castaways in Sunny Isles was happening at that time. |
|
|
| Nellcote |
I threw out my back in '75 at that friggin diving board at The Castaways. Still made it to The Faces, front row, back brace & all two weeks later... |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
I threw out my back in '75 at that friggin diving board at The Castaways. Still made it to The Faces, front row, back brace & all two weeks later...
That was a great place. I think I remember JB from '83, he had on a Members Only jacket, Porsche sunglasses, and
puca shells |
|
|
| jb |
Remember Puca beads..LOL. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza, I'm shocked! Are you really that disenchanted with the Stones? You really think it's galling for them to sing IORR and Street Fighting Man?? I certainly don't.
yeah I do actually! I dont see anything rebellious or rock 'n' roll about charging those prices for a "rock" concert. Leave that to assholes like Streisand or Diana Ross or the rest of the Vegas blue-rinse brigade. I DO enjoy the concerts as much as I ever have done - dont get me wrong - but no one has ever come up with an argument yet to convince me of the logic of charging loyal fans FIVE times for a good seat what they were paying 5 years ago. To me,all that shows is utter contempt for your audience. I felt EXACTLY the same in '99 when this rip-off started on the No Security tour, so its not something thats just pissed me off all of a sudden. up until 1998, I think Stones ticket prices were perfectly reasonable - $65 for the BTB tour - maybe a little expensive than most acts for sure,but thats fair enough for a top act. I personally find it repulsive how they have sold themselves out to a corporate audience and the reason why they are not attracting a YOUNG fan base who would otherwise love to see them is because their ticket prices EXCLUDE a large proportion of that audience - unless their mum & dad have enough spare $$ to take them along of couse.
>I AM a hardcore fan, with VERY limited funds and I am working my ass off to pay off the debt from the 3 concerts I saw. Any I'd do it again, in a heartbeat! Why? Because no one knows how much longer they are going to be doing this!
yes but my point is..why SHOULD you have to do that? Your loyalty is honourable, but to me loyalty works both ways. No other band gouges their fans as much as the Stones have. OK,I know the counter argument is "but theyre the best band in the world" but thats only a subjective thing. It means nothing in reality. Theres probably thousands of people out there who think (God forbid) that U2 or Bon Jovi or N'Synch are the "best band in the world" and would be quite willing to pay $350 for a decent seat to see them - that still doesnt justify it and those other acts dont exploit THEIR "just as loyal" fans to that degree..with those prices, the Stones get the type of audiences they deserve unfortunately (and I dont mean genuine fans like yourself and others here who would go anyway - but people like ourselves are a small proportion of that target audience and certainly NOT the most important one!)
yes it could indeed be the last time, but to be fair we've believed that with every tour since the mid 70's. Someday it will be,but that doesnt warrant exploiting that paranoia. As its a 40th anniversary tour,how about a $90 ceiling for example instead as a "thank you" to the people who MADE them successful for that long? If youre worth a collective value of some $700 million,how much MORE money can you need? If they each lived until they were 250,they couldnt spend it!
>You seem to think it's a safe bet that the Stones will tour every 3 years. Who's to say the hand of fate isn't going to step in and prevent that from happening? Even a member of the Unholy Trinity doesn't have that kind of insight.
what I meant was that in recent years theyve tended to tour that often so each time it comes around again the impact is lessened. When they toured in 1989/90 for the first time in 8 years, it really was an event as for many people it was the first chance to see them. In the last 12 years, practically everyone has had a chance to see the Stones at least once so for many "casual" fans..theyve seen them and its another "legend" act to cross off the list and tell your grandchildren about. I personally DONT think the Stones will still be touring in 3 - 5 years as I think the health of various members of the band will catch up with them. I hope I'm wrong and I'll be there to see them if I am,but I have my doubts.
|
|
|
| Joey |
I have never been to a " Bruce Springsteen " concert !
I have never been to a " Bob Dylan " concert !
I have never been to a " Tom Petty " concert !
................but I do have to pee .
Excuse Me ,
Jaculation ! |
|
|
| LadyJane |
Well said, Gazza! Your elaboration on your original post has lead me to total agreement with you!
LadyJ. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]