|
|
| jb |
[quote]glencar wrote:
LOL Angie, I was just joshing youse. I've been to Holland before. Anyhoo, it seems like the more exotic places don't get the interesting set lists.
[/quote
They are offering "Sex Tours" in Bangcok. |
|
|
| glencar |
You buy, we'll fly! |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
jb wrote:
It's going to be a tough sell with Van Halen, The Who, madonna, U2 and others touring...I fear very few "true" sell-outs.
I fear Chuck Levell being invited on tour
jb if they come to S. Fl I am there |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
You buy, we'll fly!
They had a big thing on CNN about travel agents in the US booking these 'Sex Tours" .....having had sex with several oriental girls while I was in college, I can say they are quite passive, but enjoy anal... |
|
|
| glencar |
Yes, those travel agents will be doing hard time. |
|
|
| Joey |
" They had a big thing on CNN about travel agents in the US booking these 'Sex Tours" .....having had sex with several oriental girls while I was in college, I can say they are quite passive, but enjoy anal... "
Neil Joey !
|
|
|
| Gazza |
Glencar>Broadway costs $100 or so for top seats. The Stones are worth the extra $ for me but I understand that it is still quite outrageous for them to be doing what they do. And yet, I'll probably still go overboard & attend 9 or 10 shows.
Well, $100 in 2004 for the Stones isnt that bad. I'd settle for that. On the No Security tour that was the average price and at the time I thought it a shocking rip off, but five years later I'd bite your hand off for it. Unfortunately the decent seats are usually about double or treble that amount or more and they're not going down.
I see your point but IMO things like Broadway or Vegas shows etc are aimed at a different and more elitist sort of market than rock 'n' roll is, which is a form of entertainment that theoretically should be accessible to everyone. If it's not, then it bloody well should be or we're entirely missing the point. Being rich enough to not have to be concerned about ticket prices doesn't make someone a better fan (I'm not for a second putting you in that category, just emphasising that THAT is the type of audience the Stones are increasingly aiming themselves at)
If the Stones ARE still a rock n roll act, we should be using THAT type of entertainment as a yardstick for their ticket prices. Other major artists can do it for a reasonable price. There's no reason on earth why the Stones can't. Think about it - they'll never spend a penny of the money they earned on the last two or three tours
should they live to be 300. So why gouge the people who made them what they are? No one has ever explained the logic of that to me other than to satisfy the egos of the people concerned.
|
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
So why gouge the people who made them what they are?
Why not? |
|
|
| MarthaMyDear |
AMEN, GARY!!! AMEN!!! NO SHIT!!! That is the GREATEST post I have ever read (except you forgot to say: "Anyone who doesn't see the logic in this SERIOUSLY needs to reexamine their values and get a life.")!!! LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, that's what *** I *** think, anyways!!!
Anyone who doesn't see this ridiculous gouging and ego trip about charging fans so much for tickets SERIOUSLY needs to reevaluate their values and/or have brain surgery done... That's what I think anyways!!! PEACE!!!  
*** Martha ***
[Edited by MarthaMyDear] |
|
|
| kahoosier |
Gazza say
<
As Mick says "Poverty is (not) picturesque"
I agree with you Gazza, but I also have a problem with the too often made accusation that because I can afford to pay premium prices, and yes, use ticket brokers to get into theater shows, I am not a "true fan." You know what I mean, all the remarks last tour about people paying over a $1000 for a ticket to a theater show "keeping the real fans out." I mean what the hell sense does that make? How dare anyone say i am less a fan because I can and will do more to insure that I see the shows I want.
Screw that. I am not rich, but the life style choices I have made make me comfortable enough to do some things that are "pricey." For everyone that bitches about a $200 Stones ticket, let me ask if you spent a $100 at the pubs and on ciggies last month? Wait a minute...would a "true fan" not be able to give that up for a month to get a great seat? I am not syaing that anyone should (well maybe for health reasons) but doesn't being a "true fan" imply a willingness to sacrifice something, vs all those "casual fans" that won't go out of their way?
What I do not have time for, what my job will not allow me to do, is sit at the PC for 8 hours straight waiting for tickets to first show up on the net. And geography prevents me from lining up at any ticketmaster window. So I do not mind paying a premium price for anything, and while I do see your point Gazza, and everyone elses, I just do not like being slagged when I can afford to pay a littler more.
Are ticket prices too high? Probably. But "tear down that wall Mr. Gorbqachev, " the Stones are rock and Roll's biggest and best capitalists. For them, I assumer it might well at 60 plus be easier to play less for more, if you see my point. And who could blame them? |
|
|
| Scottfree |
quote:
Scottfree wrote:
I think about fishing lures, but not fishing....
I think about the off key harmonizing
I pray for the weaving of 78-81 to be reinstated
Schazam
[Edited by Scottfree] |
|
|
| corgi37 |
quote:
kahoosier wrote:
Gazza say
<
As Mick says "Poverty is (not) picturesque"
I agree with you Gazza, but I also have a problem with the too often made accusation that because I can afford to pay premium prices, and yes, use ticket brokers to get into theater shows, I am not a "true fan." You know what I mean, all the remarks last tour about people paying over a $1000 for a ticket to a theater show "keeping the real fans out." I mean what the hell sense does that make? How dare anyone say i am less a fan because I can and will do more to insure that I see the shows I want.
Screw that. I am not rich, but the life style choices I have made make me comfortable enough to do some things that are "pricey." For everyone that bitches about a $200 Stones ticket, let me ask if you spent a $100 at the pubs and on ciggies last month? Wait a minute...would a "true fan" not be able to give that up for a month to get a great seat? I am not syaing that anyone should (well maybe for health reasons) but doesn't being a "true fan" imply a willingness to sacrifice something, vs all those "casual fans" that won't go out of their way?
What I do not have time for, what my job will not allow me to do, is sit at the PC for 8 hours straight waiting for tickets to first show up on the net. And geography prevents me from lining up at any ticketmaster window. So I do not mind paying a premium price for anything, and while I do see your point Gazza, and everyone elses, I just do not like being slagged when I can afford to pay a littler more.
Are ticket prices too high? Probably. But "tear down that wall Mr. Gorbqachev, " the Stones are rock and Roll's biggest and best capitalists. For them, I assumer it might well at 60 plus be easier to play less for more, if you see my point. And who could blame them?
|
|
|
| corgi37 |
oops, sorry, it was the 1st time i used the "quote" button. You'd think after all this time i'd know how to use this board. Dont even get me started on how to post a pic! Ha-fucking-ha. But, my point is, you cant compare spending $100 at the pub to seeing the Stones. That is just unfair. Downright "Al-Quaida-ish", if you ask me. I cant give up beer or fags for the wife or the kids, let alone the Stones. But, i dont have to give up anything. I just scored a pay rise, so they can charge what they want. Plus, thats what wife's credit cards are for. |
|
|
| Dan |
If I like the forthcoming album then I will get excited about playing it again.
The true excitement over the last tour wasnt so much about merely seeing the band and being in the same room as them but getting some good equipment and coming away with some nice recordings afterward. After doing the same at roughly 70 other gigs since the novelty is starting to wear off. I don't really want to spend that kind of money again or even work the extra hours so I have that kind of money. I lucked out and was able to score some nice tickets for lower than the top tier price but don't really want to hassle all that again, at least yet. I guess as far as another tour goes, I can take it or leave it. |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
Don't usually smoke (ok only when I bowl) and gave up booze for lent, but I'm a cheap Bohemian and won't pay dat especially in this decade /century. I'll go see the Mekons this weekend for $15 and might have enough cash to buy some merch from a band member to boot. |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
jb wrote:
It's going to be a tough sell with Van Halen, The Who, madonna, U2 and others touring...I fear very few "true" sell-outs.
Whats there to fear? You on the payroll? Personally thats what I am hoping for since I don't want to pay full price for a ticket.
Also Van Halen will play to their die hards and the Sammy fans but I don't see them breaking any records. I think the surprise smash tour of the year is going to be the Pixies in the fall. |
|
|
| jb |
The price structure , IMO, should be as follows:
Arena:
1)Upper Rows 75.00
2)Mid level-150.00-200.00
3)Lower-250.00-400
4)Floor-Back-500.000, Middle-750.00, Front-1200.00-2000
Stadium:
1)Upper-50-75 dollars
2)Mid-Level-100-250
3)Lower-300.00
4)Floor-350-2000
Theatre:
Between $500 and 3000k depending on location. |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
jb wrote:
The price structure , IMO, should be as follows:
Arena:
1)Upper Rows 75.00
2)Mid level-150.00-200.00
3)Lower-250.00-400
4)Floor-Back-500.000, Middle-750.00, Front-1200.00-2000
Stadium:
1)Upper-50-75 dollars
2)Mid-Level-100-250
3)Lower-300.00
4)Floor-350-2000
Theatre:
Between $500 and 3000k depending on location.
For THE WHO ?!?!?! I agree !!!!!!!
www.pollstar.com
THE WHO AND THE STONES WILL sell out every venue ........................as for the others ?!?!
Developing ....................................
Jacky ! |
|
|
| jb |
 |
|
|
| Joey |
 |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
I see Bo Diddley has got some tour dates. He's charging between $25 - $40. Of course he kinda sucks these days. |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
polksalad69 wrote:
I see Bo Diddley has got some tour dates. He's charging between $25 - $40. Of course he kinda sucks these days.
He sucked in 94 when I had to sit through his "jam" with the Stones at JOe Robbie....
|
|
|
| Gazza |
>I agree with you Gazza, but I also have a problem with the too often made accusation that because I can afford to pay premium prices, and yes, use ticket brokers to get into theater shows, I am not a "true fan." You know what I mean, all the remarks last tour about people paying over a $1000 for a ticket to a theater show "keeping the real fans out." I mean what the hell sense does that make? How dare anyone say i am less a fan because I can and will do more to insure that I see the shows I want.
Screw that. I am not rich, but the life style choices I have made make me comfortable enough to do some things that are "pricey." For everyone that bitches about a $200 Stones ticket, let me ask if you spent a $100 at the pubs and on ciggies last month? Wait a minute...would a "true fan" not be able to give that up for a month to get a great seat? I am not syaing that anyone should (well maybe for health reasons) but doesn't being a "true fan" imply a willingness to sacrifice something, vs all those "casual fans" that won't go out of their way?
What I do not have time for, what my job will not allow me to do, is sit at the PC for 8 hours straight waiting for tickets to first show up on the net. And geography prevents me from lining up at any ticketmaster window. So I do not mind paying a premium price for anything, and while I do see your point Gazza, and everyone elses, I just do not like being slagged when I can afford to pay a littler more.
Are ticket prices too high? Probably. But "tear down that wall Mr. Gorbqachev, " the Stones are rock and Roll's biggest and best capitalists. For them, I assumer it might well at 60 plus be easier to play less for more, if you see my point. And who could blame them?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
just to clarify, Steve. I would never question the 'loyalty' or 'true fan' status of anyone on this board just because of their income. If someone has the lifestyle to be able to afford to pay a four figure sum for a night out at a concert, all power to them. I might think they're insane to do it and that they have more money than sense but I'll defend their right to do it if they can afford to. Thats their business, not mine and for anyone to suggest that someone who spends that much on tickets isnt a true fan is reverse snobbery at its worst. Its all a matter of context anyway. Most people I know think I'm absolutely insane to go to several concerts in different countries at around the same time and to pay what most sane people would consider exorbitant ticket prices into the bargain.
You're also likely to find "casual" fans in any venue taking up seats that arent the most expensive ones anyway. Some of those fans just happen to be richer than other casual fans.
You did a round trip of 20,000 miles to see the Astoria concert and a couple of others. You could afford to do it and good luck to you. You're as much a diehard fan as anyone in my book - and I remember the look of horror on your face when you arrived at Sticky Fingers the night before the Astoria gig convinced you werent going to get into the show as you thought you'd be conned out of a ticket. Thankfully it worked out OK in the end!
My problem with the whole deal isnt with well-heeled fans. It's with the Stones and Michael Cohl. They're effectively saying that unless you belong in a certain income bracket which accounts for only a tiny percentage of the potential ticket buying public, your chances of getting good seats at their gigs are slim and your chances of getting in the front couple of rows are practically negligible. THEY are defining what makes a "true fan" is the size of their disposable income.
I dont think I'm being old fashioned here but to me rock 'n' roll music was supposed to be a medium that unifies people - its not about siphoning off the best seats in the house to people who can and will afford to pay ten times over the asking price, and its certainly not about selling off great seats to ruthless ticketbrokers and cutting yourself a cosy little deal on the side either.
there were some good developments on the last tour regarding ensuring that diehard fans got into shows which would have been otherwise out of bounds on previous tours -namely the fan club pre-sale. Yes, they fucked it up too in many ways and there were lots of grounds for complaint but the idea was good in principle and it made a change from previous tours - unfortunately though there were some facets of it that were tantamount to scamming, but maybe next time they can learn lessons from it. When it came to getting tickets for the theatre shows, it generally was a good thing.
IMO its not rocket science. Other artists organise it without the same level of scamming, overcharging and causes for griping that occurs every time there's a Stones tour. The Stones, Cohl and Clear Channel (or whatever rip off merchant they choose to sell their soul to and allow to ruin their reputation further) always manage to come out of these episodes with their reputations and credibility tarnished even further with each succeeding tour.
If they're going to keep some tickets aside for loyal fans or whatever - do it by all means through a fan club pre-sale. And hey - if its not too much to ask, when we buy them, let us at least know exactly whereabouts in the arena they're located instead of finding out later they're not too good and maybe we should have taken our chances in the public sale instead. Reward people for buying fan club packages. Dont shaft them. And let them buy tickets for more than one bloody show as well. After all, if they're prepared to go to several shows and do a bit of travelling, its pretty much given that they're real fans. Even the ones like Josh who are afraid to fly.
After that's taken care of, put the rest of the bloody tickets for the show in question onsale at the same time through ticketbastard (or ideally someone else),in a local record shop or on the phone or whatever and let everyone who wants one have a fair crack at getting them. First come first served and even if you dont have broadband or if you dont live in a town where the tickets are going on sale, you still have a shot at it.
theres enough available options to ensure that everyone, whether filthy rich or not, should get great tickets for a Stones show |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Glencar>Broadway costs $100 or so for top seats. The Stones are worth the extra $ for me but I understand that it is still quite outrageous for them to be doing what they do. And yet, I'll probably still go overboard & attend 9 or 10 shows.
Well, $100 in 2004 for the Stones isnt that bad. I'd settle for that. On the No Security tour that was the average price and at the time I thought it a shocking rip off, but five years later I'd bite your hand off for it. Unfortunately the decent seats are usually about double or treble that amount or more and they're not going down.
I see your point but IMO things like Broadway or Vegas shows etc are aimed at a different and more elitist sort of market than rock 'n' roll is, which is a form of entertainment that theoretically should be accessible to everyone. If it's not, then it bloody well should be or we're entirely missing the point. Being rich enough to not have to be concerned about ticket prices doesn't make someone a better fan (I'm not for a second putting you in that category, just emphasising that THAT is the type of audience the Stones are increasingly aiming themselves at)
If the Stones ARE still a rock n roll act, we should be using THAT type of entertainment as a yardstick for their ticket prices. Other major artists can do it for a reasonable price. There's no reason on earth why the Stones can't. Think about it - they'll never spend a penny of the money they earned on the last two or three tours
should they live to be 300. So why gouge the people who made them what they are? No one has ever explained the logic of that to me other than to satisfy the egos of the people concerned.
Madonna is now charging $300 per seat at her upcoming shows. I'd rather the Stones get my $300 & I get a good seat rather than they charge $50 & some scalper buys 'em all up & I get blocked out & have to fish at top dollar. Buying tix online has made things pretty fair. For the Sept. 2002 MSG show, I was offered the 400 section for $300 or so. I decided not to buy them & I think I made the right move. A few months later, I got floor seats for $150. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Madonna is now charging $300 per seat at her upcoming shows. I'd rather the Stones get my $300 & I get a good seat rather than they charge $50 & some scalper buys 'em all up & I get blocked out & have to fish at top dollar. Buying tix online has made things pretty fair. For the Sept. 2002 MSG show, I was offered the 400 section for $300 or so. I decided not to buy them & I think I made the right move. A few months later, I got floor seats for $150
Unfortunately for HER fans, Madge is following in the Stones' footsteps, although I think when she toured about 3 years ago she was already charging similar prices.
Good point about the scalpers. I'd agree with that, but theres a way 'round that too if you impose reasonable limits on how many of the good seats you can buy. I'm not sure if he did it on his last US Tour but when Springsteen toured with the E-Street Band in 1999-2000 they had a system where the tickets in the front 20 rows or so were will-call only to ensure that scalpers couldnt get anywhere near them. I think those best seats were limited to two per person. When you picked your ticket up at the box office, you were escorted to your seat to ensure you weren't runnin' outside and flogging them to scalpers. They also kept a few front row seats free and before the show completely at random some security guys ("The men in Black" as they came to be known) would randomly come up to some fans seated in not too great seats and upgrade them.
I'm sure the system wasnt 100% perfect but it shows you can largely overcome that problem if you WANT to.
|
|
|
| glencar |
That would be nice but remember that in the NY area at least, BS performed 15 shows or something like that. Anyone who wanted tix could get them. Except me. I had a long-planned vacation at the same time. |
|
|
| jb |
That's why I beleive in a higher price per seat...it will drive the scalpers prices dowm |
|
|
| glencar |
Yep. |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
Gary wrote:
quote:
I dont think I'm being old fashioned here but to me rock 'n' roll music was supposed to be a medium that unifies people - its not about siphoning off the best seats in the house to people who can and will afford to pay ten times over the asking price, and its certainly not about selling off great seats to ruthless ticketbrokers and cutting yourself a cosy little deal on the side either.
It was indeed supposed to be a unifying medium, it just never got around to that. Nothing ever got around to that idealism when it's about money. Unfortunately. The Stones are just as keen on making money (instead of focusing on their fans) as most people are, it's in our nature: the possibility of getting rich blinds the majority of people I guess. It would probably blind me too . |
|
|
| Joey |
My Favorite bar now charges seven bucks for a " Jaggerbomb " ..........................and you thought YOUR life sucked ?!?!
   
[Edited by Joey] |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
