ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
RIP Brian
© Retna with thanks to Gypsy
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2003 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Cost of Entry to a gig by the Rolling Stones breaks record Return to archive Page: 1 2
June 26th, 2005 12:06 PM
Ten Thousand Motels COST OF ENTRY TO A GIG BY THE ROLLING STONES BREAKS RECORD

A Los Angeles gig by THE ROLLING STONES will be the most expensive in rock history when tickets go on sale tomorrow (27JUN05) at up to $450 (GBP250) each.

The BROWN SUGAR band - SIR MICK JAGGER, KEITH RICHARDS, RONNIE WOOD, CHARLIE WATTS and bassist DARRYL JONES - are charging the most money ever for entry to the November (05) concert at the Hollywood Bowl.

The high cost of watching the Stones gig from a decent seat equates to approximately $3.60 (GBP2) a minute.

And according to one record company executive, the Stones - the most profitable live act in the world - nearly quit touring three years ago (02) when it looked as if "the sums were not adding up".

The insider tells British newspaper THE SUNDAY TIMES, "But then Keith suggested scrapping the arena tour, the kind of massive show they pioneered in the 1970s and playing a series of smaller venues across America - and then, if that worked, adding the arenas back on top.

"So now they are more confident about charging the most ridiculous prices in the business. But fans will get a unique show."

contactmusic.com
26/06/2005 02:51


[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]
June 26th, 2005 12:08 PM
Gazza sadly it's the only type of record they seem to care about these days

and so much for Keith's supposed preference of smaller venues against stadiums because its easier to just concentrate on the music...
[Edited by Gazza]
June 26th, 2005 12:14 PM
Ten Thousand Motels Stones fans drop big bucks

Tickets for September gig at Bradley Center cost up to $350
By MELISSA WITTIG
Milwakee Journal Sentinal Online

"It's outrageous, but I'm still going," said Lisa Williams of Milwaukee, while waiting at the end of the line. She planned to attend the concert with the only friend she knows who could afford the $168 ticket. She said the tickets were still too expensive for the seats she got.

Tickets for the Sept. 8 concert, excluding service charges, range from $95 to $350 for the floor seats, with the cheapest closest to the stage; $60 to $350 for the lower level, and $60 to $160 for the upper level.

Many fans avoided the pricier tickets, opting for lower-priced $95 to $160 tickets. Some were luckier than others.

Marquette University senior Doug Temeyer, 21, came to the Bradley Center to buy tickets for himself and his mother, but once he heard the ticket prices, he wasn't sure whether he could afford them. Temeyer frantically called his mother to see whether he should still buy the tickets.

But as with most fans, Temeyer's mother was willing to pay a higher price even if the seats weren't the greatest.

"Presales just took everything," Temeyer said, after paying $168 for upper-level seats in a row toward the back of the section. "Mom isn't going to be as happy as I thought."

Brother and sister Scott and Laurie Glisczinski, who have seen the Rolling Stones in concert 12 and 10 times, respectively, were among the lucky ones. They spent $203 for two front-row tickets after ending up first in line by picking a low number in the lottery. Both recall seeing the band last at the Bradley Center in 1999 when tickets cost $92.50.

If it hadn't been for their good luck, they wouldn't have floor tickets. "I wouldn't pay that for anybody," Laurie Glisczinski said.

Diana Solberg, 52, of Milwaukee waited in line to buy tickets for her sister and her 78-year-old mother who she says is a "huge rock fan." She said the price was steep, but she was willing to pay $100 a piece for the tickets.

"It's only money," she said. "I can go back next week and make some more."

Solberg said it would be her mother's first Rolling Stones' concert.

Her sister, Carol Smart, said she had seen the Rolling Stones many times - usually when tickets were more reasonably priced.

"The first time I saw the Stones, my ticket was five and a half dollars, so this is sticker shock," said Smart, 53, of Madison. That was in 1964, she said, and the show didn't even sell out.

But Smart said she wouldn't let the price stop her from seeing the band when they come to town.

"Every time they come around we go because we say this will probably be the last tour," she said. "Then they keep coming back."

Ginny Jacobson, 36, of Milwaukee said she last attended a Rolling Stones concert in 1997 when they performed at Camp Randall Stadium in Madison. She said that her tickets on the floor cost her only $50.

Jacobson, who paid $168 this time around, said she thought the price was worth it.

"How often do you see the Rolling Stones?" she said.

June 26th, 2005 12:28 PM
texile are the shows selling out, enough to justify thier demands?
fans keep paying these prices...wtf?
greedy bastards - it does take some of the urgency away for me;
true gazza - this is what its all about for them - incuding keith.........
this is what happens when fans tolerate mediocrity -
bridges, voodoo - i realize alot of fans liked them (or actually: 'its okay...'- banality) - but fans ate the shit up........so the boys think can ask for ANYTHING and not deliver.
June 26th, 2005 05:09 PM
Mel Belli Except that they haven't "scrapped" big shows -- neither arenas nor stadiums. And I don't see how charging $50 for tickets to 3,000-seat venues, as they did on the Licks tour, helps balance the books.
June 26th, 2005 05:22 PM
jb Agre with Gazza ...those of yiou that say it's Mick that's the greedy one, are ignorant. Keith is just as greedy if not more, and unlike Mick, he doesn't show up 3/4 of the time. The Keith
"I'm only in for the music" crowd need to wake up..this guy is a royal ass who can't play anymore.................
June 26th, 2005 05:49 PM
texile exactly...
i love keith as a musician but he's infantile - constantly criticising mick while playing the soulful rebel.......
bullshit;
lest we forget that it was mick who covered for his junkie ass all through the 70s - only for keith to spend the entire 80s demonizing mick as a souless prick; keith hasn't done anything that comes close to wandering spirit....
he's completely bought into his own myth, and has managed to convince everyone else. i hate the keith-worshippers diminishing jagger - the last GREAT stones album was some girls and that was mick's baby.
June 26th, 2005 06:59 PM
jb
quote:
texile wrote:
exactly...
i love keith as a musician but he's infantile - constantly criticising mick while playing the soulful rebel.......
bullshit;
lest we forget that it was mick who covered for his junkie ass all through the 70s - only for keith to spend the entire 80s demonizing mick as a souless prick; keith hasn't done anything that comes close to wandering spirit....
he's completely bought into his own myth, and has managed to convince everyone else. i hate the keith-worshippers diminishing jagger - the last GREAT stones album was some girls and that was mick's baby.

Agreed..but somehow he still played great in the 70's.
June 26th, 2005 07:09 PM
texile being a musician, he's a god.....but damn - he's a lazy fucker and a big baby.
June 26th, 2005 07:17 PM
jb
quote:
texile wrote:
being a musician, he's a god.....but damn - he's a lazy fucker and a big baby.

I always thought Jagger caused the 80's fall out, but I can see where he just got sick of Keith and his put downs...if he(KR) would have kept his mouth shut, maybe the hiatus wouldn't have been 8 yrs and they could have recorded a album worth a toss...............he alienated jagger so, that they have not really worked together in yrs...the results are obvious...
June 26th, 2005 07:50 PM
texile yup...one of the biggest stones' myths is that jagger's "jetsetting" interfered with the stones music in the 70s - and keith was the author of that myth.....
the height of hypocrisy is keith slamming jagger's lifestyle - as if eternally shifting between nodding out and shooting up was somehow more "real";
stu said once that mick held the band together when keith wasn't interested - charlie, taylor all give credit to jagger for holding it together during the 70s......
and he never bitched about it - he simply did what a friend should do;
keith resurrects for tattoo - and it was like nothing happened - and preceded to trash jagger mercilessly through the press;
i get the feeling keith has no idea what it's like working, living with a junkie...like a child who just doesn't get it.
i've always wondered if the rift in the 80s came from some resentment on jagger's part for keith's lack of respect.
June 26th, 2005 09:54 PM
Soldatti
quote:
texile wrote:
this is what happens when fans tolerate mediocrity -
bridges, voodoo - i realize alot of fans liked them (or actually: 'its okay...'- banality) - but fans ate the shit up........so the boys think can ask for ANYTHING and not deliver.



I think that VL is a pretty good record, I don't know how many bands can produce an album like that in their 50's.
June 26th, 2005 11:56 PM
texile it's not bad - just not great.....
they have their moments - moon is up is fantastic, but as a whole cohesive thing.......it's spotty, but i guess i expect too much.
June 27th, 2005 04:08 AM
Poplar as per VL:

too many tracks - and they left a bunch of great songs off. man, if we (as a rocks off collective) could make another cut of Voodoo .. it would be a GREAT album.

that just makes the current task so much harder - expectations higher.


June 27th, 2005 05:19 AM
Gazza
quote:
Soldatti wrote:


I think that VL is a pretty good record, I don't know how many bands can produce an album like that in their 50's.



well thats true about VL, there's not many 'bands' around in their 50's but theres quite a lot of artists still making very good, if not great, music into their 50's and even beyond...

Dylan, Springsteen, Neil Young, Cohen, Lucinda Williams, Steve Earle, Brian Wilson, Van Morrison are all artists I can think of off the top of my head who are past 50 and who still consistently make very good records.

add Johnny Cash and Warren Zevon to that list who were still making excellent records right up until they died
June 27th, 2005 10:53 AM
texile yes. that's what is so frstrating about being a stones fan, knowing thier greatness and watching everyone else surpass them;

dylan, earle, young and cash made albums that stand with thier greats........
the stones have not done that;
i WANT them to do that - i'll be the first to rejoice when they do......but until then, i will expect more.
June 27th, 2005 11:07 AM
gimmekeef Well we are a few short weeks from finding out what they have left..Despite past differences it appears they have really collaborated on this new album.It needs to be at least of Some Girls quality IMHO in order to make it seem like they're still relative...Another "just ok" album that we all over rate due to our allegiance just wont be good enough....
June 27th, 2005 11:21 AM
jb
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Well we are a few short weeks from finding out what they have left..Despite past differences it appears they have really collaborated on this new album.It needs to be at least of Some Girls quality IMHO in order to make it seem like they're still relative...Another "just ok" album that we all over rate due to our allegiance just wont be good enough....

Agree 100%....since "Dirty Work" it's been nothing but crap with the exceprtion of the highly ovberrated VL....Also, I don't think they colloborated art all..they bring in their own material and mix it....that's about it.
June 27th, 2005 12:16 PM
texile its sad that i don't even expect anything great....
who's fault is that?
mine or the stones.
June 27th, 2005 12:20 PM
Moonisup the rolling stones in 2005 playing for the music is just not true anymore! Everybody who thinks they are only in it for the music lives in world where there is no war, and men can have some many wives he can't count them:d
June 27th, 2005 12:24 PM
texile what happened> no passion? too much wealth?
complacency? all of the above? when i got into the stones after some girls, i never thought they would lose that edge........and they did by 85
June 27th, 2005 12:24 PM
gimmekeef Texile...I think many have kinda given up hope of a new classic based on what we've seen for really 75% of the Stones career (scary huh?)...No ones fault but there's if you want to lay blame.I just enjoy what we have and realize there can never be another Sticky or Exile or Let it Bleed...
June 27th, 2005 12:46 PM
texile can you imagine EXPECTING another exile......
dylan fans have avery right to expect a blood on the tracks, because despite some lean years, dylan has continued to evolve as an artist.
when i was growing up in texas, my dad used to watch people like johhny cash on hee haw - i thought it was corny......
i never thought that cash would be more hip than the stones in 2005.
June 27th, 2005 12:51 PM
glencar Whilst I agree that $450 per seat at a concert is a bit much, please don't make the common mistake of overpraising VL. It sucks. Really.
June 27th, 2005 12:55 PM
jb
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
Texile...I think many have kinda given up hope of a new classic based on what we've seen for really 75% of the Stones career (scary huh?)...No ones fault but there's if you want to lay blame.I just enjoy what we have and realize there can never be another Sticky or Exile or Let it Bleed...

I know you are not a fan of mine, but you are correct on the 75% thing..that really shook me up....
June 27th, 2005 01:00 PM
glencar The stuff in the late 70's/early 80's is near classic. The disappointment of late has been the lack of a new album for 8 years. Were they too tored?
June 27th, 2005 01:04 PM
texile soeme girls was the last classic....undercover thier last great album.
that's it and that's a fucking long time ago.
should they have quit?
June 27th, 2005 01:08 PM
jb
quote:
texile wrote:
soeme girls was the last classic....undercover thier last great album.
that's it and that's a fucking long time ago.
should they have quit?


Maybe
June 27th, 2005 01:15 PM
glencar Of course not.
June 27th, 2005 04:05 PM
gimmekeef
quote:
jb wrote:
I know you are not a fan of mine, but you are correct on the 75% thing..that really shook me up....


JB..we have our differences of opinion...but we can always respect each others right to that opinion....
Page: 1 2
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)