|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
gustavobala wrote:
As a trash man, I scary sound fiscal business decisions, particularly when it pertains to my favorite band!
Many houses are for sale in my subdivision due to poor financial decisions of buyers by taking loans out for 500K-1M dollars with an ARM loan. The change in rate, coupled with the drastic rise in property taxes in my part of Cook County has forced ignorant homebuyers to take a loss on their house and try selling in a stagnant market or risk certain foreclosure!!! |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Is this private show really that bad?
Am I missing something here?
Is the band's participation of this type
of corporate sponsored event the problem?
I am having a hard time understanding why
any band should say "sorry we should not play"
for a paycheck such as this type.
This band has toured constantly since 1989.
They have played venues small & large, multiple nights.
They have had corporate sponsorship since 1981.
It's not that corporate money is a new thing
for the Stones.
I might speculate that it is this corporate money which has allowed many here to enjoy the Stones.
Is it the fact that other bands, or performers of this ilk choose not to perform in this manner, that all should not?
I'm not so certain I see anything morally bankrupt about this, as well anything which would tarnish my image of this band.
I think the main item here is each and every one of us would love to be in that room, thus it would appear more jealousy than anything, however, I certainly could be wrong.
|
|
|
| mrhipfl |
when does this thing start? Bankers usually go to bed early, no? |
|
|
| gustavobala |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Many houses are for sale in my subdivision due to poor financial decisions of buyers by taking loans out for 500K-1M dollars with an ARM loan. The change in rate, coupled with the drastic rise in property taxes in my part of Cook County has forced ignorant homebuyers to take a loss on their house and try selling in a stagnant market or risk certain foreclosure!!!
thanxs voodoo....when i will be a illegal imigrant in states, i will remeber this firs lesson....LOL |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Is this private show really that bad?
Am I missing something here?
Is the band's participation of this type
of corporate sponsored event the problem?
I am having a hard time understanding why
any band should say "sorry we should not play"
for a paycheck such as this type.
This band has toured constantly since 1989.
They have played venues small & large, multiple nights.
They have had corporate sponsorship since 1981.
It's not that corporate money is a new thing
for the Stones.
I might speculate that it is this corporate money which has allowed many here to enjoy the Stones.
Is it the fact that other bands, or performers of this ilk choose not to perform in this manner, that all should not?
I'm not so certain I see anything morally bankrupt about this, as well anything which would tarnish my image of this band.
I think the main item here is each and every one of us would love to be in that room, thus it would appear more jealousy than anything, however, I certainly could be wrong.
Thank you! One hundred percent accurate. I appreciate your willingness to go against the sheep and post the truth!
Good luck with the rest of the Red Sox Season! |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
gustavobala wrote:
thanxs voodoo....when i will be a illegal imigrant in states, i will remeber this firs lesson....LOL
Come now while legislation is in limbo!!!! |
|
|
| gustavobala |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Come now while legislation is in limbo!!!!
like a "trash man and scary bussiness", i know how the brazilian capitalism works...and do my money here...lol |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
gustavobala wrote:
like a "trash man and scary bussiness", i know how the brazilian capitalism works...and do my money here...lol
Please be safe! Greet only those who will not harm you! |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
I appreciate your willingness to go against the sheep...
Go against the sheep????????????
You're walking on thin ice there son.
 |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Go against the sheep????????????
You're walking on thin ice there son.
 |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Is this private show really that bad?
Am I missing something here?
Is the band's participation of this type
of corporate sponsored event the problem?
I am having a hard time understanding why
any band should say "sorry we should not play"
for a paycheck such as this type.
This band has toured constantly since 1989.
They have played venues small & large, multiple nights.
They have had corporate sponsorship since 1981.
It's not that corporate money is a new thing
for the Stones.
I might speculate that it is this corporate money which has allowed many here to enjoy the Stones.
Is it the fact that other bands, or performers of this ilk choose not to perform in this manner, that all should not?
I'm not so certain I see anything morally bankrupt about this, as well anything which would tarnish my image of this band.
I think the main item here is each and every one of us would love to be in that room, thus it would appear more jealousy than anything, however, I certainly could be wrong.
I dont think a private gig is 'wrong', per se. Theyre entitled to play whatever shows they want. Nor do I have a problem with big business being a factor in a tour.
Its just a bit of a kick in the teeth that at the start of the tour 2 years ago, thousands of us signed up for rs.com memberships on the promise of theatre shows (Cohl even confirmed the ticket price for them). No such shows ever materialised. Any intimate gigs have been for high rollers, private corporations or in the case of the Beacon "film shoot" with a largely manufactured audience replete with a 'token gesture' which allowed some locally-based fans in.
Bottom line is that in a tour of some 150 shows, its hardly going to kill them to play one or two theatre shows for their fanbase where people can actually use their extortionately priced membership (which was sold under false pretences and which for most people hasnt seen them receive the benefits of said membership promised when they signed up) to buy a ticket to see them in an intimate setting. Aside from the 3 large arena shows in London at the end of the tour, of the 49 shows in Europe over the last 2 years, not one has taken place in anything smaller than a stadium. Would a simple gesture of a theatre show for FANS have been too much to ask, considering how many people were inconvenienced by cancellations and how many have paid a lot of money to see them over the last 2 years?
If theyre going to play private gigs, fine - but this shouldnt be the ONLY way they'll do intimate shows. What does it say to you that on the 45th anniversary of the birth of the greatest rock n roll band in the world, theyre playing a private show in a fucking museum for a bunch of bankers who probably couldnt care less who they are and for whom theyre basically the cabaret? yep, nothing screams "rock n roll" louder than that. Is that what it's come to? Personally, as a fan of the band, I find it demeaning to see them viewed in that way.
The Stones are always reminding us what a buzz they get from their audiences, how they wouldnt JUST do it for the money if they didnt enjoy it, how "you can keep the money, pal" (thank you, Keith), etc - yet when they play a small venue, its their real fans who get excluded from seeing them. Surely they cant get much of a kick artistically from playing to people who generally arent that interested?
here's an account of the Pepsi corporate show in Hawaii in 1998 -
http://iorr.org/rew97/pepsi.htm
Read that third paragraph closely. Heartwarming isnt it? Thats part of the problem. They play an intimate show which we'd all love to see - but do so to an audience who dont care. Its lost on them. Rumours are that tonights gig could be an all-acoustic show. When did that ever happen before? How many in that audience would be able to appreciate something like that?
If theyre to play again after 2007, its unlikely they'll do major tours like the one theyre currently on. The alternative, if theyre still wanting to generate the income that will motivate them to even make the effort, will be more and more shows like this where they will get a lot of money to trundle out a 90 minute set of their hits and therefore not stretch themselves too much, to a select few groups of high rollers with low expectations and where their fanbase wont get a look in. Creative death. Is that what people will be happy with? Sorry, but I have higher expectations of a great band than that.
And if its just 'corporate money' that has allowed us to see the band, then please stop referring to the Stones as a "rock n roll band". You cant have it both ways. Corporate sponsorship shouldnt be (and it isnt) the only thing that finances a tour. There's four and a half million examples of 'personal' sponsorship in the last two years which disprove that. They could tour without it and still make a fortune (other artists manage to). While theyre perfectly entitled to make money that way, it shouldnt be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| FotiniD |
Well Nellcote, the way I see it, this gig is not something new or surprising - as we all know, they have after all made a lot of compromises during the past decades and they're way too deep into the corporate side of music either way...
But for me, this gig sort of epitomizes everything the Stones have become and did not use to be. All the negative aspects of having enjoyed ridiculous success, to the point you've totally forgotten your roots and become alienated with something that used to mean a lot to you - music. Playing in front of an audience that actually cares. Not that there's any guarantee that people who pay $70 or $90 to see the Stones in a stadium will all care more than a bunch of bankers, but the chances are more in the first case, aren't they?
I don't like big words, but hell, this does embody the Rolling Stones sell-out during the last years. "Parvenu", is this the right word? Can you imagine the Glimmer Twins of the seventies agreeing to something like that? Well, I can't and if they did, that just means they were a greedy bunch of bastards from the start and music was just an excuse. And I don't believe that.
Now, who bets "Rain fall down" is totally out of the question? 
The bankers are wankers, every Thursday night
They just vomit on that ground |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
Well Nellcote, the way I see it, this gig is not something new or surprising - as we all know, they have after all made a lot of compromises during the past decades and they're way too deep into the corporate side of music either way...
But for me, this gig sort of epitomizes everything the Stones have become and did not use to be. All the negative aspects of having enjoyed ridiculous success, to the point you've totally forgotten your roots and become alienated with something that used to mean a lot to you - music. Playing in front of an audience that actually cares. Not that there's any guarantee that people who pay $70 or $90 to see the Stones in a stadium will all care more than a bunch of bankers, but the chances are more in the first case, aren't they?
I don't like big words, but hell, this does embody the Rolling Stones sell-out during the last years. "Parvenu", is this the right word? Can you imagine the Glimmer Twins of the seventies agreeing to something like that? Well, I can't and if they did, that just means they were a greedy bunch of bastards from the start and music was just an excuse. And I don't believe that.
Now, who bets "Rain fall down" is totally out of the question?
The bankers are wankers, every Thursday night
They just vomit on that ground
Keep in mind that in 1981 the Stones virtually invented the idea of "corporate sponsorship"
I can relate to some of Gazza's sentiments (particularly about the promise of club shows).
The reality is that a small venue would expose them these days...I fear tonites acoustic show could really expose Keith in particular unless Chaplin heavily covers for him. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Keep in mind that in 1981 the Stones virtually invented the idea of "corporate sponsorship"
This is true, but then again tickets cost about 5% of what they do now.
If anything, corporate sponsorship should drive ticket prices DOWN, and not through the roof. |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Keep in mind that in 1981 the Stones virtually invented the idea of "corporate sponsorship"
I can relate to some of Gazza's sentiments (particularly about the promise of club shows).
The reality is that a small venue would expose them these days...I fear tonites acoustic show could really expose Keith in particular unless Chaplin heavily covers for him.
Yeah, they obviously did. Lots of greed there, dammit. Sometimes I get to thinking they'd be better off if they had just a small fanbase. They'd have kept their heads on the ground, perhaps.
I remember reading somewhere (don't know how credible it is) how Keith in particular finds the Meet & Greet they do before the gigs fun, because most of the people there are from major companies and all, and it's like they're getting back at them this way. Like they're taking advantage, like it's a rebellious act or something.
Well, if that's not a skewed view of reality, I don't know what is. Pretending your band is still rebellious because some corporate people pay to get a photo with you. They've become such a huge part of the 'system' and they act like they don't see it. It's a let-down, and yes, the timing couldn't be worse, 45-year anniversary and all.
Think they're gonna mention it? Nah. |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
This is true, but then again tickets cost about 5% of what they do now.
If anything, corporate sponsorship should drive ticket prices DOWN, and not through the roof.
Blame Don Henley....this all started with The Eagles during their "reunion tour"
Many industries seen price increases not on par with increase in the GNP of most countries.
ie. Restaurants such as Mortons and Rosebud (charging over $100USD per head for an average dinner) were few and far between 20 years ago. Today, there are between 15-20 such places near my home. Baseball tickets were very commonly found for under $6 per ticket, those days are long gone.
We must learn to adjust to the current market. Until the tours are "in the red" just bend over and take the price increases or protest by not going....spending the money and then complaining about it just makes you part of the system. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
"The poor prince of wales
he gave up his crown
all for the trivial pursuit
of some parvenu second hand lady
so lovers beware
if you lose your heart
careful now don't lose your mind
don't mortgage your soul to a stranger."
|
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Blame Don Henley....this all started with The Eagles during their "reunion tour"
They may have started it. The Stones simply ripped the arse clean out of it.
quote:
Many industries seen price increases not on par with increase in the GNP of most countries.
ie. Restaurants such as Mortons and Rosebud (charging over $100USD per head for an average dinner) were few and far between 20 years ago. Today, there are between 15-20 such places near my home.
You should move if thats the only option you have..especially if the meal is 'average'. Comparing a rock n roll concert ticket to a restuarant bill is absurd. Try comparing it to other rock n roll acts instead.
quote:
Baseball tickets were very commonly found for under $6 per ticket, those days are long gone.
One would expect that with inflation, but youre not paying $800 for a 'hot seat', I'm sure...
quote:
We must learn to adjust to the current market. Until the tours are "in the red" just bend over and take the price increases or protest by not going....spending the money and then complaining about it just makes you part of the system.
I choose NOT to 'spend the money', thank you very much. In most cases, I'll choose to pay what I think are the limits of what is reasonable, even if I can afford to pay more.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
only thing i can think of is that one of them wants to compete in terms of having a better house or something |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
They may have started it. The Stones simply ripped the arse clean out of it.
You should move if thats the only option you have..especially if the meal is 'average'. Comparing a rock n roll concert ticket to a restuarant bill is absurd. Try comparing it to other rock n roll acts instead.
One would expect that with inflation, but youre not paying $800 for a 'hot seat', I'm sure...
I choose NOT to 'spend the money', thank you very much. In most cases, I'll choose to pay what I think are the limits of what is reasonable, even if I can afford to pay more.
[Edited by Gazza]
Keep in mind there are several acts charging big bucks:
"evil" Macca
Babs Streisand
The Police
Eagles
The Who
I purchased two tickets, 5th row from bullpen for a weekday Cubs/Cardinals game, face value was $60ea. $50ea for upper tank during the 35 "prime games"
I could always eat at "The Olive Garden"! We only frequent the top dollar restaraunts 2-3 times per month, and I will not patronize one that does not serve 5 star food at that price.
Cohl and Co are simply letting the market dictate to pricing. Was it reasonable for David Beckham to get the kind of money he was just signed for? Of course not, but the market dictated his value, he is not at fault, the consumer (in this case his team/sponsors) who purchased the services of David.
Sometimes its a cruel fiscal world out there and we must all make our choices! |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I choose NOT to 'spend the money', thank you very much. In most cases, I'll choose to pay what I think are the limits of what is reasonable, even if I can afford to pay more.
[Edited by Gazza]
"Now, there's no use crying or weeping. You'd better lock up your soul for safekeeping!
Promise me!"
_____________________________
(Nasty's Bigger Bang Tour Dates: 0. Nasty's personal $$$ Spent on Rolling Stones product 2005-present: $13.50 Wholesale price, Bigger Bang Double LP. Oh, and I got a copy of that Voodoo Lounge CD Rom for $3.00 at the flea market last weekend.)
|
|
|
| Gazza |
The Who dont charge "big bucks" in Europe. Maybe they reckon that over here there are less people that gullible. |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The Who dont charge "big bucks" in Europe. Maybe they reckon that over here there are less people that gullible.
essentially the Who are less of a money making entity though, surely? |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
Who will take care of the setlist? |
|
|
| Altamont |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
Who will take care of the setlist?
It's rumored to be a 90 minute medley of Indian Girl / Gomper / Leavell piano solo, while Voodoopug dances in a cage on the b stage. |
|
|
| Strange_Stray_Cat |
quote:
Altamont wrote:
It's rumored to be a 90 minute medley of Indian Girl / Gomper / Leavell piano solo, while Voodoopug dances in a cage on the b stage.
Will it be taped? |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
speedfreakjive wrote:
essentially the Who are less of a money making entity though, surely?
as is everybody else on that list! Point being though that Who tickets in the US go above $200 for the better seats, putting them in the same elite group as the list of acts that Pug refers to. However, over here theyre much the same as any other 2nd tier act. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
Will it be taped?
Tarped, more like... |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
Who will take care of the setlist?
No-one. Unless they play anything other than 15 versions of 'Satisfaction', no one will recognise anything. |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
No-one. Unless they play anything other than 15 versions of 'Satisfaction', no one will recognise anything.
I had a similar experience at a Dylan concert two summers ago, I couldn't recognize one song....show did not sell well (even at $50 per ticket)!
As per usual, Chuck will write the setlist and then seek Mick's approval. Keith will sign off on it unless he feels he needs to take a stand! |
|
