|
|
| VOODOO |
What is all this crap about the Stones not being able to sell tickets anymore? (A claim that they deny by the way)
Wasn't it just a couple years back when they were selling out 50 thousand seat stadiums every night? While at the same time U2 was playing to stadiums that were only 1/2 full?
Do you think it's just a coincedence that U2 is playing only 15 to 20 thousand seat indoor dates on this tour?
If I remember U2 booked their tour around the Stones to avoid being in the same town because the Stones were selling so much better than they were.
Don't get me wrong I love U2 but just look at the books the Stones outsell them nearly 3 to 1.
I mean Bridges to Babylon,Voodoo Lounge and Steel Wheels were three of the biggest tours EVER. Did the Stones loose it overnight after 40 years? I doubt it.
Look at Madonna's tour she is selling out but she is only playing to 15 to 20 thousand people a night in small indoor venues. If the Stones played to that few people every night it would be considered a bomb.
When Madonna sells all of her tickets for any given show she is only playing to 1/3 of the people that the Stones play to every night on their stadium tours.
The Stones are the only stadium band left in the world.
People have been counting them out for 25 years now and every time they prove the critics wrong. 2002 will be no exception and neither will the 2005 or 2008 tours.
|
|
|
| SAGJ |
I don't think that U2's move to playing arenas was motivated by any bottom line considerations, or because they think they can't draw -- I think bands are finally starting to sense that stadium shows have had it, and I think the Stones may come to the same conclusion. I don't think the Stones playing to 20,000 people every night would be a flop -- that's an accountant's mentality. The only way anyone could flop would be to get up on that stage without wanting to be there, and sounding that way, and the Stones would never do that.
I have always despised stadium shows -- that "huge spirit of celebration" bit has always been crap. The music can draw everyone in, but you have to meet the band halfway, and a whole lot of people in stadiums are too stupid, too far removed, or too drunk and stoned from sitting there for hours waiting to do that. Some of them act like the band is there to see THEM.
I have never seen the need for the circus -- it doesn't detract from the music in the Stones' instance, but it doesn't really add anything, and it jacks up ticket prices. I mean, what Jagger could do onstage with no prop other than a belt leaves most of these circus roadshows in the dust. |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
Couldn't agree with you more, SAGJ! The Stones have successfully sold out stadiums around the world. They don't need to prove that anymore.
As Gazza (and others) pointed out months ago, was the probability - maybe certainty - that the Stones, like the No Security tour, will play an arena tour. There's less seats, yes, but they charge more and perhaps play more multiple-night cities. I think it's fair to assume that most people enjoyed the No Security tour over Bridges.
Aerosmith is currently using this same concept with their 2001 Just Push Play tour...they're playing mostly Amphitheatres with a 2nd stage on the lawn. I had the opportunity to see them in Toronto leaning on the barrier on the lawn. And, with the smaller, intimate venue concept, I prefer that set-up over "circus" stadiums.
Finally, another reason to showing the Stones' patience and confidence is simply the fact that the haven't rushed into touring in the new millenium like many acts wanted to do. Remember New Year's 2000? All that gossip and ticket price robbery. The Stones, especially Charlie, wanted to spend it with family; not have the opportunity to say they played a gig that night. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]