| September 5th, 2005 02:54 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Jaxx wrote:
what was once underground, counter culture and rebellion is now main stream and over priced.
Well that's not the Stones fault. |
| September 5th, 2005 03:22 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
the last bit certainly is no-one else's fault... |
| September 5th, 2005 03:30 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
the last bit certainly is no-one else's fault...
Not theirs either. Supply and Demand. |
| September 5th, 2005 03:36 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
nope..greed and ego. Thats all.
Supply and demand doesnt force them to sell tickets for $450 when they could easily do it for $75 and still make a fortune like artists like Springsteen do. |
| September 5th, 2005 03:42 PM |
|
|
| Stray Cat UK |
since 1998 - ticket prices and tax avoidance .When they pulled the 98 UK shows I almost gave up on them in disgust !
But only for a couple of weeks - you know how it is.
sc uk
and Keith's constant attacks on Mick are wearing a bit thin. |
| September 5th, 2005 07:13 PM |
|
|
| Trey Krimsin |
It's been said before, but I'll repeat the same theme. What I hate is that a guy like me, who works for a few dollars above minimum wage, cannot even afford one ticket to a Rolling Stones concert. They're one of the very few rock bands I would pay to see live, but their prices are so high, I'd have to ask for a layaway option to pay for them. I know their shows are well attended (the proof is in the attendence numbers, gross profit, and total sales), but it would soar even higher if the guy at the bus stop can afford to buy four tickets.
[Edited by Trey Krimsin] |
| September 5th, 2005 07:48 PM |
|
|
| winter |
two words:
DIRTY WORK
Ya moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove it to the left - Vomit!
Oh, and the fact that they have never played winter live.
wintah |
| September 5th, 2005 08:00 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Nothing, maybe the whole 2004 issues (the box sets, alfie, live licks) |
| September 6th, 2005 12:10 AM |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
Do I love something about the Rolling Stones? Yes, I do. I love the fact that they provided the sound track for my troubled youth and lacidasical(sp?) young adulthood.
My 2 cents on ticket prices:
If the Rolling Stones don't charge $450 for the tickets somebody else will. (If You Can't Rock Me Somebody Will) Would you rather the money go to scalpers or toward the cost of an over-the-top stadium show? If the market will bare $450 dollars-a-ticket that is what the tickets will sell for, no matter what the face value of the ticket is. It's Economics 101. And for History 101 consider The Stones '72 tour. They tried to hold the ticket price down and made a lot of ner-do-wells a lot of money in the process. And to continue my gripe, there was a lot of $130 (or there abouts) tickets widely available, if you don't mind sitting in the nose bleed sections, which is often where the best parties are happening anyway. But I agree with you, even $130 is too much for me. The market has priced me out. Another basic law of economics: you can never pay more for something than it is worth. It was worth that much to you when you bought it or you wouldnt have bought it. And I'm not buyin'. The Stones are sadly over for me. It was a folly of my youth. A 450 dollar ticket is not going to recapture a minute of my youth - much less a whole evening of it and certainly not in a cold, afterdark stadium. |
| September 6th, 2005 12:28 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
I hate !!!
Therefore I am! |
| September 6th, 2005 02:48 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
I think Jaxx's comment is pretty odd.
I mean, are the Who still mods?
Are YOU still a hippie?
I aint being mean. Just saying - they've changed. You've changed.
That whole counter culture thing died 2 or 3 generations ago. What do they do? Apologise for still going? I dont think you'd be too impressed with Jimi, Jim, or Janis if they lived either. Times change, and people should too.
As far as ticket prices - oh, boo-hoo. If people only earn slightly above minimum wage then get another job. Maybe ya should have gone to College? I see many tickets are way under $100.00. What the hell is wrong with that?
They can command the prices they ask for 1 easy reason. People will pay. I know i will. Money aint a thing. Hell, i spent $100.00 on Friday night at the over 28's "Grab a Granny night in Chelsea Heights. Good night too!
Would any of you pay $450.00 for Superbowl tickets? What about Soccer World Cup? What about box seats at the Ashes? Maybe a marquee at the Kentucky Derby? Though, we all know that is nothing on the Melbourne Cup. If my team make the Aussie Rules Grand Final, i'll pay what ever i have to. $1,000 is not out of the question. For a nosebleed seat.
If they dug up Lennon and Harrison, attached electrodes to them, gave them the brain of criminals, waited for a thunderstorm, then plonked them onstage with Macca & Ringo - how much would you pay to see that? $90.00? $45.00 with a pensioner discount? 150 food stamps perhaps?
The Stones are not some local pub band. They are not the Black Crowes. They are the premier live act in the history of rock. Actually, i think the amount of people and amount of money they have played to and earnt makes them the premier live act in history!!
People refusing to pay top dollar for tickets is good news for people like me. Means i get the good seats. I can rattle my gold chains at ya's.
Please, no one take offence. I am everybody's buddy. |
| September 6th, 2005 03:19 AM |
|
|
| Branko |
1978 and on. |
| September 6th, 2005 04:48 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
LuckyWithTheLadies wrote:
If the Rolling Stones don't charge $450 for the tickets somebody else will. (If You Can't Rock Me Somebody Will) Would you rather the money go to scalpers or toward the cost of an over-the-top stadium show?
I'd rather it went to neither, quite frankly. You say it as if theres no other alternative. Thats bunkum.
To say it goes towards the "cost" of an over the top stadium show is nonsensical. The stadium shows were 'over the top' as late as 1998 and the ticket prices were $65. They still managed to make a fortune out of it, which is fair enough.
Bottom line is theyre charging $450 even for an obstructed side view in an arena show (which has less overheads)- tickets which cost a third as much on the last tour! And $450 for a seat on a bloody field is scandalous as well.
Saying you can sit in nosebleeds for $160 is hardly addressing the issue either. |
| September 6th, 2005 04:51 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Would any of you pay $450.00 for Superbowl tickets? What about Soccer World Cup? What about box seats at the Ashes? Maybe a marquee at the Kentucky Derby? Though, we all know that is nothing on the Melbourne Cup. If my team make the Aussie Rules Grand Final, i'll pay what ever i have to. $1,000 is not out of the question. For a nosebleed seat.
If they dug up Lennon and Harrison, attached electrodes to them, gave them the brain of criminals, waited for a thunderstorm, then plonked them onstage with Macca & Ringo - how much would you pay to see that? $90.00? $45.00 with a pensioner discount? 150 food stamps perhaps?
those events you quoted are mostly once in a lifetime or at best once a year events. A rock concert isnt. It wasnt a "once in a lifetime" event 5 or 6 years ago...how come its priced as one now?
[Edited by Gazza] |
| September 6th, 2005 06:00 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
I hate that they attract so many whiners. |
| September 6th, 2005 07:09 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Sycophants and blind cheerleaders are my personal pet hate... |
| September 6th, 2005 07:14 AM |
|
|
| egon |
i agree about ticket prices, although do not have
any problems myself with geting the money.
but they can ask these prices, cos they know they're not going to attract
a new & young crowd anyway (with no money) |
| September 6th, 2005 07:49 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
nope..greed and ego. Thats all.
 |
| September 6th, 2005 07:51 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
LOL
(by the way, your avatars are getting cooler by the week..its becoming a veritable Mt Rushmore of Icons) |
| September 6th, 2005 09:50 AM |
|
|
| sj |
Don't like the way the Stones unite people in one common cause - to have a good time, feel good and forget their worries for the 2 hours they're at the show.
Prefer we're all divided based on colour, race, sex, age, opinion, so everyone's looking at each other suspiciously and arguing with each other.
Cheers to the Stones for a magnificent innings, and they're still not out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----
Should have, could have, would have, but didn't. Oh well, shit happens. Did you happen to guess my name? |
| September 6th, 2005 10:59 AM |
|
|
| LuckyWithTheLadies |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I'd rather it went to neither, quite frankly. You say it as if theres no other alternative. Thats bunkum.
The alternative is to price the tickets at the Springsteen prices or whoever prices, see the tickests all sell out the first day, and then for weeks leading up to the concert see them sold in the back of Rolling Stone magizine for $450. In '89 I could not get tickets at their face value. In the preinternet age I dailed my phone for hours trying to get through, and than paid some ticket agency in the back of Rolling Stone mag a $120 for the $65 (or whatever its was, i dont remember) in close to nose bleed seats. Yes, some lucky poor blokes will land the ticket at the cheap price the first day they go on sell, but for every ticket that finds its way to a proverty stricken fan about 100 tickets will go to a "ticket finding agency." This is almost impossible to stop. Even some of the tickets pre sold this time around through the rolling stones own website were for sell at inflated prices immediately after they were sold to "fans".
quote:
To say it goes towards the "cost" of an over the top stadium show is nonsensical. The stadium shows were 'over the top' as late as 1998 and the ticket prices were $65. They still managed to make a fortune out of it, which is fair enough.
My quess would be that the cost of the last tour or this tour would dwarf the cost of the 98 tour. I saw somewhere that this tour needs 70 trucks to move. I dont remember where i saw that it might be just media hype. But as Jagger pointed out in the 4 Flick documentary the cost of moveing the stage is the expensive part. Again this is just a quess, but i'm betting the 98 tour only needed about half the trucks and crew that this tour does.
quote:
Bottom line is theyre charging $450 even for an obstructed side view in an arena show (which has less overheads)- tickets which cost a third as much on the last tour! And $450 for a seat on a bloody field is scandalous as well.
I agree with you. I think they are ridiculously over priced, apparently other people don't. I am not sure I agree with you on the less overhead in an arena. Its just a guess but i'm betting the cost is close to the same and with a lot less tickets to sell.
I bought obstructed view seats in the Omni for the voodoo tour and was very happy with them. When mick came out the catwalk he was only a few feet from me. I got luck with obstructed view for an arena ZZ Top concert and for a Who stadium show, many years ago. I was sitting off to the side but very close Townshend.
quote:
Saying you can sit in nosebleeds for $160 is hardly addressing the issue either.
I agree with you. But I dont know that there is really anything the Stones can do about it other than drive to your house and personaly hand you a ticket and promise to break your knee caps you if you resell it.
But maybe 100 bucks isnt that bad for the show that they put on. If that type of show is your cup of tea, and apparently to a lot of middle america it is. Tickets for some shows in Vegas can get that expensive and in terms of sheer size and qlitz the stones colosally out do vegas shows. Elton John is chargeing 130 to 300 just to come out and play a red piano at Ceasars Palace. |
| September 6th, 2005 11:19 AM |
|
|
| Jaxx |
[quote]corgi37 wrote:
I think Jaxx's comment is pretty odd.
I mean, are the Who still mods?
Are YOU still a hippie?
I aint being mean. Just saying - they've changed. You've changed.
no, i'm not still a hippie, but i'm still counter culture and rebellious. i hate main stream. i hate cookie cutter. i hate the songs of my youth glaring at me from commercials on tv. i feel our rock icons have sold out. i like to hang onto a bit of my idealism in such a jaded world.
rolling stones ticket prices are outrageous. i caught a week of dead shows at red rocks last summer for 50 bucks a show..$250 for the week. hell i can fly my family to visit their grandmother in florida for $450 bucks. |
| September 6th, 2005 11:21 AM |
|
|
| hotlicks |
mick jagger i do hope you're reading this ! |
| September 6th, 2005 11:24 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
[quote]Jaxx wrote:
rolling stones ticket prices are outrageous. i caught a week of dead shows at red rocks last summer for 50 bucks a show..$250 for the week. hell i can fly my family to visit their grandmother in florida for $450 bucks. "
You raise an interesting point my mile high momma .... I too have felt the Rolling Stones have no need whatsoever to charge such an outrageous ....................WAIT !!!!!!!
Jaxx ?!?!
JAXXY ?!?!?!
Is that really YOU ?!?!?! Where in the HELL have you been these past few months ? One thing about you Jaxx , you were ALWAYS Minty Fresh and MAN could you write a post .
Welcome Home My Stonesian Queen
The Jacky , Established 1999
|
| September 6th, 2005 11:44 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
LuckyWithTheLadies wrote:
The alternative is to price the tickets at the Springsteen prices or whoever prices, see the tickests all sell out the first day, and then for weeks leading up to the concert see them sold in the back of Rolling Stone magizine for $450. In '89 I could not get tickets at their face value. In the preinternet age I dailed my phone for hours trying to get through, and than paid some ticket agency in the back of Rolling Stone mag a $120 for the $65 (or whatever its was, i dont remember) in close to nose bleed seats. Yes, some lucky poor blokes will land the ticket at the cheap price the first day they go on sell, but for every ticket that finds its way to a proverty stricken fan about 100 tickets will go to a "ticket finding agency." This is almost impossible to stop. Even some of the tickets pre sold this time around through the rolling stones own website were for sell at inflated prices immediately after they were sold to "fans".
first come first served is fine by me. Its a tough ticket to get, but they shouldnt just hike them up to discourage people and dress it up as an attempt to beat scalping, when theyre effectively involved in that game themselves in all but name by siphoning thousands of tickets off per show to brokers and people like that. It is NOT almost impossible to stop with an adequately run fan club (at $100 its the least you should expect) and a system where the BEST seats (the ones the scalpers and brokers are ONLY interested in) are sold on a will call basis with, say, a 2-ticket per application maximum. Worked on Springsteen's 1999-2000 reunion tour (even without the added help of fan club presales because he didnt have such a system)
>quote:
My quess would be that the cost of the last tour or this tour would dwarf the cost of the 98 tour. I saw somewhere that this tour needs 70 trucks to move. I dont remember where i saw that it might be just media hype. But as Jagger pointed out in the 4 Flick documentary the cost of moveing the stage is the expensive part. Again this is just a quess, but i'm betting the 98 tour only needed about half the trucks and crew that this tour does.
yes it obviously costs more, due to inflation but I'd imagine the crew sizes would be in a similar ballpark. Theyre both elaborate stage sets that 'leapfrog' from city to city. That said, the bridge alone on the BTB tour cost $1 million a WEEK to maintain - all for that 15 minute slot in the show. They still kept the ticket prices reasonable and havent had a stage gimmick since that would have eaten into their profits to THAT extent
>quote:
I agree with you. I think they are ridiculously over priced, apparently other people don't. I am not sure I agree with you on the less overhead in an arena. Its just a guess but i'm betting the cost is close to the same and with a lot less tickets to sell.
well, an arena TOUR would simply require less of a crew, so that cuts on overheads. Other acts can manage to do that and keep their tickets below $100. However, the BTB tour in 97-98 had a ticket price of $65...the No Security tour the following year had a ticket average of $109, with the highest ones being $350 and the lowest $40. The prices since have gone gradually upwards (naturally) although the proportion of cheaper seats each tour has decreased. (I paid $164 for a MSG ticket in 2002...when I went to buy tickets for the same venue two weeks ago I was offered a seat in the same row (side view) for $450)
>quote:
I bought obstructed view seats in the Omni for the voodoo tour and was very happy with them. When mick came out the catwalk he was only a few feet from me. I got luck with obstructed view for an arena ZZ Top concert and for a Who stadium show, many years ago. I was sitting off to the side but very close Townshend.
oh obstructed view seats can be fine. Those side seats we got at MSG in 2002 turned out to be very good...but an obstructed side view for $450?
>quote:
I agree with you. But I dont know that there is really anything the Stones can do about it other than drive to your house and personaly hand you a ticket and promise to break your knee caps you if you resell it.
I could live with that. But as I said, being a bit more careful about how the BEST seats are sold and distributed would help. Basically, sell the best 2,000 (or so) seats in the house like you would if you were selling tickets for a theatre show, because THEY are the 'in demand' seats that the scalpers want. Will call only. Fan club members first, if necessary.
quote:
But maybe 100 bucks isnt that bad for the show that they put on. If that type of show is your cup of tea, and apparently to a lot of middle america it is. Tickets for some shows in Vegas can get that expensive and in terms of sheer size and qlitz the stones colosally out do vegas shows. Elton John is chargeing 130 to 300 just to come out and play a red piano at Ceasars Palace.
yeah, but see this is where I obviously dont 'get it' and I'm glad I dont. Last time I looked this was a rock n roll show, not Vegas, and the Stones were supposed to be a rock n roll band. A lot of people justify this by comparing it to Las Vegas or some big sports event. Its neither. We should be comparing it to other rock n roll shows and looking at other artists who can stil make themselves a shitload of cash (which as a capitalist I dont begrudge the Stones making!) but who still dont feel the need to bleed people white in doing so.
the bottom line is that the Stones and Cohl have this obsession with making a fixed amount of money per show. That seems to override everything and in the end dictates the sort of show the band will play (and effectively the songs they will play). The main reason why this is primarily a stadium tour is because the financial guarantees Cohl asked for was too much for most arenas so in order to secure their minimum guarantee they ended up playing more stadiums instead, and totally scrapping the idea to play ANY theatres at all. I think its a pity that after seeing the band reinvent themselves so much on the last tour as a live act capable of playing diverse types of shows that this obsession with outgrossing U2 and McCartney has on this tour seen them - artistically - take a step backwards (although I'm sure the shows themselves are still excellent and I look forward to seeing a few) |
| September 6th, 2005 11:48 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Jaxx wrote:
no, i'm not still a hippie, but i'm still counter culture and rebellious. i hate main stream. i hate cookie cutter. i hate the songs of my youth glaring at me from commercials on tv. i feel our rock icons have sold out. i like to hang onto a bit of my idealism in such a jaded world.
rolling stones ticket prices are outrageous. i caught a week of dead shows at red rocks last summer for 50 bucks a show..$250 for the week. hell i can fly my family to visit their grandmother in florida for $450 bucks.
now THATs posting |
| September 6th, 2005 11:58 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
the rolling stones money machine, certainly this tour
the fact that keith disses mick, while mick is very important to keep things on the rails |
| September 6th, 2005 11:59 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
now THATs posting
Amen !!!!
Flacky Carson !
|
|
|
V
|
| September 6th, 2005 11:59 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
...but we still love the 'little shower of shit' despite it all |
| September 6th, 2005 12:00 PM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
Corgi:
- oh, boo-hoo. If people only earn slightly above minimum wage then get another job.
that's a really dumb comment, and stupid to say |
