|
|
| VOODOO |
Why are people so down on the Stones in England? Over in the US they sellout stadiums of 50,000 nearly every show. I had to pay $150 dollars per ticket to a scalper to get bad seats for their last tour because they sold out so quickly.
There records sell quite well here Voodoo Lounge got to #2 and Bridges to Babylon to #3 in the US. I know that their recent records have also sold well worldwide. Bridges to Babylon has sold around 5 million copies worldwide.
So why is it that in their homeland the Stones don't seem (From an outsiders point of view) to enjoy the same success
that they do here in the US and in most places around the world?
The thing that makes me laugh is that the Brit's go crazy for such mediocre talent such as Robbie Williams, Kylie Minogue, Posh and Baby Spice. Would you guys rather buy a record from Posh spice than the legendary Mick Jagger?
Have the great people of England lost their mind when it comes to music?
The new Jagger record seems on a pace to at least go gold in the US perhaps even more. The solo record will most likely not sell millions of copies in the US but the next Stones record and tour will.
Hey England get with the program the Stones are one of the greatest groups ever, Robbie Williams and Posh spice are not. |
|
|
| adam krupa |
it's because we've got all your damn bands clogging up our circuit, and the money men are hyping them up even if they are shite eg, Strokes ( I had argument after argument with the stuck up A&R about these toss pots)
Now stop winging- go buy some of my art @ www.akakrupa.com |
|
|
| Stray Cat |
No easy answer to that one VOODOO.There is a general tendancy to "Build 'em up and knock 'em down" in Britan,although the tax cop out in 1998 went down very badly with the public and "tourist" type fans (hardcore fans sailed to Holland or Paris ).Sorry ,too drunk to think tonight......trying to learn Love in vain chords again. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Why are people so down on the Stones in England?
"People" in general arent. They have more important things to get worked up about. The media tends to be quite age-ist though when it comes to music - America is a bit like that too,but not in such a mocking and disrespectful manner. Punk also changed the public's outlook to music more so than it did in America as regard "older" artists.
The UK media also has a very different attitude to success than in America -in America,people like winners. In Britain,success is resented - the media tends to build up loveable losers and noble failures (eg Frank Bruno was much more popular as a boxer than lennox lewis ever was - but theres no contest as to who's the better fighter)
>Over in the US they sellout stadiums of 50,000 nearly every show.
They do here too actually. Maybe not as quickly,but they still fill them.
> I had to pay $150 dollars per ticket to a scalper to get bad seats for their last tour because they sold out so quickly.
America's the only country where that would happen to be honest. Some people would look on that as a badge of honour - I'd call that having more money than sense,but each to their own
>There records sell quite well here Voodoo Lounge got to #2 and Bridges to Babylon to #3 in the US. I know that their recent records have also sold well worldwide. Bridges to Babylon has sold around 5 million copies worldwide.
All of those albums sold well in the UK too. "Voodoo Lounge" topped the album charts in fact. The Stones still sell well in Britain. their solo work doesnt. Hardly a big shock.
>So why is it that in their homeland the Stones don't seem (From an outsiders point of view) to enjoy the same success
that they do here in the US and in most places around the world?
Well its all relative. Other markets such as Germany,Holland and Argentina are even bigger for the Stones in regard to concert tix sold per head of population and the fact that in those countries,their singles still sell well.
Also,the Stones arent very VISIBLE in the UK. To keep the public interested,you dont just work every 4 years or so. Other artists release material and tour in a sensible time frame. The Stones are high profile for about a year and then just disappear off the radar for the next 3-4 years. British music tends to move on a lot in that time.
>The thing that makes me laugh is that the Brit's go crazy for such mediocre talent such as Robbie Williams, Kylie Minogue, Posh and Baby Spice.
How the hell can you generalise with a statement like that? The Stones arent a "pop" act - those artists ARE and play the media game accordingly. Youre talking about a completely different market. America is full of every bit as mediocre pop acts who would sell more records than the Stones any day of the week. Doesnt mean to say that 250 million Americans have no taste.
>Would you guys rather buy a record from Posh spice than the legendary Mick Jagger?
Well....put Mick's single up against the next N'Synch single released in the US and I think you can turn the question around and get the same answer
Fact is,these people are marketed towards kids. The Stones arent. The average age of a consumer buying singles in Britain is about 14. The number of singles you need to sell in an average week in Britain is about 25,000. When the Stones were topping the charts,it was about 10 times that. Apart from the pop pages in the tabloids,no one over the age of about 16 takes singles seriously in the UK as theres a new number 1 every week and the song drops out of the charts about 3 weeks later.
>Hey England get with the program the Stones are one of the greatest groups ever
not "one of".."the"
>, Robbie Williams and Posh spice are not.
Theres a bit more to music in the UK than just generalizing it with those two who are simply "pop" acts who appeal to a totally different market. Get real.
"you say tomato and I say to-may-to"
|
|
|
| Stray Cat |
Please excuse spelling !! |
|
|
| VOODOO |
Stray Cat: I never uderstood that tax cop out thing. I think the Stones were 100% correct in doing what they did.
I think it's the silly tax codes that are to blame not the Stones. I would have done the same exact thing. |
|
|
| VOODOO |
Gazza: Your right some of my statements were a little broad.
But I used them to make a point. |
|
|
| Gazza |
the Stones may have been right to postpone the Uk shows for a year,although the excuses they used to justify it were pathetic. they said that the main reason was not because it would afect THEIR earnings but those of their road crew who obviously couldnt afford to lose out..thats fair enough for those of their crew who were UK citizens - however,it was exposed later that the vast majority of the 230 or so people working with the band werent UK citizens (most were Americans)and these people's earnings for the financial year WERENT subject to UK tax laws. Theyd have got more respect if they had been honest about it.
Despite losing out on plane fares,hotel deposits etc,I didnt personally begrudge them postponing the tour because regardless of how rich they are,its a business and after working for several months its unjustified that the whole tour should run at a loss or a minimal profit due to a retrospective change in the tax laws. What I DID have a problem with was the "we're only doing it for the little guy" crap but more so the statement they released at the time where they promised to make it up to the people who had been inconvenienced by playing extra shows.....the press release on their official website actually said they would play some "8-10 shows" in various cities around the UK in small theatres including several cities where they had not played for about 25 years or more. taking that at face value at the time,a lot of fans like myself thought - ok..we can wait a year,this will be really worth the inconvenience.
In the interim period they showed their main motivation was simply to make more money..after a US indoor tour with ticket prices which were an obscenity they returned to Europe - instead of the "8-10 " Uk theatre shows,they went for the fast buck and played about 7-8 stadium shows in Europe and the only "small show" they played was in London (hardly a city theyve "not played in 25 years") which while it was brilliant to get tickets to and a great gig was a show aimed more at friends,family and hangers on - who got 800 of the 1800 tickets available - and served its main purpose - ie,it got a lot of press,gave them some decent publicity and helped shift the last few available tickets for the stadium shows a few days later.
They made about $100 million or more in the year between the shows being postponed and when they took place - and that happened solely because of the UK shows being postponed. Keeping a promise and doing maybe even a week of theatre shows in provincial cities wouldnt have killed them and would have been a nice payback. In the end,greed dictated everything - their No Security and BTB 99 tour really soured my respect for them as people who give a damn about their fans who actually have to make sacrifices and spend lots of money to see them. Next time they might find even some more hardcore fans might be very cynical about all this. Certainly,I'll be a lot more selective about what shows I go to in 2002-03,last tour or not.
|
|
|
| VOODOO |
Get a life it's all about money.
Do you expect the Stones to be some kind of fucking hippie group and say it's all about the music?
This is a business plain and simple I want to make as much money as I can and I don't blame the Stones for doing the same.
Any group who says it's not about the money is full of shit. What I find more upsetting was this week was when Ginger Spice asked a fee to perform for the men and women who are fighting for her freedom. I think this is much worse than the Stones trying to protect their money from a foolish tax code.
Could you imagine if the Stones had done the same thing, you would never hear the end of how the greedy Stones are and how they are all about the money. There is clearly a doulble standard for the likes of the great (lol) Spice Girls and Robbie (boy band Williams) in England.
I think the Stones perform for the love of music as well as the love of money.
Truth be told so does every other musical act in the world.
|
|
|
| Gazza |
>Get a life it's ALL about money.
>I think the Stones perform for the love of music as well as the love of money.
Get a life yourself - Youve just contradicted yourself in the same post
>Do you expect the Stones to be some kind of fucking hippie group and say it's all about the music? This is a business plain and simple I want to make as much money as I can and I don't blame the Stones for doing the same.
Read my post again before getting your knickers in a twist. I said I didnt begrudge them postponing the shows as theyre a business and entitled to make a profit. My point was their lack of honesty and going back on a promise just to make even MORE money. There's a principle here. Its not just a business though - it cant be,as youve said theyre "in it for the music too". When someone is JUST in it for the money,then theyve completely lost the plot. Charging hundreds of dollars for tickets which a year before were about a quarter as much is definitely losing the plot IMO!
>Any group who says it's not about the money is full of shit. What I find more upsetting was this week was when Ginger Spice asked a fee to perform for the men and women who are fighting for her freedom. I think this is much worse than the Stones trying to protect their money from a foolish tax code.
Of course it is. who said it wasnt? The Stones were justified to postpone their tour. Youre missing the point entirely
.
|
|
|
| Cardinal Fang |
Well said Gazza !
I too had a problem with the "crew and taxes" explanation.
Also, I would like to point out that YES they sold out 40,000 seat stadiums when tickets were between $18 - $125.
However not EVERY show on the 1999 No Security tour sold out. You had 15,000 seat arenas NOT selling out. Probably because the seats were between $90 - $300 with the exception of the $30 seats that were in THE last row BEHIND the stage.
Later, Cardinal Fang |
|
|
| Stray Cat |
I was talking about the general British public's attitude towards the band when I referred to the tax situation in 1998. I believe that Mick and Keith have dual nationality and would not have been affected by the changes. It was reported in "Q" magazine at the time, that Charlie and Ronnie had refused to risk an estimated �8 million in lost income if they played the U.K. The Stones even offered to give all profits from these shows to charity, but the inland revenue saw this as "promotional" work. THE SUN,THE MOON,THE ROLLING STONES,DEATH AND TAXES! |
|
|
| Gazza |
Yeah,I think they certainly did offer to play for charity - youre right there. As I said earlier,I didnt blame them for postponing the tour at all though.
as for the dual nationality thing - I read at the time that only Mick,Charlie and Ronnie decided between them to postpone the tour (I think mick actually voted to do the shows). Keith was exempt from the tax laws as being married to an American and normally resident in the US he technically has dual nationality...that said,Mick was still married to an American at the time (until he decided a year later that he wasnt..) but I guess that the fact that England is his normal residence meant the same law didnt apply to him as it did to Keith (Keith still owns Redlands but hes only ever there for a couple of weeks every summer - most of the year hes either in Connecticut or Jamaica) |
|
|
| Mathijs |
I always understood that the problem with the British Tax law for the Stones' camp was that all NONE UK employees suddenly were lyable to pay taxes in the UK as well as their own homecountry if they would have worked in the UK. In my opinion, that could be true for the gaffers and truckers, but Jagger said that even Charlie couldn't miss the money as he wasn't earning any writers credit. And that's bullshit in my opinion.
Further, press always have been that the Stones sold out most shows of the B2B US leg -well, they did not. For most big football stadiums the seats were re-arranged so that less tickets were available. In 1981 the everage stadium show was attened by 70.000 people, the same stadiums in 1997 suddenly were only capable to hold 40.000 people. Even for the openener -Chicago Soldiers Field- about 6000 fieldseats were removed after dissapointing ticket sales.
And why aren't the Stones as popular in the UK as anywhere else -it's like that since the 70's, and in my opinion that's got to do with them being English. Everytime I visit London people tell me "o yeah, Mick was here yesterday, and last week Charlie did some shopping over there and bla bla". They aren't treated as superstars over there it seems -they are treated as normal citizens. Mick Jagger in Amsterdam is a rarity, but Mick in London is like an everyday thing it seems!
Mathijs |
|
|
| adam krupa |
No - I say again- it's because your U.S bands are clogging up the circuit |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
