Rolling Stones tour ticket prices
Plankton
prices for a tour that is probably a bigger draw than Paul's (several
stadium shows). And 3 (4?) "essential" peformers splitting the take
rather than one man paying the band. Roll on discussion...?
jen
news:105a072d.02050...@posting.google.com...
I've seen ticket prices all over the board....from $50 to $350. Supposedly
5% of the tickets are special high priced "gold" tickets. I'm assuming
those are in the $350 category.
The press is reporting that Paul chided the Stones over their prices (and
Mick was asked about it during their press conference the other day). It's
total BS. Paul never ripped on the Stones over their prices (as if he'd
care anyway). He was defending his ticket prices in a Billboard interview
saying that his prices are in the 'ballpark' of others, and that the Stones
were going to be charging more than him.
Joe N
club in Cleveland and had 8th row tickets on the floor for McCartney .
Tickets were $275. Received an email today for the same location for the
Stones it is $325. I believe all the other locations are h igher also.
"Plankton" <mrpla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:105a072d.02050...@posting.google.com...
Luke
>
> "Plankton" <mrpla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:105a072d.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > I came here thinking I might see some discussion of this. Quite low
> > prices for a tour that is probably a bigger draw than Paul's (several
> > stadium shows). And 3 (4?) "essential" peformers splitting the take
> > rather than one man paying the band. Roll on discussion...?
>
> I've seen ticket prices all over the board....from $50 to $350. Supposedly
> 5% of the tickets are special high priced "gold" tickets. I'm assuming
> those are in the $350 category.
5% is a tremendously low estimate. Remember, the top ticket price for
U2's arena tour was $130- in the press releases leading up to when the
tickets went on sale, they were always referred to as "...a limited
amount of golden circle tickets". Of course, once the tickets went on
sale, it was apparent that ~80% of the lower bowl and ~10% of the upper
levels were $130 tickets.
So, the $50 tickets (at the arena shows) for the Stones are rear stage,
and you can bet that all the decent tickets in the arena will cost the
full $350. Therefore, the Stones will cost more than Paul (as Paul said
so in a recent interview).
Me? I'm going to pay $50 and have the best view of all by going to one
of the club shows.
Plankton
up all the prices for all the venues.) The first thing I saw is that
they are playing a 2,800 seat theater in Boston and all tickets are
$50 -- total take for the night: $140,000 (minus maybe $5,000 for a
hundred comp tickets). I don't know the total take for Paul's show in
the 20,000 seat Fleet Center, with tix ranging from $50 to $250. But I
guess if the stadium shows are higher priced, the tour as a whole must
be structured to pay the Stones similar money. And of course, I'll end
up needing to pay a scalper a few hundred for that theater show
anyway.
"Joe N" <jne...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:<hxkC8.65232$Ez5.15...@typhoon.neo.rr.com>...
Rich Forman
If you can get those tickets!
richforman
Luke
>
> OK. Perhaps my research was incomplete. (I'm not really going to look
> up all the prices for all the venues.) The first thing I saw is that
> they are playing a 2,800 seat theater in Boston and all tickets are
> $50 -- total take for the night: $140,000 (minus maybe $5,000 for a
> hundred comp tickets). I don't know the total take for Paul's show in
> the 20,000 seat Fleet Center, with tix ranging from $50 to $250. But I
> guess if the stadium shows are higher priced, the tour as a whole must
> be structured to pay the Stones similar money. And of course, I'll end
> up needing to pay a scalper a few hundred for that theater show
> anyway.
Let's use the United Center in Chicago as an example. Here's the seating
chart (with corresponding prices for tickets) for the Paul shows:
http://www.unitedcenter.com/event-schedule/images/041002map.gif
...and for the Stones
http://www.unitedcenter.com/event-schedule/images/091002map.gif
This illustrates that, with no question, the Stones are charging more.
Rich Forman
> OK. Perhaps my research was incomplete. (I'm not really going to look
> up all the prices for all the venues.) The first thing I saw is that
> they are playing a 2,800 seat theater in Boston and all tickets are
> $50 -- total take for the night: $140,000 (minus maybe $5,000 for a
> hundred comp tickets). I don't know the total take for Paul's show in
> the 20,000 seat Fleet Center, with tix ranging from $50 to $250. But I
> guess if the stadium shows are higher priced, the tour as a whole must
> be structured to pay the Stones similar money. And of course, I'll end
> up needing to pay a scalper a few hundred for that theater show
> anyway.
I am really excited about these "club and theater shows," I can't get
over the idea of the chance in 2002 to see the Rolling Stones playing
in a bar (or small theatre like the Tower in Philly I think it's
called, the place in Upper Darby). But I'm trying not to get TOO
excited because the tickets are probably going to be hard to come by.
If Mr. Plankton's estimate is right and I'm able to get into the
Roseland Ballroom in NYC for just "a few hundred" I'll be ecstatic.
richforman
Rich Diakun
thing. I think I've seen a couple of different "last tour" shows from the
Stones, and they just didn't leave me as thrilled as any of the Paul shows
I've seen have. I think I'm at the point where i'm going to spend my
concert $ more wisely than giving it to Jagger, et al... Let's see, I can
see Elvis Costello (tickets at $50, $35, or $15) and Bruce Hornsby ($45,
$35, or $12.50) at Harbor Center, enjoy some first-rate live performers
whose shows are usually memorable, and still have plenty of money left over
from NOT going to see the over-priced Stones do the same "last tour" show
they were doing decades ago. Come to think of it, the only memorable Stones
show I went to was on their "Some Girls" tour, mostly because the opening
act was The Peter Tosh band. If it sounds like I'm trashing the Stones,
you're right, so don't flame me for something we both know. I just that in
the 4 shows of theirs I've seen, I have never felt like they were worth the
money. When I've seen other concerts, especially those by McCartney and The
Who, I thoroughly enjoyed the shows and was still reliving the concert at
some level weeks later. Because of that, I see no justifiable reason to
spend the money that they've been charging for their tickets. The value
might be raised if they weren't on the road every few years and rehashing
the previous few tours. Maybe if the Stones priced themselves like the rest
of the now-laughable retread dinosaur rock acts, I might see them. They
could tour with Blood, Sweat & Tears and Air Supply and play the State Fair
circuit.
- Rich
"Rich Forman" <rfor...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f354f363.02051...@posting.google.com...
Rich Forman
> Spending that kinda jack for a McCartney show, who tours every decade is one
> thing. I think I've seen a couple of different "last tour" shows from the
> Stones, and they just didn't leave me as thrilled as any of the Paul shows
> I've seen have. I think I'm at the point where i'm going to spend my
> concert $ more wisely than giving it to Jagger, et al... Let's see, I can
> see Elvis Costello (tickets at $50, $35, or $15) and Bruce Hornsby ($45,
> $35, or $12.50) at Harbor Center, enjoy some first-rate live performers
> whose shows are usually memorable, and still have plenty of money left over
> from NOT going to see the over-priced Stones do the same "last tour" show
> they were doing decades ago. Come to think of it, the only memorable Stones
> show I went to was on their "Some Girls" tour, mostly because the opening
> act was The Peter Tosh band. If it sounds like I'm trashing the Stones,
> you're right, so don't flame me for something we both know. I just that in
> the 4 shows of theirs I've seen, I have never felt like they were worth the
> money. When I've seen other concerts, especially those by McCartney and The
> Who, I thoroughly enjoyed the shows and was still reliving the concert at
> some level weeks later. Because of that, I see no justifiable reason to
> spend the money that they've been charging for their tickets. The value
> might be raised if they weren't on the road every few years and rehashing
> the previous few tours. Maybe if the Stones priced themselves like the rest
> of the now-laughable retread dinosaur rock acts, I might see them. They
> could tour with Blood, Sweat & Tears and Air Supply and play the State Fair
> circuit.
>
> - Rich
No need to argue about the worth of the Stones shows, obviously it's
strictly a matter of taste - for mine, the Stones concerts I've seen,
and it's been I think five so far, especially the last few, have been
among the most exciting things I've ever been at, the group just means
a lot to me the same way McCartney and the Beatles do, I just love
them and get super-stoked when they're on stage and Keef starts into
any classic riff. Anyway, one thing I did want to challenge you on is
that the Stones, unlike the Who, have NEVER done a "last tour,"
farewell tour or anything of the sort. You find me one advertisement,
press conference or anything (at least since I've been paying
attention, starting with Some Girls - I saw them with Peter Tosh too,
Foreigner on the bill too between at JFK in Philly - years later I
actually met Peter Tosh and got to ask what it was like playing with
the Stones) where they said anything like that and I'll eat my words.
They've always just brushed off the question, never gave any hints of
intending to stop, and never tried to generate false additional
excitement to sell tickets by saying that (same as Macca).
As for ticket prices, same as with McCartney, they charge what they're
worth because they can. If they didn't generate huge, massive amounts
of excitement by announcing they're coming, then they probably would
be playing state fairs or free summer concerts on the beach....but
they do! And if BS&T and Air Supply DID generate big amounts of
excitement and they could play big venues and charge 350 a
ticket...they probably would! They don't just go by whether you or I
individually like them, they go by (what they guess will be) the state
of the whole market collectively. And just like Paul McC, Mick and
the lads are simply huge and there's nothing any naysayer can say or
do about it!
richforman
Rich Diakun
"last tour" stuff that the Stones have. The 2 of them have been almost
"pistifying" about it. Hey, Rich... I've got no quarrel with you. You're
dead on right, it is a matter of taste. Our tastes are the same on some
things and different on others, and you are definitely one of the people in
this gang that I will always respect for having honest opinions that are
classily stated. Sorry if I sounded like I was hitting at you directly.
Anyhow, enjoy The Stones when they hit town. I'll try to get a tape of the
Hornsby show to try and turn you on to his live act these days :) Peace,
man.
- Rich
Rich Forman
> Well, you won't find me saying that The Who haven't done the same, annoying
> "last tour" stuff that the Stones have. The 2 of them have been almost
> "pistifying" about it. Hey, Rich... I've got no quarrel with you... Peace,
> man.
>
> - Rich
>
Definitely no quarrel but you missed my main point or didn't respond
do it, Rich: I say you're mistaken, the Stones have done no "'last
tour' stuff" (whereas several of the Who tours seem to have been
billed this way). To my knowledge, they have never announced
publicized any tour as being the last or a farewell tour (unless it
was in '72 or something before I was aware of such things). If you
say they have, tell me when or where they said that about let's say
any of their last four or five US tours. (Of course, someone always
ASKS them this at their press conferences when they announce the
tours, but it seems to me they always laugh it off and say in effect
no, if it's our last tour nobody's told us!)
richforman
Rich Diakun
was '82 -- those years are still foggy <g>) at a Ticketron outlet in
Richmond for "The Stones Final Tour" as heavily advertised. The show was at
Hampton Coliseum, and I think it was simulcast on radio because it was
supposedly their last show on their last tour. Is that the show that ended
up becoming "Let's Spend The Night Together"?
- Rich
"Rich Forman" <rfor...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f354f363.02051...@posting.google.com...
Bob Gill
> I was overnight in line for tickets in 1982 (or 1983, but I'm pretty sure it
> was '82 -- those years are still foggy <g>) at a Ticketron outlet in
> Richmond for "The Stones Final Tour" as heavily advertised. The show was at
> Hampton Coliseum, and I think it was simulcast on radio because it was
> supposedly their last show on their last tour. Is that the show that ended
> up becoming "Let's Spend The Night Together"?
No, the movie was made from other shows _ Phoenix and New Jersey, or something
like that. But at least one song from Hampton wound up on Still Life;
coincidentally, it was Let's Spend the Night Together.
That tour was in 1981, actually (Hampton was Dec. 18 _ Keith's birthday _ or
the day after). I saw them a couple of weeks earlier, and there was no mention
whatsoever around here (Washington area) of this being any kind of final tour.
They toured Europe about six months later, which certainly suggests that they
didn't think they'd just quit touring. At the end of Still Life (the live album
that came out in 1982), Mick says "See you next year" to the crowd, which again
indicates there was no such idea afoot. (The Who made their first "farewell
tour" in 1982, though, so maybe you're getting the two mixed up.)
The Rolling Stones were essentially broken up from 1986 to early 1989, but
when Mick and Keith finally made up and they made a new album in '89 and went on
tour again, they were careful not to call it any kind of reunion tour _ and
they've always done that. That's one reason they won't tour unless they have a
new album out (just like Paul McCartney, in fact), because they don't want to be
just an oldies show. They have their faults, but they're just not that
calculating.
-- Bob G.
Rich Forman
> I was overnight in line for tickets in 1982 (or 1983, but I'm pretty sure it
> was '82 -- those years are still foggy <g>) at a Ticketron outlet in
> Richmond for "The Stones Final Tour" as heavily advertised. The show was at
> Hampton Coliseum, and I think it was simulcast on radio because it was
> supposedly their last show on their last tour. Is that the show that ended
> up becoming "Let's Spend The Night Together"?
>
> - Rich
>
It may have even been '81, that's when I saw them at that time on tour
for Tattoo You I think, unless that tour stretched into '82 but I
don't think it went all the way into '83. Anyway, I'm glad that
wasn't their last tour because the ones I've seen then have just
gotten better IMO (I missed Steel Wheels but caught the two since
then).
richforman
Rich Forman
They do some pretty adamant about featuring new material - I may be
exaggerating it in my mind, but I seem to remember that at the concert
I saw at MSG in Feb. '98, they played something like a whopping 8 or 9
songs from their current album, Bridges to Babylon, which was
definitely okay by me.
richforman
> -- Bob G.