One thing that has been consistent for decades is that Rolling Stones ticket prices have been very expensive as this article from 1969 'Rolling Stone' attests.



The Stones Tour: "Is That a Lot?"
Ticket prices exceed Doors', Blind Faith's
JERRY HOPKINS Posted Nov 15, 1969 12:00 AM


The Rolling Stones have returned, to the United States for their first tour in more than three years.
It begins with two evening shows at the Forum in Los Angeles November 8th, with tickets priced from $5.50 to $8.50. (This compares to a $7.50 top price for a Blind Faith concert in the same arena, a $6.50 top for the Doors and in both those concerts, tickets started at $3.50) In arranging this show, a previously set hockey game between the Los Angeles Kings and the New York Rangers was rescheduled -- at the request of the man who owns both the Forum and the Kings.

Acts appearing at the concerts here will include Terry Reid, who will appear on all the dates, and the Ike and Tina Turner Revue. Negotiations were continuing to have Ike and Tina, B. B King and Chuck Berry join the Stones in several other cities.

Promoters of the L.A. concerts said the gross for the evening would exceed $275,000 if the Stones filled the 18,000 seats in the Forum. Similar grosses, on a per show basis, were expected throughout the tour, with the Stones' getting guarantees of $25,000 a concert and up, against take home percentages running close to $60,000.

Although figures such as these are not unusual for tours by groups of this magnitude, they did bring strong criticism from, among others, Ralph Gleason in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"Can the Rolling Stones actually need all that money?" Gleason asked. "If they really dig the black musicians as much as every note they play and every syllable they utter indicates, is it possible to take out a show with, say, Ike and Tina and some of the older men like Howlin' Wolf and let them share in the loot? How much can the Stones take back to Merrie England after taxes, anyway? How much must the British manager and the American manager and the agency rake off the top?"

"Paying five, six and seven dollars for a Stones concert at the Oakland Coliseum for, say, an hour of the Stones seen a quarter of a mile away because the artists demand such outrageous fees that they can only be obtained under these circumstances, says a very bad thing to me about the artists' attitude towards the public. It says they despise their own audience."

When Mick Jagger was confronted by this criticism at a press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, he left the door slightly open to giving, a free concert sometime during the 13-city, 18-concert tour, but his tone didn't seem too promising.

And about the ticket cost, he strongly indicated that if some people thought prices were high, they might have been a lot worse.

"We were offered a lot of money to some very good dates -- money in front in Europe, before we left, really a lot of bread. We didn't accept because we thought they'd be too expensive on the basis of the money we'd get. We didn't say that unless we walk out of America with X dollars, we ain't gonna come. We're really not into that sort of economic scene. Either you're gonna sing and all that crap, or you're gonna be a @#$%& economist. I really do don't know whether this is more expensive than recent tours by local bands. I don't know how much people can afford. I've no idea. Is that a lot? You'll have to tell me."

The remainder of the press conference was typical. Someone asked that the question about ticket costs be repeated. Sam Cutler, the band's tour manager, repeated it, stumbling over the word ticket, saying "pricket." This prompted Keith Richard to lean over and give him a little kiss.

Following that it was just one kneeslapper after another.

Art Kunkin, editor of the Los Angeles Free Press asked Jagger to comment on Timothy Leary's running for governor. "Isn't it a bit late for California to have a psychedelic governor?" Jagger asked back.

Rona Barrett, a television gossip columnist, asked her questions: "What time do you normally get up?" "Are you really an anti-establishment group or is it all a put-on?" And: "What do you think about fellow performers like Shirley Temple going into politics?"

Even when someone asked Charlie Watts if be were planning another book (a reference to his illustrated tribute to the late Charlie Parker) and Watts gave a simple "no" as his answer, everyone collapsed, giggling.

At the end of it, little had been learned, but everyone -- perhaps especially the Stones -- seemed to have had a good time. It was rather like watching Johnny Canon with a laugh-track borrowed from The Lucy Show.

Somewhat more seriously, Jagger did say there would be time while in Los Angeles to complete the group's next album, Let It Bleed, which, he said, was to be released within a month's time, before the Stones returned to England in early December.

All that had to be done, Jagger said, was to mix two or three songs and record one vocal that had been erased accidentally in London while he was making the film Ned Kelly in Australia. Recording was to be scheduled in the Elektra studio here, before the tour begins, pending settlement of a minor disagreement over studio time with the Doors who were then using the studio for their next album.

Jagger also said that although the Stones' contract with London expires in 197O, there were no plans to form an independent record company. (There had been reports the Stones were meeting with at least one young Los Angeles record company executive to discuss this project.)

"No," Jagger said, "I don't want to become a weird pseudo-capitalist. The only reason for doing that sort of thing is to change the line of distribution, right? And if you don't change the line of distribution there's no point. All you've got is a little holding company, and the record company is still releasing your records. So unless you've got a fleet of lorries and sell records for half price, there'd be no point in doing it."

Other dates on the tour include the Oakland Coliseum, November 9th; San Diego Sports Arena, the 10th; Phoenix Coliseum, the 11th; Dallas Coliseum, the 12th; Auburn (Ala.) University, the l3th; University of Illinois, the 14th; and Chicago Amphitheater, the 16th.

The Stones then take a week off tape an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, resuming the tour in Detroit's Olympia the 21st. This will be followed by concerts at the Philadelphia Spectrum the 25th; Baltimore Civic Center, the 26th; Madison Square Garden, the 27th and 28th; Boston Garden, the 29th; and the West Palm Beach (Fla.) Pop Festival, the 30th.

Before beginning the tour, the Stones had fully three weeks to ready themselves. Except for the planned few hours in the recording studio, this gave them ample time for vacationing.

Which is what they were doing immediately following their October 17th arrival in Los Angeles: splitting up, some staying in the Beverly Wilshire, others in private homes. Charlie Watts was staying with his wife Shirley and daughter Serafina in a huge mountain-top home owned by the DuPont family high above the Sunset Strip, for example, while Jagger and Richard were staying with Stephen Stills in an estate near Laurel Canyon built by Carmen Dragon and formerly inhabited by Monkee Peter Tork.

It was the DuPont manse that was to serve as the group's West Coast headquarters and it was there the Stones' gathered the day after their arrival for a meeting, then pushed all thought of business aside to make use of the home's sumptuous facilities.

During the day, friends, writers and Sunday hangers-on came by to watch Bill Wyman on the tennis court (wearing boots), knocking a ball around. "Sure, you can take pictures," he said, "but, we're only amateurs." Inside the house, Charlie Watts was going through a large box of albums just delivered from a Sunset Strip record store.

Someone entered the 40-foot living room with a 180-degree view of Los Angeles and asked, "Is Mick here?"

"Be here later," came the listless reply.

"Catch you then."

In the kitchen the girl the Stones had hired to cook their meals was preparing bouillabaisse. She knew the boys had decided to go to a Japanese restaurant that night, and then on to the Ash Grove to see Taj Mahal and Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, but she was afraid the food would spoil.

Someone else was picking out a tune on the piano.

Outside a mustachioed chauffeur in black snoozed behind the wheel of a Cadillac limousine.

The Rolling Stones were in town and everyone seemed to be waiting for something to happen.

[From Issue 46 — November 15, 1969]

...and when I saw Led Zeppelin at the same venue in March 1970, the top ticket price was $7.25 ($7 + .25 ticket charge)

My first Stones show cost me (actually ,my parents paid for it ) 40 Francs ....
"No," Jagger said, "I don't want to become a weird pseudo-capitalist. The only reason for doing that sort of thing is to change the line of distribution, right? And if you don't change the line of distribution there's no point. All you've got is a little holding company, and the record company is still releasing your records. So unless you've got a fleet of lorries and sell records for half price, there'd be no point in doing it."


That's the point,Mick !

Thanks for the read, HopeYouGuessMyName



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Rolling Stones tickets dont come cheap I know because..Theyre the best..Just like a Rolls Royce they dont come cheap because.. Theyre the best.Staying at the Ritz doesnt come cheap because. .Its the best.Should I go on..for the sake of a few more dollars why would you say im not going to a Stones concert because its going to cost me another 50 miserable dollars.You go into any music shop Stones CDs go for top dollars everyone knows that and they stay at that price..none of this buy one and get one free stuff..You dont see Stones music in the bargain bins or at discounted prices.The Rolling Stones are the Rolls Royce in music the best.Anyway The Stones ticket prices are about the same as any other top band give or take a few dollars maybe..but that doesnt really matter.

Well if there are no more Stones concerts, then we won't have to worry about high ticket prices no more .............

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

*Paulywaul*..But they are not high prices...when Mick gives the word and im pretty sure he will *It will be Business as usual*

Quote
colonial
Rolling Stones tickets dont come cheap I know because..Theyre the best...

A purely subjective and silly argument. 'Biggest'? Maybe. 'Best' is, however, entirely down to personal taste.

name any act you want and there'll be a section of fans who consider THEM 'the best'. Doesnt mean the act in question is going to use the 'best = most expensive' logic.

A band with a collective worth in excess of $1 billion, whose tour costs are underwritten by corporate sponsorship and who pay something like 2% tax has no moral or logical reason for charging the prices they do. The sole reasons are ego and greed. Pure and simple. An unfortunate offshoot of this has been that a lot of lesser known acts have hiked their prices up over the last decade because theyve seen bands like the Stones get away with it, killing the concert industry for all but a few mega acts as a result as most potential gig goers only have a certain amount of money to spend.

Quote
colonial

You go into any music shop Stones CDs go for top dollars everyone knows that and they stay at that price..none of this buy one and get one free stuff..You dont see Stones music in the bargain bins or at discounted prices...

Sorry, but thats absolute nonsense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-13 14:27 by Gazza.

Gazza..My ABB ticket was 180 dollars ..New Zealand dollars thats not alot..you can do the numbers on it into pounds..Record shops here big names ...big prices. Dont even think about shopping around..ya might get lucky and save a couple of dollars on CD..big deal.

If you convert $7.50 of 1969 dollars to 2010 dollars (using U.S. inflation, mind you) the current-day equivalent is about $44.00

Those '69 hippies, ALWAYS WHINING!!

KSIE..The sort of people that moan about ticket prices are the ones I dont want to me standing beside at a concert because they moan about everything else.. the parking... toilets.. warm beer.. cant see mick..someone smoking..Keith and
Ronnie shouldnt be smoking on our new stage...And half the time these people left to late buying their tickets and got ripped off by someone selling it for double the price.These concerts done come that often..if they dont want to part with a couple of hundred dollars.Then dont go..get it on DVD.

Quote
colonial
Gazza..My ABB ticket was 180 dollars ..New Zealand dollars thats not alot..you can do the numbers on it into pounds..Record shops here big names ...big prices. Dont even think about shopping around..ya might get lucky and save a couple of dollars on CD..big deal.

Your experience and that of the part of NZ that you live in is hardly reflective of the rest of the planet in terms of either ticket prices or record shops..so making sweeping generalisations is a bit pointless.

NZ$180 = £83. No doubt prices varied. I've no idea as to whether they were the cheapest or most expensive. UK ticket prices were mostly £150. In the US, up to $450, which is about three to four times the amount you paid. Whatever way you choose to look at it, its way in excess of what most major acts are charging.

Stones record sales are below the level of an indie band at the minute. They're not selling at all. And prior to the recent spate of reissues, it was quite easy to get their albums at half prices at various times over the last few years. In some cases, just weeks after they were released.

Why selling 40 year old albums at full price is some sort of badge of honour is something that escapes me, personally, but if it gives you some sense of pride, each to their own.

Gazza..Yes I was talking on New Zealand prices...I was 5 rows back left of stage good seat.About buying old Stones albums (sense of pride)having pride about buying a 35 dollar CD..I dont think so havent heard that one before but never mind.Gazza ya got no choice if you dont buy it.The shop doesnt care they know they can sell it to someone else...the ACDC concert here all the tickets were 160 dollars..didnt matter if you were up front or right at the back.First time ive seen that ..wonder why they done that.

Try to calm down.... I thought the article was fun and interesting... if you didn't, so be it. It was simply a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same.... If you missed the point, it is people like you who I don't like to be near at concerts... too obtuse

Quote
KSIE
If you convert $7.50 of 1969 dollars to 2010 dollars (using U.S. inflation, mind you) the current-day equivalent is about $44.00

Those '69 hippies, ALWAYS WHINING!!

$44.00 is not $450.00. And it will be even more next time. If there is a next time.

HopeYouGuessMyName..It is fun and interesting.. I wasnt talking about you at all.It was about some sad sack at my last concert I was standing beside.These people that go to concerts its not about having a good time or the music..for them its the place to be seen at a Stones concert and bang on about to their friends that usually arent even interested.

Quote
colonial
About buying old Stones albums (sense of pride)having pride about buying a 35 dollar CD..I dont think so havent heard that one before but never mind.Gazza ya got no choice if you dont buy it..

er, you do. You can download it for cheaper or for free. Or wait a few weeks until its cheaper.

Personally, I do buy Stones records when they come out as a matter of principle, but I'm simply disagreeing with your statement that you'll never find them in bargain bins. Thats just incorrect.


Good article, HYGMN, by the way. Thanks for posting it.

Quote
tatters

Quote
KSIE
If you convert $7.50 of 1969 dollars to 2010 dollars (using U.S. inflation, mind you) the current-day equivalent is about $44.00

Those '69 hippies, ALWAYS WHINING!!

$44.00 is not $450.00. And it will be even more next time. If there is a next time.

My point exactly. Those '69ers didn't know how good they had it!

Massive soundstages and lighting visible from space is not free. Stones stadium shows are a relative bargain for the money. Paying $350 in an arena hurts a bit however. The market bears out the price though. For that there can be no argument.

Gazza..Im not into downloading..wait a few weeks doesnt work like that here..and even if they do discount it(what a couple of dollars) and thats only some shops that could be in other cities.I was looking at Stones CDs the other day they are not cheap.Ive never seen rock botton prices on Stones CDs yet and im in and out of music days every second day.With some music shops closing down like other business ..theres less competition.. ya know how it goes.I know how things work in Britain and other countries but down here some things can be dearer..and it works both ways.when ya live in a country of just over 4 million and so far away from everyone else ya can pay the price for it so to speak.

Something happened to concert ticket prices around the start of the new millenium.

In 1990 I paid less than £30 to see them in London (and was 10 feet from the stage). In 1999 I paid around the same (and was 10-feet from the B-stage)

Then come 2002, 2003 or so, the prices started shooting up. In 2007 I paid £75 to see them in the O2, London. I know many people there paid £150 or more, and these weren't for seats close to the stage either. Others have paid vastly more for closer seats.

I don't accuse the Stones for ripping people off though. The industry has changed and now all big name bands charge huge prices. I assume the Stones have not had much say in this..and possibly have not been insterested either (do they know now what people can afford?)

I think it's probably something to do with falling revenues from CDs etc and the fact music is seen as being more disposable these days. It seems the music industry has to try and make money with concerts.

Gazza..Ive never seen rock botton prices on Stones CDs yet and im in and out of music shops every second day. ..Corrected that sentence.. the times getting on a bit 4.15am wednesday..getting a bit tired.

The article from 1969 is interesting read. But I think you have to take it for what it is. The quotes are more than 40 years old.
It's funny to dig in the history but we all have said and done things we don't should have done today. Don't be too unfair!

Internet pre sales is one of the main factors that pushed the prices so high.

Until 2003, if I wanted to see the stones, I had to take my bum abroad (10 years with no Stones in Italy). To buy the tickets the options were: boxoffice at the venue (or scalpers if sold out) or firend on the spot.

In the era of internet sales I could buy tickets with large advance for just any concert in the world. Inevitably the demand increased and the prices went up.

Also true that the new distribution process still needs to be calibrated.

The organizer knows he has fixed the perfect price of a concert when he manages to sell out all the venues save one ticket. Last way around there were lots of venues that were very far away from being sold out, so I am sure that next time the avarage prices will be lower (during the bang tour the price of tickets for the concert in Rome were almost double than Milano, with the result that in Milano 65,000 tickets were sold, and in Rome only 35).

C

Quote
R
Massive soundstages and lighting visible from space is not free. Stones stadium shows are a relative bargain for the money. Paying $350 in an arena hurts a bit however. The market bears out the price though. For that there can be no argument.

Much of what you're saying is spot on (even if we may not like it!) - dont know if they're a bargain for the money, though.

Their stage set up was also massively expensive pre-No Security (the first tour with the massive ticket price hike) - in fact the most expensive 'gimmick' of the lot was the 'bridge' on the BTB tour which cost them $1 million a week to keep on the road. Yet tickets then were a fraction of what they jumped to for stadium shows from 2002 onwards.

The profit margins now are MUCH higher than they were in the 90s and before.

In the long run, the exorbitant prices of Stones tickets are doing more harm than good to their cachet and their credibility.

For all that the A Bigger Bang tour is the highest grossing tour in history, in both European legs there were wide-open tranches of unsold seats in a lot of the stadiums they were playing. Coupled with late-layout changes to move the stage to make the venues seem a bit-less sparsely attended and a general sense of tumbleweeds blowing around some the venues, to me it seems far from the triumph it's often painted. Scarcely the hottest ticket in town these days. Bands like Muse, Pink, U2, AC/DC and even Take That have been vastly more successful in recent stadium tours.

(I don't doubt that some markets like Latin America have been unaffected by this sea change).

The large majority of my friends and family - long term Stones fans of the semi-curious to very-interested variety - simply balked at the ticket prices and chose not to go.

Of course, the upside - if you can call it that - of venues running at about 2/3 capacity was that the scalpers got their fingers burned and cheap tickets were easy to acquire up in the run up to the shows.

How it'll work next time around when the touts know they can barely even give Stones tickets away is anyone's guess.

Also, for what it's worth I picked up a new copy of Exile in FOPP in Glasgow for £3 last year.

a ripoff for a long time now. plain and simple. if someone want to spend a fortune to say they were there at the circus remnants of a two guitar rock band, have at it...tel all your friends. pretend you saw the stones... fine with me... stick figures out of synch with bigass tv screens and plenty of people on stage who weren't around when the stones really counted.... possibly a facsimile is all that's available thewe days anyway for the most part... bon jovi does great stadium business...

beelyboy...Think About it

Quote
WeLoveYou
Something happened to concert ticket prices around the start of the new millenium.

In 1990 I paid less than £30 to see them in London (and was 10 feet from the stage). In 1999 I paid around the same (and was 10-feet from the B-stage)

Then come 2002, 2003 or so, the prices started shooting up. In 2007 I paid £75 to see them in the O2, London. I know many people there paid £150 or more, and these weren't for seats close to the stage either. Others have paid vastly more for closer seats.

I don't accuse the Stones for ripping people off though. The industry has changed and now all big name bands charge huge prices. I assume the Stones have not had much say in this..and possibly have not been insterested either (do they know now what people can afford?)

I think it's probably something to do with falling revenues from CDs etc and the fact music is seen as being more disposable these days. It seems the music industry has to try and make money with concerts.

The Stones decide what their ticket prices are. Jagger is on record as admitting this ('Forbes Magazine', Oct 2002). The notion that they dont have a say is simply incomprehensible. Some major acts choose to milk the market for all they can get, and others make a point of charging below what the market will bear. The industry changed - yes - but it primarily changed due to greedy bands and promoters. Especially bands of a certain vintage who pre-credit crunch, realised they had a fanbase of a certain age who had a larger than average disposable income which could be exploited.

Your remarks about the change in prices for London shows is quite true, but its not the whole story. Sometimes you'll find that from one tour to the next, the price range isnt that much different (It cost £150 for a category A ticket for Twickenham in 2003 and the same price for Category A tickets in 2006-2007). The difference is that with each succeeding tour there are a much higher % of the tickets in that price range (for example, I went to see the Stones at Madison Square Garden in 2002 and a category B ticket cost $164 (I refused to pay the $400 or so they were looking for the top price). In 2006 I was actually offered a ticket in the same row...for $450. It was now a 'Category A' price. This variety also changes from one location to the next - for example they'll have a much higher % of Category A tickets in somewhere like New York, London or LA than they will in lesser markets where the demand (and wealth) isnt quite as high. Its also worth mentioning that since 2003 the Stones have insisted that their arena and stadium shows in London are all-seated - for the simple reason that by guaranteeing everyone a seat, they can make the ticket prices higher. The UK was the only European country which had all-seated shows in 2003 and 2006 - that trend has since crept in to other more 'affluent' European markets in 2007, such as Germany and Scandinavia. There were no legal reasons for those shows being all-seated. It was solely to justify a hike in ticket prices.

Your last point is correct about concerts (and even merchandise) now being the prime source of revenue for bands - because record sales are in an irreversible decline. However the sea change in concert tickets going through the roof preceded the rapid decline in record sales by a few years.

It'll be very interesting to see what happens if the Stones tour again. A lot has changed economically since 2006-2007 and it has hit their target audience demographic more than those of pretty much any other act. THAT factor, just as much as their age, health and declining playing skills, may be as significant in them deciding whether a future tour - ie, one with the same guarantees and sponsorship that they've taken for granted - is feasible.

I personally dont think it is, and if the Stones are going to tour again on any kind of major scale, they're going to have to eat a bit of humble pie or else they'll be left with some embarrassing ticket sales.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-13 21:42 by Gazza.

Quote
Beelyboy
a ripoff for a long time now. plain and simple. if someone want to spend a fortune to say they were there at the circus remnants of a two guitar rock band, have at it...tel all your friends. pretend you saw the stones... fine with me... stick figures out of synch with bigass tv screens and plenty of people on stage who weren't around when the stones really counted.... possibly a facsimile is all that's available thewe days anyway for the most part... bon jovi does great stadium business...

Bon Jovi, for all the abuse I give them, seem to be one of those bands who, despite their popularity, dont seem to charge their fans through the nose to see them.

It probably explains why they're able to continually fill stadiums.

And I'd guess that they are able to attract new fans to their shows too.

That's not a coincidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-13 21:38 by Gazza.

This ticket pricing thing I would of thought if anyone was going to be paying big money it would be us down here.If I can get a good seat a few rows back from the stage and pay 180nz dollars..which is roughly 83pounds and UK tickets are around 150 pounds thats got to be a good deal in anyones lanauage.Then ya do the numbers on our money to what they are paying in American dollars for their tickets it looks even better still.You would think it would be the other way around we would pay the high prices.They bring all their gear all the way down here to do usually two concerts..but ends up at three because they like us that much.But mind you they take in Australia as well.We certainly get the better deal....thanks Mick you can have my money any time..The ACDC concert and then to pay 160nz dollars and stand anywhere ya like..or sit anywhere in the stadium you want.. mind you its usually every man for himself once those gates are opened...all I the can say is big bands are most welcome down here anytime.

Supply and demand, Colonial.

NZ is a country of what, 5 million, people in a sparsely populated area, and is a long way from any other country.

The Stones played two stadium shows there. If they're going to fill stadiums, they have to make the shows affordable.