As long as you are close... as long as you are close.

I get the "small venue" thing, but arenas aren't really small, lots of bad seats and echo problems. To me(I've done both) arenas are "half pregnant". I think they really get a boost from the energy. Every stadium won't be Glad to, but cheaper seats bring a "rowdier" crowd, so to speak.

...or Hockey v/s Football....I say Pub...

2 1 2 0

I started a thread about this yesterday named "After Glastonbury back to stadiums"

I would prefer Stones go get back to stadium concerts again.
Reasons are: Bigger crowds, cheaper tix and the most important one, is that they still can rock any stadium audience off their feet!

It would be great to attend one concert with the new and young Stones fans mixed up with the oldies. What a feeling to be able to sing along and dance amongst these people!

The sound is great at G-bury and if they would keep that sound and have a great visual stage then I think stadiums will be packed.

So get back to stadiums and let as many of us get Satisfaction at least one more time!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

This thread looks like a referendum... (So, my vote for stadiums/parks)

What's good is the energy of a younger crowd who have had the chance to get up close without having to spend a fortune - high prices and seating self-select a generally older and tamer crowd. - people like me. All the UK festivals had this energy - IOW Glastonbury, Hyde Park. I'd guess the same was true of GA in stadiums, but if they did go back to stadiums now we'd probably be back to seating on the pitch, sold at Enormous Expense to people who often don't appear until two minutes before the Stones hit the stage - not people who have been up front in a state of mounting excitement for ages before the show starts.

I don't know how you get over this. Festival-style shows are wonderful provided the weather behaves itself - but four (probably) UK festivals all in glorious sunshine are something like a miracle. Open air stadiums (even if you can arrange GA at an affordable price) have the same problem, and closed stadiums and sports arenas are a gamble for decent sound, Anything smaller and you are back to the old problem - the tickets cost too much to get a young crowd of new fans, and if they don't, the scalpers will have most of them before they've been on sale five minutes, and then their resale prices will be prohibitive.

The $85 tickets plus the standing Tongue Pit were a good idea - deliberately arranged to be un-scalpable and giving at least a chance of a good spot at reasonable cost. I think something like this should continue - as I doubt if they are going back to stadiums any time soon.

PS: The Stones at a festival are wonderful - please do some more!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-13 12:10 by Green Lady.

arena

Well, it's general acceptance that the Stones gigs at stadiums/parks are attracting younger people and taking place in hoter atmosphere. According to the reviews from ABB tour i have seen, that's happened also at Horsens (Denmark), Usce Park (Belgrade), etc. No question about that, i think.

Maybe the weather is a problem as for open air stadiums, speaking about late autumn and winter. According to the infos, the upcoming fall- winter european tour's leg will be an arena one. Completely. But what about a few months later? I mean, the Stones could plan to do some spring or summer stadium/parks concerts in Europe. Seven, nine, ten more dates could easily be contained in every general plan, i think.

I'm speaking about Europe, not only because i'm a european, but also because i believe that here band's fanbase is younger compared to the US. So, we need some bigger venues (with cheaper tickets, etc). I don't claim that the band should do another vast tour, of course. But, come on folks, playing for 250,000 people at arenas and adding up some big venues later it's not something that could be called "mammoth"scale.

even if the stones do stadium's in the fall i dont see the ticket prices going down . mick has established the ticket prices and us fans are gonna pay to see the glimmers do what they do best .make money and entertain us as only they know how to do because i know it's only rock and roll but i like it like it yes i do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
Fan Since 1964
I started a thread about this yesterday named "After Glastonbury back to stadiums"

I would prefer Stones go get back to stadium concerts again.
Reasons are: Bigger crowds, cheaper tix and the most important one, is that they still can rock any stadium audience off their feet!

The cheaper tickets argument is a bit of a crock.

They can make arena shows cheaper if they want to.

I dont see why fans who cant/wont pay £400 a ticket to look at a video screen should be obliged to sit in the upper rows in 60,000 seater stadiums if they want to 'see' their favourite band - all because four non-tax paying musicians with a collective worth of about a billion dollars refuse to work unless they're paid about a million dollars each per show.

Gazza, the prices should be lower, we agree on that. Lower in general. But all artists/bands are charging lower prices for bigger venues. So, at every level of prices big venues remain more friendly to younger audiences.

Some clips from Hyde Park #1 are showing people dancing, singing, applauding, enjoying, despite the fact that there was a long, long distance between them and the band. I mean, not all need to be very close to the stage. For those who need (as myself), there are options. Buy the eguivalent ticket, move your ass and go early at the venue...

PS: Gazza, during ABB Tour Slane was one of the largest venues - crowds. Would you say that the gig was "impersonal" due to the huge size?

Quote
laertisflash
Gazza, the prices should be lower, we agree on that. Lower in general. But all artists/bands are charging lower prices for bigger venues. So, at every level of prices big venues remain more friendly to younger audiences.

Some clips from Hyde Park #1 are showing people dancing, singing, applauding, enjoying, despite the fact that there was a long, long distance between them and the band. I mean, not all need to be very close to the stage. For those who need (as myself), there are options. Buy the eguivalent ticket, move your ass and go early at the venue...

PS: Gazza, during ABB Tour Slane was one of the largest venues - crowds. Would you say that the gig was "impersonal" due to the huge size?

'lower prices' and 'bigger venues' are pretty wide ranging statements. Its not true, anyway. I've 3 outdoor Springsteen shows to go to next week - the cost of a ticket is on average about £75-80. The indoor show I'm going to in Leeds a week later is priced at £65, which is much the same as the price of the stadium shows hes played in Britain on this tour.

I actually thought the price for the tier 3 tickets for Hyde Park wasnt bad (Tier 1 and 2 were a rip off, but anyone with an ounce of common sense who saw what was offer knew that right away anyway). Where I was (which was a LONG way back) the crowd were well into it - although Ive seen other clips where the crowd was dead.

Yes, I thought Slane was quite impersonal if you were further back from the b-stage.

Hyde Park and Slane were multi-act festivals though with general admission, where you could get close if you made the effort to go early.

Stones stadium shows now are generally all seated (they have been in America since 1989, have been in the UK since 2003 and in places like Germany and Scandinavia since 2007). The idea has been to make them more like 'large arena' shows where they can target an older and more affluent audience, many of whom wont mind paying £150 (probably £200-250 plus if they did it now) for a seat on the pitch whereas in other Euro countries people are paying maybe half that to stand in the same area.

Not surprisingly, of the nine countries where I saw the Stones on the last tour, the youngest and most vibrant audiences were in Spain and Portugal.

Not coincidentally, they were the cheapest places to buy tickets.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-13 19:31 by Gazza.

Arenas hands down IMO unless you are close at the stadium,

Quote
Gazza

Quote
laertisflash
Gazza, the prices should be lower, we agree on that. Lower in general. But all artists/bands are charging lower prices for bigger venues. So, at every level of prices big venues remain more friendly to younger audiences.

Some clips from Hyde Park #1 are showing people dancing, singing, applauding, enjoying, despite the fact that there was a long, long distance between them and the band. I mean, not all need to be very close to the stage. For those who need (as myself), there are options. Buy the eguivalent ticket, move your ass and go early at the venue...

PS: Gazza, during ABB Tour Slane was one of the largest venues - crowds. Would you say that the gig was "impersonal" due to the huge size?

'lower prices' and 'bigger venues' are pretty wide ranging statements. Its not true, anyway. I've 3 outdoor Springsteen shows to go to next week - the cost of a ticket is on average about £75-80. The indoor show I'm going to in Leeds a week later is priced at £65, which is much the same as the price of the stadium shows hes played in Britain on this tour.

I actually thought the price for the tier 3 tickets for Hyde Park wasnt bad (Tier 1 and 2 were a rip off, but anyone with an ounce of common sense who saw what was offer knew that right away anyway). Where I was (which was a LONG way back) the crowd were well into it - although Ive seen other clips where the crowd was dead.

Yes, I thought Slane was quite impersonal if you were further back from the b-stage.

Hyde Park and Slane were multi-act festivals though with general admission, where you could get close if you made the effort to go early.

Stones stadium shows now are generally all seated (they have been in America since 1989, have been in the UK since 2003 and in places like Germany and Scandinavia since 2007). The idea has been to make them more like 'large arena' shows where they can target an older and more affluent audience, many of whom wont mind paying £150 (probably £200-250 plus if they did it now) for a seat on the pitch whereas in other Euro countries people are paying maybe half that to stand in the same area.

Not surprisingly, of the nine countries where I saw the Stones on the last tour, the youngest and most vibrant audiences were in Spain and Portugal.

Not coincidentally, they were the cheapest places to buy tickets.

I caught a glimpse of you and your friend, Gazza - you weren't far from where I ended up last Saturday. And although it was far enough back from the stage to give all our IORR front-row-junkies the horrors, the sound was fine and everybody was well into it. Whereas a video I've seen of what looks like T2 had most people standing around not doing much.

1. Screw the festivals and any big, flat, open field setting.

2. I like stadiums as much as arenas if I get a decent seat, but if anyone is implying they do stadiums for the likely continuation of this tour, IMO, that is almost a certain NO because they won't fill them, even at reduced ticket prices.

Atip, IMO they can fill stadiums, on two conditions. 1. Reasonable prices. 2. Do not "push" the market. No many gigs. Cities carefully selected.

At the end, if they can fill a 15,000 arena three or four nights in a row, why on earth would be unfeasible the alternative of playing a 45,000 capacity stadium? Or 1 arena + 1 stadium, instead of arena 3 times? A few years ago the answer could be "because a notable number of fans will attend every arena gig". But i think they are very few now, under these financial conditions.

I have reasons to believe that the "atmosphere" is better for them in Europe (especially after all these positive, even rave Press reviews), compared to the 2006, when they were hiting Europe for a third round in just 4 years (high frequency, i think). Plus, cancellations, etc. Maybe says something the fact that the ticket sales for the two Hyde Park gigs have been way better than the sales for the two Twicks gigs, in 2006.

Quote
laertisflash
Atip, IMO they can fill stadiums, on two conditions. 1. Reasonable prices. 2. Do not "push" the market. No many gigs. Cities carefully selected.

At the end, if they can fill a 15,000 arena three or four nights in a row, why on earth would be unfeasible the alternative of playing a 45,000 capacity stadium? Or 1 arena + 1 stadium, instead of arena 3 times? A few years ago the answer could be "because a notable number of fans will attend every arena gig". But i think they are very few now, under these financial conditions.

I have reasons to believe that the "atmosphere" is better for them in Europe (especially after all these positive, even rave Press reviews), compared to the 2006, when they were hiting Europe for a third round in just 4 years (high frequency, i think). Plus, cancellations, etc. Maybe says something the fact that the ticket sales for the two Hyde Park gigs have been way better than the sales for the two Twicks gigs, in 2006.

I am not familiar with the stadium situation in Europe, but in the US,most of the 70-80,000 seaters have been replaced by 40-50,000 seaters, which they would sell just fine.

Other than the club /theater gigs, I love stadium shows the best especially
when the weather is nice. Stadiums usually have a younger better crowd who seem much more into the music. Also, fewer assh*les yelling to sit down at least from my expirence. Some of the best,clearest sound I've ever heard at ANY Stones concert is in the first 10 to 20 rows center on the field of a Stadium.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-14 05:15 by its good to be anywhere.

After this great day in HP, I'll vote for stadiums again, and while I had a terrific spot, it seems a lot of people just seemed happy to be there. A great vibe overall!

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
Gazza
Stones stadium shows now are generally all seated (they have been in America since 1989, have been in the UK since 2003 and in places like Germany and Scandinavia since 2007).

The Scandinavian shows in 2007 (Gothenburg, Copenhagen and Oslo) were not seated.
Helsinki (not in Scandinavia) and St Petersburg were seated. Rome as well.

its good to be anywhere wrote: "Stadiums usually have a younger better crowd who seem much more into the music. Also, fewer assh*les yelling to sit down at least from my expirence".

This is an important factor!

Thrylan wrote: "I am not familiar with the stadium situation in Europe, but in the US,most of the 70-80,000 seaters have been replaced by 40-50,000 seaters, which they would sell just fine".

Also in Europe, now, the usual size for acts which are still playing stadiums is 35,000 - 50,000. More often nearly 40,000. Even if the capacity of the venues is much bigger, the number of tickets available is lower, sometimes dramatically lower, or (more likely) it is be passed off lower, in order to gigs seem sold out or close to. For example, the following gigs had been reported as "sellouts": Bruce Sprinsteen at Munich Olympiastadion with 41,579 tickets sold (the real capacity for concerts there is 65,000 atleast), Sandiago Bernabeu with 54,639 tickets sold (over 80,000), Stade De France 61,867 (75,000 or so). Depeche Mode had a "sold out" at Ference Puskas Stadium at the level of 33,2000 tickets sold (the capacity is nearly 50,000 i think) and another one at Belgrades Usce Park with 27,198 tickets sold. A vast venue, that contains 80,000 even 100,000 people. The Stones played to 65,000 there, on ABB tour.

To me, stadiums of 35,000 - 50,000 capacity are fine for concerts. Almost perfct! Not so huge and "impersonal", as some guys consider the big venues, but still able to contain a remarkable, younger crowd.

I've never had less than a great time at a stadium show, including last night. I've always made sure to get a close(ish) view though, even if yesterday it meant hanging around for nine hours with the pushers, shovers and drunks. Would only do it for the Stones.

On the contrary my least favourite shows were two arena shows, the second Wembley Arena show in 2003 and the second 02 show in 2007. Poor sound and atmosphere in both cases from where i was sitting.

how can you even ask this question? I'd always rather see them indoors in an arena. Better sound, better sightlines for everyone.

Sound wise I think outdoor shows are better. There's something about the acoustics that adds atmosphere to the music. For me, the Ft. Collins '75 boot is a good example of this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-14 21:03 by ryanpow.

Since 1997, the stadium sound is MUCH better than the arena sound, usually, with the exception of the 99 No Security tour,they used two PAs, one for the B stage, and that sounded pretty good. Arena sound is often an echo and muffled.