I think it's only naturally to want the band to be on top when it comes to gross. Recall the pride we had when VL became the highest grossing tour of all time. Sadly, we have lost the gross to U2 and I believe we only have approximately 4 of the top 10 grossing concerts of all time.........

Quote
Brstonesfan
I think it's only naturally to want the band to be on top when it comes to gross. Recall the pride we had when VL became the highest grossing tour of all time. Sadly, we have lost the gross to U2 and I believe we only have approximately 4 of the top 10 grossing concerts of all time.........

I wouldn't lose a second of sleep about it.
Pride is a feeling and can't be counted like facts and dollars.
same as the number of grossed out fans confronted with ticket prices. there are no official numbers.
the Stones will come to an end, not too far away from now and there will always be newer fishes in the pond ... but huh, that's how it goes.

just be proud to be a dedicated follower of The Greatest Rock'nRoll Band In The World for so and so long.
no Bieber or U2 can take that away from you.

just be proud to be a dedicated follower of The Greatest Rock'nRoll Band In The World for so and so long.
no Bieber or U2 can take that away from you.

-------------------

Valid points...

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
flacnvinyl

Quote
drbryant
Not sure if it's the promotion or the economy or what, but these are incredible numbers. No wonder they don't spend time recording new albums. It makes no economic sense.

But does it make artistic sense?

Sure it does... Spend a month or more locked in a studio to produce 10-14 songs which (relatively) few people will ever hear and many of your long-time fans will spend endless effort telling anyone who will listen how crappy the "fake" new stuff is compared to the "real" old stuff.

OR

Spend a month or more doing some traveling, playing some of the greatest rock & roll songs in history for 10's & 100's of thousands of people who consistently have a wonderful time listening to you do so.

While many here and world-wide may not currently be thrilled by the Rolling Stones as RECORDING artists, apparently there are still apparently many people world-wide who are still thrilled by the Rolling Stones as PERFORMING artists.

As a return on the investment of TIME alone, I'd say the Stones have realized that there is far more reward for their artistic excellence in performing than recording.

What's the old saying about letting your light shine as opposed to keeping it hidden? While they may no longer be the recording or performing artists they were in their early years, they are STILL one of the top performing artists willing to walk on stage. They may have lost the willingness to burn the midnight oil in the studio, but as long as they're willing to walk on stage and let their light shine there, why complain and try to stop them? I seem to also remember an old saying about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I'd have to say that their current touring is bringing a greater good to more people than their current recording most likely ever will again.

I may be wrong.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Post of the year!

They need to record a album that is credible to regain their legacy
as the greatest rock band ever. We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89. MT must be included as
he was singularly responsible for the best work the band ever recorded.
This will enable us to win not only the touring gross, but to be once again
taken seriously as a creative band.

<<We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89>>

It would appear from the reports etc. that they (as opposed to this mysterious "we" ) have in fact *WON* generations of new fans through their recent performances.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-18 02:22 by Beast.

Quote
Beast
<<We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89>>

It would appear from the reports etc. that they (as opposed to this mysterious "we" ) have in fact *WON* generations of new fans through their recent performances.

Spot on. I'm 30 and I felt bloody old at the shows! Brilliant to have so many ages at the European gigs!

Quote
Beast
<<We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89>>

It would appear from the reports etc. that they (as opposed to this mysterious "we" ) have in fact *WON* generations of new fans through their recent performances.

Indeed. "We" should quit while "they" are behind. ;-)

Quote
petewasbristol

Quote
Beast
<<We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89>>

It would appear from the reports etc. that they (as opposed to this mysterious "we" ) have in fact *WON* generations of new fans through their recent performances.

Spot on. I'm 30 and I felt bloody old at the shows! Brilliant to have so many ages at the European gigs!

That struck me in Japan as well. I saw Clapton, McCartney and the Stones in rapid succession and the Stones crowd was much younger overall. But again, like Europe, they played a large stadium and tickets, while expensive, were not insane as they were in the US. I think it would be nice if next year, they could play a handful of shows in the US stadiums (or festivals) at average prices in the $150 - $200 range.

Quote
Brstonesfan
I think it's only naturally to want the band to be on top when it comes to gross. Recall the pride we had when VL became the highest grossing tour of all time. Sadly, we have lost the gross to U2 and I believe we only have approximately 4 of the top 10 grossing concerts of all time.........

Hmm. I always worry about fans who refer to themselves collectively with the celebrities. But anyway, U2's incredible attendance numbers were helped immensely by the decision to do "in the round" stadium shows. The "360" stage allowed them to sell tickets in what (in a normal concert configuration) would be behind the stage. I saw the show at Wembley Stadium, and I didn't like it because the use of the stage meant that for large portions of the show, the individual band members were facing away from each other or walking around different parts of the stage. It might be psychological, but I thought that they weren't as tight when they were all facing different directions. But, it was brilliant from the perspective of getting as many people as possible in the stadium.

Quote
Brstonesfan
just be proud to be a dedicated follower of The Greatest Rock'nRoll Band In The World for so and so long.
no Bieber or U2 can take that away from you.

It would never have occurred to me that they might . . . What is this? What does it matter what other bands gross? How does that affect my love of the music?

Quote
Brstonesfan
I think it's only naturally to want the band to be on top when it comes to gross. Recall the pride we had when VL became the highest grossing tour of all time. Sadly, we have lost the gross to U2 and I believe we only have approximately 4 of the top 10 grossing concerts of all time.........

Didn´t know that U2 was on tour now?

Quote
petewasbristol

Quote
Beast
<<We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89>>

It would appear from the reports etc. that they (as opposed to this mysterious "we" ) have in fact *WON* generations of new fans through their recent performances.

Spot on. I'm 30 and I felt bloody old at the shows! Brilliant to have so many ages at the European gigs!

Interestingly, the people who asked me why I'd come to Werchter to see "these old men" weren't teenagers, but in their 30s or 40s. I see no evidence that the latest generation of fans are put off by new music. High prices, yes - and the ridiculous competition to be the highest-grossing act is partly responsible for that. I'm delighted that the Stones are playing some of the great festivals at last, where younger fans can afford to see them. Should have done it years ago.

Quote
Brstonesfan
They need to record a album that is credible to regain their legacy
as the greatest rock band ever. We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89. MT must be included as
he was singularly responsible for the best work the band ever recorded.
This will enable us to win not only the touring gross, but to be once again
taken seriously as a creative band.

c watts " we are a PLAYING band - that's what we do" they have realised that it's the playing, using the platform of their iconic catalogue, is what they do. The risk of a minor car crash ( particularly in keiths set) keeps the thing interesting and alive for the older fans and the catalogue for the new

Love your post Green Lady!

Quote
Brstonesfan
They need to record a album that is credible to regain their legacy
as the greatest rock band ever. We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89. MT must be included as
he was singularly responsible for the best work the band ever recorded.
This will enable us to win not only the touring gross, but to be once again
taken seriously as a creative band.

By evaluating studio music of theirs from the said period that in my opinion for a rather large share has been either good or at times even semi-great, without nuances as "crap", you only contribute to affirm the band in its decision not to go into the studio.

As one with an opposing view, I would very much appreciate it, if they would spend some time in the studio by strength of the level of their recently displayed live playing. Lay down some inspired work there in recording new music. Then return to some of the venues they have played on this tour and perform live some of the songs therefrom. As a repetition of what I have expressed in earlier posts: Hopefully both in studio and in their live playing of some excerpts from it, by using Mick Taylor on those songs.

I agree with that.

all of those "biggest tour" with the "highest gross" numbers are a joke anyway-

the stones and U2 played shows for 2 or 3 years running often going back to the same places and then saying this is the "4th leg of the tour" or whatever.just because they name a bunch of shows something and use the same stage if they're back on the same continent and its a different year-its a different tour.

there should be written rules:a "tour" is one trip through one country non-stop in one calender year.

the stones are still doing huge numbers though.it always makes me laugh when some idiot say's "they're too old,they should hang it up" yeah,they're making 10 million a night einstein,and they should quit beeecause...you said so?? and you are,who??

as for brstonesfan-who is this "we" you're talking about white boy?
the rolling stones take-you pay.
the rolling stones travel in a private jet that takes them to a limo that takes them to the show-you drive your car and park it in the lot with everyone else.
they are legendary rock and roll stars-you are one of their millions of fans.
you ask them for an autograph-they dont ask you
face it,there is no "we" only a velvet rope with them on one side and you on the other.

Quote
Harm
Vasco Rossi is The Rolling Stones of Italy...single-handed.....voglio una vita spericolata

Harm no offense, but Vasco Rossi is a lot of garbage

Quote
Beast
<<We have lost generations of new fans
because of the crap we have put out since 89>>
it would appear from the reports etc. that they (as opposed to this mysterious "we" )

i was just wondering if nobody else was wondering

Look at it this way... One direction is playing three shows at MetLife stadium. Zero talent. JZ et al same thing re:,selling tix with little to no talent. It is what it is

Ultimately we paved the way for other bands should be commended for what we did rather than the constant "wrinkly rocker" articles and late night jokes.

Quote
Stone601

Quote
Harm
Vasco Rossi is The Rolling Stones of Italy...single-handed.....voglio una vita spericolata

Harm no offense, but Vasco Rossi is a lot of garbage

Non taken but many people, including me, wil disagree

Unless something has changed since the 80s when I promoted a number of shows, the Billboard numbers are self-reported by the promoter and unverified. I produced shows by a couple of acts whose managers insisted we inflate attendance on our submission to Billboard to report a sellout.

It also used to happen with record companies shipping massive amounts of records upfront so that week one sales figures could be huge..whether the records sold or not.

Lots of people with lots of egos and a desire to be on top in the industry...and possibly no one independently verifying can lead to some iffy numbers. Not saying it is the case here, but beware taking self reported numbers as factual in an industry where egos sometimes trump everything else.

What is surprising is why this is a sticky thread? The most pointless sticky I have read on this forum ever...a sign of the times I guess.

It's a great thread worthy of a sticky. To gross so much and fill up stadiums is a significant accomplishment we all can be proud of. The hardcore fans want and expect us to be not Bly the greatest band, but GOP grossing of all time.

Coudn't care less about box office. Am more interested in legacies, artistic and otherwise.

The three rock artists I have cared most about over the years are Bowie, Dylan, and The Stones. All have taken very different paths in their "twilight" years.

Bowie disappears for a decade, then releases a magnificent album, then ... who knows?

Dylan tours constantly and has released some of the best records of his career since 1997.

The Stones haven't recorded anything of any merit since (arguably) the 70's and yet are fresh off what has apparently been one of their most successful—and possibly rejuevnating—tours of their career.

So who's doing it right? Who's playing for posterity? How will history judge their outputs and how they managed their careers in their latter stages?

My preference is for new music, always. I regard all of these men as artists and look forward to what they have to say, musically, about the changing times we live in. By that measure, The Stones have fallen flat. It's been decades since they had anything relevant to say, in my opinion, about what it's like to be alive today. Whereas new records by Dylan, and THE NEXT DAY, are fascinating portraits of modern times, are chronicles by great men looking at what the world has become.

But The Stones keep touring and touring and touring and playing the same old songs ... and millions of people around the world continue to pony up the cash to sustain the juggernaut. In 50 years, will the view be that they sullied their glorious legacy by the endless repetition of what are known here as "The Vegas Years"? Probably not. Their catalog will be remembered and revered.

I just miss them. Miss hearing what they have to say about growing old. About still playing together after all these years. About women, and children, and grandchildren, and fame, and money, and love, and sex. They wrote some great songs about all those things.

Bowie and Dylan still do.

Quote
buffalo7478
Unless something has changed since the 80s when I promoted a number of shows, the Billboard numbers are self-reported by the promoter and unverified. I produced shows by a couple of acts whose managers insisted we inflate attendance on our submission to Billboard to report a sellout.

It also used to happen with record companies shipping massive amounts of records upfront so that week one sales figures could be huge..whether the records sold or not.

Lots of people with lots of egos and a desire to be on top in the industry...and possibly no one independently verifying can lead to some iffy numbers. Not saying it is the case here, but beware taking self reported numbers as factual in an industry where egos sometimes trump everything else.

The math is simple enough though, at least where the Stones Europe shows are concerned. In Europe, you can figure out the average price based on the number of tickets per section. In all venues, it's at least $150 and no more than $225 or so. All shows sold out immediately. There are a handful of VIP packages (about 600 per show), balanced out by a small handful of "Lucky Dip" tickets at about $90). Having attended two of the larger shows, there was no papering; no "ticket drops" in the weeks before the show, no empty seats, even in the luxury boxes and hospitality sections.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
Coudn't care less about box office. Am more interested in legacies, artistic and otherwise.

The three rock artists I have cared most about over the years are Bowie, Dylan, and The Stones. All have taken very different paths in their "twilight" years.

Bowie disappears for a decade, then releases a magnificent album, then ... who knows?

Dylan tours constantly and has released some of the best records of his career since 1997.

The Stones haven't recorded anything of any merit since (arguably) the 70's and yet are fresh off what has apparently been one of their most successful—and possibly rejuevnating—tours of their career.

So who's doing it right? Who's playing for posterity? How will history judge their outputs and how they managed their careers in their latter stages?

My preference is for new music, always. I regard all of these men as artists and look forward to what they have to say, musically, about the changing times we live in. By that measure, The Stones have fallen flat. It's been decades since they had anything relevant to say, in my opinion, about what it's like to be alive today. Whereas new records by Dylan, and THE NEXT DAY, are fascinating portraits of modern times, are chronicles by great men looking at what the world has become.

But The Stones keep touring and touring and touring and playing the same old songs ... and millions of people around the world continue to pony up the cash to sustain the juggernaut. In 50 years, will the view be that they sullied their glorious legacy by the endless repetition of what are known here as "The Vegas Years"? Probably not. Their catalog will be remembered and revered.

I just miss them. Miss hearing what they have to say about growing old. About still playing together after all these years. About women, and children, and grandchildren, and fame, and money, and love, and sex. They wrote some great songs about all those things.

Bowie and Dylan still do.

But what can they do if they've lost their muse?

They don't seem to be able to create together anymore, which is where most of the great music of the past emanated from.

I'm with you, I'd like to see something new and great, but how do they get there if they don't care?

Quote
LongBeachArena72
Coudn't care less about box office. Am more interested in legacies, artistic and otherwise.

The three rock artists I have cared most about over the years are Bowie, Dylan, and The Stones. All have taken very different paths in their "twilight" years.

Bowie disappears for a decade, then releases a magnificent album, then ... who knows?

Dylan tours constantly and has released some of the best records of his career since 1997.

The Stones haven't recorded anything of any merit since (arguably) the 70's and yet are fresh off what has apparently been one of their most successful—and possibly rejuevnating—tours of their career.

So who's doing it right? Who's playing for posterity? How will history judge their outputs and how they managed their careers in their latter stages?

My preference is for new music, always. I regard all of these men as artists and look forward to what they have to say, musically, about the changing times we live in. By that measure, The Stones have fallen flat. It's been decades since they had anything relevant to say, in my opinion, about what it's like to be alive today. Whereas new records by Dylan, and THE NEXT DAY, are fascinating portraits of modern times, are chronicles by great men looking at what the world has become.

But The Stones keep touring and touring and touring and playing the same old songs ... and millions of people around the world continue to pony up the cash to sustain the juggernaut. In 50 years, will the view be that they sullied their glorious legacy by the endless repetition of what are known here as "The Vegas Years"? Probably not. Their catalog will be remembered and revered.

I just miss them. Miss hearing what they have to say about growing old. About still playing together after all these years. About women, and children, and grandchildren, and fame, and money, and love, and sex. They wrote some great songs about all those things.

Bowie and Dylan still do.

I think all of us older fans can understand those thoughts and have similar feelings. But, did you see the video of Midnight Rambler from Stockholm? This Forum is the only place where people think that Vegas sounds like that.