retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lorenz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What he is doing now with those ticket prices,
> the simply awful marketing, is
> > ruining the reputation. He already pretty much
> ruined it.
>
> Great analysis! And absolutely true. In former
> times, when a Stones tour was announced, it was
> THE 'talk of the town' amongst Stones fans and
> music lovers who had an affection for their music:
> "Stones on tour: I'll go to see them in ....,
> ...., ....., where do you go? Can we go
> together?". This time, the situation was
> completely different: "Stones on tour? Naaah, I
> don't go. Always the same, and much too
> expensive!". There now is a desert where once
> there was a sea.......!
>
>
> > And it seems the Stones who definitely know
> about the prices either don't recognize it or they
> don't care...
>
> One tends to think that they are too clever to not
> recognizing it....which of course means that they
> obviously don't care. Not a good sign.


Yup, they are definitely getting too comfortable in their own laziness to do anything about it. To them, all they see is that they're still selling tickets...so they don't notice that their repuation is in critical condition. This tour should have pinched them all a bit because the ticket sales have been sluggish and hopefully they're bright enough to put two and two together and realize that the ticket prices are working against them.

wow..what fantastic pix. Thanks, Roby. So many amazing photos from this show



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-13 23:55 by Gazza.

straycatuk wrote:

"I think the Who have got it right on this score. Regular mix of Smaller stadiums,arenas and festivals = big fan base and great atmosphere."

I have seen the Who long time ago. The atmosphere wasn't great. Not at all, atleast on the particular night. "Big fan base"? I don't see something like that this summer...

retired_dog wrote:

"There now is a desert where once there was a sea.......!"

I hate these prices, i hate Cohl's tactics, but also don't like the exaggeretions. "Desert"??? We are saying groundless things as if the Stones wasn't still the most attended live act in the planet. Yes, i know what they're losing charging these @#$%& prices. But i still see notable numbers of young people in their concerts, a fact that could be considered as a little" miracle" under these conditions (prices). I'm accusing them, but at the same time i know that what does happen is still a "sea". A "sea" that could be more dashing, of course! No question about it...

In former times the atmosphere had not to do with the prices only. In former times the Stones was an almost rare act. Just count the frequency of their tours in the last years. Even if the prices were normal, the general atmosphere wouldn't be ful of heat and people's impatience, in the way it was in 1982, 1990 or 1995. They have played to death almost everywhere (atleast in main markets) but they're still attractive. Yes, this factor (frequency of tours) is one more reason why the prices should be much lower. I want to be critical on this, but without "leveling" them, without underestimating what they still offers us. Am i wrong?

retired_dog wrote:

"As I see it, the Stones need a longer break from touring to create demand again if they intend to charge even the same prices again next time around, not to speak of even higher prices. But the question at stake is: Will they be able to tour in four, five or six years from now?"

In five or six probably not. But in two - three years from now? Maybe yes, if their health gets OK. But with lower prices of course. I think will be demand enough, under two conditions. Lower prices and many places not played to death- in addition, some gigs in main markets, of course. There are still many "virgin" places, even in North America (remember Regina, Kentucky etc). East and South Europe are not saturated markets yet. Just REDUCE THE PRICES! God, how can they visit Poland (!!) charging "Los Angeles prices"??? .

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> retired_dog wrote:
>
> "There now is a desert where once there was a
> sea.......!"
>
> I hate these prices, i hate Cohl's tactics, but
> also don't like the exaggeretions. "Desert"??? We
> are saying groundless things as if the Stones
> wasn't still the most attended live act in the
> planet.

Of course I was a bit exaggerating and tongue-in-cheek (as indicated by the "......!" after "sea", but when I look around and check my mates, there is indeed is a desert "where there once was a sea". Absolutely nobody goes to see them this time, and this includes two people I first met during the European Tour 1973 - and I am sure that there are people with similar experiences out there. But of course, there are still people who go to the shows, me included. Then again, those days of immediate sell-outs are gone. Also gone are the days when they could play two or three sell-out shows in a row in most major cities (New York and London being the only exceptions). Stones tickets are no more "hot tickets". In fact, being the "hottest ticket" available was always an important part of the Stones legacy. You can go to to almost all regular shows without a ticket and still be almost 100% sure that you're in - at face value or even below, sometimes even much below. I seriously believe that after this tour, they have to sit together and re-think their act. Otherwise, I fear that things could go even worse next time around. If there is a "next time", that is.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-14 01:06 by retired_dog.

Having been listening to The Rolling Stones since 1971-72ish, they are really boring now...same shit different toilet.

They seem to be nothing more then lights and fog....the guitar playing is uninspired, Charlie still has life, Ronnie is better then Keith...I thought I would NEVER say that. Mick is Mick.

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schillid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wonderful shots, Paulywaul.
> >
> > I am wondering about one shot in particular...
> > Who?... Why? ...
> >
> > paulywaul Wrote:
> >
> [i61.photobucket.com]
>
> >
> ones%20Isle%20of%20Wight/Beastandyoungsters2.jpg
>
> Schillid ... these are the youngsters that were
> directly behind Beast, BarRoomQueen and myself
> down there at front of stage. We spoke to them for
> a few minutes after the Stones finished, asking
> them what they thought etc etc. I just thought it
> would be fun to grab a picture or two. It seemed
> only logical to make sure the new IORR T shirt was
> in there, because apart from anything else ... I
> told them that if they wanted a copy of the
> picture, all they had to do was go to www.iorr.org
> and find the relevant thread on the Tell Me
> message board. For all I know, some of them will
> have read this thread and seen themselves in the
> picture(s) by now. In case you don't know what she
> looks like, that's Beast with the hat on in the
> middle of the group, holding up the T-shirt.

those dang kids have a buzz on; just look at 'em...what do they think? life's a big rock and roll party??? dang kids. haha the beast in the middle of it all, her new friend happily providing the tongue logo to the shirt...everyone's a critic, eh schillid?

I just came to think about it... I hardly got any IOW reviews... which means this show at IOW was "consumed" by the the young fans. They don't go on the internet, they don't buy any merchandise, they just sleep in tents, drink beer and enjoy the Stones. That's what I call a great life!

Bjornulf

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> haha the beast in the
> middle of it all, her new friend happily providing
> the tongue logo to the shirt...everyone's a
> critic, eh schillid?

You got that right

interesting - after reading many negativity I finally had a chance to see pro-shot of complete song and it lefts me iwith my mouth-wide-opened <WOW> I mean - KEITH ! listen to his guitar. He is a w ild barbarian that controls everything withing the eye distance. For f&& sake ! Listen to what he plays. a chunkchunkchunka chunka- chunk chunk - woooooooooooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooo

I WANT MY OXYGEN...err I mean SHOW NOW !!!

retired_dog, my point is clear: attracting 4,500,000 people in 2006/07 is much more remarkable than playing in front of 6,000,000 in 1989/90 or 1994/95.

You say: "In fact, being the "hottest ticket" available was always an important part of the Stones legacy." Really? I thouhgt only music was important - that's what i'm hearing from some "all time moaners" here... So, by your logic during 70s band's reputation wasn't good, just because they played in front of 400,000 people only, on each tour. The tickets were "hotest", of course, as the band was playing basically small(er) venues. So, if the Stones are to doing an arena tour for 500,000 people in two years from now and the sales will be fast, will you consider this as a "counter- attack" after an "unsuccessful" tour that have attract only... 4,500,000?? What kind of logic would be that??

Well, you do consider the ticket sales as "an important part of the Stones legacy". Then the fact that they remain the most attended live act worldwide, after having been on the road in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006 does mean nothing to you? To me, i repeat, that's much more remarkable than selling fast during the first tour after 5 years (Voodoo Lounge), 8 years (Sw/UJ) or 6 years (1982- Europe). You're underestimating this factor (frequency of tours) and that's a serious mistake IMHO...

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Adrian-L Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > See you in London hopefully.
> >
> > Ok...London it is... and less of the
> 'hopefully'.
>
>
> It depends on Baboon's capability behind the wheel


I have faith in his driving skills I must say. He's bringing two of his sons and then I don't think he'd do reckless driving.

JumpingKentFlash

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> You say: "In fact, being the "hottest ticket"
> available was always an important part of the
> Stones legacy." Really? I thouhgt only music was
> important

I think he means the 'hottest ticket' mentality is important to the Stones themselves.

"The hottest ticket in town" - well, it's not about the number of ticket sales per se. By using this term I meant that there was a time when going to see the Stones was a no-brainer, many of my friends simply did not need a second thought. As soon as it became clear that the Stones were coming, telephone lines ran hot and people simply went crazy, virtually tearing the tapestry from the walls out of sheer excitement and the question always was: Will I be able to get a ticket? They're gonna sell out quicker than you'll be able to snap with your fingers. That was the "sea" I meant in one of my posts. Nowadays it's like: "Oh yes, the Stones again. Hmmm, dunno if I go. I'll wait and see. Always the same anyways. And much too expensive." And when I look around, nobody goes anymore. That's the "desert" I meant. I sometimes feel like the last Mohican or Mohawk....! Of course, there are still people who go to see them. But when I look around and check my relatives and friends and fellow Stones fans....a desert. But even in general, there is considerable less excitement when the Stones come on tour. Which is reflected by slower ticket sales, lesser sell-outs, lesser media coverage...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-15 15:37 by retired_dog.

"Íobody goes anymore"??? Hey, retired_dog, do you consider 4,500,000 people as ..."nobody", just because looking around you don't see your old or newer friends ?? Who says that a band with 45 years career should have the same fan base and the same audiences forever? That's would be crazy...

Yes, we see slower ticket sales, lesser sell outs and lesser media coverage. So what? The band has played to death almost everywhere in the last years. They do much more concerts in comparison to the past, playing a lot of big venues, so the total attendance is allocated among much more gigs. That's absolutely logical. And the prices are highest, unfortunately. But look at the result. And FREE YOURSELF from the "captivity" of these insipid "fetich", like the questions: "what time did they sold the tickets in?". "Is the stadium 100% or 89,3% filled?"...

The fact is that on this tour the attendances in North America and Eupope are bigger than the 1981 and 1982 attendances. And you feel like the last Mohican or Mohawk...

Noone cares about number of sellouts, believe me. Not even the music industry that counts basically gross and attendance (in this order, unfortunately). Otherwise these egoists, our "boys", would do much fewer gigs so that they could sellout almost everywhere. But, tell me, why doing one concert for 55,000 in Spain and selling out in hours (as Police do, on their first tour after 20 years) would be most successful than attracting there 175,000 doing four concerts? Just because the sales are much more lower by the second method? I cannot understand it...

Oh, yes, noone does care about number of sellouts. The exception is a number of Stones fans, of course. Have you heard in the end of 2003 any huge Springsteen fan moaning "what a shame Boss, only 47 out 82 gigs were sold out"? Of course not. Bruce played in front of 2,804,169 people on his entire tour, so his success was clear. But i saw here some Stones fans complaining just because the band had 69 out 115 sellouts, after having attracting (Licks) 3,470,945 people! "Stones fans illness", i guess.

Stickydion, your obsession with attendance figures borders on the paranoid.

Do you not realise that none of us here, give a flying piece of s**t as to how many people turn up to see the Stones, or anybody else for that matter.

It's about the music, my good man. The music.

Now put your sliderule and logarithmic tables away, and put your headphones back on.

I have posted my IOW photos here [www.team-skinny-racing.com]

The festival was excellent but I have to say it was one of the weakest performace I have seen by the Stones, still good but I know they can do better.

Cheers
Warby

Barn Owl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stickydion, your obsession with attendance figures
> borders on the paranoid.
>
> Do you not realise that none of us here, give a
> flying piece of s**t as to how many people turn up
> to see the Stones, or anybody else for that
> matter.
>
> It's about the music, my good man. The music.
>
> Now put your sliderule and logarithmic tables
> away, and put your headphones back on.


Well put, Barn Owl. Could not say it better than you. I gave up explaining because Stickydion just does not get what I'm trying to say. I am worried about their rapidly fading credibility amongst fans, even long-terms fans. I don't care a s***t if they are still able to sell tickets to yuppies with only a basic knowledge of their catalog that more often than not does not exceed the tracklist of 40 Licks (if at all).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-15 21:01 by retired_dog.

Retired Dog, there's plenty of people on this board who will see a lot fewer shows than they used to, and some won't even go at all.
The gang who I saw the Stones with, in the 90s, jumped off the concertwagon after Licks. And those guys are Stones fans, and listen to their albums - including the new ones. It's simply the ticketprices that stops them from going.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Retired Dog, there's plenty of people on this
> board who will see a lot fewer shows than they
> used to, and some won't even go at all.
> The gang who I saw the Stones with, in the 90s,
> jumped off the concertwagon after Licks. And those
> guys are Stones fans, and listen to their albums -
> including the new ones. It's simply the
> ticketprices that stops them from going.


Erik, now that is EXACTLY what I mean! This exactly reflects my very own experience with my 'gang'. And just as in your case, those guys and gals are still fans!

not sure if these have been posted yet, but here's Mr. Doherty sporting some tongue paint. The girl behind him with the long hair in glasses I'm almost 100% certain that is Lucie de la Falaise, Marlon's wife. I don't know if she and Kate are friends, but I do remember seeing photos of the two of them from the same modelling shoots back in the 90's.



Then there's this one as well, I am not 100% certain, but I believe the little girl with the tongue on her arm is Keith's granddaughter, Ella. She looks very much like Marlon's profile, and similar to Theo also. I would be money it's her.



Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Philippe Manoeuvre, editor of the french monthly magazine Rock & Folk and core fan of The Stones since decades, will present on Tuesday, 10th at 22:15 on the german -french cultural TV channel Arte ( yes, a cultural channel does exist )a report on IOW with excerpts from 2007 concert.


[www.tvmag.com]

[www.arte.tv]

[www.tvmag.com]

Well, I've never been to the Isle of Wight but I'm guessing that the Stones appearing there was one of the island's great events of the last few hundred years....lol ;-)

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones