Greatest Rock 'n Roll band in the world have to drop ticket prices

Bob-Dubery

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/04/rolling-stones-face-pay-cut-ticket-prices-slashed

Yep, demand for tickets for the Stones last ever tour has been underwhelming. Promoters are having to drop ticket prices, and this may put the band's guaranteed fees at risk.

I'm not surprised. Sky News showed some recent live footage on the weekend, and the Stones sounded pretty dismal. Keef and/or Ron seemed to be playing a different song to the rest of the band. In fact things got better when Keef stopped playing guitar to sing on the chorus (the song turned out to be "The Last Time"), though the vocals got worse. This was footage from their recent LA gig. I don't think it did them any favours.

singemonkey

They took a risk and it doesn't seem to have come off. I guess bands like this are trying to maintain their huge incomes in a world in which they're making less from records. But it's not hard to see that they pushed people too far. You have to wonder whether the Stones still know anyone they trust who'd actually think twice about spending $2k on a premo ticket. They and their management may be out of touch.

With regard to the quality, I saw some footage from the shows at the end of last year where the stones were pretty much as they have been for the past 25 years - although greatly enhanced by the presence of Mick Taylor. So those may just have been some bad moments in the show.

AlanRatcliffe

My first thought on seeing the topic title was "Are they still the greatest?". Seems like the answer is no. Even by the carefully edited, carefully mixed, Scorsese directed Shine a Light, they looked more than a little past it performance-wise to me.

Of course, can also partly be that fans have stopped falling for the "might be last chance to see" hype the Stones have been using for the last decade.

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote They took a risk and it doesn't seem to have come off. I guess bands like this are trying to maintain their huge incomes in a world in which they're making less from records. But it's not hard to see that they pushed people too far. You have to wonder whether the Stones still know anyone they trust who'd actually think twice about spending $2k on a premo ticket. They and their management may be out of touch.

Promoters have been wincing at the prices the Stones demand for some time now. This goes back to the 70s. They've got away with it for a long time and flogged their legend for all it's worth, but this looks like a bridge too far.

But a risk? Not for the Stones. The real risk was with the promoters. The Stones just say "we want X googleplex US dollars per show" and leave the promoter to figure out how he's going to make it work.

With regard to the quality, I saw some footage from the shows at the end of last year where the stones were pretty much as they have been for the past 25 years - although greatly enhanced by the presence of Mick Taylor. So those may just have been some bad moments in the show.

Quite possibly Sky, for whatever reason, decided to show seriously unflattering footage, but they could only show that because the stones served it up in the first place.

singemonkey

Yeah. Well they've not been the greatest since about 1976.

Still, even though they're still raking it in, it would be a huge embarrassment to have empty seats. And it looks as though they're prepared to negotiate to ensure that that doesn't happen.

flatfourfan

They haven't been worth what they've been asking for a LONG while.

All I know is that if I've already bought tickets at the higher prices, then I'd be plenty pissed off to see this reduction.

Keira-WitherKay

well truth be told ...THIS is definitely the last chance to see the stones ........

so that said ... making the tickets more affordable is expected in this current world economy

BUT i would reckon for any stones fan ... and lets be honest they all my age (50 ish ) or older with a fair amount of 'disposable income" .... it's still an opportunity to see them live...... even if they way way off the boil.........

and as to the "state ' of the live performance ... i have seen much video of rock bands in their heyday having attrocious live shows at the peak of their popularity .....

so if you keen on hearing perfect reditions of their old hits ...rather take the ticket money and spend it on itunes downlading their entire catalog and sit in your home entertainment area and enjoy it .......

but to say you actually been at the Stones concert and experienced them live ...is not dependant on a perfect show.... but rather being part of the vibe/legend that is the Rolling Stones ........

and believe me being able to say you caught a Stones concert will be something , if you a fan of course ....you will treasure your whole life.............

it's like being able to say ... 'i shook hands with frank sinatra" there's a special magic to it.

Bob-Dubery

Keira WitherKay wrote BUT i would reckon for any stones fan ... and lets be honest they all my age (50 ish ) or older with a fair amount of 'disposable income" .... it's still an opportunity to see them live...... even if they way way off the boil.........

and as to the "state ' of the live performance ... i have seen much video of rock bands in their heyday having attrocious live shows at the peak of their popularity .....

so if you keen on hearing perfect reditions of their old hits ...rather take the ticket money and spend it on itunes downlading their entire catalog and sit in your home entertainment area and enjoy it .......

but to say you actually been at the Stones concert and experienced them live ...is not dependant on a perfect show.... but rather being part of the vibe/legend that is the Rolling Stones ........

and believe me being able to say you caught a Stones concert will be something , if you a fan of course ....you will treasure your whole life.............

it's like being able to say ... 'i shook hands with frank sinatra" there's a special magic to it.

I'm not convinced ?

I don't expect perfect renditions of the old hits, and I don't believe that performance necessarily declines with age. When I saw Norma Waterson she was nearly 71, struggling to walk and she gave a great performance. When I saw Danny Thompson he was 68, had had a stroke, had a pacemaker and he played fabulously well. Robert Plant is only five years younger than Sir Mick, and based on his output the last few years I wouldn't think twice about going to see him if I got the chance.

The Stones were a seriously fab band at one point, and, in their prime, they released a very, very good live record.

But they're not playing like that any more. My guess is that they're really not motivated any more, and when people will play hideous amounts of money to see the Stones hit the stage hours late and then go through the motions maybe they don't need to be. Maybe the joke is on us because we can't see that the emperor is in a state of advanced disrobement.

Live shows can be a gamble. There are no guarantees that the guys you've paid to see are going to be tight, in tune, inspired or whatever. But with the Stones as they are these days there's too good a chance that they'll be mediocre. And for the money that was being asked, mediocre doesn't cut it for me.

So it comes down to the nostalgia factor. For me it's not enough.

I understand the thing about seeing some musician or band that you've admired for years, but it's preferable by far, surely, to see them when they're willing and able to put on a decent performance. This is why seeing Danny T was such a thrill for me (so much of a thrill that I paid little attention to the guy whose gig it actually was). Not only did I get to see him play, but he was still playing with energy, with skill, with inventiveness. I can say, without having to cross my fingers behind my back, that I saw him and he was great. I have borne witness to the greatness.

flatfourfan

^^^^

have to agree with the X-rated one.

The chance of getting lumped with a mediocre show from RS is pretty big and I'm sorry, I'm paying good money to be entertained not to say that I saw a group before they died.

Sneaky-Pete

I've been a Stones fan since they started, but they've been dead in the water for the last 30 years....no decent songs and some seriously crap playing.

Poor old Ronnie Wood....even after kicking the booze, still the most hesitant, nervous, unconvincing guitarist on the planet. Only got the job because he's a Keef clone.
That footage of The Last Time was rubbish playing....sounded like a band from the Borneo jungle who had been told about the Stones but never actually heard their records.
Enough already....it's just embarassing.......

As for the ticket prices....greedy little Mick at work...

vic

Well it's like buying a ticket for a Muhammad Ali comeback.....you don't wanna see the man fight...you just wanna see the man ?

Bob-Dubery

Vic wrote
Well it's like buying a ticket for a Muhammad Ali comeback.....you don't wanna see the man fight...you just wanna see the man ?

I don't. I don't follow boxing much. I do follow cricket, and I don't like seeing old cricketers go on past their sell-by date. They just make fools of themselves in the long run. I'd rather have the memories of them in their prime and then going out whilst they were still playing decently. The other sport I pay attention to (sorry, I don't much go in for these kicking-the-ball-around things) is F1. As many will know, Michael Schumacher made a comeback after retiring when he was still capable of putting up a fight. When he came back he was outclassed by a team mate who was a middling driver and it diminished his reputation - especially with so many young drivers around who wouldn't have had much chance to race against him and were probably left wondering what all the fuss was about.

I might go listen to, say, Shane Warne give an after dinner talk, but no way do I want to see him make a comeback. Seeing him puffing and panting in 20 over games, whilst he gets smacked all over the place by has-beens and never-will-bes is bad enough.

guidothepimmp

Dammit
From the title i thought this was about ac /dc

>☹

Tokai-SA

Keira WitherKay wrote well truth be told ...THIS is definitely the last chance to see the stones ........

so that said ... making the tickets more affordable is expected in this current world economy

BUT i would reckon for any stones fan ... and lets be honest they all my age (50 ish ) or older with a fair amount of 'disposable income" .... it's still an opportunity to see them live...... even if they way way off the boil.........

and as to the "state ' of the live performance ... i have seen much video of rock bands in their heyday having attrocious live shows at the peak of their popularity .....

so if you keen on hearing perfect reditions of their old hits ...rather take the ticket money and spend it on itunes downlading their entire catalog and sit in your home entertainment area and enjoy it .......

but to say you actually been at the Stones concert and experienced them live ...is not dependant on a perfect show.... but rather being part of the vibe/legend that is the Rolling Stones ........

and believe me being able to say you caught a Stones concert will be something , if you a fan of course ....you will treasure your whole life.............

it's like being able to say ... 'i shook hands with frank sinatra" there's a special magic to it.

Well said. 8)

Gearhead

Saw Stones live from about four metres away in Amsterdam about seven years ago and they rocked my socks off, goosebumps and all; about 45000 other people seemed to feel the same way. Dunno what happened since but I'm sure it's reversible if the guys want it bad enough.

Arno-West

guidothepimmp wrote Dammit
From the title i thought this was about ac /dc

>☹

singemonkey

The Stones are still quite capable of doing a good show. Especially if you're used to what they do now. Jack Flash pointed out that at some point Charlie's drumming changed completely. My guess is that he started playing to a click. A lot of the energy left the band at that point. They rode on Charlie's effortlessly driving rhythm. Suddenly it's like clockwork - and so is the whole band.

In a clip I saw from last year, Mick Taylor got into his solo like it was 1972. You could see the rest of the Stones getting all confused by this extended playing. You could see pretty clearly that nowdays everything is done to tight cues. They can't accommodate the easy, responsive musicianship that made them so awesome in the early '70s. So it's a much more mechanical show than it used to be.

But no, I don't think this will be the last at all. Keef loves touring too much, and Mick loves making money too much.

Psean

singemonkey wrote The Stones are still quite capable of doing a good show. Especially if you're used to what they do now. Jack Flash pointed out that at some point Charlie's drumming changed completely. My guess is that he started playing to a click. A lot of the energy left the band at that point. They rode on Charlie's effortlessly driving rhythm. Suddenly it's like clockwork - and so is the whole band.

In According to The Rolling Stones Ronnie (IIRC) talks about their move to click tracks. Apparently Keith took a lot of convincing, even in the studio. When they did use them live it was just to set the tempo for the intros - after that it was up to Charlie. Sounds like maybe they've gone with clicks all the way through now. When do you reckon Charlie's drumming changed?

singemonkey

I think Jack reckoned it was sometime in the early to mid '80s?

Also around the time that Mick took dance lessons and become much less interesting to watch. :-\

Psean

singemonkey wrote I think Jack reckoned it was sometime in the early to mid '80s?

Mmmm... I wonder if the click has affected them more than Ronnie's letting on. I haven't heard much live stuff other than Ya Ya's so I don't really know.

Also around the time that Mick took dance lessons and become much less interesting to watch. :-\

Bleh