Rolling Stones
Comments
-
bobmunro said:
If you've seen them before then it's easier to pass this up. If people haven't seen them live then this is probably your last chance and it is a genuine 'bucket list' experience.shine166 said:
still trying to work out if I get some or not... saw them at glastonbury a few years ago n that was amazingFumbluff said:I'll let you know in May
#prayformick
They are so good live it is scary.
Yer the ticket prices are taking the piss, if they were a bit better id have been all over it with no questions
0 -
Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.1
-
Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.
3 -
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.0 -
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.
0 -
The same as other stadiums such as Wembley or Twickenham. It's decent.shine166 said:Whats the olympic stadium like for gigs ? I know its pretty much pointless for football
0 -
Pot and kettle!Riviera said:
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.0 -
£250 is expensive, but will be worth it. It’s the price of a couple nights out.McBobbin said:Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.
2 -
Well go on then....Addick Addict said:
Pot and kettle!Riviera said:
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.0 -
£250 is for top top tickets. Ground admission and stand on pitch (as I did when I was young) is £65.ricky_otto said:
£250 is expensive, but will be worth it. It’s the price of a couple nights out.McBobbin said:Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Not worth the effort. I've got far more important things to do like the ironing.Riviera said:
Well go on then....Addick Addict said:
Pot and kettle!Riviera said:
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.1 -
Pathetic excuse. You love my CD's on our coach trips....Addick Addict said:
Not worth the effort. I've got far more important things to do like the ironing.Riviera said:
Well go on then....Addick Addict said:
Pot and kettle!Riviera said:
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.0 -
I humour you that's all.Riviera said:
Pathetic excuse. You love my CD's on our coach trips....Addick Addict said:
Not worth the effort. I've got far more important things to do like the ironing.Riviera said:
Well go on then....Addick Addict said:
Pot and kettle!Riviera said:
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.0 -
You know all the words.Addick Addict said:
I humour you that's all.Riviera said:
Pathetic excuse. You love my CD's on our coach trips....Addick Addict said:
Not worth the effort. I've got far more important things to do like the ironing.Riviera said:
Well go on then....Addick Addict said:
Pot and kettle!Riviera said:
But you've never had a decent taste in music. Bruce Springsteen! I ask you???!!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.0 -
I'm a great Springsteen fan and have seen him live many times - but not in the same league. Nobody is!!Addick Addict said:
I'm glad you said that because I'm just about to upset @bobmunro by saying that I would rather go to see The Boss and The E-Street Band than the Stones. And that comes from someone who as a teenager used to play in a band that covered the likes of Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar.daveaddick said:Looks like I started a bit of an argument earlier on, can't understand why we can't just have our exchanges without resorting to insults....after all it's only rock and roll.
Anyway I take Greenies point (well made) and I believe he has an inside track on info and I know the cost of setting up and running a show like this is astronomical. What Greenie didn't cover was the amount of money the band gross from merchandising, something I am a double sucker for. So baseball hats T-shirts, programmes, plastic beer mugs etc. makes an absolute fortune and they will be on a good percentage of that as well. The Stones are an industry with many people working for it and I get they have to make money but it is a gravy train to some extent.
Micks love of money and indeed his business acumen is well known, as is his parsimony, whereas Keef likes the dough but isn't driven by it and to be honest this "conflict" if you like has driven the success because Keef has ensured the spirit of the band and the music has remained true to their roots and Mick has ensured that they didn't end up doing Butlins weekenders years ago with Billy J Kramer.
However I do stand by my original statement that the tickets are somewhat lumpy and McBobbins post (enjoy the gig it will be brilliant mate) kind of underlines this for me is there really a need to charge £250 for a decent seat? I would have thought £150 would have been more than enough. Now without starting any spats I do think that The Stones would be able to influence this if they chose to, maybe I am wrong.........please don't swear at me.1 -
Just secured two tickets for the 25 May as well. Lower tier seats as close as possible to the stage (block 111) - too old now for that standing malarkey.McBobbin said:Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.
3 -
They are £250 cos more than enough people readily pay that amount and much much more.
The same show can be seen for £101 or thereabouts, which still ain't cheap but fatally punctures the arguments from all the hand-wringing jealous keyboard warriors (irony alert).
If you like it and can afford it: go, if one or other doesn't apply: don't. I'd like to drive a Jag to work everyday rather than my Fiesta but I can't afford to run a Jag. I'm not cross about it, I've no entitlement to more than I choose to purchase.
I've been fortunate enough to attend Stones gigs in arenas and stadia and the atmosphere at them all is second to none. I've seen hundreds of performances by artists at all strata of success but Mick, Charlie, Keef and Woody consistently deliver, for want of a less denigrated expression, "x-factor." If £100.45 (plus postage) is the price of a ticket, so be it.
Performers and promoters will keep on charging a few quid more than they think they can get away with until the demand dries up. Suckers will keep on hosing money into the pockets of parasitic "marketplace" vendors and touts, cos they always have.0 -
The price for some charlie must be going up then, as last time I was out £30 would probably do.ricky_otto said:
£250 is expensive, but will be worth it. It’s the price of a couple nights out.McBobbin said:Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.
0 -
I selected any ticket and saw what they gave us. Thought they would sell out instantly! Still, looking forward to it! We are near the halfway line I think, can't remember the block number0
-
Christ, when did you last go out? 1980?golfaddick said:
The price for some charlie must be going up then, as last time I was out £30 would probably do.ricky_otto said:
£250 is expensive, but will be worth it. It’s the price of a couple nights out.McBobbin said:Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
You’d be surprised how economical driving a jag to work was. I miss my jag....StigThundercock said:They are £250 cos more than enough people readily pay that amount and much much more.
The same show can be seen for £101 or thereabouts, which still ain't cheap but fatally punctures the arguments from all the hand-wringing jealous keyboard warriors (irony alert).
If you like it and can afford it: go, if one or other doesn't apply: don't. I'd like to drive a Jag to work everyday rather than my Fiesta but I can't afford to run a Jag. I'm not cross about it, I've no entitlement to more than I choose to purchase.
I've been fortunate enough to attend Stones gigs in arenas and stadia and the atmosphere at them all is second to none. I've seen hundreds of performances by artists at all strata of success but Mick, Charlie, Keef and Woody consistently deliver, for want of a less denigrated expression, "x-factor." If £100.45 (plus postage) is the price of a ticket, so be it.
Performers and promoters will keep on charging a few quid more than they think they can get away with until the demand dries up. Suckers will keep on hosing money into the pockets of parasitic "marketplace" vendors and touts, cos they always have.0 -
FYI. The 2013 concert from Hyde Park (Sweet Summer Sun) is available on Sky Arts as are two documentaries, Exhibitionists and Totally Stripped. Best to tap 'The Rolling Stones' into the search box - all three pop up.1
-
Saw Stones in Hyde Park in 1969. Going to Olympic Stadium, seen every tour, one is going to be “ the last time”.1
-
I remember when the price of going to see a top band was less than or about the same as the price of their latest LP - those were the days! I have never seen the Stones despite them being right up there in my list of favorite bands. I won't be going at those prices I'm afraid.0
-
What £65?Saga Lout said:I remember when the price of going to see a top band was less than or about the same as the price of their latest LP - those were the days! I have never seen the Stones despite them being right up there in my list of favorite bands. I won't be going at those prices I'm afraid.
0 -
I've never paid 65 quid for an LP IN MY LIFE!Riviera said:
What £65?Saga Lout said:I remember when the price of going to see a top band was less than or about the same as the price of their latest LP - those were the days! I have never seen the Stones despite them being right up there in my list of favorite bands. I won't be going at those prices I'm afraid.
0 -
What on earth is an LP?Saga Lout said:
I've never paid 65 quid for an LP IN MY LIFE!Riviera said:
What £65?Saga Lout said:I remember when the price of going to see a top band was less than or about the same as the price of their latest LP - those were the days! I have never seen the Stones despite them being right up there in my list of favorite bands. I won't be going at those prices I'm afraid.
1 -
actually it's probably more appropriate these days than back in the 70's as most albums seem to be a lot longer than they used to be.Greenie said:
What on earth is an LP?Saga Lout said:
I've never paid 65 quid for an LP IN MY LIFE!Riviera said:
What £65?Saga Lout said:I remember when the price of going to see a top band was less than or about the same as the price of their latest LP - those were the days! I have never seen the Stones despite them being right up there in my list of favorite bands. I won't be going at those prices I'm afraid.
0 -
Probably due to the physical limitations of vinyl, compared to digital. I'm no music snob, but I do appreciate the art of compiling an album, where it is intended to be played end to end, possibly with the album being turned over in the middle. It needs to be cohesive, have some sort of narrative, each song need to justify its place on the album and its place in the running order. I sometimes now get the impressive that such an art is being lost, as people are only going to listen to a few songs on shuffle.stonemuse said:
actually it's probably more appropriate these days than back in the 70's as most albums seem to be a lot longer than they used to be.Greenie said:
What on earth is an LP?Saga Lout said:
I've never paid 65 quid for an LP IN MY LIFE!Riviera said:
What £65?Saga Lout said:I remember when the price of going to see a top band was less than or about the same as the price of their latest LP - those were the days! I have never seen the Stones despite them being right up there in my list of favorite bands. I won't be going at those prices I'm afraid.
2 -
I was at the point of treating myself to a £250 ticket on Friday. Nearly did but my problem is, I don't know anyone who'd have been prepared to pay that much to come with me (my wife hates concerts). I've seen them a few times over the years which is probably what stopped me buying it.ricky_otto said:
£250 is expensive, but will be worth it. It’s the price of a couple nights out.McBobbin said:Got a couple of £250 tickets for 25 May at the taxpayers stadium. Eye-wateringly expensive, but I've never seen them before and am a big fan of their 60s and 70s stuff... worth it in my book, and they are great seats.
Sometimes it's worth hanging the expense and treating yourself though. My wife paid about £450 to buy me a VIP ticket for the classic Quadrophenia at the RAH a couple of years ago. Seat in the 2nd row and got to meet Pete Townshend before the show. Don't think I've ever enjoyed a concert as much.
5
