The Rolling Stones

cgw · 04-20-2013, 05:16 PM

If I had not seen them in the past I would probably go. I am getting over my sticker shock at prices (though $633 is shocking). As it is, I don't really want to ruin my memories. The show I saw (early 80's) was great and memorable for more than just the concert. Ditto with the Who. Springsteen, on the other hand, lately seems just as good as he was in the 80's.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 04-20-2013, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkeyleg

Hi, all. I just now joined this forum to reply to this post above:

On the 1981 tour I got my buddy and me 8th row center seats at the Rosemont Horizon outside Chicago for $20+. I went to the Ticketmaster location at a local mall at 10 am, and there was nobody else there.

Of course, my friends and I saw Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin (1st tour), The Doors, Janis Joplin, Steppenwolf, and a whole slew of other big names in the 1960's and very early 1970's for $2.50, $3.50 or $4.50 a seat. We saw the Stones in Indianapolis in 1972 on the Exile tour, and I'm sure we didn't pay much more than $10, as I was a broke college student at the time.

Now I'm paying $633 each for 52nd row floor seats for the 5/28 Chicago concert.

My buddy and I have seen the Stones on every tour but one since 1972 (he saw them in '65 as well). I thought $300 a seat for the 2005 concert was a lot.

Well that's amazing how cheap you saw them in the 80's. I wonder why it's so expensive now. I wish I could have been around then to see more of their tours.

Burning Down · 04-20-2013, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Well that's amazing how cheap you saw them in the 80's. I wonder why it's so expensive now. I wish I could have been around then to see more of their tours.

Probably because of Ticketmaster.

Monkeyleg · 04-20-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

Probably because of Ticketmaster.

I don't know. I believe it was the Eagles who started charging "real money" for concerts in the 1970's. Before that, concerts were viewed as promotion for record sales. Now I think it's simply demand. People know this is the last time. Tickets for Paul McCartney's concerts this year are just as bad. Maybe he's hanging it up, too. If this wasn't the last tour, there's no way I'd shell out this kind of money.

I was thankful to see the Stones in 1972 and 1975 before they went nuts with all of the pyrotechnics and elaborate stages. I will say, though, that the 2nd-last tour (2000?) was fantastic. No gimmicks, no pyrotechnics, just the Stones playing. It was one of the best concerts they've done.

2005 was really, good, too. When they did "Night Time is the Right Time" with Buddy Guy, and Lisa Fisher belting out the song with Jagger, it was just incredible.

neardeathexperience · 04-20-2013, 08:36 PM

The thing is when the so called stadium acts started to tour it required like 30 transport trucks to ship the stage, lighting and equipment around which drove the cost up greatly of putting these shows on therefore the cost was absorbed by the ticket holders and " advertisers " of the tour...........

Monkeyleg · 04-20-2013, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neardeathexperience

The thing is when the so called stadium acts started to tour it required like 30 transport trucks to ship the stage, lighting and equipment around which drove the cost up greatly of putting these shows on therefore the cost was absorbed by the ticket holders and " advertisers " of the tour...........

That's very true, too. I don't know that the truckloads of lighting and props and such made the shows any better, but I'm sure they made the band members feel more comfortable having the same setting for each show.

By that point, the concerts were shows, too. They were performances. I mentioned earlier seeing the Doors. As good as they were (it was the one of the last shows before Morrison died), their performance was boring by comparison. Led Zeppelin was better, Jimi Hendrix was ok.

At least the rock stars started making some real money for their work. Contrast the Stones with Chuck Berry, who never really made much, flew coach (a friend's mother sat and talked with him on a flight), and has a pretty modest house.

neardeathexperience · 04-21-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkeyleg

That's very true, too. I don't know that the truckloads of lighting and props and such made the shows any better, but I'm sure they made the band members feel more comfortable having the same setting for each show.

By that point, the concerts were shows, too. They were performances. I mentioned earlier seeing the Doors. As good as they were (it was the one of the last shows before Morrison died), their performance was boring by comparison. Led Zeppelin was better, Jimi Hendrix was ok.

At least the rock stars started making some real money for their work. Contrast the Stones with Chuck Berry, who never really made much, flew coach (a friend's mother sat and talked with him on a flight), and has a pretty modest house.

In my opinion the shows were better because the concert became not only a audio experience, but also a visual one! Kiss just kept building bigger and more elaborate stages and Pink Floyd also became adept at offering the ultimate visual experience to go along with their music. Even those Rolling Stones started building huge props for their stadium shows......

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 04-29-2013, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkeyleg

I don't know. I believe it was the Eagles who started charging "real money" for concerts in the 1970's. Before that, concerts were viewed as promotion for record sales. Now I think it's simply demand. People know this is the last time. Tickets for Paul McCartney's concerts this year are just as bad. Maybe he's hanging it up, too. If this wasn't the last tour, there's no way I'd shell out this kind of money.

I was thankful to see the Stones in 1972 and 1975 before they went nuts with all of the pyrotechnics and elaborate stages. I will say, though, that the 2nd-last tour (2000?) was fantastic. No gimmicks, no pyrotechnics, just the Stones playing. It was one of the best concerts they've done.

2005 was really, good, too. When they did "Night Time is the Right Time" with Buddy Guy, and Lisa Fisher belting out the song with Jagger, it was just incredible.

Speaking of the Eagles, I'm dying to see them on tour. I just don't think they ever come here because we are a blip on the radar for many bands.

TheBig3 · 05-04-2013, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Speaking of the Eagles, I'm dying to see them on tour. I just don't think they ever come here because we are a blip on the radar for many bands.

Tiny islands are rarely bigger than a blip on a radar, figuratively and literally.

Neapolitan · 05-04-2013, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Tiny islands are rarely bigger than a blip on a radar, figuratively and literally.

Don't be facetious. Vanilla was using the term as a metaphor, and beside islands don't blip on a radar, only flying aircraft like plains or UFOs do.

04-20-2013, 05:16 PM	#151 (permalink)
cgw Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 51	If I had not seen them in the past I would probably go. I am getting over my sticker shock at prices (though $633 is shocking). As it is, I don't really want to ruin my memories. The show I saw (early 80's) was great and memorable for more than just the concert. Ditto with the Who. Springsteen, on the other hand, lately seems just as good as he was in the 80's.

04-20-2013, 08:36 PM	#155 (permalink)
neardeathexperience Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 531	The thing is when the so called stadium acts started to tour it required like 30 transport trucks to ship the stage, lighting and equipment around which drove the cost up greatly of putting these shows on therefore the cost was absorbed by the ticket holders and " advertisers " of the tour...........