The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ramblin rose said:


Huh, I guess we experienced different shows. I was mostly surrounded by teenagers and people in their early twenties who got most excited during HTDAAB songs, BD & Elevation. :huh:

Me too. Most people I noticed looked between 20 - 30. The few 40ish+ people who were around kind of stuck out because they were in the minority :shrug:.

Not that there's anything wrong with being over 40 at a concert :).
 
U2Man said:


:up: It's ludicrous if you ask me. U2 would charge just as much as Rolling Stones if they were confident that they could get away with it.

You have to be kidding. Your seriously going to tell me U2 would charge $450.00 per tickets at the Excel Energy Centre in Minneapolis like the Stones are (which is an arena not a stadium) and saying it's supply and demand is bullshit. Why are the Stones not playing all Stadiums on this tour? If there was that much demand they would play the Metrodome. Less then half the shows are Stadiums. Only the major markets are stadiums. Boston, Chicago, New York, Toronto etc. The smaller markets their playing arenas. starvinmarvin or someone said the Stones were still relevant. Well there is a lot of 50 plus people out there that have a lot of money to blow on crap albums and $450.00 shows that last under 2 hours but I would rather give my money to a band I respect more U2. Who have not spent their whole career in the Beatles shadow. That should stir the pot a bit.
 
govikesU2 said:


You have to be kidding. Your seriously going to tell me U2 would charge $450.00 per tickets at the Excel Energy Centre in Minneapolis like the Stones are (which is an arena not a stadium) and saying it's supply and demand is bullshit. Why are the Stones not playing all Stadiums on this tour? If there was that much demand they would play the Metrodome. Less then half the shows are Stadiums. Only the major markets are stadiums. Boston, Chicago, New York, Toronto etc. The smaller markets their playing arenas. starvinmarvin or someone said the Stones were still relevant. Well there is a lot of 50 plus people out there that have a lot of money to blow on crap albums and $450.00 shows that last under 2 hours but I would rather give my money to a band I respect more U2. Who have not spent their whole career in the Beatles shadow. That should stir the pot a bit.

1) I'm sure U2 would charge $450 is they could get away with it. You are deluded if you think they wouldn't.
2) Why isn't the price related to supply and demand? If people are willing to pay the prices, and they obviously are, then the cost of not out of line.
3) Oh dear, the Stones are playing less than half of the shows in stadiums. What a failure!
4) Have you heard any of the "crap" albums you speak of? I didn't think so. You're just assuming. Bridges To Babyon is better than HTDAAB.
5) I'm in my twenties and I buy Stones albums and enjoy them. I'm nowhere near 50.
6) Not all tickets cost $450 and you know that.
7) The Stones are still in the Beatles shadow? Hey, I love The Beatles even more than the Stones, but I still don't agree with that at all. 2 completely different bands, with 2 completely different styles of music.
8) The only thing in your entire post that isn't complete crap is the part about stirring the pot.
 
govikesU2 said:


You have to be kidding. Your seriously going to tell me U2 would charge $450.00 per tickets at the Excel Energy Centre in Minneapolis like the Stones are (which is an arena not a stadium) and saying it's supply and demand is bullshit. Why are the Stones not playing all Stadiums on this tour? If there was that much demand they would play the Metrodome. Less then half the shows are Stadiums. Only the major markets are stadiums. Boston, Chicago, New York, Toronto etc. The smaller markets their playing arenas. starvinmarvin or someone said the Stones were still relevant. Well there is a lot of 50 plus people out there that have a lot of money to blow on crap albums and $450.00 shows that last under 2 hours but I would rather give my money to a band I respect more U2. Who have not spent their whole career in the Beatles shadow. That should stir the pot a bit.

Every single mainstream band since the sixties have in some way spent their career in the Beatles shadow. That includes U2.

Why are Stones not playing stadiums everywhere on this tour? Simple:

Let's say Rolling Stones can sell out a particular Arena with 20.000 seats by charging 450 $ pr.ticket. Now, if they wanted to play a stadium with 60.000 seats they may have had to lower the ticket prices to eg 140 $ pr. ticket in order to sell out.

Arena: 20.000 x 450 $ = 9000000$

Stadium: 60.000 x 140 $ = 8400000$

And I haven't even accounted for the rental costs here. A stadium is much more expensive than an arena.

What kind of advice would you give the band if you were their accountant?
 
U2@NYC said:


These comments sound very familiar... :D

"I wouldn't say it blows per se. I'd say it's too short for the money for charging. If Brian Wilson can play for two-plus hours in his emotionally fragile state, then surely the Stones can muster the stamina - especially at the prices they're charging."

"Horrible, this tour is a bust.....Ok not a bust, but a dissapointing set........"

"Are they a Vegas act now? Fuck the lighting and play the tunes......."

"and not 1 tune, aside from Sat that is pre-69...man, I would never have thought they'd have so thoroughly distanced themselves from the glorious 60's....."

Oh, I just love this one:

"That said, after listening to this I'm really disappointed in the Stones for the poor effort I'm hearing here. I can't imagine how it could possibly have been more lame. Beginning with the opener (gee, "Start Me Up"...how did they ever come up with that rarity?), the setlist is totally uninspired. "

:lmao:
 
kellyahern said:


Oh, I just love this one:

"That said, after listening to this I'm really disappointed in the Stones for the poor effort I'm hearing here. I can't imagine how it could possibly have been more lame. Beginning with the opener (gee, "Start Me Up"...how did they ever come up with that rarity?), the setlist is totally uninspired. "

:lmao:


I'm going to copy and paste some of the comments onto a word document so I have some ideas for the Toronto Setlist Party.
 
And the really funny thing is that the band had actually predicted these comments. They played

"You Can't Always Get What You Want"

in the encore :yes:
 
starvinmarvin said:


1) I'm sure U2 would charge $450 is they could get away with it. You are deluded if you think they wouldn't.
2) Why isn't the price related to supply and demand? If people are willing to pay the prices, and they obviously are, then the cost of not out of line.
3) Oh dear, the Stones are playing less than half of the shows in stadiums. What a failure!
4) Have you heard any of the "crap" albums you speak of? I didn't think so. You're just assuming. Bridges To Babyon is better than HTDAAB.
5) I'm in my twenties and I buy Stones albums and enjoy them. I'm nowhere near 50.
6) Not all tickets cost $450 and you know that.
7) The Stones are still in the Beatles shadow? Hey, I love The Beatles even more than the Stones, but I still don't agree with that at all. 2 completely different bands, with 2 completely different styles of music.
8) The only thing in your entire post that isn't complete crap is the part about stirring the pot.

Thanks Starvinmarvin for changing my mind for a minute there I thought I was on a U2 forum then I realised this was rollingstones.com hold on though people are bitching on that one about the shitty setlist's and the overpriced tickets for the exact same show they've being doing for the last 20 years. So thanks pal you've got some great points there. By the way I'm just trying to get a rise out of people and it's obviously working.
 
govikesU2 said:


Thanks Starvinmarvin for changing my mind for a minute there I thought I was on a U2 forum then I realised this was rollingstones.com hold on though people are bitching on that one about the shitty setlist's and the overpriced tickets for the exact same show they've being doing for the last 20 years. So thanks pal you've got some great points there. By the way I'm just trying to get a rise out of people and it's obviously working.

:lol:
 
govikesU2 said:


Thanks Starvinmarvin for changing my mind for a minute there I thought I was on a U2 forum then I realised this was rollingstones.com hold on though people are bitching on that one about the shitty setlist's and the overpriced tickets for the exact same show they've being doing for the last 20 years. So thanks pal you've got some great points there. By the way I'm just trying to get a rise out of people and it's obviously working.

I appreciate the fact you are stirring the pot, because it makes these threads more interesting. Trust me, I enjoy this.
 
starvinmarvin said:
Yes, it's a little odd that a U2 fan would accuse another band of charging too much money for tickets.

It would only be odd if U2 charged as much as Stones/McCartney/Madonna.

No "excuses" and I don't see how U2 fans should feel threatened by the Stones.

:up: Exactly, ramlin rose.
 
I need to brush up on my Rolling Stones acronyms.

IORAR??? :confused:








Ooooooooooooh, "It's Only Rock and Roll" :banghead:

:lol:

I like that there's also complaining about the complaining:

"the level of whining from those not there concerning the setlist says more about the poster than the setlist....I can assure you that the crowd enjoyed the song selection just fine"



*sniff* feels just like home :sad:
 
U2girl said:


It would only be odd if U2 charged as much as Stones/McCartney/Madonna.

No "excuses" and I don't see how U2 fans should feel threatened by the Stones.

:up: Exactly, ramlin rose.

You shouldn't feel threatened by The Stones, but for some reason some U2 fans do.

And yes, maybe one day U2 will earn the right to charge as much as The Stones and McCartney :wink:
 
You've won this round starvinmarvin but I'll be back. You can bet $450.00 on that. But seriously I don't hate the Stones I just think that is way too much money for a show facevalue for any band. Except if they clonned John Lennon and George Harrison and there was some kind of reunion that would be worth $451.00 at least.
 
govikesU2 said:
You've won this round starvinmarvin but I'll be back. You can bet $450.00 on that. But seriously I don't hate the Stones I just think that is way too much money for a show facevalue for any band. Except if they clonned John Lennon and George Harrison and there was some kind of reunion that would be worth $451.00 at least.

hehehehe.....you're right, $450 is way too much...but if people are paying, then who's the dumbass? Not the Stones, thats for sure.
 
At least the Stones do crazy stuff... :up:

Claim: When British police conducted a drug raid during a party at Keith Richards' Redlands estate in 1967, they found Mick Jagger eating a Mars bar out of Marianne Faithfull's vagina.

Status: False.

Origins: When nineteen police, on a tip-off, raided a party at Keith Richards' estate in February of 1967 in search of illegal drugs, Richards, Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, and six other male guests were lounging about a downstairs room watching TV and listening to music. Faithfull wore only a large, orange fur bedcover that she had wrapped around herself after taking a bath a little while earlier. The police searched the house and the persons in it, gathered various pieces of evidence, and left. A month later, Richards and Jagger were summoned before the court on drug charges. By the time the trial started at the end of June, a rumor had already started spreading that when the police arrived at Redlands, "they had interrupted an orgy of cunnilingus in which Jagger had been licking a Mars candy bar pushed into Marianne's vagina."

There was absolutely no truth to the rumor, however. The police did not burst into the house, catching everyone unaware: they knocked very loudly at the front door, and Keith calmly got up to answer it. At the time police arrived, the room was, in the words of Christopher Gibbs, one of the guests at Redlands that evening, "a scene of pure domesticity." As Marianne Faithful wrote in her autobiography:

The Mars Bar was a very effective piece of demonizing. Way out there. It was so overdone, with such malicious twisting of the facts. Mick retrieving a Mars Bar from my vagina, indeed! It was far too jaded for any of us even to have conceived of. It's a dirty old man's fantasy -- some old fart who goes to a dominatrix every Thursday afternon to get spanked. A cop's idea of what people do on acid!

At Keith Richards' trial, much was made of 'Miss X' (i.e., Marianne Faithfull), the single female guest who had been present when police entered Richards' house. One female detective testified that when the police squad arrived, Faithfull had been "completely naked." Another male detective stated in court that as he had studied Marianne Faithfull during the raid to detect signs of drug use, she had purposely let the fur bedcover she was wearing slip, "disclosing parts of her nude body." (Faithfull later admitted that she had indeed given the police "a quick flash.") These lurid details about a naked girl wrapped in fur rug, brought out at the trial and reported in the press (although largely untrue), established the idea that the police had interrupted a drug-induced orgy. As Faithfull described it:

Their story went like this: a group of dissolute rock stars lured an innocent girl to a remote cottage where, having plied her with drugs, they had their way with her, including various sex acts involving a Mars Bar.

Exactly when and how this rumor got started is unknown, although it was already circulating by the time of the trial in June. Faithfull herself said she first heard the story from Mick (who had himself heard it from another prisoner) while he was incarcerated at Wormwood Scrubs shortly after the trial. One claim is that the rumor was inspired by Keith's cache of candy, a detail which was supposedly listed in the official police inventory of the raid. In any case, as Norman wrote, the "Mars bar was a detail of such sheer madness as to make the story believed, then and forever after."
 
starvinmarvin said:

And yes, maybe one day U2 will earn the right to charge as much as The Stones and McCartney :wink:

....and you can be sure that if they ever get there, they'll do it.
 
starvinmarvin said:


And yes, maybe one day U2 will earn the right to charge as much as The Stones and McCartney :wink:

I don't see what there is to "earn" about charging such high ticket prices.
I think this thread explained why they get away with such prices - and not the ones you mentioned.
 
U2girl said:


I don't see what there is to "earn" about charging such high ticket prices.
I think this thread explained why they get away with such prices - and not the ones you mentioned.

Simple explanation: U2 are the "newcomers" in comparison with The Stones and McCartney, and while their track record is amazing, it doesn't match Mick or Paul's. McCratney and The Stones have earned the right to charge top dollar - you will always be entertained at these concerts. Plus, each time MCacrtney or The Stones go on tour, there's always a pretty good chance it might be the last time, so people are willing to spend the money. The chances of U2 being around for a while are pretty good, so it's less urgent for many people.
 
kellyahern said:
U2 are one of those bands that you'd like to see before you die.

The Rolling Stones are a band you'd like to see before they die.
:wink:

I'm sorry, I know that's evil :reject:.

It is true though, I'll give you that.
 
starvinmarvin said:


each time MCacrtney or The Stones go on tour, there's always a pretty good chance it might be the last time, so people are willing to spend the money.

Exactly.
That is why they can charge so much, and the always present "it's the last tour ever" rumour.
 
U2girl said:


Exactly.
That is why they can charge so much, and the always present "it's the last tour ever" rumour.

Actually, they don't promote it as such. Keith Richards in particular gets very pissed off at suggestions that a tour might be the last one. It's the fans that perceive it as possibly the last one, so they are desperate to go one last time.
 
Back
Top Bottom