The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

[U2girl]

I didn't say it was promoted.

I remember reading rumours that Elevation and Vertigo are U2's last tours.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I didn't say it was promoted.

I remember reading rumours that Elevation and Vertigo are U2's last tours.

sorry, i misread your post

 

[U2Man]

I didn't say it was promoted.

I remember reading rumours that Elevation and Vertigo are U2's last tours.

I remember Bono being quoted for saying this already during PopMart.

 

[kellyahern]

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.

I guess I shouldn't tell the Letterman joke that they were advertising their tour as "The Rolling Stones Live . . . plus Keith Richards" then .


I kid, I kid. Keith rocks .

 

[U2girl]

I remember Bono being quoted for saying this already during PopMart.

So? They still don't charge as much.

 

[U2Man]

So? They still don't charge as much.

Just a little piece of information.

 

[U2girl]

It's the fans that perceive it as possibly the last one, so they are desperate to go one last time.

But it's not the fans that say "we want the tickets to be 450 dollars".

 

[Chizip]

I guess I shouldn't tell the Letterman joke that they were advertising their tour as "The Rolling Stones Live . . . plus Keith Richards" then .

 

[U2Man]

But it's not the fans that say "we want the tickets to be 450 dollars".

No, I'm sure they would all like to get free tickets, if they could - but the point is that enough of them are *willing* to pay 450$.

 

[Chizip]

i guarantee you, if U2 is still touring 20 years from now, tickets will cost over 450 dollars

lets look at their ticket history of top prices

ZooTV - 25
Popmart - 65
Elevation - 130
Vertigo - 170

Next tour we can expect tickets up over the 200 dollar level, around what McCartney charges, and they're not nearly as old as him.

 

[U2girl]

Inflation.

 

[U2Man]

But I'm sure there's also plenty of those that aren't.

Sure, but as long as the tour is sold out, this is of no concern.

 

[U2Man]

i guarantee you, if U2 is still touring 20 years from now, tickets will cost over 450 dollars

lets look at their ticket history of top prices

ZooTV - 25
Popmart - 65
Elevation - 130
Vertigo - 170

Next tour we can expect tickets up over the 200 dollar level, around what McCartney charges, and they're not nearly as old as him.

They are greedy

 

[U2Man]

Inflation.

680% in 13 years? In America? I doubt that.

 

[Chizip]

Inflation.

Slovenia must have a hell of an inflation rate to account for those ticket price increases

But the thing is, it's not just U2, its the entire industry who has raised ticket prices ridiculously. But U2 will follow the trend and I'm sure someday they will have ticket prices up over 400 dollars.

And if they can do that and still sell out shows, who can blame them?

 

[U2girl]

Then blame the game, not the player.

Oh and I wonder how much oil and gasoline cost back in 1992. (it would also be a much fairer comparison to look at average prices) That was my point with the inflation comment. Also demand lifted those prices and the elaborate stage designs (that you so dearly love) and larger tour crews that need to be payed.

I like how U2 is greedy and no one will say that of the Stones, Madonna or McCartney who charge much more.

 

[U2Man]

I like how U2 is greedy and no one will say that of the Stones, Madonna or McCartney who charge much more.

I was being ironical. Actually several people have said in this thread that Stones are greedy.

 

[Chizip]

Then blame the game, not the player.

Oh and I wonder how much oil and gasoline cost back in 1992. (it would also be a much fairer comparison to look at average prices) That was my point with the inflation comment. Also demand lifted those prices.

I like how U2 is greedy and no one will say that of the Stones, Madonna or McCartney who charge much more.

Who in this thread was blaming U2 for high ticket prices?

 

[U2girl]

Look at all the "U2 would charge more if they could get away with it" and constant "U2 are greedy by charging so much" complaints on this - and previous - tour. It happens all the time in the forum.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I wonder how much more the insurance costs for rock tours since 9-11. Along with inflation, rising energy costs, and more elaborate stage setups, I'm sure this is a major contributing factor to high ticket proces.

 

[U2Man]

Look at all the "U2 would charge more if they could get away with it"

That applies to any band or artist, but some people in here think U2 are an exception, which they are not.

 

[U2girl]

I was being ironical. Actually several people have said in this thread that Stones are greedy.

Really? I can see plenty of apologetical posts for their ticket prices.

(I didn't know you were U2's accountant to know they can't charge more than they do)

 

[U2Man]

Really? I can see plenty of apologetical posts for their ticket prices.

(I didn't know you were U2's accountant to know they can't charge more than they do)

Why don't you just read all the posts the thread starter made in here

And I'm not U2's accountant, I'm just a person who refuses to be naive. Why don't U2 just go to the Southern Hemisphere and to Africa? They play for the people not for the money, right? And they have plenty of that already, so they should be able to make people in Australia, South America etc. and Africa!!! happy by playing there. If profits are of no concern, this should be possible.

What's your explanation to that?

 

[govikesU2]

Everyone can agree though that concert tickets are becomming way too expensive and there's no end in sight.

Then blame the game, not the player.

Oh and I wonder how much oil and gasoline cost back in 1992. (it would also be a much fairer comparison to look at average prices) That was my point with the inflation comment. Also demand lifted those prices and the elaborate stage designs (that you so dearly love) and larger tour crews that need to be payed.

I like how U2 is greedy and no one will say that of the Stones, Madonna or McCartney who charge much more.

Great point.

Why are the Stones charging more than McCartney anyway? That makes no sense to me at all.

 

[neutral]

By the way I'm just trying to get a rise out of people and it's obviously working.

Well that's lovely, how nice of you.

 

[Lila64]

I was once told by someone I met at a party who worked for Clear Channel (when her company was merged/bought by them) that the artist dictates how much money they want per show. For example, last McCartney tour, I believe he wanted $1 million per show or at least for the L.A. show. And then ticket prices are priced accordingly. Figure from that point on... If these mega artists want so much money (ie McCartney who is already a billionaire), I think part of the proceeds should go to a charitable foundation, and publicly acknowledged that way. I'm sure he gives plenty to charity, but if I'm paying about $150 a ticket to see him this fall (face value), I'd feel a little bit better knowing that some portion of this money was going to help someone else in the world. And yes, the big artists have the ability to charge more, but there are some that don't, ie Tom Petty. I can't think of any others at the moment.

Can we start ripping into Ticketmaster for the "CONVENIENCE CHARGE"? The convenience of what? Taking a per centage to print out a ticket? The higher the cost of the ticket, the higher this charge. I think it's bullshit Can we get a class action suit going? They have another charge to - order processing or something? I can see 1 charge per order perhaps, but not a charge per ticket. My last ticket purchase was for $45. Plus $2.50 for Building Facility Charge, $10.05 for Convenience Charge, and $3.15 for Order Processing Charge. So now my $45 ticket is $60.70

Sorry I digressed, but it just pissed me off. Maybe I will paste this in the things I hate thread too.

 

[Infinity]

ticketmaster is a bunch of cunts who just want money they should all go fuck themselves

 

[STING2]

Exactly. It is rare for bands to be successful for as long as U2 has, but The Rolling Stones are in a class all by themselves. As I said before, U2 in 2005 is equal to The Stones 1989 - both bands had been making music for about 27 years, and both bands were still selling a lot of records and selling out stadiums. For U2 to equal the Stones they will need to stiill be the top touring band in the world in 2021. This may very well happen, but 2021 is a long way off, and I wouldn't hold my breath.

U2 in 1989 was already more popular than the Rolling Stones of 1989. Steel Wheels sold a little over 4 million copies while the Joshua Tree at that time had sold over 16 million copies and Rattle And Hum had sold over 10 million copies. Its true the Stones had better concert attendance than U2 back then, but not by a large margin, nor a margin as large as the margin U2 was ahead of the Stones in terms of sales of the latest album.

 

[STING2]

No...just better than the Vertigo shows.

All tickets (save one pair for Chicago 3 which was a spur of the moment anniversary gift to my wife) were bought before seeing one show...tickets went on sale for all of the first leg shows before they played a single note, remember?

Well, you always had the option to sell those tickets after the 1st, 2nd or 3rd show if you felt it was not worth the money to see it 5 times. Fact is, you saw Vertigo tour 5 times, how many times have you seen Coldplay? Do you plan to go see Coldplay 5 times on their current tour?

 

[STING2]

earned their place? yea... fine. no problem. but come on... the stones and the beatles are in a place by themselves, just like hendrix, dylan, cash, sinatra, elvis and a few others i'm leaving out. that's not an insult. to even be in the same discussion with these greats is an honor. but let's calm down...

it's like the u2 fans getting pissed at the people who say coldplay are better than them. sure, coldplay's good... but let's take a step back into reality for a second.

and on to your second paragraph... the stones have been around for over 40 years. when they were 25 years in, they were selling out stadiums and selling 10+ million copies of their albums... 30 years in... 35 years in... even now, 40 years in, i'd say it's a pretty safe bet that when the stones new album hits in two weeks, it'll debut at #1, and be one of the biggest selling albums of the year... 40 years in.

being third behind the beatles and the stones ain't exactly an insult.

The last big Rolling Stones album was Tattoo You and it did not reach the 10 million mark. Steel Wheels did 4 million worldwide, Voodoo Lounge 4 million worldwide, Bridges To Babylon 3 million worldwide.

The last time the Rolling Stones hit number 1 on the USA album chart was in October of 1981. But hey, there is always a chance the new album could hit #1, especially if there are no other major releases that week.

The Rolling Stones have two albums that have sold over 10 million copies worldwide, "Some Girls" and the "Hot Rocks" compilation. U2 have SIX albums that have sold over 10 million copies worldwide: "Joshua Tree", "Rattle And Hum", "Achtung Baby", "Best of... 1980-1990", "ATYCLB", and "HTDAAB" should pass the 10 million mark in 2006 now that it is at a little over 9 million worldwide.