Home› Other Music

Number 1 again!!

Mr DMr D Posts: 20
edited February 2006 in Other Music
Talk about domination!
http://www.pollstar.com/news/viewnews.pl?NewsID=6558&PSKey=ROLSTO
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • PissBottleManPissBottleMan Posts: 4,154
    "Ticket price had everything to do with the rankings"

    The Stones' average ticket price was $133.98; Green Day's average was $38.07."

    PBM
    "We paced ourselves and we didn't rush through it and we tried to be as creative as our collective minds would let us be over some course of time instead of just trying to rush through a record"

    Wishlist Foundation: http://wishlistfoundation.org
  • Mr DMr D Posts: 20
    Stones humiliated all other bands especially U2.
  • KravenKraven Posts: 829
    PissBottleMan wrote:
    "Ticket price had everything to do with the rankings"

    The Stones' average ticket price was $133.98; Green Day's average was $38.07."

    PBM

    Two different audiences though, mostly 12 year olds go see GD now a day, so they have to charge less or no one will come. On the other hand the Stones get middle aged people who have disposable income and can spend that much on a ticket.

    Its a credit to the Stones that people will stay pay that much to see them, every penny is worth it though, especially when you get 6th row for PJ and the Stones for only $99 a ticket.
    32 shows and counting...
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    PissBottleMan wrote:
    "Ticket price had everything to do with the rankings"

    The Stones' average ticket price was $133.98; Green Day's average was $38.07."

    PBM

    abcdefghij
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    PissBottleMan wrote:
    "Ticket price had everything to do with the rankings"

    The Stones' average ticket price was $133.98; Green Day's average was $38.07."

    PBM

    I think its safe to say that the Stones put 3x as much into their stage show as Greenday does. It shouldnt be judged by $, it should be judged by attendace.
  • PissBottleManPissBottleMan Posts: 4,154
    I would rather pay $133.98 to see the Rolling Stones 1973 tour than the Rolling Stones 2005 tour.

    PBM
    "We paced ourselves and we didn't rush through it and we tried to be as creative as our collective minds would let us be over some course of time instead of just trying to rush through a record"

    Wishlist Foundation: http://wishlistfoundation.org
  • PissBottleManPissBottleMan Posts: 4,154
    Oh, Jimmy wrote:
    I think its safe to say that the Stones put 3x as much into their stage show as Greenday does.

    I don't think it's safe to say that. I watched the Rolling Stones on HBO a couple years back and it seemed like they were phoning it in. I was disappointed.

    PBM
    "We paced ourselves and we didn't rush through it and we tried to be as creative as our collective minds would let us be over some course of time instead of just trying to rush through a record"

    Wishlist Foundation: http://wishlistfoundation.org
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    PissBottleMan wrote:
    I don't think it's safe to say that. I watched the Rolling Stones on HBO a couple years back and it seemed like they were phoning it in. I was disappointed.

    PBM
    I meant as far as cash. There are definitely bands that put more into a show as far as their personnel. In fact, I think most bands do as whole, but the Stones really dish out the dough when its time to pay for a stage show.
  • PissBottleManPissBottleMan Posts: 4,154
    Oh, Jimmy wrote:
    I meant as far as cash. There are definitely bands that put more into a show as far as their personnel. In fact, I think most bands do as whole, but the Stones really dish out the dough when its time to pay for a stage show.

    I'm not sure it's worth it though. I guess seeing them live is some sort of rite-of-passage. I don't think I'll spend money to see them. If they put on a good show, I might, but based on what I've heard and seen over the past few years...I think I'll pass.

    PBM
    "We paced ourselves and we didn't rush through it and we tried to be as creative as our collective minds would let us be over some course of time instead of just trying to rush through a record"

    Wishlist Foundation: http://wishlistfoundation.org
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    PissBottleMan wrote:
    I'm not sure it's worth it though. I guess seeing them live is some sort of rite-of-passage. I don't think I'll spend money to see them. If they put on a good show, I might, but based on what I've heard and seen over the past few years...I think I'll pass.

    PBM

    I would pay $60 or so for the Stones. Not much more than that though. I have seen live stuff where they seem like the best band in the world and other stuff that sounded like an unpracticed garage band. The good thing about bein a casual Stones fan is that fact that I could see them in 50 years and they would still be playin the hits. Might not get the best performances, but I could still sing along.
Sign In or Register to comment.