Sir Stewart Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 but wait, didn't you see the Rolling Stones last year?Yeah, at Fenway Park. I think the only stadium show I'd go to is U2. Never seen them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Of all the statements in all the posts in all the threads on this site, you had to walk into mine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 umm...yeah, that would be me. they shouldn't have any problem with a well-planned stadium tour. once the intial dates are announced, it would gain momentum, dates added and i'm sure would be the top money making tour of 2007/08. they are at best inconsistent live, but when they are on...they are on. i'm very much looking forward to it.I have a hard time picturing The Police filling places like Giants Stadium, is all. Sure there's a market for them, but are enough people going to sit in enormous stadiums to make it worth their while? With the age-group, I have doubts. I could very well be wrong, though. Time will tell. As I've stated, and others, I'd love to see them again but definitely will not be attending a huge stadium show. I wonder how many others out there feel the same.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 well, i still can't get why people pay to see the rolling stones. so...there you go... i would prefer to see the police in a more scaled down venue, but considering how long it's been and how old they are, this likely won't be a continuing project for the three. so...to satisfy the fans a stadium tour would be a necessary evil. not my preference by any means, but it's been a loooong time since i was in junior high. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Off the subject, though this thread made me think of it -- I'd be interested in seeing a cumulative attendance figure for all Rolling Stones shows throughout the years. Has anyone ever performed in front of more total people than Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Charlie Watts? I rather doubt it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I am sure The Grateful Dead may come close - Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I am sure The Grateful Dead may come close -I bet they don't. But I also bet that they're a solid # 2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I am sure The Grateful Dead may come close -For shear number of shows played, alone. The Dead were not consistantly selling out shows until the late 80s/early 90s. I'd venture to bet the Stones have been selling out shows since the early 70s. I'd bet the Dead come close. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Good point - but the stones only tour every couple of years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Good point - but the stones only tour every couple of years.what are the odds of one of them dying onstage? i'll bet keith is the last one standing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SideshowByTheSeashore Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 what are the odds of one of them dying onstage? i'll bet keith is the last one standing. Okay... THAT would make me want to go to one of their shows.... butcha got give me odds, man! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 what are the odds of one of them dying onstage? i'll bet keith is the last one standing.Andy Summers is about the same age (maybe older?) than Keith and Mick, and Sting/Copeland aren't far behind. What's age got to do with how hard you rock out though, right? Keith would undoubtedly be the last one standing, though, as he's reportedly made of Kryptonite. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 well, i still can't get why people pay to see the rolling stones. so...there you go...For me...same reason I see any live act. Rock and roll. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
watchtower41 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I am pumped Dave Matthews wont be playing at Wrigley Field, as a lifelong Cubs fan I think that would further perpetuate a negative stereotype about us Cubs fans , if the Police came it would be... glorious. didnt Jimmy Buffet already take care of that stereotype last year??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Off the subject, though this thread made me think of it -- I'd be interested in seeing a cumulative attendance figure for all Rolling Stones shows throughout the years. Has anyone ever performed in front of more total people than Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Charlie Watts? I rather doubt it. Paul McCartney probably comes really close. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Paul McCartney probably comes really close.He's up there, but I doubt he's anywhere near the Stones, or even the Dead. He hasn't toured nearly as often, I'm guessing. Plus, the years that he probably could have been playing to the most people ('67-'69) he wasn't touring at all. edit: OK, that's probably not true -- shows weren't quite as big back then, I'm guessing. But still, being in a studio-only band during those years put him at a bit of a deficit. He sure plays to big crowds when he does tour, though. The Stones were playing huge stadium shows back when virtually no one else was. They've been playing to 30,000 or more (usually a lot more) since what, the late '60s? And they're seemingly always on tour. Even with the Dead's tireless touring, I just don't think anyone approaches the Stones. (Had Jerry lived longer, the Dead might have closed the gap a bit.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Paul McCartney probably comes really close. I was skeptical when I read that, but apparently he's done a lot of tours since the early '70s. Add in a shitload of people he played for with the Beatles, and you might be right about Paul coming close to the Stones. Here's a site that lists Paul's tours since '72 (I couldn't find a comparable site for the Stones): http://www.mcbeatle.de/macca/tour/index.html Grateful Dead was my first guess, but they played mostly theater shows up until sometime in the '80s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 OK, that's probably not true -- shows weren't quite as big back then, I'm guessing. Actually, the Beatles played a bunch of stadium shows in the US from '64 to '66, so those are big numbers. Paul is a good contender, though the Stones probably win this contest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Those were never sold out, were they? I think CSNY is credited with pioneering the stadium tour with their 1974 tour - ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Actually, the Beatles played a bunch of stadium shows in the US from '64 to '66, so those are big numbers. Paul is a good contender, though the Stones probably win this contest.'65-66, technically (they played the first "stadium" show in rock history at Shea Stadium in August 1965 ... I found a figure of 55,600 for attendance at that show). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 '65-66, technically (they played the first "stadium" show in rock history at Shea Stadium in August 1965 ... I found a figure of 55,600 for attendance at that show). Oops, thanks for the correction (edit: nevermind, you're incorrect...see my next post). From a BBC article from last year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4757664.stm "...Earlier this month, more than one million fans saw the Rolling Stones play a free concert in Brazi..". I don't think anyone is going to top the Stones. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Here are the attendance numbers for the Beatles US tours (not sure how legit this is): http://www.rarebeatles.com/photopg7/photopg7.htm#1964 Edit: Accorsing to that site, they were playing some stadium shows in '64, but it wasn't until '65 that stadiums became the norm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Edit: Accorsing to that site, they were playing some stadium shows in '64, but it wasn't until '65 that stadiums became the norm.Yeah, that's why Wikipedia sucks. I did a *very* quick tabulation and came up with a figure of 1,130,332 total attendees in North America. The Stones probably do that in a couple of weeks, a month tops. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Yeah, that's why Wikipedia sucks. I did a *very* quick tabulation and came up with a figure of 1,130,332 total attendees in North America. The Stones probably do that in a couple of weeks, a month tops. Nice work adding it up. Yeah, the Stones are way ahead of everyone else. That Brazil show was a million or more, Altamont was 300,000 or so. Thaose two shows alone are more than most successful bands will ever play for. Throw in the decades of stadium tours and there's no contest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Win a Concert Date With the Police Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.