firepoint525 said:They weren't still doing concerts by 1968. Their last show (at Candlestick) was in 1966.
landtuna said:The Beatles may have rocked Noo Yawk but they couldn't fill Candlestick Park to even half capacity in 1968. Four short years after they twinged every pre and tween girl in Noo Yawk they competed with the Rolling Stones in concerts in Candlestick. The Beatles lost....badly. A year later they broke up.
RicoGregg said:When the Fab Four played their finale at Candlestick, the ballpark was still in its original 42,000 seat baseball-only configuration. For reasons of security and crowd control, only 24,000 seats were made available for this show, and they sold out quickly.
He made a correction somewhere in this thread. Still, I don't see why the need for a subject line correction on a thread two years old that had been buried for two years. ???TheFonz said:No, the Beatles filled Shea in 1966. They were barely out of diapers in 1956.
firepoint525 said:He made a correction somewhere in this thread. Still, I don't see why the need for a subject line correction on a thread two years old that had been buried for two years. ???TheFonz said:No, the Beatles filled Shea in 1966. They were barely out of diapers in 1956.
At any rate, it is my understanding that the Police sold out Shea (1983-ish) in less time than it took the Beatles to sell out Shea in 1965. I don't know if the seating capacity of Shea was changed during the intervening years, or how many of those seats were made available for either show. I'm thinking that changes in technology probably enabled the Police to sell out faster, but even in the '80s, they didn't have the internet yet.
unitron said:We didn't have the internet (really the www) yet, but business sort of did, I think, and anyway they had 800 numbers, touch-tone phones, and credit cards, so I'm thinking selling out a concert could happen a lot faster by then.
Did Ticketmasters of the Universe already have a monopoly on everything by then?
firepoint525 said:He made a correction somewhere in this thread. Still, I don't see why the need for a subject line correction on a thread two years old that had been buried for two years. ???
Read more carefully. The thread was last posted to on 12-4-10 and was only resurrected on 9-22-12 only to request the aforementioned correction. Prior to that, it had indeed been dead for almost two years.TheFonz said:Not really. Read carefully! The thread was resurrected on 9/22/2012firepoint525 said:He made a correction somewhere in this thread. Still, I don't see why the need for a subject line correction on a thread two years old that had been buried for two years. ???
firepoint525 said:Read more carefully. The thread was last posted to on 12-4-10 and was only resurrected on 9-22-12 only to request the aforementioned correction. Prior to that, it had indeed been dead for almost two years.TheFonz said:Not really. Read carefully! The thread was resurrected on 9/22/2012firepoint525 said:He made a correction somewhere in this thread. Still, I don't see why the need for a subject line correction on a thread two years old that had been buried for two years. ???