High ticket prices....

[Fishy]

Well one of my favorite groups since childhood is rolling into Portland in mid May. The Eagles. I would LOVE to see them live, but tickets are $100-$1,000 dollars!!! :wall:Obviously, were I to go, I'd be getting the $100 "cheap seat" ticket which is in what we call Nosebleed section. :doubt: Is $100 worth it to me to see The Eagles? I am on the fence, but with a slight slant towards "Yes." but I just can't justify that price, especially for friggin Nosebleed seats!!! Hell I saw the original Sabbath lineup in 2000, when they first re-united for $50 and had damn good seats! Same venue too!! The greed of certain rock stars/bands/ticket agencies just pisses me off!!! Hell for $100 I can buy the 'When Hell Freezes Over' live DVD set, get a few pizzas, a case of beer and have money left over while watching them live on my buddies big screen TV with 5.1 surround!! And the sad thing is, people will actually pay for the $1,000 tickets just to see them live and in person. Must be nice to have that much disposable income! :doubt: I could go on about the high ticket prices and such, but I'll end my rant here.

 

[Dr.Jass]

Another aging band on their second "last tour"? What's this one called, "Convalescent Home California"? "Hell Freezes Over" was supposedly the one and only reunion tour they were going to perform.

People were referring to The Rolling Stones' '89 tour as "Steel Wheelchairs" because they were old and as irrelevant then as they were in 1971, yet here we are 20+ years later and Mick's still stomping around like an aged faggot despite several "this will be our last tour" claims. Simon and Garfunkel's so-called "Rest Homeward Bound" tour a decade or better ago? KISS, a band that has been talent-free from the outset, has done what--three or four "farewell" tours? "This is our last tour" is band lingo for "prepare to mortgage your soul to see us, but we'll be back in two years regardless".

Save a bunch of money and go see a band in its prime, hitting licks and performing vocals they wrote a year ago rather than 10 years before you were born.

 

[Fishy]

I like music of all eras for the most part and The Eagles were a big part of the soundtrack of my youth so to speak My dad got me into em and still to this day I have been known to turn up an Eagles tune when I hear it. To be quite honest, about 90% of bands I hear today flat out SUCK!!! I like certain songs but I couldn't tell you one band from the next, as they all sound exactly the same to me. Long gone are the days when you could hear an opening drum beat or guitar riff and go, "Oh that's Van Halen!" (just an example) There is very little originality in today's music scene. Sure there are a few bands that catch my ear, and I'll go out and buy their cd, but for the most part....gimme the older stuff! Back when you actually had to have this little thing called "Talent" to get a record deal!

 

[J.C. Corbett]

I saw 'em a few years ago. That being said, take your hundred, go to Starz,:tats: and get a stripper to do her stuff to your favorite Eagles song. You'll be happier in the long run. Either way, go to Starz.:shifty:

 

[Dr.Jass]

The Eagles were legendary--even revolutionary--in their time. Their style of rock, underlaid with country sensibilities (there's an oxymoron--I fucking hate country) at the time was unique. I really enjoy the Eagles, actually.

That being said, I would not pay $100 to see them or any other band... especially because it's their second "farewell" tour, which means there will be at least one more. Of course, the ticket prices on that one will be even higher since that will be the final tour, which it won't.

If you must see the Eagles live before you die, then go because you're a fan and not because this might be your last chance. It won't be. However, as age progresses they will suck more and eventually Joe Walsh will die (c'mon, you gotta know he's gonna be the first one! ). If that's not a life's command for you, then sit around listening to Eagles tunes and reminisce the times in your youth when they brought you joy.

Know this: they won't sound like they did back then ever again. When I was installing remote starters, the electronics store at which I worked had the "Hell Freezes Over" tour DVD on continuous loop. It was overproduced and overrated, in my opinion.

 

[Fishy]

Yeah, like I said $100 is a bit much. While I would love to see them, I can't justify the price, so I guess I don't go. No big deal. As much of a fan of live music as I am, as well as an Eagles fan, I'm gonna pass. If tickets were cheaper (by half at least!) I'd go but,....ah hell I'm tired and can't formulate a sentence very well right now. Point is, I ain't payin that much, not going, will be happy with the records I have and call it good.

 

[Not A Duster]

Ticket prices are high because there is no money to be made for artists from album sales anymore. Matter of fact the lack of recording royalties is why we are seeing most of those aging artists hit the road in the first place. They can't just sit back and collect their royalties anymore, so they hit the concert trail again to bring in income. Fact is, until the era of music downloading, tours were typically a break-even, or even money-losing prospect for most artists. They toured to support an album and keeping ticket prices low put more asses in the seats which translated to album sales and income.

Nowadays, when virtually nobody purchases their music anymore, both the artists and labels rely on concert revenue to pick up the slack. Matter of fact, many recording contracts for new artists these days include the labels demanding a percentage of all touring & merchandise sales (t-shirts, etc) revenue as part of the deal. Naturally, ticket prices go up and production/services vendors get squeezed to lower costs. It was inevitable...many of us in the industry saw it coming years ago, but we got sneered at for even suggesting it was a problem. Happened to me on this very message board as a matter of fact.

We reap what we sow.....this is the new reality of live music. It sucks most for the real fans - those who have bought all the albums n' stuff, because usually they are the ones who can least afford the higher ticket prices.

 

[Dr.Jass]

I was wondering when you'd pipe in on this, Nodda.

We've discussed this previously; I'm in the camp where yes, I will download an album to see if it's something I like. If I like it, I'll go out and buy it. If I don't, I'll delete it though I might keep a song or two I enjoy. For instance, I like exactly one song by Nickleback ("Because of You"). The whole rest of the album sucked, as does everything else they've ever done, to my ear. I'm not going to pay $16 for one song.

Older bands might increase record sales if they did something other than re-hash their old shit, but at the same time I can honestly say that bands of which I was formerly a fan have estranged me because they're too into "following the crowd"--I was an enormous Metallica fan that bought "Load" at 12:01AM the day of its release. I listened to it twice, and it's never been out of its jewel box since. It sucked, and everything they've done since has been announced as "Metallica returns to their roots" and has equally sucked. Download, listen, hate, delete. They haven't done a song since 1991 that I enjoy... I'm sure as hell not going to pay to see them.

I hate it for new bands that write, perform, and record songs only to get them ripped off and never see the rewards of their hard work. That sucks... and if you really enjoy Journey's "Greatest Hits" you should, by all means, go out and buy it. But bands that have done nothing noteworthy--such as the Eagles--in nearly 30 years? I sure as hell wouldn't go pay $100 to see them.

Once, you recommended a Canuck band to me: I Mother Earth. On your word, I ordered two of their albums (at somewhat considerable expense, considering the shipping) without ever hearing a song, and I enjoy the heck out of those albums. I thank you for the recommendation.

If it's good, I'll pay for it. Don Henley crooning "Peaceful Easy Feeling" 40 years later, to me, isn't going to be the same and flat-out ain't worth it.

 

[gunbunny]

A couple of years ago I wanted to go see the Police in Louisville. Cheapest seats were $150 ea. Of course no one wants to go by themselves, so there's 2 tickets to buy. $300 for crap seats at best.
I decided to buy a Police concert shirt off of a website and just tell everyone I went.
Now, I probably would come off stupid money for Pink Floyd, but only if it was Gilmore and Rogers. not Gilmore or Rogers and someone who sounds close to each other. I've seen both in concert and they each do put on a great concert. It just isn't the same though.

 

[Fishy]

Worst one I've seen was when Led Zeppelin (one of the most OVER rated bands ever!!) reunited for that benefit for that record industry guy, I heard about tickets for that going for around $10,000 on E-bay!!![smilie=2: F THAT!!!!:dgt:

 

[Not A Duster]

Worst one I've seen was when Led Zeppelin (one of the most OVER rated bands ever!!) reunited for that benefit for that record industry guy, I heard about tickets for that going for around $10,000 on E-bay!!![smilie=2: F THAT!!!!:dgt:[/QUOTE]

Well - that would be a function of some scumbag scalper - not the artist or promoter.

Although I don't imagine tickets for that were cheap, being what it was.

It was a tribute to Ahmet Ertegun, the man who founded Atlantic records, providing a venue for music like soul, world music and rock rather than just the manufactured pop/rock junk that was the only stuff that stood any chance of being signed at that time. He was also the founder and original president of the Rock N' Roll hall of fame. Ertegun was once described as "one of the most significant figures in the modern recording industry," which is a pretty accurate statement.

 

[Not A Duster]

I was wondering when you'd pipe in on this, Nodda.

Yeah -well, no point even debating the whole downloading thing anymore, as the genie is out of the bottle and frankly the music business, at least as far as new artists are concerned is pretty much finished.

Enjoy your American Idol winners folks. That's as good as it's gonna get.

But when I hear folks complaining about the cost of concert tickets, I feel obliged to make them aware of the root cause of it, because most of us earning our livings in the business saw it coming years ago.

And I gotta disagree with one thing you said Doc. I saw the Eagles perform live "back in the day" as well as the recent show. Fact is they are better now than they were when younger. This is true of many of the geezer-rock bands I have seen recently. Why? because they are straight & sober, concentrating on playing the music, not what ever substance they were currently high on, be it booze or drugs. When ticket prices start at $100.00 +, you best be able to deliver the goods. In many cases, (particularily with metal bands) the years have also made them better musicians, because years of practice and experience has taught them technique and discipline they never had before. It's not always the case - there's certainly plenty of "classic rock" bands that outta hang it up - but the fact is, I've been enjoying going to see a lot of these old farts and actually being able to make out what it is they are playing...

 

[Dr.Jass]

You bring up a good point, Nodda... they have cleaned up and are sober when they perform these days. On the other hand, in a lot of cases the damage is done; to wit: Brian Johnson, Ozzy Osbourne, and Joe Walsh (I don't actually know if Joe's cleaned up or not ). AC/DC's last decent album was "Who Made Who" and even then it was becoming evident his voice was essentially shot. I've seen Metallica on several tours, and enjoyed every performance. Would I pay to see them now? No, for a few reasons: A) Their catalog has absolutely sucked since their eponymous ("Black") album, B) They don't have the hungry, youthful enthusiasm they once had, and C) James Hetfield has apparently taken voice lessons that completely destroyed the raw edge of his vocals that were a big part of what originally drew me to the band. The experience of others at more-recent concerts appears to have borne out my reasoning.

You know I respect your opinion, but let's consider one thing: virtually all of the money from a CD (which costs less than 50 cents to produce as a product including master tooling) goes into someone's pocket. Cassettes cost over six times as much to produce (multiple parts, tape has to be wound, and it has to be assembled whereas a CD is just printed), and yet they were several dollars cheaper. Perhaps if the music industry--and I don't mean the artists--wasn't so greedy it wouldn't have buried itself. Back when I first switched to CDs, which would have been when I bought my '73 Charger 340 in '91, CDs were around $14-$15 each, cassettes were still $8-$10. I understand that technology costs money, but it's not like the music industry had anything to do with the development of the CD... in fact, they've never had a hand in the development of any recording technology, be it Edison's original phonograph, LPs, 8-tracks, etc. The record companies screwed themselves in the same manner as the UAW, and yet we're supposed to feel badly for them? I think not... had a larger percentage gone to the actual artists and the record companies simply taken a reasonable margin on their product, CDs would cost what--$5-$7? If I dropped $8 on a CD and only liked a couple of songs, I'd feel a lot better than when I pay $17.

Sign an artist to a 1-record deal, period. The music should sell itself. They shouldn't have to spend 6 or 7 digits to promote an album. If it's not a success, don't re-sign. Period. The tour should pay for itself, and the tour shouldn't result in huge profits for the label. They ought to be happy with the profits from increased record sales. I know, that's not how it works. Instead, they sign someone flamboyant with little or no talent, like Lady GaGa, Nickelback or RuPaul, then spend millions of dollars to convince us that's good music when at heart we know it's not. Yes, I like one Nickelback song... even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut. In my opinion, their own practices have turned the North American public against the RIAA because of leaks about how little the actual workers actually profit from their work.

The ultimate bitch of it is that you're absolutely right: downloading hurts the artist, the roadies, the folks that set the stage and the sound, and those whom own the venue. However, it's because the record companies are going to increase their profit margins to make the same profit they always did. And they're going to do it at the cost of the "little people", including those whom made the music in the first place! So, I expect that The Eagles approached whomever and asked, "How much do you have to make?" After they got their answer, they decided they were going to make X percentage as well, and the ticket prices reflect that. If they can sell tickets at that high a price, it's a testament to their legacy and they'll do it again in a couple more years--one more "last tour" to refill the coffers.

Personally, I won't pay $100 for two hours' entertainment. I can spend less in a casino over twice that time and enjoy myself more, and I don't consider myself a gambler. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I want something tangible rather than just a memory of what may or may not be an awe-inspiring performance.

 

[Fishy]

Very well put Jass!:clap: Pretty much what I was getting at. I just didn't know the exact mechanics of how it all worked. Now I know.

 

[Not A Duster]

Very well put Jass!:clap: Pretty much what I was getting at. I just didn't know the exact mechanics of how it all worked. Now I know.

Yeah....but there's more than a few mis-conceptions in the body of what the Doc wrote....some of the mechanics are out of whack....

However - I'm weary of the battle over the years - really not much that can be changed now, so I'll finish with one final comment: If we think there will be a day where risky ventures like say, Tool, Alice In Chains or anything that's not a sure thing stands a chance of being signed & distributed, we are sadly mistaken. What we will continue to see is commercial garbage cranked out by the marketing machine and geezer artists who already have a track record, so there is no risk involved in releasing product and putting them on the road. And we will continue to pay through the nose should we want to see them perform live.

 

[restoman]

I don't know much about the recording industry, what Nodda says makes a lot of sense especially when one listens to the new "artists" on the radio. Garbage doesn't even begin to cover it. The tom cat on the fence in my backyard under a full moon sounds better than most of the "artists".
But, I did go to see Willie Nelson a couple years ago, for the frightful sum of $55 per ticket. My wife bought the tickets and I remember thinking Willie's gotta be in his 70s, how good could this show be? I never would have paid $55 to see him, as much as I like him.
The show was fantastic! He started slow (it IS country and he IS in his 70s), but three songs into his set and he came to life. For two full hours. It was well worth the money, tho' I wouldn't have bet on it.
But..
The best show, bar none, I ever saw, was The Stampeders, an old-geezer band from the 70s, right here in Sarnia. Around 92 or 93, tickets were $10 or $20 each, and it was under a tent down by Sarnia Bay. For three hours, and several encores, these guys showed they still could rock the place. We talked to them after the show for about 20 minutes, real down to earth fellas.
One of the first Cds I ever bought.