Only a few days before the concert in Frankfurt on June 13th, the Stones offer considerably cheaper general admission tickets and move the stage from the smaller end to the long side of the stadium thus removing 10 000 unsold seats. They simply do not sell 35 000 tickets between 84 and 190 euros, now they offer general admission tickets for 59 euros hoping to sell 25 000. It's great that people finally stop paying these exaggerated prices, I hope it becomes a trend.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I seriously hope this becomes a trend as well. Too often in the past have I stopped going to gigs because of the over-bloated ticket price. As much as I like the Stones, I would never pay their exorbitant ticket prices. 190 euro's is scandalous.
Roughly, how much is 1 euro compared to 1 pound?
1 euro is about 0,67 pounds or 1,35 US dollars
http://www.xe.com/ucc/
Amazingly, the first ever and only Barbra Streisand concert in Germany, Berlin June 30th is not sold out yet, either. There are loads of categoy 2 tickets left. Ticket price category 2: 391 euro!
Like you, Mr. Mercury, I have passed many concerts in the last years because I would not enjoy them feeling ripped off. Many tours are in the hands of international agencies now, so the local promoters have no say in the pricing anymore. Only if big artists must fear to play to half empty stadiums the situation will change.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/
Amazingly, the first ever and only Barbra Streisand concert in Germany, Berlin June 30th is not sold out yet, either. There are loads of categoy 2 tickets left. Ticket price category 2: 391 euro!
Like you, Mr. Mercury, I have passed many concerts in the last years because I would not enjoy them feeling ripped off. Many tours are in the hands of international agencies now, so the local promoters have no say in the pricing anymore. Only if big artists must fear to play to half empty stadiums the situation will change.
^Thanks YV
Wow, thats about $340 NZD. I'd rather pay $11 to see Keith Richards in POTC3 quite frankly.
Wow, thats about $340 NZD. I'd rather pay $11 to see Keith Richards in POTC3 quite frankly.
The best concerts I've ever been to have been the cheapest ones.
Green Day $35
Muse $30
This is the reason why I did not want to pay over $100 to see U2 on their Vertigo Tour. Lame setlist with mellow songs are just quite simply not worth the money I'm paying.
Legendary bands who have been around for decades should learn a couple of things from the newcomers.
Green Day $35
Muse $30
This is the reason why I did not want to pay over $100 to see U2 on their Vertigo Tour. Lame setlist with mellow songs are just quite simply not worth the money I'm paying.
Legendary bands who have been around for decades should learn a couple of things from the newcomers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The best concerts I've ever been to have been the cheapest ones.
Green Day $35
Muse $30
This is the reason why I did not want to pay over $100 to see U2 on their Vertigo Tour. Lame setlist with mellow songs are just quite simply not worth the money I'm paying.
Legendary bands who have been around for decades should learn a couple of things from the newcomers.[/QUOTE]
Muse and Green Day aren't newcomers Dan. :)
But i agree with you that artists like U2, Stones and Madonna should really reconsider the expences they make to put on a good show. Muse put on a great show with ditto lights and pyrotechnics and sell tickets for less than 40 Dollar/Euro...and they're not losing any money in the process.
Green Day $35
Muse $30
This is the reason why I did not want to pay over $100 to see U2 on their Vertigo Tour. Lame setlist with mellow songs are just quite simply not worth the money I'm paying.
Legendary bands who have been around for decades should learn a couple of things from the newcomers.[/QUOTE]
Muse and Green Day aren't newcomers Dan. :)
But i agree with you that artists like U2, Stones and Madonna should really reconsider the expences they make to put on a good show. Muse put on a great show with ditto lights and pyrotechnics and sell tickets for less than 40 Dollar/Euro...and they're not losing any money in the process.
If you ask the artists, they say that prices are going up because they are required to have such a show. They can't just play anymore, they argue...since the invention of music videos and things the audience demands a visual show, with fireworks and complex sets and all kinds of art stuff that is expensive.
OK...maybe I buy that argument, but what they don't realize is what we have all said here...there is a limit to what we are willing to pay to see a show. Entertainment is good, but you can, and it appears that some do, price themselves right out of the market. Why bother paying upwards of $100 per ticket for nosebleed seats when you can buy a CD for less than $20?
Personally, I'd rather they go back to the days when they just sat and played, and did a little more interaction with the audience....a much cooler experience than trying to make a music video come to life on stage, IMHO.
OK...maybe I buy that argument, but what they don't realize is what we have all said here...there is a limit to what we are willing to pay to see a show. Entertainment is good, but you can, and it appears that some do, price themselves right out of the market. Why bother paying upwards of $100 per ticket for nosebleed seats when you can buy a CD for less than $20?
Personally, I'd rather they go back to the days when they just sat and played, and did a little more interaction with the audience....a much cooler experience than trying to make a music video come to life on stage, IMHO.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you ask the artists, they say that prices are going up because they are required to have such a show. They can't just play anymore, they argue...since the invention of music videos and things the audience demands a visual show, with fireworks and complex sets and all kinds of art stuff that is expensive.
OK...maybe I buy that argument, but what they don't realize is what we have all said here...there is a limit to what we are willing to pay to see a show. Entertainment is good, but you can, and it appears that some do, price themselves right out of the market. Why bother paying upwards of $100 per ticket for nosebleed seats when you can buy a CD for less than $20?
Personally, I'd rather they go back to the days when they just sat and played, and did a little more interaction with the audience....a much cooler experience than trying to make a music video come to life on stage, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
In those days bands made a living by selling CD's. The shows were to support the CD sales. With everybody downloading CD's for free, they need to get some money from shows. At least, for "new" bands, I can see where the high prices are coming from. The Stones (and other huge names) on the other hand don't need to make that much money any more I would say. They just follow the trend of increasing prices and see how much money you can grab (I'd do the same though).
OK...maybe I buy that argument, but what they don't realize is what we have all said here...there is a limit to what we are willing to pay to see a show. Entertainment is good, but you can, and it appears that some do, price themselves right out of the market. Why bother paying upwards of $100 per ticket for nosebleed seats when you can buy a CD for less than $20?
Personally, I'd rather they go back to the days when they just sat and played, and did a little more interaction with the audience....a much cooler experience than trying to make a music video come to life on stage, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
In those days bands made a living by selling CD's. The shows were to support the CD sales. With everybody downloading CD's for free, they need to get some money from shows. At least, for "new" bands, I can see where the high prices are coming from. The Stones (and other huge names) on the other hand don't need to make that much money any more I would say. They just follow the trend of increasing prices and see how much money you can grab (I'd do the same though).
In the 1970s, when touring really started, the bands actually supported their records by touring. Today they want to be paid big money for playing to their audience. It does not mean that they do not make money from selling records and getting royalties from airplay etc. It has turned into a matter of reputation: who gets the most money from a tour seems to be the biggest star. As a result the audience changes: while in the 1970s, 80s and 90s mostly young people went to Rock concerts today the best tickets are not even for public sale. The "business" really has changed from a culture of the youth to big corporate money. We see a similar development in football with all the expensive VIP packages. However - should the masses be fed up some day, the whole hype will collapse. Why should young people pay so much for greedy old millionaires when there are still small festivals with genuine music and fair prices...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]willem-jan wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you ask the artists, they say that prices are going up because they are required to have such a show. They can't just play anymore, they argue...since the invention of music videos and things the audience demands a visual show, with fireworks and complex sets and all kinds of art stuff that is expensive.
OK...maybe I buy that argument, but what they don't realize is what we have all said here...there is a limit to what we are willing to pay to see a show. Entertainment is good, but you can, and it appears that some do, price themselves right out of the market. Why bother paying upwards of $100 per ticket for nosebleed seats when you can buy a CD for less than $20?
Personally, I'd rather they go back to the days when they just sat and played, and did a little more interaction with the audience....a much cooler experience than trying to make a music video come to life on stage, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
In those days bands made a living by selling CD's. The shows were to support the CD sales. With everybody downloading CD's for free, they need to get some money from shows. At least, for "new" bands, I can see where the high prices are coming from. The Stones (and other huge names) on the other hand don't need to make that much money any more I would say. They just follow the trend of increasing prices and see how much money you can grab (I'd do the same though). [/QUOTE]
You bring up a good point, but I think the free downloading thing is hurting the record companies more than the artists...But that's another issue.
Bottom line is that they need to give the audiences a different experience than just a re-hash of their latest and greatest CD's. They decided to go about it the expensive way, with flashy lights, sets, and all kinds of other bells and whistles. That's fine...but eventually they will price themselves out of interest.
A cheaper way they could do it, that would provoke more people to buy their CD's, I think, is to make the shows smaller, but more intimate. More audience interaction, different songs, acoustic versions even if you have to. People will willingly pay for the experience if they feel the experience is worthwhile, instead of artists lip synching to their latest CD and hiding behind fireworks and movie screens. Been there, done that...and it's not worth the price.
OK...maybe I buy that argument, but what they don't realize is what we have all said here...there is a limit to what we are willing to pay to see a show. Entertainment is good, but you can, and it appears that some do, price themselves right out of the market. Why bother paying upwards of $100 per ticket for nosebleed seats when you can buy a CD for less than $20?
Personally, I'd rather they go back to the days when they just sat and played, and did a little more interaction with the audience....a much cooler experience than trying to make a music video come to life on stage, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
In those days bands made a living by selling CD's. The shows were to support the CD sales. With everybody downloading CD's for free, they need to get some money from shows. At least, for "new" bands, I can see where the high prices are coming from. The Stones (and other huge names) on the other hand don't need to make that much money any more I would say. They just follow the trend of increasing prices and see how much money you can grab (I'd do the same though). [/QUOTE]
You bring up a good point, but I think the free downloading thing is hurting the record companies more than the artists...But that's another issue.
Bottom line is that they need to give the audiences a different experience than just a re-hash of their latest and greatest CD's. They decided to go about it the expensive way, with flashy lights, sets, and all kinds of other bells and whistles. That's fine...but eventually they will price themselves out of interest.
A cheaper way they could do it, that would provoke more people to buy their CD's, I think, is to make the shows smaller, but more intimate. More audience interaction, different songs, acoustic versions even if you have to. People will willingly pay for the experience if they feel the experience is worthwhile, instead of artists lip synching to their latest CD and hiding behind fireworks and movie screens. Been there, done that...and it's not worth the price.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]In the 1970s, when touring really started, the bands actually supported their records by touring. Today they want to be paid big money for playing to their audience. It does not mean that they do not make money from selling records and getting royalties from airplay etc. It has turned into a matter of reputation: who gets the most money from a tour seems to be the biggest star. As a result the audience changes: while in the 1970s, 80s and 90s mostly young people went to Rock concerts today the best tickets are not even for public sale. The "business" really has changed from a culture of the youth to big corporate money. We see a similar development in football with all the expensive VIP packages. However - should the masses be fed up some day, the whole hype will collapse. Why should young people pay so much for greedy old millionaires when there are still small festivals with genuine music and fair prices...[/QUOTE]
Excellent response, Barb! That is why I admire artists who have "made it" by popular music standards, but still refuse to play the bigger venues. There are a few who will still play the little, local festivals and events. Granted, the big ones won't "lower themselves" like this...but the bands who do this earn a lot more respect, because you know with them that it's all about the music, not the money.
Excellent response, Barb! That is why I admire artists who have "made it" by popular music standards, but still refuse to play the bigger venues. There are a few who will still play the little, local festivals and events. Granted, the big ones won't "lower themselves" like this...but the bands who do this earn a lot more respect, because you know with them that it's all about the music, not the money.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Muse and Green Day aren't newcomers Dan. :)[/QUOTE]
LOL! I know, but compared to the Stones, the Police, U2, and Genesis they sort of are.
Muse and Green Day aren't newcomers Dan. :)[/QUOTE]
LOL! I know, but compared to the Stones, the Police, U2, and Genesis they sort of are.
Id pay 200 euros to get to see them if i could! I have no one to go with though and my parents wont let me either ;________;
In fairness, I saw the Stones 4 years ago and although the tickets were £50 I felt that the production values justified it.
Obviously they want to make a profit and they have the right to do so, but I felt that 8 movable screens, animations, inflatables, a second stage, changing backdrops and the fireworks at the end combined with the performance was WORTH IT.
I'd also dispute that they can change the orientation of the stadium at short notice - YV is usually right, but I'm suprised that the stadium is flexible enough to allow the staging to be loaded in either further or from a different entry point, and to have appropriate backstage facilities.
Obviously they want to make a profit and they have the right to do so, but I felt that 8 movable screens, animations, inflatables, a second stage, changing backdrops and the fireworks at the end combined with the performance was WORTH IT.
I'd also dispute that they can change the orientation of the stadium at short notice - YV is usually right, but I'm suprised that the stadium is flexible enough to allow the staging to be loaded in either further or from a different entry point, and to have appropriate backstage facilities.