princetom
not my mother-tongue. sry for typos !
Thread
Posts in chronological order
PrimeJiveUSA
[QUOTE] [b]Gen Z Music Fan wrote:[/b]
With regards to the movie isn't obvious that Brian and Roger said they only gave approval of the movie because they were worried that if they hadn't then other people would've done it without their say what so ever. Just imagine if they made a movie than just concentrated on the negativity of the band, that won't've been good from any prospective. Both Brian and Roger have said that they didn't have as much control over the movie they would've liked - it was down to the production companies. Several interviews prove this and their only credits was as executive music producers.
Majority means to the millions of people who have been to see them live and have been hugely satisfied by the experience. I know not everyone likes AL but haters please don't make it out like every Queen fan hates him because it can be proven otherwise - personal opinions like this and pretending that it's the general view is incredibly selfish IMO. In terms of money, Q+AL don't make a fortune from touring as claimed by haters - a coincidence? As we should all know, Q+AL played their biggest American tour last year and yet didn't make the top grossing tours list (source: [url]https://www.kerrang.com/the-news/metallica-and-kiss-amongst-the-highest-grossing-tours-of-2019/[/url]). Why? It's because they simply don't sell tickets as high as others. With this means they also don't make as profit per show as some artists due to their expensive stage equipment, extravagant design and large crew. It's been a well-known fact by Queen themselves that non of their tours until the Magic '86 made any money due to the amount they were putting in. It's different now as you have to make money as touring is the main income for artists now due to technology advances.
I just hate it when fans say a personal dislike and make it look like it's the general opinion by everyone.
At the end of the day if you love Queen but are a constant moaner at everything they do, remember you're a fan (maybe because of their music, their talents etc.) and stop bickering at them because it won't make any difference and it also shows signs that you are not a 100% devoted fan.[/QUOTE]
Damn...didnt even make the top 20! Beaten by Hugh Jackman even.
I guess there aren't as many crown jewels to rob from the "grave" as was thought.
It's further proof that "Queen" is still not, nor has ever been, a top-tier draw in the States unfortunately. Still second-tier even after the success of the film.
With regards to the movie isn't obvious that Brian and Roger said they only gave approval of the movie because they were worried that if they hadn't then other people would've done it without their say what so ever. Just imagine if they made a movie than just concentrated on the negativity of the band, that won't've been good from any prospective. Both Brian and Roger have said that they didn't have as much control over the movie they would've liked - it was down to the production companies. Several interviews prove this and their only credits was as executive music producers.
Majority means to the millions of people who have been to see them live and have been hugely satisfied by the experience. I know not everyone likes AL but haters please don't make it out like every Queen fan hates him because it can be proven otherwise - personal opinions like this and pretending that it's the general view is incredibly selfish IMO. In terms of money, Q+AL don't make a fortune from touring as claimed by haters - a coincidence? As we should all know, Q+AL played their biggest American tour last year and yet didn't make the top grossing tours list (source: [url]https://www.kerrang.com/the-news/metallica-and-kiss-amongst-the-highest-grossing-tours-of-2019/[/url]). Why? It's because they simply don't sell tickets as high as others. With this means they also don't make as profit per show as some artists due to their expensive stage equipment, extravagant design and large crew. It's been a well-known fact by Queen themselves that non of their tours until the Magic '86 made any money due to the amount they were putting in. It's different now as you have to make money as touring is the main income for artists now due to technology advances.
I just hate it when fans say a personal dislike and make it look like it's the general opinion by everyone.
At the end of the day if you love Queen but are a constant moaner at everything they do, remember you're a fan (maybe because of their music, their talents etc.) and stop bickering at them because it won't make any difference and it also shows signs that you are not a 100% devoted fan.[/QUOTE]
Damn...didnt even make the top 20! Beaten by Hugh Jackman even.
I guess there aren't as many crown jewels to rob from the "grave" as was thought.
It's further proof that "Queen" is still not, nor has ever been, a top-tier draw in the States unfortunately. Still second-tier even after the success of the film.
PrimeJiveUSA
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie.
Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans.
Don't believe everything you read.
ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time. [/QUOTE]
Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then.
Nowadays the exact opposite is true.
For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie.
Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans.
Don't believe everything you read.
ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time. [/QUOTE]
Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then.
Nowadays the exact opposite is true.
snifflese
So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.
PrimeJiveUSA
[QUOTE] [b]snifflese wrote:[/b]
So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.[/QUOTE]
Indeed...they put on one of the most expensive, advanced shows in the business and they aren't even grossing enough to place in the top 20 tours last year!
Not so greedy.
So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.[/QUOTE]
Indeed...they put on one of the most expensive, advanced shows in the business and they aren't even grossing enough to place in the top 20 tours last year!
Not so greedy.
Makka
FFS, they are musicians, playing the music they helped create. Brian & Roger have every right to do what they love whether you, me or whoever disagrees. Musicians play music. They perform. They are lucky they can still do it and pull a crowd at their age. Some people enjoy it, some people don't. It is what it is. They can't do it forever and very soon it will be over.
Iron Butterfly
The merchandise is so expensive, holy smokes.
What makes me think Brian and Roger are money hungry is the amount of Queen music on TV ads. The Pepsi advert is when they sold out, IMO. To me, that was and remains tacky as hell. One of the worst things they have done since 1991.
What makes me think Brian and Roger are money hungry is the amount of Queen music on TV ads. The Pepsi advert is when they sold out, IMO. To me, that was and remains tacky as hell. One of the worst things they have done since 1991.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Makka wrote:[/b]
You do realise these are things they would be approached to do, not something they would instigate? They are in a lucky position to be offered these things. Bands don't make money from music anymore, they make it from touring and from merch so it's another outlet to make money whilst they can. And to be honest, if I was in their shoes I'd be running with the money too. They were part of the musics creation so why not?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Like any major act they are tied to a record company who want to make what they can out of an artist, like it or not it's an industry that goes beyond the art of making music. Go to any gig of any size by anyone and there'll be a merchbstand selling vastly inflated T shirts, Hoodies, Beanie hats, drum sticks, programs, cd's cups etc etc, the list goes on ano on. It's how it is. You don't have to buy into any of it. . . It's not just this band.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Dim wrote:[/b]
I don't want to be devil's advocate but record companies are making money from concerts, ridiculously shit products, compilations albums you name it. The artists have been paid in advance and give their approve to whatever....[/QUOTE]
Read carefully, haters. These posts are written by people who understand how the music business works.
You do realise these are things they would be approached to do, not something they would instigate? They are in a lucky position to be offered these things. Bands don't make money from music anymore, they make it from touring and from merch so it's another outlet to make money whilst they can. And to be honest, if I was in their shoes I'd be running with the money too. They were part of the musics creation so why not?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Like any major act they are tied to a record company who want to make what they can out of an artist, like it or not it's an industry that goes beyond the art of making music. Go to any gig of any size by anyone and there'll be a merchbstand selling vastly inflated T shirts, Hoodies, Beanie hats, drum sticks, programs, cd's cups etc etc, the list goes on ano on. It's how it is. You don't have to buy into any of it. . . It's not just this band.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Dim wrote:[/b]
I don't want to be devil's advocate but record companies are making money from concerts, ridiculously shit products, compilations albums you name it. The artists have been paid in advance and give their approve to whatever....[/QUOTE]
Read carefully, haters. These posts are written by people who understand how the music business works.
kevin79
I don't see them as any more or less money hungry than a lot of other bands, especially legacy acts. Heck, for the anniversary of the White Album one year, The Beatles released an expensive pen to "honor" the occasion. A lot less magical than the remixed album with outtakes in 2018.
Heck, it's not like Queen didn't do stuff that seemed like a cash grab when Freddie was around. I'd imagine if social media had existed in 1984, there would have been plenty of complaining about how they released every song from "The Works" on the singles and they put collectors in the position of having to buy the same single four times to get all of the covers with "I Want to Break Free."
Would I like if they released more archive releases? Absolutely. That's why, when they do, I support them by buying them. But for me, I have no need for limited coins, drum head replicas or the like. So, I save my money and don't buy them.
Heck, it's not like Queen didn't do stuff that seemed like a cash grab when Freddie was around. I'd imagine if social media had existed in 1984, there would have been plenty of complaining about how they released every song from "The Works" on the singles and they put collectors in the position of having to buy the same single four times to get all of the covers with "I Want to Break Free."
Would I like if they released more archive releases? Absolutely. That's why, when they do, I support them by buying them. But for me, I have no need for limited coins, drum head replicas or the like. So, I save my money and don't buy them.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Gen Z Music Fan wrote:[/b]
I just hate it when fans say a personal dislike and make it look like it's the general opinion by everyone.[/QUOTE]
But alas that's what happens at an unmoderated forum like Queenzone where anyone who understands the music business and/or music history is branded by stepford fan moron types like runner_70 as a "Glamtart."
These trolls in an extreme minority with their shoe sized IQs just keep repeating the same talking points over and over again and throw out insults and ad hominems hoping they will gain some kind of traction, but much to their chagrin the arenas keep selling out. And so they just keep shouting in their little echo chamber, inventing every reason in the world why it's somehow unjust that the founding members of Queen are still doing well, as if the people who spend their money on concerts and merch are being forced to do so at gunpoint. To any rational person it's obviously preposterous.
I just hate it when fans say a personal dislike and make it look like it's the general opinion by everyone.[/QUOTE]
But alas that's what happens at an unmoderated forum like Queenzone where anyone who understands the music business and/or music history is branded by stepford fan moron types like runner_70 as a "Glamtart."
These trolls in an extreme minority with their shoe sized IQs just keep repeating the same talking points over and over again and throw out insults and ad hominems hoping they will gain some kind of traction, but much to their chagrin the arenas keep selling out. And so they just keep shouting in their little echo chamber, inventing every reason in the world why it's somehow unjust that the founding members of Queen are still doing well, as if the people who spend their money on concerts and merch are being forced to do so at gunpoint. To any rational person it's obviously preposterous.
snifflese
That shoe sized IQ just made me day! I will have to store that one away!!
Holly2003
[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie.
Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans.
Don't believe everything you read.
ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time. [/QUOTE]
Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then.
Nowadays the exact opposite is true.
[/QUOTE]
While the primary intent of Queen tours was to support album releases, that doesn't equate to tours not also making a profit. Unless you have access to the contracts, financial statements etc, and you also know what tricks accountants can pull to hide profits, then you really aren't in a position to take Queen's statements about non-profitable tours at face value.
Re: Rolling Stones, despite numerous tours and hit records the Stones were broke in 1969. So they changed their business model for their 1969 US tour. They started making money not because of higher ticket prices (general sale ticket prices were equivalent to other contemporary rock bands, although they were one of the first to start charging higher prices for VIP seats) but because they insisted in getting a higher fee from promoters, to be paid up front.
Not all bands toured to promote records: after Woodstock the band Ten Years After did 27 American tours in just 7 years. During that time they only released five albums. They toured not just to promote albums but because there was huge demand for their live shows. Hendrix was the same: after Monterey he was asking $50,000 per appearance, regardless of whether he was promoting a record release. It was possible to make money from touring, from record release, from merchandising etc. It's not necessarily one or the other.
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie.
Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans.
Don't believe everything you read.
ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time. [/QUOTE]
Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then.
Nowadays the exact opposite is true.
[/QUOTE]
While the primary intent of Queen tours was to support album releases, that doesn't equate to tours not also making a profit. Unless you have access to the contracts, financial statements etc, and you also know what tricks accountants can pull to hide profits, then you really aren't in a position to take Queen's statements about non-profitable tours at face value.
Re: Rolling Stones, despite numerous tours and hit records the Stones were broke in 1969. So they changed their business model for their 1969 US tour. They started making money not because of higher ticket prices (general sale ticket prices were equivalent to other contemporary rock bands, although they were one of the first to start charging higher prices for VIP seats) but because they insisted in getting a higher fee from promoters, to be paid up front.
Not all bands toured to promote records: after Woodstock the band Ten Years After did 27 American tours in just 7 years. During that time they only released five albums. They toured not just to promote albums but because there was huge demand for their live shows. Hendrix was the same: after Monterey he was asking $50,000 per appearance, regardless of whether he was promoting a record release. It was possible to make money from touring, from record release, from merchandising etc. It's not necessarily one or the other.
PrimeJiveUSA
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie.
Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans.
Don't believe everything you read.
ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time. [/QUOTE]
Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then.
Nowadays the exact opposite is true.
[/QUOTE]
While the primary intent of Queen tours was to support album releases, that doesn't equate to tours not also making a profit. Unless you have access to the contracts, financial statements etc, and you also know what tricks accountants can pull to hide profits, then you really aren't in a position to take Queen's statements about non-profitable tours at face value.
Re: Rolling Stones, despite numerous tours and hit records the Stones were broke in 1969. So they changed their business model for their 1969 US tour. They started making money not because of higher ticket prices (general sale ticket prices were equivalent to other contemporary rock bands, although they were one of the first to start charging higher prices for VIP seats) but because they insisted in getting a higher fee from promoters, to be paid up front.
Not all bands toured to promote records: after Woodstock the band Ten Years After did 27 American tours in just 7 years. During that time they only released five albums. They toured not just to promote albums but because there was huge demand for their live shows. Hendrix was the same: after Monterey he was asking $50,000 per appearance, regardless of whether he was promoting a record release. It was possible to make money from touring, from record release, from merchandising etc. It's not necessarily one or the other. [/QUOTE]
I stand corrected.
A very informative post!
[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie.
Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans.
Don't believe everything you read.
ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time. [/QUOTE]
Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then.
Nowadays the exact opposite is true.
[/QUOTE]
While the primary intent of Queen tours was to support album releases, that doesn't equate to tours not also making a profit. Unless you have access to the contracts, financial statements etc, and you also know what tricks accountants can pull to hide profits, then you really aren't in a position to take Queen's statements about non-profitable tours at face value.
Re: Rolling Stones, despite numerous tours and hit records the Stones were broke in 1969. So they changed their business model for their 1969 US tour. They started making money not because of higher ticket prices (general sale ticket prices were equivalent to other contemporary rock bands, although they were one of the first to start charging higher prices for VIP seats) but because they insisted in getting a higher fee from promoters, to be paid up front.
Not all bands toured to promote records: after Woodstock the band Ten Years After did 27 American tours in just 7 years. During that time they only released five albums. They toured not just to promote albums but because there was huge demand for their live shows. Hendrix was the same: after Monterey he was asking $50,000 per appearance, regardless of whether he was promoting a record release. It was possible to make money from touring, from record release, from merchandising etc. It's not necessarily one or the other. [/QUOTE]
I stand corrected.
A very informative post!
Holly2003
You're not wrong mate. It's just a bit more nuanced than the official Queen position would have us believe.
runner_70
[QUOTE] [b]snifflese wrote:[/b]
So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.[/QUOTE]
Your postings are getting sillier each day and you don't even notice - it is fucking hilarious.
When I say QAL are crap and do not sell tickets (especially for the O2 shows in London) you come up with you usual "They are selling out stadiums everywhere". When it comes to them being greedy you use the argument "you see that do not sell so many tickets after all so they are not money hungry ".
DO you notice something ? Apart from the obvious that you are plain stupid?
So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.[/QUOTE]
Your postings are getting sillier each day and you don't even notice - it is fucking hilarious.
When I say QAL are crap and do not sell tickets (especially for the O2 shows in London) you come up with you usual "They are selling out stadiums everywhere". When it comes to them being greedy you use the argument "you see that do not sell so many tickets after all so they are not money hungry ".
DO you notice something ? Apart from the obvious that you are plain stupid?