Ooooh!!! Must...get...good...seats...
*smashes piggy pank*
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Does U2 even charge that much? I love 'em, but that is a bit extreme. I think I will wait until closer to the show, too, to get my tix - wait for those brokers who are desperate to get rid of their tickets and will take just about anything for 'em. $200 - ugh - I suppose I'll have to just forget about the mortgage and the car and plan to sleep on the sidewalk this spring...!!!
is paul rodgers not going to be on this tour then?! coz theyre listed as just queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]KRKillerQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Does U2 even charge that much? I love 'em, but that is a bit extreme. I think I will wait until closer to the show, too, to get my tix - wait for those brokers who are desperate to get rid of their tickets and will take just about anything for 'em. $200 - ugh - I suppose I'll have to just forget about the mortgage and the car and plan to sleep on the sidewalk this spring...!!![/QUOTE]
This is a good point. If you love them and think that $200 is to much, what about the general public? They are not going to pay that. NJ and LA were different as many die hard fans travelled to these shows.
This is a good point. If you love them and think that $200 is to much, what about the general public? They are not going to pay that. NJ and LA were different as many die hard fans travelled to these shows.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddiettt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]notice they seemed to have dropped the + PR.....[/QUOTE]
Notice that Paul Rodgers is in the photo.
Notice that Paul Rodgers is in the photo.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If they are gonna charge $200 then this tour is going to be a failure. They need to be realistic.
I paid $57 to see Elton John the other week and I was in the 9th row.[/QUOTE]
And you can pay $50 to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. If you'll notice on Ticketmaster, the ticket prices range from $50 to $200. Nobody's going to force you to lay out 200 bucks if you don't want to pay it.
Everybody, *try* to be happy for 24 hours before pissing all over this news.
I paid $57 to see Elton John the other week and I was in the 9th row.[/QUOTE]
And you can pay $50 to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. If you'll notice on Ticketmaster, the ticket prices range from $50 to $200. Nobody's going to force you to lay out 200 bucks if you don't want to pay it.
Everybody, *try* to be happy for 24 hours before pissing all over this news.
Definatly procrastinate.
I went to NJ on a last minute gut(once in a lifetime kind of deal), and bought two tickets dead center of the cat walk, the row in front of the mixing station, for $90 a pop on the Friday before the sunday show. Not through ticketmaster, but an independent broker. Ticketmaster was selling strange, "upper side balcony, section 2 million, seats 500 and 501" for $120 a peice.....shiesters.
I went to NJ on a last minute gut(once in a lifetime kind of deal), and bought two tickets dead center of the cat walk, the row in front of the mixing station, for $90 a pop on the Friday before the sunday show. Not through ticketmaster, but an independent broker. Ticketmaster was selling strange, "upper side balcony, section 2 million, seats 500 and 501" for $120 a peice.....shiesters.
i wouldn't take that much notice of the photo - it's just the latest promotional shot they have of brian & roger. it would be a bit off to label it queen, with paul rodgers singing?!! there have already been rumours that they would tour next year without rodgers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Negative Creep wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i wouldn't take that much notice of the photo - it's just the latest promotional shot they have of brian & roger. it would be a bit off to label it queen, with paul rodgers singing?!! there have already been rumours that they would tour next year without rodgers.[/QUOTE]
No offense intended, but that's crazy talk. They will not be touring the US this spring without Paul Rodgers. I pay attention, and I haven't seen any rumors about Brian and Roger touring without Paul, with anybody instead of Paul, or by themselves. The closest thing I have seen to that is stateside fan complaining that Paul is ruining plans for more touring because he doesn't seem as rah-rah gung-ho as Brian and Roger in a couple of press quotes (which is pretty flimsy evidence IMO). So I you can point me to the rumors you're refering to, I'd be very interested in seeing them.
And there are many more recent publicity shots of Brian and Roger than the one on the site. That shot is from late 2004. There are much more recent ones than that. You know that's the latest one Ticketmaster has ... how exactly? Do you work for them? Again, if you have inside information, I'd love to be pointed toward where I can read it for myself, rather than just taking someone's word for it.
No offense intended, but that's crazy talk. They will not be touring the US this spring without Paul Rodgers. I pay attention, and I haven't seen any rumors about Brian and Roger touring without Paul, with anybody instead of Paul, or by themselves. The closest thing I have seen to that is stateside fan complaining that Paul is ruining plans for more touring because he doesn't seem as rah-rah gung-ho as Brian and Roger in a couple of press quotes (which is pretty flimsy evidence IMO). So I you can point me to the rumors you're refering to, I'd be very interested in seeing them.
And there are many more recent publicity shots of Brian and Roger than the one on the site. That shot is from late 2004. There are much more recent ones than that. You know that's the latest one Ticketmaster has ... how exactly? Do you work for them? Again, if you have inside information, I'd love to be pointed toward where I can read it for myself, rather than just taking someone's word for it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ray D O'Gaga wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And you can pay $50 to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. If you'll notice on Ticketmaster, the ticket prices range from $50 to $200. Nobody's going to force you to lay out 200 bucks if you don't want to pay it.
Everybody, *try* to be happy for 24 hours before pissing all over this news. [/QUOTE]
Yes but $200 for the best seats is crazy. $50 will get you nosebleeds. At Elton John $57 got you 9th row.
I really don't see how anybody could be happy about shelling out $200 for tickets.
And you can pay $50 to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. If you'll notice on Ticketmaster, the ticket prices range from $50 to $200. Nobody's going to force you to lay out 200 bucks if you don't want to pay it.
Everybody, *try* to be happy for 24 hours before pissing all over this news. [/QUOTE]
Yes but $200 for the best seats is crazy. $50 will get you nosebleeds. At Elton John $57 got you 9th row.
I really don't see how anybody could be happy about shelling out $200 for tickets.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ray D O'Gaga wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And you can pay $50 to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. If you'll notice on Ticketmaster, the ticket prices range from $50 to $200. Nobody's going to force you to lay out 200 bucks if you don't want to pay it.
Everybody, *try* to be happy for 24 hours before pissing all over this news. [/QUOTE]
Yes but $200 for the best seats is crazy. $50 will get you nosebleeds. At Elton John $57 got you 9th row.
I really don't see how anybody could be happy about shelling out $200 for tickets.[/QUOTE]
So the fact that the best tickets are going to cost 200 bucks completely negates any happiness that arises from knowing that they're almost certainly going to be doing a serious US tour in the spring? Not at all my priorities, but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. Me, I'm very glad they're coming back. I'd prefer they play for free, but I paid way more than $200 seeing them in Aruba and L.A., and if that's what its going to cost to see them again, then its money well spent as far as I'm concerned.
And I don't know when you saw Elton John, but he is charging a whole lot more than $57 for 9th row seats in Vegas. Have you looked at concert ticket prices for classic rock acts lately? Elton John's Red Piano thing in Vegas is charging $250 for the best seats. U2 is charging $165 for the best seats at their shows, $49.50 for the nosebleeds. The Eagles are charging $250 for their best seats. Paul McCartney is charging almost $260; $51.50 for nosebleeds. Aerosmith is charging $250 for reserved seating. The Stones are charging $400! This is all on Ticketmaster right now. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. I'm not saying Queen has a comparably sized U.S. audience compared to those acts, but promoters want to make money and they know how to price tickets for the audience they're targeting. A 200 dollar ticket is priced that way based on a reliable expectation that there is an audience who is going to pay that price - an audience with a healthy number of babyboomers with a lot of disposable cash in it. Brian and Roger may well be looking at things through rose-colored glasses, but their promoter isn't going to book a tour that isn't already pretty well calculated to at least break even, because nobody in the industry is going to bother these days on a tour that might have iffy sales. Nobody books a flop.
I'm sure everybody would like cheaper tickets, but if you're trying to make a case that the band and their promoter are charging prices that are outrageous and way out of line with other acts of more-or-less their own age, the facts just don't support it. One could even argue that, based on the prices other acts are charging for premium tickets, Queen is going to be a bit of a bargain.
And you can pay $50 to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. If you'll notice on Ticketmaster, the ticket prices range from $50 to $200. Nobody's going to force you to lay out 200 bucks if you don't want to pay it.
Everybody, *try* to be happy for 24 hours before pissing all over this news. [/QUOTE]
Yes but $200 for the best seats is crazy. $50 will get you nosebleeds. At Elton John $57 got you 9th row.
I really don't see how anybody could be happy about shelling out $200 for tickets.[/QUOTE]
So the fact that the best tickets are going to cost 200 bucks completely negates any happiness that arises from knowing that they're almost certainly going to be doing a serious US tour in the spring? Not at all my priorities, but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. Me, I'm very glad they're coming back. I'd prefer they play for free, but I paid way more than $200 seeing them in Aruba and L.A., and if that's what its going to cost to see them again, then its money well spent as far as I'm concerned.
And I don't know when you saw Elton John, but he is charging a whole lot more than $57 for 9th row seats in Vegas. Have you looked at concert ticket prices for classic rock acts lately? Elton John's Red Piano thing in Vegas is charging $250 for the best seats. U2 is charging $165 for the best seats at their shows, $49.50 for the nosebleeds. The Eagles are charging $250 for their best seats. Paul McCartney is charging almost $260; $51.50 for nosebleeds. Aerosmith is charging $250 for reserved seating. The Stones are charging $400! This is all on Ticketmaster right now. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. I'm not saying Queen has a comparably sized U.S. audience compared to those acts, but promoters want to make money and they know how to price tickets for the audience they're targeting. A 200 dollar ticket is priced that way based on a reliable expectation that there is an audience who is going to pay that price - an audience with a healthy number of babyboomers with a lot of disposable cash in it. Brian and Roger may well be looking at things through rose-colored glasses, but their promoter isn't going to book a tour that isn't already pretty well calculated to at least break even, because nobody in the industry is going to bother these days on a tour that might have iffy sales. Nobody books a flop.
I'm sure everybody would like cheaper tickets, but if you're trying to make a case that the band and their promoter are charging prices that are outrageous and way out of line with other acts of more-or-less their own age, the facts just don't support it. One could even argue that, based on the prices other acts are charging for premium tickets, Queen is going to be a bit of a bargain.
I saw Elton John last week in Columbia, SC. Floor tickets were $57.50 (that was the fact value), Aerosmith are $125 around here.
If they charge $200 for decent seats then I will not be able to afford to see possibly more than 2 shows. Charging that much for a tour in the US is going to result in a disaster for them.
They could get away with charging $200 for Queen with Freddie, but not for Queen + PR. Average Joe over here has no idea who Brian and Roger are. You can't compare the prices to acts like the Rolling Stones or Paul McCartney.
I am not trying to take away your happiness that they are coming back. I just hope the prices are wrong.
If they charge $200 for decent seats then I will not be able to afford to see possibly more than 2 shows. Charging that much for a tour in the US is going to result in a disaster for them.
They could get away with charging $200 for Queen with Freddie, but not for Queen + PR. Average Joe over here has no idea who Brian and Roger are. You can't compare the prices to acts like the Rolling Stones or Paul McCartney.
I am not trying to take away your happiness that they are coming back. I just hope the prices are wrong.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FightFromTheInside wrote: [/QUOTENAME]c'mon North Carolina better be a stop.[/QUOTE]
Where at in NC? I'm from Chapel Hill and currently living in Beaufort, SC working at Parris Island.
Where at in NC? I'm from Chapel Hill and currently living in Beaufort, SC working at Parris Island.
The issue is not the prices-its the size of the venues.this country has seen U2,stones,springsteen and the Stones to name a few this year. we are saturated!these arenas are both 20,000+ seat venues.With freddie yes-with paul no way especially in the pacific northwest where they are about 5 years behind the times to start with.big mistake
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ray D O'Gaga wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So the fact that the best tickets are going to cost 200 bucks completely negates any happiness that arises from knowing that they're almost certainly going to be doing a serious US tour in the spring? [/QUOTE]
Pretty much, yeah. I'm happy that it's looking like there's gonna be a tour next spring, but those $200 tickets practically zapped any chances of me seeing them more than once. I was planning on hopefully seeing them 3 times if they toured but by the time you add all the charges that Ticketmaster places on tickets, that would be $650. Plus, if you have to drive or fly, add travel expenses and that's gonna be easily over $1000. Just not feasible. I have bills and other necessities in life that take priority over forking over $1000 for 3 concerts. I'm glad you're able, and willing, to pay that kind of $$ to see them, and I wish I could, but there's just no way possible I can do that. And even if I could, I don't think I could bring myself to spend that much $$ just on a 2-hr. concert.
[QUOTE] And I don't know when you saw Elton John, but he is charging a whole lot more than $57 for 9th row seats in Vegas. Have you looked at concert ticket prices for classic rock acts lately? Elton John's Red Piano thing in Vegas is charging $250 for the best seats. [/QUOTE]
Elton was here in Cincinnati a few weeks ago and charged $88 for floor seats. The reason his show is near $200 in Vegas is 'cos, well, it's Vegas. Celine Dion's show is over $200 there. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers were here in Cincinnati over the summer. Their tickets were $57. They played Vegas a couple months later and they were $100. If you check Ticketmaster, look up Brooks & Dunn. Their show in Vegas is $125. The rest of their tour is $45.
[QUOTE] The Eagles are charging $250 for their best seats. Aerosmith is charging $250 for reserved seating. [/QUOTE]
These are one-off shows. The Eagles' show is for a show in Hawaii. When their tour was in the Greater Cincinnati area earlier this year, their tickets were $128. Aerosmith's $250 show is for Atlantic City, NJ. The rest of their tour is $125. Plus, they've got Lenny Kravitz opening, who could probably charge $50-$60 a ticket as a headliner and be a strong draw. So when you think of it in that perspective, you're paying $50 for Lenny and $75 Aerosmith. So, technically, the only ones charging more than Queen are Paul McCartney and The Rolling Stones.
[QUOTE] The Stones are charging $400! [/QUOTE]
And their tour is not selling as well as other tours. I'm a big Stones fan and I visit their messageboard frequently and a lot of the posters who are going to the concerts are finding $400 seats in the first 10-20 rows on the floor hours before the show starts under face value 'cos they're not selling. I've read where some shows there's been a lot of empty seats, which is practically unheard of for a Rolling Stones concert. Plus, if you ever go on Ticketmaster before a show to search for tickets for a Stones concert, practically the only tickets that will come up are the $300-$400 ones. Even a lot of Stones fans are drawing the line at this tour's ticket prices.
[QUOTE] A 200 dollar ticket is priced that way based on a reliable expectation that there is an audience who is going to pay that price - an audience with a healthy number of babyboomers with a lot of disposable cash in it. [/QUOTE]
Which is a shame. There's nothing worse than going to a concert to see yuppie-type people there who aren't even real fans, but had the $$ to shell out just to say they saw so & so. For example, both Rolling Stones concerts I've been to, a lot of the people around me were not "fans." They didn't sing along to the songs, other than like "Start Me Up" or "Satisfaction," had on their polo shirts and khackis, and sat in their seats throughout the whole concert. My guess is they probably couldn't name 10 Rolling Stones s
So the fact that the best tickets are going to cost 200 bucks completely negates any happiness that arises from knowing that they're almost certainly going to be doing a serious US tour in the spring? [/QUOTE]
Pretty much, yeah. I'm happy that it's looking like there's gonna be a tour next spring, but those $200 tickets practically zapped any chances of me seeing them more than once. I was planning on hopefully seeing them 3 times if they toured but by the time you add all the charges that Ticketmaster places on tickets, that would be $650. Plus, if you have to drive or fly, add travel expenses and that's gonna be easily over $1000. Just not feasible. I have bills and other necessities in life that take priority over forking over $1000 for 3 concerts. I'm glad you're able, and willing, to pay that kind of $$ to see them, and I wish I could, but there's just no way possible I can do that. And even if I could, I don't think I could bring myself to spend that much $$ just on a 2-hr. concert.
[QUOTE] And I don't know when you saw Elton John, but he is charging a whole lot more than $57 for 9th row seats in Vegas. Have you looked at concert ticket prices for classic rock acts lately? Elton John's Red Piano thing in Vegas is charging $250 for the best seats. [/QUOTE]
Elton was here in Cincinnati a few weeks ago and charged $88 for floor seats. The reason his show is near $200 in Vegas is 'cos, well, it's Vegas. Celine Dion's show is over $200 there. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers were here in Cincinnati over the summer. Their tickets were $57. They played Vegas a couple months later and they were $100. If you check Ticketmaster, look up Brooks & Dunn. Their show in Vegas is $125. The rest of their tour is $45.
[QUOTE] The Eagles are charging $250 for their best seats. Aerosmith is charging $250 for reserved seating. [/QUOTE]
These are one-off shows. The Eagles' show is for a show in Hawaii. When their tour was in the Greater Cincinnati area earlier this year, their tickets were $128. Aerosmith's $250 show is for Atlantic City, NJ. The rest of their tour is $125. Plus, they've got Lenny Kravitz opening, who could probably charge $50-$60 a ticket as a headliner and be a strong draw. So when you think of it in that perspective, you're paying $50 for Lenny and $75 Aerosmith. So, technically, the only ones charging more than Queen are Paul McCartney and The Rolling Stones.
[QUOTE] The Stones are charging $400! [/QUOTE]
And their tour is not selling as well as other tours. I'm a big Stones fan and I visit their messageboard frequently and a lot of the posters who are going to the concerts are finding $400 seats in the first 10-20 rows on the floor hours before the show starts under face value 'cos they're not selling. I've read where some shows there's been a lot of empty seats, which is practically unheard of for a Rolling Stones concert. Plus, if you ever go on Ticketmaster before a show to search for tickets for a Stones concert, practically the only tickets that will come up are the $300-$400 ones. Even a lot of Stones fans are drawing the line at this tour's ticket prices.
[QUOTE] A 200 dollar ticket is priced that way based on a reliable expectation that there is an audience who is going to pay that price - an audience with a healthy number of babyboomers with a lot of disposable cash in it. [/QUOTE]
Which is a shame. There's nothing worse than going to a concert to see yuppie-type people there who aren't even real fans, but had the $$ to shell out just to say they saw so & so. For example, both Rolling Stones concerts I've been to, a lot of the people around me were not "fans." They didn't sing along to the songs, other than like "Start Me Up" or "Satisfaction," had on their polo shirts and khackis, and sat in their seats throughout the whole concert. My guess is they probably couldn't name 10 Rolling Stones s