930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: walkonby on May 10, 2005, 03:05:00 pm
-
who in their right noggin would pay those prices to see them at mci? first you have to pay $100 to get the password, then upwards of $600 for a package seat, or $450 for a floor seat.
thanks mick, and the rest of you rest home veterans, for showing us how desperation will fuel your drug scarred veins of rock.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
who in their right noggin would pay those prices to see them at mci?
frankly, if the market didn't exist they wouldn't be doing it.
they're also including $60 nosebleeds, which is a decent price for dad-rock cash-in tours these days
-
Wow. That is pretty sick. I really like the Stones from the late 60's up until about 1973, but that is really just vile that they would expect people to pay that much.
-
Originally posted by bearman:
that is really just vile that they would expect people to pay that much.
but are you surprised? didnt the stones set the gold standard in the early 90s for overpriced cash-in deals (whether it be $100 jackets or $200 tickets)?
seems like this is just a logical extension of what they've been about for the last 15 years or so
-
and you know the thing will sell out . . . with a second date added.
mikey tyson was able to sell out $1000 floor seats at mci. i love this town.
-
is the mummy still behind the drum kit?
he looks so brittle...i bet he breaks in half a la montgomery burns during this tour.
-
The Eagles I think were the ones to break the $150 mark on their reunion tour. Just because it's "logical" to be the next step doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's a concert! 2 hours of music. Let's look at it in perspective...it's 2 hours of entertaintment. Think about what $400 can buy in other terms (groceries, paying bills, etc.), and then it starts to make more sense. I have paid good money for shows, but after a certain point it just starts to be totally absurd to me and NOT worth it. True, some people will pay that, but to some of us it is mind-boggling...a leap of $100 compared to the tickets from a tour 3 years ago IS a significant jump. Even the $300 last time around seemed excessive to me.
-
Originally posted by bearman:
The Eagles I think were the ones to break the $150 mark on their reunion tour. Just because it's "logical" to be the next step doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's a concert! 2 hours of music. Let's look at it in perspective...it's 2 hours of entertaintment. Think about what $400 can buy in other terms (groceries, paying bills, etc.), and then it starts to make more sense. I have paid good money for shows, but after a certain point it just starts to be totally absurd to me and NOT worth it. True, some people will pay that, but to some of us it is mind-boggling...a leap of $100 compared to the tickets from a tour 3 years ago IS a significant jump. Even the $300 last time around seemed excessive to me.
Actually, I saw a Rolling Stones live show on HBO and it was close to 4 hours...however, only two of those hours were their classic tunes. The rest were from Mick and Keith's solo albums. So you are right of it being only 2 hrs of entertainment...
-
oh my god
this makes me sick.
I am sick in tired of these high priced cash in tours.
How come all these bands are trying to make money!?!?!?!!? imagine if we all started doing our jobs just for a paycheck!!!!!
-
hey, i totally agree with you bearman ... but you and i both know there are plenty of flush baby boomers who have no problem ponying up the cash for the show
so if i were the stones, then why not take them for all they're worth? they know they're over the hill and no longer relevant, their live show is strictly nostalgia-fueled, so it's not like they're "depriving" lesser affluent fans of some kind of magic
if this was a band at the height of their relevance and power (and there are many 'modern' acts who charge outrageous prices), i would be rightfully indignant that they rape their fans ... in this case, fuck, let them take the dumb rich folks for all they're worth
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
a band at the height of their relevance
what the hell are you talking about????
is there a way to gauge this? i dont get it. is there a "relevance-o-meter" so we can tell not only if a band is relevant or not, but WHEN they were relevant. thats so cool.
-
and here i thought u2 was sticking it to me.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
and here i thought u2 was sticking it to me.
they are. and in 20 years, U2 shows will be $800!!!!
-
payday, bloody payday
where the royalty checks have no name (except bono)
-
Originally posted by sonickteam3:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
a band at the height of their relevance
what the hell are you talking about????
is there a way to gauge this? i dont get it. is there a "relevance-o-meter" so we can tell not only if a band is relevant or not, but WHEN they were relevant. thats so cool. [/b]
oh you're such a contrarian! i love it!
let's see, i'll just look at the stones
last 3 studio albums since their "comeback":
1997 - bridges to babylon
1994 - voodoo lounge
1989 - steel wheels
all of these albums are solid, traditional throwbacks and all of them basically exist in a vacuum, unaffected by trends or currents in modern music ... they could have been released in 1975 or 1980 and noone would have noticed the difference
on top of that, their last "great" album came in 1981 and it's generally accepted that the stones are a 60s/70s band who have stuck around, briefly dabbling in new-wave crappiness but for the most part playing the nostalgia card for 25 YEARS now
is there some strict "relevance-o-meter"? of course not, and using the words "relevant" or "irrelevant" when describing a band is unfortunate, but nonetheless it's widely accepted music vocab
and if you can't see that the stones were "relevant" in their 60s/early 70s heydey, and "irrelevant" (bad word, i know) now, then you're one stone short of a quarry.
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
oh you're such a contrarian! i love it!
and i love how you talk out of your ass all the time.
:)
you're a constant reminder why i dont read music magazines.
-
somebody go look on ebay and see how much someone already has two tickets for sale for the mci show. go mick, go keif.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam3:
Originally posted by walkonby:
and here i thought u2 was sticking it to me.
they are. and in 20 years, U2 shows will be $800!!!! [/b]
U2 is a perfect example, for the most part they've remained classicist throughout their career, but have managed to stay "relevant" in the modern music industry
it's a remarkable coup, and they're able to rake in the huge cash of "nostalgia" acts while still selling new albums and staying on magazine covers ... more power to em
-
Is a band that sells 20,000 overpriced tickets relevant? Whether I want to think so or not, probably.... Relevant, popular, it's a sticky argument. Is Beyonce relevant? Is Usher relevant? They can sell the hell out of a concert, though.
Point is, they can sell the tickets. I'd say I find it amazing, but I just paid $200 to see U2, so who am I to point fingers...
-edit-
Better example, I paid close to $200 (I think...) to see Simon and Garfunkle. NO WAY they are still 'relevant,' whatever that means, but damn if they're not icons and I'd never seen them before.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam3:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
oh you're such a contrarian! i love it!
and i love how you talk out of your ass all the time.
:)
you're a constant reminder why i dont read music magazines. [/b]
that's cute ... so you disagree with what i said?
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
and using the words "relevant" or "irrelevant" when describing a band is unfortunate
the understatement of the year.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Is a band that sells 20,000 overpriced tickets relevant? Whether I want to think so or not, probably.... Relevant, popular, it's a sticky argument. Is Beyonce relevant? Is Usher relevant? They can sell the hell out of a concert, though.
it is sticky ... and i would certainly consider beyonce and usher "relevant" because they're accepted by and drive the mass pop-culture machine
the stones will sell out 20,000 insanely overpriced tickets, but they're not "driving the bus", they're treading water and cashing in on the time when they were one of the most "relevant" bands of their era
i agree, the term "relevant" is sticky and kind of sucks, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
that's cute ... so you disagree with what i said?
you said a whole slew of crap. i disagreed with some of it, most of it was useless information.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam3:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
and using the words "relevant" or "irrelevant" when describing a band is unfortunate
the understatement of the year. [/b]
man, you must be really angry on a constant basis when wading through popular culture ... it's not like calling the rolling stones irrelevant is some kind of a leap of logic or original idea
-
That a boy Caufield! ;)
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Better example, I paid close to $200 (I think...) to see Simon and Garfunkle. NO WAY they are still 'relevant,' whatever that means, but damn if they're not icons and I'd never seen them before.
hell yeah! i'm pissed off i didn't go see that show
and i paid way too much to see the stones in 98, and am very happy i did so.
-
Look at "relevant" this way:
Twenty years from now, it is highly unlikely that any band will cite "Bridges to Babylon" or "Voodoo Lounge" as major influences.
-
Originally posted by abulum:
That a boy Caufield! ;)
holden was a naive bastard =) it's a cruel, cruel world ...
random thought: i did a book report on 'catcher in the rye' in 6th grade, and my teacher refused to accept it because she had no idea what the book was ... isn't that insane??
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Look at "relevant" this way:
Twenty years from now, it is highly unlikely that any band will cite "Bridges to Babylon" or "Voodoo Lounge" as major influences.
and, on the other hand, you have 1972's "exile on main street" whose structure, songs, and spirit have influenced countless artists, even liz phair
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
"exile on main street"
the album cover photo should be in the dictionary next to the definition for: OVERRATED
-
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
"exile on main street"
the album cover photo should be in the dictionary next the definition of OVERRATED [/b]
You mean replace Thom Yorke's photo??
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
"exile on main street"
the album cover photo should be in the dictionary next the definition of OVERRATED [/b]
You mean replace Thom Yorke's photo?? [/b]
I like Thom. You don't?
I think he's relevant.
Exile isn't even one of the Rolling Stones best records...forget about an all-time classic.
Bettered by:
Sticky Fingers
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Some Girls
An excellent "relevant" essay appears in Kill Your Idols:
Keith Moerer, in a much-needed screed against the Rolling Stones' bloated Exile on Main Street, fearlessly says what has needed to be said for so long--that Exile isn't the culmination of a four-album run of classics but the beginning of a "songwriting and musical decline,"
-
<img src="http://www.drudgereport.com/mick.jpg" alt=" - " />
look up "relevant" in the dictionary, and this is what you get
=)
-
wow . . . mick, mick, mick?! and here i thought making fun of the way cher looks, was an amusing passage of time at parties. i see this new victim will do just fine, by me. but still not worth four hundred. mci is not the place to shoot for the cheap seats.
-
What a bargain!!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16122&item=6531463801&rd=1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16122&item=6531463801&rd=1)
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
logic or original idea
trust me, i would never mistake any of your posts as that.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam3:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
logic or original idea
trust me, i would never mistake any of your posts as that. [/b]
burn!!!
you know we're not so different, you and i
-
Originally posted by Jonas Grumby:
What a bargain!!!!
i think this is the bigger bargain (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=5577795202&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
you know we're not so different, you and i
you're scaring me!! :)
-
lots of stones bashing here, but how many of you would pay 50$ to see them in a club. They did that in the last tour, and they're doing it again...it might even be this club... Tickets don't seem so overpriced now do they?
-
Originally posted by rsantos17:
lots of stones bashing here, but how many of you would pay 50$ to see them in a club. They did that in the last tour, and they're doing it again...it might even be this club... Tickets don't seem so overpriced now do they?
<img src="http://www.nyapplecountry.com/images/photosvarieties/braeburn72.jpg" alt=" - " /> meet <img src="http://www.floridafarmbureau.org/images/orange.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
when I was in Dublin last year, I was all prepared to spend money on the bootlegs in the town. But, my husband and I only found 2 stores that carried them. Turns out that when the Rolling Stones were in Dublin, they had the record stores raided for bootlegs.
Since then I haven't really liked them all that much.
-
Originally posted by rsantos17:
lots of stones bashing here, but how many of you would pay 50$ to see them in a club. They did that in the last tour, and they're doing it again...it might even be this club... Tickets don't seem so overpriced now do they?
that is until the ticket brokers get thier hands on them...
-
I paid $90+15x2 or so to attend the "Tommy Hilfiger Presents The Rolling Stones No Security Tour" at MCI; which I later regretted not because of the performance but because of my realization that it's just a night out. Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if they get another corporate sponsor again this time despite the high ticket prices. As I recall not all of the $300 floor seats at that show were sold... or maybe they were sold to brokers who couldn't move them. So it'll be interesting to see how the $450 seats do.
-
Originally posted by rsantos17:
how many of you would pay 50$ to see them in a club. They did that in the last tour, and they're doing it again...it might even be this club... Tickets don't seem so overpriced now do they?
They do when you consider that Bill Wyman won't be there.
-
sorry to bring this topic back, but i wanted one last bury of the blade. i do apologize to the rolling stones for insulting them at first with this; i did so out of, "how dare they do that to the public consumer of today," especially in this land of overpriced gas and underpayed workers. i wanted them to take their wrinkled, bleak white arses back across the pond and pull that crap against the euro.
but then the mci show sold out. that's all those six hundred dollar package seats, and the four hundred and so dollar, normal floor seats. even seats in the one hundred tier level were four hundred and so dollars . . . all gone. floor should equal this price, and every other seat should be cheaper, in my concert opinion.
so screw the buying public, now, instead. people are willing to pay it, due to the "belief" that this could finally be the end of said performer. "better go now or regret it forever," is the mindset. and it leads to another artist going, "yes! . . . now i can do it!" can anyone imagine how much miss thang madonna will charge, when her boots are made for walking (to the rest home) tour goes pre-sale?
so sorry mick, sorry kief, sorry ron, sorry Mr. Watts. you guys have written and performed incredible songs over the years, and you have proved so well with this tour, that people are indeed stupid.
-
It's sold out now, but I was a bit surprised that it did not sell out immediately. I checked on Sunday and I was still able to bring up a pair of tickets for all price levels except for the cheapest seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the public has finally reached it's price limit and the brokers bought up the remaining tickets.
Personally, I'm still hoping for the theater/club shows. I'll pay decent money for either of those.
-
Black Eyed Peas, Maroon 5, Pearl Jam, the Tragically Hip and the John Mayer Trio will open on this tour w/ the john mayer 'trio' opening for the DC show.
http://www.livedaily.com/news/8165.html?tid=20 (http://www.livedaily.com/news/8165.html?tid=20)
-
More congrats to the band are in order: "Ameriquest, one of the nation's largest lenders to borrowers with impaired credit histories, will pay more than $1 million to sponsor the tour"
-
really? i was thinking it wouldn't sell out at all! or at least not for several weeks. the ticket prices were just ridiculous. and i'll shell out some serious cash for shows but $80 with fees for nose bleed seats? hell no! even madonna didn't charge that much.
i wonder if seth has a secret show planned for the club? how f'n fabulous would that be?
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
It's sold out now, but I was a bit surprised that it did not sell out immediately. I checked on Sunday and I was still able to bring up a pair of tickets for all price levels except for the cheapest seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the public has finally reached it's price limit and the brokers bought up the remaining tickets.
Personally, I'm still hoping for the theater/club shows. I'll pay decent money for either of those.
-
for guys there age, i think the club just a bit too dark. you know it will be the warner, if they do it at all. no, i know . . . rams head.
-
man, i need to stop posting so late. miss marple on the pbs will come and scold my horrible grammar, and contempt for the common tongue language. bad me.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
for guys there age, i think the club just a bit too dark. you know it will be the warner, if they do it at all. no, i know . . . rams head.
I'd be thrilled with a Warner show. I'm still pissed TM refused to sell me Tower tickets last time.
-
If you think a concert is overpriced....don't buy a fucking ticket, and quit yer whinging. As long as people are dumb enough to pay it, they will continue to charge it. Economics 101 I believe, and I didn't even got to college. (well I did, but couldn't stand the wankie students)
Stones are in the same category as the Beatles btw....not bad but way overrated, they were the anti-Beatles, it was one or the other. Kind of like Backstreet Boys/N'Sync ;)
Comparing bands from the Brit invasion of the 60's, the Kinks were by far the most talented of the bunch, but that's for another topic.
-
<img src="http://www.tvtome.com/images/shows/19/6/19-4848-sm.jpg" alt=" - " />
Damn! But them Rollin' Stones is lookin' ancient.
-
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
Comparing bands from the Brit invasion of the 60's, the Strawberry Alarmclock were by far the most talented of the bunch
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by kubrickpalahniuk:
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
Comparing bands from the Brit invasion of the 60's, the Hollies were by far the most talented of the bunch
Agreed. [/b]
Respectfully disagree, I'd still say the Kinks, but they'd defo be my 2nd choice.