Metallica disgusts me (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

Led Zeppelin tickets in their prime were under $10.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And in 1965 you could get Beatles tickets for $5 - what's your point?

 

[JonZ]

Heres my point.

"Inflation figured in.....

What cost $8.75 in 1972 would cost $37.39 in 2002."

That almost $40, not $90.

I dont care what anyone says, its greed.

 

[Chas_T]

Inflation compared to past ticket price costs, high end tastes of our society, elaborate stage shows and yes, GREED play a prime part in live stage shows and ticket prices in the era we live.

The art of concert promoting as everything else in life, has changed in 30 years. What was once perhaps a simplistic attitude, carefree nature and the idealism of I love the music and I'll play for peanuts is a dream from the past in most cases.

The music business is a business. Business is based on profit. Do you maximize profits or hit a middle road? If you have a distinctive market and product, as a business person, you find your level of price/performance that meets your customers expectations and find a number that the market will bear. The aspect of price/customer and the amount they will pay is a number determined by the bean counters on break even costs. Then the desired profit level is determined how much profit investors want from the amount of money they invest and what the product's value/entertainers skillsets are worth in an open marketplace.

As in all business endeavors there is risk. In some businesses, there is minimal risk. If your market is established and popular, then the sky is the limit IF you think you can achieve your price point and acquire your determined return on investment and products worth. The music business is not immune to people who are greedy nor is it always black and dark with the King Midas mentally either. It's always on an individual basis and there are some entertainers who are fair with their ticket prices.

The question is, what is fair? As an example, there are few if any on this site who would pay inflated prices for Bose products. We have a distinct ear for sound and recognize this product is not worth the cost. Music in a sense is the same.

Would I pay high prices for a live show IF I thought the price/performance was not justified? NO. Can I afford that Mark Levinson product? Hell no. However, that product purchase is a subjective/personal decision and is income dependent that every consumer makes on an individual basis.

This thread deals with Metallica. Personally, if this band showed up on my doorstep and offered me a free, in house concert, I'd pass and send them to Boston to visit Marc. I know he'd like that!!

I dislike metal music. However, Marc loves this band and that is the beauty of music and marketing. Products sell to those who will buy them. If you can't afford the price, then perhaps someone else will fill your shoes and plunk down their cash to be entertained. Marc would pay whatever he could afford because he is passionate about this band.

The end choice is, if you feel you are being ripped off, don't buy. If you can't afford the cost of a show, join the rest of the folks who are in the same boat. The bottom line is you have control to say, no thank you, you are ripping me off and I refuse to pay that number. Then there are the people who have the money to attend live shows. To them, it may be a bargain. That is the world of business/music and music IS a business. Unless we desperately need something, we always have control of the purchase. We can always say no thank you.

On a local sports talk radio station, one of the hosts always says the fans care more about the sports team then the players in most cases. Perhaps the music business is the same. Maybe, just maybe, the fan base cares more about the music and the band, then the band truly cares about the fans. It's always an individual decision that we have to make when it comes to paying for live shows. Happy listening.

Charles

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well, at least you have an open mind. :rolleyes

You can't simply look at inflation figures and project from there. The concert business is radically different today than it was 30 years ago.

The only way to consider if a ticket is "fairly" priced is to compare it to its modern competition. If Led Zep reunited and toured, $90 would = a CHEAP ticket. They'd command Stones/McCartney style prices, with top seats around $250 or more. Based on the current marketplace, $71 - or $75 or $77 - for Metallica remains totally in line with expectations.

What people ignore in this thread is one of the prime reasons artists started to charge so much more for tickets. For one, they proved they COULD, but a lot of the impetus came from the chronic success of scalping. When people saw their $30 tickets go for $300, they decided - correctly, if you ask me - that they should get a bigger piece of that pie. And that's fine with me - I'd rather see someone pay $250 a ticket and have the money go to the artist than to some a-hole who gobbled up all the good tickets.

Concert prices are obviously an emotional issue, and I won't deny that some greed comes into play. However, the subject's much more complicated than that...

 

[Sheldon C]

I've noticed that pretty much everyone who thinks that 70 bucks is a rediculous price to pay also HATES Metallica or at least doesn't like them anymore.

The only thing that matters is, will those who are still fans of Metallica pay that kind of money? I for one, will. I paid 80 dollars last summer to drive with my wife and a friend to St. Louis, sit through 4 bands that I really don't care for just so I could see Metallica again, and that didn't bother me at all.

Man I'm getting tired of all the Metallica bashing. I've never seen so much jealousy over a band making it so big. YOUR band never got the recognition that YOU think they deserve, so you lash out at the biggest band of the last decade. Or maybe that's not it at all, I don't know. But damn man, can you guys let up on my favorite band just a little bit? I got over bashing music I didn't like a very long time ago. You know what I do now? I don't fuc#ing listen to it!!! End of story.

I concede that Metallica was better in the 80's, but there still pretty damn good. I would much rather have them change and experiment with different styles then turn in to what Megadeth became... or Pantera, or Slayer, or ACDC, or Guns and Roses, or (gulp) Iron Maiden, or Judas Priest etc. Those bands truly are dead because they kept releasing the same album over and over and over and over again.

This thread has very little to do with high ticket prices and much more to do with Metalli-hatred.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Well that's true. If I was given a FREE ticket to most of the groups mentioned above I wouldn't go.

 

[Kevin_W]

The exchanged rate is $71 US for this concert we're discussing, not $90. It is not just Metallica playing, it is also Godsmack which, IMO, is no slouch of an opening act. I have been to a couple of Godsmack concerts that were ~$35 or less. If I mentally imagine that $71 dollars being allocated in a $40/$31 split for a Metallica/Godsmack show I think I am getting a fair deal at average rates for floor tickets.

I think many people may not like Godsmack therefor the $71 they would have to shell out for this show would, for arguments sake, be for the Metallica portion and maybe that's their deal breaker? Speaking for myself, both acts would be a pleasure to see and therefor $71 is a fair price for two good shows at one venue.

Kevin

 

[Marc_E]

I am sure there are lots of little bands that don't charge much but let's be serious here. Metallica have reached legendary status. I will pay.
Rock on Boys!

 

[Jeremiah]

Why charge $35 when you can charge $75 and sell the same amount of tickets?

 

[Scott_lb]

High concert prices are the exact reason that I love concert DVD's so much. For some reason, the last dozen or so shows that I've wanted to attend by various artists/bands didn't fit well with my schedule (or my wallet). It's much easier for me to grab a new concert on disc, pop it in my home theater at my convenience, and enjoy the show at a much lower price.

 

[Al_S]

I lost interest in them when they came out so strongly against MP3s. Not that they should be ripped off, but if you've ever seen an interview with them they always talk about the fans and it's all about the fans. Bull, it's clear they are like prostitutes and all they care about is money, period.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Paul McCartney New World Tour 1993 ticket:



When I saw Paul McCartney's New World Tour in Winnipeg in 1993, I think I paid (as a coach package tour) $175 CDN complete for transportation, accomodations, and seating in WPG Stadium halfway up the stands around the 50 yard line.

Best money I ever spent.

His last tour - tickets alone were as much as $250 US if not more...

Where does all the money go? Look at Paul's tour rider courtesy of The Smoking Gun

 

[Chet_F]

I would have paid $71 to see Metallica until the 'Napster' ordeal. They are dead to me as well. I can't think of any other band that is as greedy, cut throat, and unforgiving to their fans as this band has been. I have no sympathy for them nor will I ever. Good riddens to your music and your precious little business model. You can have them!!!!

And that is the beauty of music. If you don't like a band their is always another 20 waiting to be heard.....NEXT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

??? I didn't see anything outrageous in the rider that would gobble lots of money. The truth is that most of the money went into the pockets of those involved, especially Paul's...

 

[Mark Paquette]

Check this out: http://www.pollstaronline.com/2003yearend20.asp

Metiallica seems to be in the middle of the heap.

 

[Matt Butler]

Sheldon,
I dont agree with your negative comments about AC/DC or Iron Maiden. Have you heard Maidens new stuff since Bruce's return? Yeah they had a slouch in the 90's after he left but they are quite strong again and have regained alot of their fanbase. In fact Im driving to Los Angeles next month to see them.

Now I wouldnt pay to see Metallica now. Ive seen them about 4 times in the past. I dont like what Ive heard recently. I dont mind change in a band's sound but Metallica has changed too much.

I can understand people being pissed about ticket prices but the thing is if you cant afford it then dont go. I used to buy shirts at concerts but I wont now.

And I paid $100 to see McCartney last year. And I would do it again. There are some bands that I just wont care about the price. (Within reason)

 

[robertLP]

Hasn't been a lot of talk about the scalpers much in this thread. If someone is willing to pay $100 for tickets to an event, but the band only charges $40, then there's going to be a market to capitalize on that $60 spread. Wouldn't you rather have the whole $100 go to the band rather then split it with some slimy scalper?

 

[Keith Paynter]

Colin, I was pointing out that there is a measure of vain extravagance there, (must have plants must have such and such furniture, etc.).

One of the largest expenses (apart from the talent's cut) is the costs of production and (more and more) insurance. It's not usually one show that is involved, sometimes 3 or 4, because in order for shows to be running back to back, some more elaborate productions require several days of setup (which means multiple rigs, etc). Artists have the luxury of flying from venue to venue (private/first class - more $$), but stage shows are generally trucked, which takes a lot more travel time.

 

[MikeDeVincenzo]

Q: Lars, some feel that the tickets for Metallica's live show are simply too expensive. Would you care to comment on this?

A: "They drove a dump truck full of money up to my house! I'm not made of stone! Wah-ah-ahhhhhhh!"*

*Courtesy of The Simpsons.

Oh, and at this point, I'd like to thank Tori Amos. I paid $40 dollars to see her at a special show at a tiny church in New York City last November. (Must have sat about 750-1000 people total.) Tickets were going on ebay for upwards of $300 dollars for a pair. She could have easily charged that, but did not, and I'm sure she was lucky to break even that night.

For her regular tour dates too, she charges way less than she could get.

From the Boston Globe of 10/16/01 in their review of a show she did there on 10/15/01:

"Amos deserves a lot of credit for commanding the stage so thoroughly as a solo act - and also for keeping her ticket prices low (a high of $39 compared to $100-plus for the recent Bjork concert in the same venue)."

Amen to that