The official $92.05 is Too much Thread

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Put $2.00 a day into a Pearl Jam fund, do this every day for a year.

Go to as many shows as you want......

We can now close this thread.

my two dollars a day are already going to my stripper beach blowout extravaganza. i have priorities.

PJ4ever10

I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. I paid $164 for 2 DMB tickets via Warehouse, so without any ticketmaster fees. Face value of $80. So I really can't say that PJ is ripping of their fans. And I paid $169 for my two PJ tix (via ticketmaster) for Hartford. $92 is not that much of a price difference in my opinion is that's including fees
And Muse tickets are cheaper even though they have a complex stage, but they only play for an hour and a half. And I know that because I saw them live 3 days ago. I'd rather pay more to see PJ play for 3 hours.

stranger34

MrSmith wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

I would have payed $92.50 10 years ago to see pj.
I don't think people understand what it cost to pay everybody when it comes to playing a show.
I bet they don't make as much as everybody thinks.

if thats true then how do all those other bands survive charging less? people act like 90 bucks is the minimum to eek out a profit in NY, when it clearly isnt.

at MSG they are charging $25 more than Phish. Times that by appx 20,000 seats thats $500,000 more brought in than phis per night. Somehow I think they are doing just fine...

En La Clandestinidad

I honestly couldn't care less about the price. I am willing to pay. The enjoyment is worth it to me. Especially since I can get the bootlegs later and experience the show over and over. I can put the poster on my wall. Believe me, I am struggling financially more than anyone I know, but I have decided that putting money aside to see PJ is worth it for me. I can honestly say that I don't travel often. If your priorities are elsewhere than that is fine by me, but for now I am good. I am single, have no kids and keep my bills at a minimum, maybe one day my situation will change, but until then I am going to continue to do what I love!!

Bring on Pearl Jam!!

jamiem48

I was thinking about this last night. By the time you pay everyone, the band really isn't getting much. I truly was thinking about this over the past few days. Not to mention my friend paid over $100 to see Tim McGraw or someone like that. ugh! So it could be worse.

So you have to pay security, admin, ticketmaster, pr/advertising, sound, set up crew, the venue, traveling costs, etc. etc. and many more i'm not thinking of im sure and when all is said in done after paying all of these pockets... they really aren't getting *that* much people! musicians are actually underpaid in the industry when compared to other artists such as actors.

stranger34

jamiem48 wrote:

I was thinking about this last night. By the time you pay everyone, the band really isn't getting much. I truly was thinking about this over the past few days. Not to mention my friend paid over $100 to see Tim McGraw or someone like that. ugh! So it could be worse.

So you have to pay security, admin, ticketmaster, pr/advertising, sound, set up crew, the venue, traveling costs, etc. etc. and many more i'm not thinking of im sure and when all is said in done after paying all of these pockets... they really aren't getting *that* much people! musicians are actually underpaid in the industry when compared to other artists such as actors.

Somehow I think they're doing just fine

Floydman015

It is completely worth it. Pearl Jam is one of - if not the best- bands to see live. The fact that you can see them two or three nights in a row and hear a ton of different songs is enough for me. A lot of other bands i have seen like Oasis, STP, Chris Cornell. Tom Petty and the list goes on play the same exact set night after night. Also PJ always plays around 3 hours if not more. Most bands you are lucky if they do an hour and a half. I was at the Garden show that is on dvd and if you have seen it, Eddie says how they are going to keep playing even though it's going to cost them an extra couple thousand dollars. Do you know how rare that is for a band to do?

They clearly do not rip off and their fans and you really get your moneys worth.

hopethatuchoke

It's hilarious how many people here try to convince the rest of us here in reality that the band really isn't making very much money. Pass some of what you are smoking.

PJam82

hopethatuchoke wrote:

It's hilarious how many people here try to convince the rest of us here in reality that the band really isn't making very much money. Pass some of what you are smoking.

It's also hilarious reading the opposing view, don't pretend they keep it all and don't give away a pretty penny, they do...we're an extreme bunch, no doubts about that!

I've been to about 12 shows in my life after being convinced a fan in about 2002...and I must say that 92$ is NOT too much for what you experience at a PJ show. I say that in all honesty. However, the Pearl Jam brand wouldn't go broke if they ALWAYS maintained a section of seats for about 30-40$ for a certain sector of their fanbase.

If that means posters go up from 25 to 35 dollars at a show....so be it. I pay that off the 10C in online sales after shipping. Not a big deal. I'd actually be okay with picking up that slight tab if it meant dropping ticket prices a little bit for the tail end of the group that's just experiencing it for the first time.

polaris_x

is there a list of concerts being played at MSG this summer with their pricing?

the quote JDSal put pretty much sums it up for me ...

dimitrispearljam

why now u dont bitching??

norm wrote:

dcfaithful

jets521 wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pearl Jam is keeps their tickets lower than most

No they don't dude and you people who say that do really sound silly. Sure they charge less than U2 and Paul McCartney and guys like that. But they charge way more than their contemporaries like, as I said earlier in the thread, Dave Matthews, Radiohead, Metallica, and Green Day. All four of those bands are just as popular as Pearl Jam....and they all charge like $30 less for tix.

i would argue that those four bands are significantly more popular then Pearl Jam

I think Metallica might be. They're a pretty well known band, and if they wanted to they could get away with $92.05.

slightofjeff

stranger34 wrote:

RedMosquito22 wrote:

stranger34 wrote:

What a joke. At least U2 has overhead costs and Springsteen has a huge band. Whats PJ's reason?

There's a disease and they're all green, it emanates from their beings

It's real simple. Just buy the bootlegs.


AJ

I don't buy the bootlegs anymore, Ed sounds so crappy that half the time it ruins my memory of the show. 08 Boots and beyond are pretty much unlistenable to me. 05's still great. 06 kind of passable

Then why would you even want to go to a show, if it sounds crappy. What kind of thread is this? "Ninety-two bucks is too much to pay for something I don't want to do anyway!!!!"

Thread fail.

slightofjeff

Cosmo wrote:

Here's something to think about...
I was dating a married gal who was Christian and had strong beliefs about marriage, but only considered vaginal sex as adultery... so, we'd have wild oral and anal sex.
...
Think about that!

Now you have something in common with Jerry Falwell. You've both fucked Christians in the ass.

JonnyPistachio

hopethatuchoke wrote:

It's hilarious how many people here try to convince the rest of us here in reality that the band really isn't making very much money. Pass some of what you are smoking.

The majority of the people here are trying to explain that a few years ago when a ticket was $55, their expenses were less. Now in 2010, they have more expenses so that extra $20 is paying for additional expenses. For you people living in 'reality'...just a reminder, that's called inflation. Last I checked, it's pretty real.

I'm not saying the band isnt making more money than they did in the past, it's just pretty obvious that expenses for a band are very different than they were 5-10 yrs ago.

slightofjeff

I don't think there's any need to rationalize. Tickets cost what they cost. You can't go into a restaurant and bitch that the price of filet mignon is too much. You either pay it, or you order the hamburger.

BF25394

JonnyPistachio wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

It's hilarious how many people here try to convince the rest of us here in reality that the band really isn't making very much money. Pass some of what you are smoking.

The majority of the people here are trying to explain that a few years ago when a ticket was $55, their expenses were less. Now in 2010, they have more expenses so that extra $20 is paying for additional expenses. For you people living in 'reality'...just a reminder, that's called inflation. Last I checked, it's pretty real.

I'm not saying the band isnt making more money than they did in the past, it's just pretty obvious that expenses for a band are very different than they were 5-10 yrs ago.

The inflation rate is actually pretty low. What cost $55 in 2000 costs about $68 today.

BF25394

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't think there's any need to rationalize. Tickets cost what they cost. You can't go into a restaurant and bitch that the price of filet mignon is too much. You either pay it, or you order the hamburger.

This is not how things work. Customers complain to businesses all the time. If enough people complain that the price of filet mignon is too high, the restaurant will eventually have to make a business decision to lower the price or keep prices the same and risk losing customers.

IGOTSHIT15

Would you like some cheese with that wine???

Don't forget Pearl Jam has to pay the noise violation fees to play later into the night. I think that costs a decent amount too. People seem to forget that - I think they got fined like 15-20K last time they went to MSG. The band made a point to say they worked it out with the arena so they can play "all night" which means they paid to play...

dunkman

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't think there's any need to rationalize. Tickets cost what they cost. You can't go into a restaurant and bitch that the price of filet mignon is too much. You either pay it, or you order the hamburger.

but you'll bitch about the price of that fillet mignon to your friends and relatives though wouldnt you? i would... i'd be saying to whomever was with me at the restaurant "fuck me, did you see the price of that steak, unreal... a steak down the street is $15 less".

of course i can be thankful I'm not dining with 1 or 2 people from this thread as it would be quite embarrassing in the restaurant for them to stand up and yell at me "you whiny ass motherfucker, either pay the price or shut the fuck up... it's the best steak in the world, no-one is forcing you to buy it,.. etc etc etc..."

still thats nowhere near as embarrassing as those 1 or 2 people leaving the restaurant crying into the back of an ambulance as a result of a broken cock.