$10 ticket tour. PJ mentioned.

LukinFan

Paul Andrews wrote:

A Pearl Jam ticket is still much cheaper than comparable bands and much better bang for your buck.

EXACTLY!

Drop1The0Leash

LukinFan wrote:

Paul Andrews wrote:

A Pearl Jam ticket is still much cheaper than comparable bands and much better bang for your buck.

EXACTLY!

Tom Petty tickets are like $130. but then again you get to see MMJ or CSN with him which is pretty sweet!

Spiritual_Chaos

In what way is Tom Petty and Pearl Jam comparable?

I mena, you should compare Pealr Jam to acts from their generation... or are PJ alerady old farts like Rolling Stones, The Who, Springsteen etc that can have overprices because theiur demographic was young in the 70s and now go and see a show like it's a museum exibihition...

Drop1The0Leash

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

In what way is Tom Petty and Pearl Jam comparable?

I mena, you should compare Pealr Jam to acts from their generation... or are PJ alerady old farts like Rolling Stones, The Who, Springsteen etc that can have overprices because theiur demographic was young in the 70s and now go and see a show like it's a museum exibihition...

Woah dude chill out. I want no part of this conversation. I was just making a statement on how sweet the Tom Petty Tour should be. Pearl Jam also cant really compare to Soundgarden(havent toured in a while), Alice in Chains(not original line up/playing small venues), etc.

dpmay

why now u dont bitching wrote:

on2legs wrote:

Yes I am if that person is calling the band a sell out and greedy for raising their tickets over the years to a very reasonable level when compared to the rest of the industry.

I LOVE when people pull out this line. The "rest of the industry" always seems to be a couple handfuls of bands.



Any band that charges more than Pearl Jam is greedy. Any band that charges less isn't on Pearl Jam's "level" and doesn't deserve as much. :roll:

yeah, it's just amazing that PJ has found that exactly fair middle ground between greed and suckitude.

or do we just use the PJ ticket prices themselves, whatever they are, to make these distinctions? that's depressing...

Spiritual_Chaos

Woah dude chill out. I want no part of this conversation. I was just making a statement on how sweet the Tom Petty Tour should be.

Oh I am sorry... I am chilled and didd't mean to offend And any reason to see MMJ is a good reason!

Drop1The0Leash

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

Woah dude chill out. I want no part of this conversation. I was just making a statement on how sweet the Tom Petty Tour should be.

Oh I am sorry... I am chilled and didd't mean to offend And any reason to see MMJ is a good reason!

S'all good!! MMJ is awesome

Too bad SPAC is getting CSN, I'd much rather see MMJ. I just saw CSN at SPAC last year.

whgarrett

I think that the tickets are pretty expensive, but I'm not all bent out of shape about it. They wouldn't be so much if there wasn't a market for them right. They only come around every couple of years so whats 100.00. I mean a night out on the town cost that much. Shit...I've spent that much at the local bar easily in a night. Ideally I wish they were cheaper....so is life. Oh, and I saw Pink Floyd in 1994 for 32.50. What do you think they'd charge today. Lady Gaga is playing nearby and her tickets were like 200.00 or something. I am poor. Cleared 10,000 last year and I don't think the shows are too unreasonable.

baldoallornone

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

Woah dude chill out. I want no part of this conversation. I was just making a statement on how sweet the Tom Petty Tour should be.

Oh I am sorry... I am chilled and didd't mean to offend And any reason to see MMJ is a good reason!

Also I just checked my purchase history with Ten Club for comparison. In 2006 a pair of tickets were about $112-$120 but the dates with Tom Petty were $191 a pair.

Just some food for thought, as unreal as it sounds the band could charge more for a ticket. Have you ever been to a U2 concert? I love U2 and if you've never seen them it's worth the money to see them at least once but in 2001 I paid about $60 for a ticket that was two rows from the top of the arena.

Fahka

Paul Andrews wrote:

If you want cheaper tickets - the next time one of your friends (or you) copy a CD, illegally download a album, buy a rip off t-shirt, rip a dvd, thank them (or yourself) for forcing ticket prices up.

Inflation, less revenue from music and merch sales plus the need to pay the wages of all members of the Pearl Jam organisation are the reason for higher ticket prices - not greed.

A Pearl Jam ticket is still much cheaper than comparable bands and much better bang for your buck.

So what about all the douchebags who buy EVERY SINGLE GOD FORSAKEN THING pearl jam puts out? Why should they be punished? FACT 1 - pearl jam is in no way shape or form hurting money wise.. if downloading music is an excuse for jacking up ticket prices, its a poor one.. id rather them just say "hey, we're old, we want boat loads of cash now" .. FACT 2 - pearl jam is not much cheaper than comparable bands (i don't even know who to compare them to but there are plenty of bands with a hard core following that charge way less than pearl jam and have ticketing systems that make 100x more sense than pearl jams (phish is an example of this)..


justifying 100 dollar tickets just because pearl jam only comes to your neck of the woods once in awhile is sort of pathetic (not nearly as pathetic as blowing 100 bucks at a bar though).. are we that needy? That deprived for good music? Shit.. in that case.. pearl jam should charge 2 hundy a ticket... since apparently no one around here has a backbone anyhow I honestly hope i don't sound like im bitching about ticket prices.. because i could give a fuck, their band, their concerts.. i will pay to see them if they are close enough for me to justify spending that kind of money but unfortunately, my traveling for pearl jam days are done.. Even if i was a baller.. theres gotta be a moment where you go.. "really? "

STONEd and dAMENT-ED

hopethatuchoke wrote:

Paul Andrews wrote:

Remember Pearl Jam could ask a whole lot more and get it fairly easily in their main markets. They no longer

I think that is untrue. They are approaching the price point where they won't keep selling shows out.

Sorry to get off topic here. Just wondering if you still have that 07 Lolla Ames available? It think it was like $90 or thereabouts. Love that print.

Spiritual_Chaos

Just because you can afford them (Still) is not an argument for them being as expensive.

Its like Eddie said: The Haves have not a clue

hopethatuchoke

STONEd and dAMENT-ED wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

Paul Andrews wrote:

Remember Pearl Jam could ask a whole lot more and get it fairly easily in their main markets. They no longer

I think that is untrue. They are approaching the price point where they won't keep selling shows out.

Sorry to get off topic here. Just wondering if you still have that 07 Lolla Ames available? It think it was like $90 or thereabouts. Love that print.

I do. If you are interested shoot me a PM.

sk8nshoot1

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

All I'm saying is if it's too much, you don't HAVE to pay it...

But obviously people on here want to see Pearl Jam live, because we are fans. And fans of a band that in the 90s fought ticketmaster about keeping tickets costs low.

So your comment is pretty irrelevant. It is not about buying or not buying - it's about Pearl Jams standards.

We are not discussing having or not having to buy an iphone... we are talking about WHY pearl jam - who we are all huge fans of and who fought for cheap tickets 15 years ago - charge what people consider to be ALOT and EXCESSIVE.

All the "well, if it doesnt suit you quit 10c or stop listeing to PJ" is so irrelevant and stupid.

It is about buying or not buying based upon price... I wanted to pick up that front row Bon Jovi ticket on TM last week, but $500 was a bit too much... Friends and I talked about it... $100, no question... $200 Now you're stretching it, depends on how flush I am at the time, anything more, nope, not doing it...

Also... Even EV has come out and said, and I was there at MSG in 98, when they first played that TM venue, words along the line of to the crowd, 'if you don't care how much you pay for a ticket, why should I'... I think there was a F bomb in there, but I don't want to get called out for a mis quote...

Also PJ fought TM on their services charges, not the actual price of the ticket, but I do get it that the SC's contribute to the price of the ticket...

FYI, my Hartford TM tix cost $87.35 of which nearly 25% was service charges and fees. Face value is $66.00

Spiritual_Chaos

I wanted to pick up that front row Bon Jovi ticket on TM last week,

This made me smile

The thing is. I don't care that much about tickets being expensive, but I kind of want a reason for the recent bump (And not fans having theories). I mean I think I paid 400SEK to go to NIN with screens and a eleborate stage setup, but I pay 700SEK for PJ.

ANd I also don't care if Madonna, Bon Jovi, U2 or other bands I don't relate to have high prices for their tickets. But when bands I relate to and I consider fanfriendly do it, I start to wonder - and when it comes from Pearl Jam who talked alot about keeping the prices low for their fans it seems like 180-turn into greed. I thought Pearl Jam wasn't born to follow, to quote Bon Jovi.

I feel sort of lost as a fan.

I mean are the demographic for Pearl Jam now 40-50 year old people who have jobs and earns a lot of money? It seems similar/comparable bands (Radiohead, NIN, Green Day etc) still play for "the young" who feels that 90dollars is a bit much.

But really it's not a biggie in one way, but in another it weird enough for me to wonder and wanting an answer - more of an answer than"they can charge that much so they will do it" - I think more of Pearl Jam than that.

sk8nshoot1

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

I wanted to pick up that front row Bon Jovi ticket on TM last week,

This made me smile

The thing is. I don't care that much about tickets being expensive, but I kind of want a reason for the recent bump (And not fans having theories). I mean I think I paid 400SEK to go to NIN with screens and a eleborate stage setup, but I pay 700SEK for PJ.

ANd I also don't care if Madonna, Bon Jovi, U2 or other bands I don't relate to have high prices for their tickets. But when bands I relate to and I consider fanfriendly do it, I start to wonder - and when it comes from Pearl Jam who talked alot about keeping the prices low for their fans it seems like 180-turn into greed. I thought Pearl Jam wasn't born to follow, to quote Bon Jovi.

I feel sort of lost as a fan.

I mean are the demographic for Pearl Jam now 40-50 year old people who have jobs and earns a lot of money? It seems similar/comparable bands (Radiohead, NIN, Green Day etc) still play for "the young" who feels that 90dollars is a bit much.

But really it's not a biggie in one way, but in another it weird enough for me to wonder and wanting an answer - more of an answer than"they can charge that much so they will do it" - I think more of Pearl Jam than that.

I saw that NIN show too, twice even... MSG and Hartford... QOTSA opened in NY, woo hoo... You're right those ticket were about $50 but that was three years ago... $16 increase on the face value, again comparing apples and oranges...

This year's prices in Hartford... Phish $50, Kings of Leon $55.50, PJ $66, DMB $75, Green Day $85

Just pulled out my Hartford PJ stub from 2006 in Hartford: $59.50 Appears they increased all of $6.50 in 4 years.

Oh and yes I'm right in the demographic you have described (fortunately and unfortunately)

Final point for me... I guess you just can't please everyone no matter what you do...

baldoallornone

Spiritual_Chaos is starting quite the ruckus today.

If you want a reason for the bump in prices as I'm sure you know from seeing the news but not from experience, the US economy is fucked. No one has a lot of money and everything is high priced.

As for the Jam this tour like in 2009 they are on their own. They have to take on all the costs of planning a tour in which when they were on a major label was not the case. Also I agree tickets in 2006 were about $60 a pop at not they are about $75 so in four years $15, which seems like a lot.

May I also add I saw that some spent about $170 dollars for a pair of shitty tickets bought through ticketmaster for the STL show. Mine were $150 and will be on the floor, personally eventhough it's only $20 of savings but saving that bit an knowing you'll get good seats...that is a deal.

Also as far as the demographic, I'll be 29 on 4/11 and I've went into debt almost everytime I've traveled to see the band or I spent money that should have went to something else to get to the show and paid for it double financially.

Man, either deal with it or not is the bottom line...it's what we all have to do. All the comparisons we're trying to give you is to point out the fact that eventhough the tickets are more they still take better care of their fans than most bands do.

You are one fiesty Swede is all I have to say

BF25394

on2legs wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

on2legs wrote:

Raise your hand if you are still making the same amount of money that you made in 1991...

Point being?

The point is that unless you walk into your boss' office every year and demand that he not give you a raise because you work there simply because of the love for your occupation then you are a huge hypocrite.

In fact by your logic - it makes you greedy and a sell out.

By your logic-- well, there is no logic to what you say. There is a huge difference between the average worker and multimillionaires who HAVE COMPLETE FINANCIAL SECURITY. The average worker needs raises to allow him or her to save for retirement, for the education of his or her children, and to keep up with inflation. These raises are generally 2 to 3 percent at most. Pearl Jam has earned enough money from record sales, merchandise, touring and royalties to never need to earn another dime and still live comfortably, and yet its ticket prices have more than doubled in 7 years even as the average American worker's salary has gone down since 2003.

There is nothing hypocritical about pointing out this disconnect.

BF25394

baldoallornone wrote:

If you want a reason for the bump in prices as I'm sure you know from seeing the news but not from experience, the US economy is fucked. No one has a lot of money and everything is high priced.

No, it isn't. Inflation has been very low for the last several years. In 2009, the Consumer Price Index fell for the first time in over 50 years.

baldoallornone

BF25394 wrote:

baldoallornone wrote:

If you want a reason for the bump in prices as I'm sure you know from seeing the news but not from experience, the US economy is fucked. No one has a lot of money and everything is high priced.

No, it isn't. Inflation has been very low for the last several years. In 2009, the Consumer Price Index fell for the first time in over 50 years.

Well my point is people have a hard time affording anything these days. I didn't want to get into a symantic conversation on the financial status of the country. Just trying to say many of us don't have money to spend freely now, it's kind of the way the US is right now.

If it's different for you or those that you know, good for you...consider yourself blessed.