Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers - Madison Square Garden

JL19851

This is my retort for those of you complaining about spending $92 to see Pearl Jam play for more than 2.5 hours at the Garden a few months ago...

First, the good: Tom Petty was awesome. The band was tight. Mike Campbell was on fire. They played an almost all hits show from front to back with a Mojo mini-set that was pure 12-bar blues magic. Highlights included "Honey Bee" which I love but did not personally expect, and "Learning to Fly" which was a great call and response with the crowd. "Running Down a Dream" was particularly awesome as the first song of the encore, with "American Girl" bringing it home in top form.

Now, the bad: Call me ethnocentric. Say I inflate the value of the Garden. But how do you come to Madison Square Garden in New York City, charge $125 before fees for 300-level seats, and play for 1 hour and 50 minutes total!?? And at that, how do you play the exact same setlist you play everywhere else (I know this because the guy behind was trying to impress the ladies by saying "I hope they play xxx" and he was right every single time on every single song...he called the setlist 100% correct and in order, a true Tom Petty fundamentalist)? And at that, how do you not invite Buddy Guy (who openned for them) on stage for at least one song?

While I would still call the show excellent, certainly makes me feel better about slapping down those $92 to see Pearl Jam weave classics, rarities, covers, and the occassional special guest over 2.5+ hours of pure energy.

DewieCox

I gave up on Petty's live shows when the Black Crowes blew him off stage in a region of the country that is absolutely nutty over Tom Petty.

Also, far as Mojo is concerned...What he hell is that? The songs aren't horrible or anything, but Petty's at his best when he really embraces the poppy side of what he does.

Ledbetterman10

DewieCox wrote:

I gave up on Petty's live shows when the Black Crowes blew him off stage in a region of the country that is absolutely nutty over Tom Petty.

Also, far as Mojo is concerned...What he hell is that? The songs aren't horrible or anything, but Petty's at his best when he really embraces the poppy side of what he does.

I saw a show on that Tom Petty/Black Crowes tour and I couldn't disagree more. I thought the Crowes were a complete bore.

As for the original poster's post, enough with comparing PJ's ticket prices to the ticket prices of legends like Tom Petty, Paul McCartney, The Stones, etc. Compare PJ to their contemporaries like Radiohead and Green Day and you'll see that PJ could lower their prices. And don't get me wrong, every PJ show I've been to has been worth every dollar. But if Green Day, a band with comparable popularity and longevity, can charge in the $50 range, then so can PJ.

JL19851

I don't think that Tom Petty is in some legendary status that dwarfs Pearl Jam to the extent that Petty has some apples to oranges god given right to charge appreciably more than Pearl Jam while playing with no spontaneity for almost an hour shorter. Sure, he has his collection of hits, but outside Full Moon Fever and to a lesser extent, Into the Great Wide Open and Wildflowers, he isn't some record selling machine that has had the effect of putting him in the same category as the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney.

helplessdancer

seeing buddy guy has got to be worth something? 25?? or?

Cob

First of all, I know this a Pearl Jam website, but this is the other music section so I understand, I love Pearl Jam, but do not really have 1 clear cut favorite band as I am 41 years old and have seen and heard TONS of concerts in my time. But PLEASE people stop comparing EVERY band or act to Pearl Jam.

I think Tom Petty is a rock and roll legend, maybe he hasn't sold as many records as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, but his first record came out in 1976 and he has tons of great songs. He has also toured a lot and has not, until this tour anyway, charged a lot for his tickets, his last tour before this one, he offered $20-$25 lawn seats on his summer tour. If you don't want to spend $100+ to see Tom Petty don't, I have been seeing him perform since the early 80's and I know it will always be a good show.

I don't complain about Pearl Jam charging $92.00 a show, my main complaint is the CRAPPY way they offer tickets to the 10 Club, having everyone trying to buy MSG and Boston tickets at the same time is beyond STUPID IMO. But that's just the way I feel. So what did I do this spring when they announced their tour, I bought tickets and went to Columbus, Indy and Clvd, as I went to MSG, Hartford and Boston in 2008.

That was my way of dealing with it, is it really that hard for PJ to send all 10 Club members an email and say that MSG, Boston, all of the shows will be posted on the website to purchase tickets. You can leave your CC number to order tickets starting on Monday until the following Monday, then you will be contacted if your ticket purchase was accepted, if you did not get tickets your CC will not be charged. Instead they make everyone try and once and almost crash the website and everyone who didn't get tickets is PISSED!

Oh BTW, when I bought tickets to Columbus, Indy and Clvd, it took about 3-5 minutes for each show, talk about stress free!

Ledbetterman10

JL19851 wrote:

he isn't some record selling machine that has had the effect of putting him in the same category as the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney.

This is a valid point.

NYCPJ

shiningstar wrote:

seeing buddy guy has got to be worth something? 25?? or?

Buddy Guy was awesome! a real highlight of the night

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlbnyc/set ... 481580023/

I posted some Tom Petty shots as well:

http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=138107

JL19851

I compared the experience to Pearl Jam because I saw Pearl Jam in the same building just 2 months prior, making for a fair comparative analysis, not because this is a Pearl Jam message board. If you want, I can compare them to Bruce Springsteen, but that might be even less of a friendly response since Bruce is older than Petty and plays almost twice as long and charges about the same amount of money.

I might also add that I am no concert going rookie myself. I've been to something like 200 shows from stadiums to arenas to small clubs, bars, amphitheaters, and then some. But it doesn't take 41 years of life (I'm 32) or 200 shows to recognize when a band puts on a cookie cutter show in a legendary venue that costs fans more than anywhere else (for various reasons). I didn't say it wasn't fun, but I can't deny I feel a bit disappointed that they didn't do just a little bit more than any other date in any other venue when those venues are cheaper. I also saw them in 2001 and thought they were awesome, so the mediocre performance was even that much more of a shocker.

The Fixer

hitting the first philly show on saturday. what time did petty go on stage?

YourDirtisMyfood

while I hope they mix the setlist up a bit, the fact that I'm seeing Petty and MMJ in a few weeks for just $35 a ticket (lawn--Comcast), well, I think it's worth it.

JL19851

I had a good time at the show, don't get me wrong...my only wish was for a bit more spontaneity and a bit longer of a show (2 hours and 15 minutes total would have not made me grumpy in the least).

For reference, Tom Petty hit the stage at 9PM and departed at 10:50.

P.S. The real shame is the lasting image of this show for me was the screen showing the graphic of flames every time Mike Campbell started a solo. His solos were fantastic, but the flame graphics were cheesy.

hopethatuchoke

JL19851 wrote:

I don't think that Tom Petty is in some legendary status that dwarfs Pearl Jam to the extent that Petty has some apples to oranges god given right to charge appreciably more than Pearl Jam while playing with no spontaneity for almost an hour shorter. Sure, he has his collection of hits, but outside Full Moon Fever and to a lesser extent, Into the Great Wide Open and Wildflowers, he isn't some record selling machine that has had the effect of putting him in the same category as the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney.

His greatest hits album has been certified diamond for sales of over 10 million. He has been doing it consistently for what, 30+ years now? He has taken stands against record companies and MTV. The demographics of his fan base range from teens to 60 and 70 year olds. You are really underestimating his popularity and relevance. Pearl Jam aren't anywhere near his league. As someone else said, compare Pearl Jam to Green Day and Radiohead....not bands that have been around for 30 years.

And his tickets range from $52.50 - $128 where as pearl jam forces every person in the building, even behind the stage, to pay $90.

YourDirtisMyfood

You know I was just looking at my email ticket for the upcoming concert and it says $35, but of course when I look at my TM receipt it says $42 plus another $12 each in fees. So more like $55 a ticket after fees.

JL19851

Right, what about that separates Tom Petty? Ten, Vs. and Vitalogy alone topple 30 million records sold, and none of them are a mere conglomeration of radio hits (which, btw, has it own reissue). Pearl Jam's been doing it for 20 years consistently. I've been to many of their shows and have seen everyone from teenagers to 70 year olds. Pearl Jam have also taken stands against the music industry's corporate giants (Ticketmaster, MTV, etc.) while also tackling the black market (bootlegs, scalpers, etc.) that they felt were ripping off their fans.

Ultimately, these two acts are not in separate universes, and even if they were, how is that a special license to play an hour and 50 minute set when your fans are paying top dollar to see you? Really, the shame is that people are real quick to jump down Pearl Jam's throat here about every single small detail, yet other bands get a free pass because we would like to call them special legends above possible criticism.

hopethatuchoke

JL19851 wrote:

Right, what about that separates Tom Petty? Ten, Vs. and Vitalogy alone topple 30 million records sold, and none of them are a mere conglomeration of radio hits (which, btw, has it own reissue). Pearl Jam's been doing it for 20 years consistently. I've been to many of their shows and have seen everyone from teenagers to 70 year olds. Pearl Jam have also taken stands against the music industry's corporate giants (Ticketmaster, MTV, etc.) while also tackling the black market (bootlegs, scalpers, etc.) that they felt were ripping off their fans.

Ultimately, these two acts are not in separate universes, and even if they were, how is that a special license to play an hour and 50 minute set when your fans are paying top dollar to see you? Really, the shame is that people are real quick to jump down Pearl Jam's throat here about every single small detail, yet other bands get a free pass because we would like to call them special legends above possible criticism.

I still disagree and will argue are in separate universes BUT I'm not saying that it's ok for them to play only 1:50. How do you know people on the Petty message board don't jump down his throat for every detail as well? I would say the only people jumping down PJ's throat consistently are the few thousand people who are obsessive enough to post here. Outside of people here, I do hear gripes from casual fans about high ticket prices but other than that, people don't really have much to say.

JL19851

Perhaps that is the case in Tom Petty land. Who knows? I meant more that people are quicker on this message board to jump down their throats while giving other bands automatic passes.

I would also just point out that I do in fact love Tom Petty's music, so it's not some sort of blanket condemnation. That, and I think I am not underestimating Tom Petty as much as I feel you might be underestimating Pearl Jam's impact. Perhaps it was a long time ago, but from 1992-1995, they were an absolute dominating force in popular music and culture. At the time Vs. was released, no one had ever sold more than 775,000 copies on an album in the first week, and they sold over 950,000 - in a week. Not even Nirvana's follow ups even sniffed at that, and they are now considered the legends of their time.

What we now know Pearl Jam to be, after 15 years of scaling back, and demanding to do things on their terms and not pop culture's, has resulted in a band that sells albums at a reasonably strong pace (especially considering the climate of the music industry), and still consistently pulls together short yet successful tours. Despite 20 years, thousands of concerts, hundreds of official bootlegs, etc., their supply still hasn't seem to trump their demand...I would put them in a legendary status for that.

Cob

You do remember 2006 right??? Pearl Jam opened for Tom Petty, not the other way around, is Pearl Jam a big act? YES, Is Tom Petty a big act, yes, sorry you were disappointed that he only played 1 hour 50 mins., EVERY band/act has off night and I think Mike Campbell recently passed out on stage and they had to cancel the next show.

They are BOTH legendary acts as is Springsteen that you mentioned, who BTW is a whole year and a month older than Tom Petty, we all know that Pearl Jam, Tom Petty and The Boss have sold tons of records. As you said, you are 32 and have been to 200+ concerts and that you don't need all of that to realize when a band puts on a "cookie cutter" show, with all of those concerts you should also realize that sometimes bands just have an off night or a so-so night for various reasons, sorry to say that it sounds like that's what you got MSG or not, it sounds like it was just an off night.

I'm sure that this is not the first or last time this will happen to you if you continue to go to concerts, I have seen Pearl Jam have nights like this, but it doesn't make me think of them in a bad way. Hell I saw Grateful Dead 169 times and I can tell you without a doubt I saw PLENTY of their shows when they were having an off night, I slept through more than half of one in Vegas one time, it happens.

I hope the next time you see Tom Petty or any concert, that it is not an off night.

Lifted

all this talk about ticket prices on this board are ridiculous. fact is, bands like the heartbreakers, the stones, pearl jam, springsteen etc. are all legendary bands that have had huge commercial success. you either buy the ticket or you don't. you can afford it or you can't. and if you're unsure about whether or not you want to drop x amount of dollars, we have something called the internet where you can educate yourself on a specific band/tour to give you an idea of what you're paying for. concerts are supposed to be fun, and usually are. if you pay 200 for a concert and leave feeling ripped off because of the amount of money you spent, chances are you either can't afford, or probably shouldn't be blowing your money on the show....

...now, there is a simple solution to this. go see some bands who play cheap shows in smaller venues if that's what makes a show great to you. for instance, i bought tickets to all 5 my morning jacket shows at terminal 5 for 205 dollars. they are playing their whole frickin catalog + some. talk about bang for your buck.