I don't disagree with any of your reasoning, but I will say that the band once stood for lower prices to make shows accessible. Could the average high school kid go to a show these days? Who do you market tickets to? I don't know the answer. PJ fan base is getting older and as a result likely has better income. Then again I remember interviews with Eddie going on about seeing concerts when he was a kid and ask yourself if a kid could do the same today.
I agree that some of the bands priorities have changed.
A high school kid would have trouble with a $75 ticket price for P Jam, but luckily, most of the newer bands (not Hannah Montana-type stuff) keep their ticket prices low. At the Troubadour in L.A., the "buzz bands" usually have a ceiling of $15 for tickets, so a geeky music fan in high school ( I was one! ) can afford a ticket.
I remember paying $15 to see the Rolling Stones in 1981, but I was also able to see the Dickies at the Starwood for $6.
The higher-end bands ticket prices have risen at a much faster rate then little indie bands.
Yes yes it does that is how inflation works:) We';re lucky that Pearl Jam are a semi communist band and keep ticket prices ARTIFICIALLY low. Look at the Prices for any other artist with the same drawing power as PJ, they cost 3,4,or even 5 times what we pay. Pearl jam could double their prices and still fill venues across the world, so it's certainly NOT a cash grab as some simple minded, self absorbed people have intoned, but rather a cost associated with living in a capitalist society. Stop fucking complaining, if you wanna see a show for $20 look at the poster on the next telephone pole you pass and see the quality of band that charges $20 these days, join their BBS and stop bitching about Pearl Jam's ticket prices. Christ you sound like whiny kids. I totally AVOID this BBS when they start touring cuz i hate the bitching and moaning about insignificant shit like ticket prices, how the set list wasn;t quite up to so and so's standards, not enough posters available etc.
dude...thank you.
"Well, I think this band is incapable of sucking."
-my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
I think the best way to judge whether these prices are solely due to inflation or otherwise is to judge them not on the prices themselves, but against other bands of their caliber that are playing shows this year. That way, you can judge Pearl Jam against their peers. However, when judged in this manner, they still do not fare greatly. R.E.M. charges slightly more than them, but Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead and Foo Fighters all have lower charges than 77 dollars (that number is not including presumable service charges). Radiohead is between 39 and 55, Foo Fighters is 25-45 and Dave Matthews Band is 37 to 72 dollars. These bands also don't use a blanket charge, but instead charge more for the best seats and less for the worst. So inflation is definetely an issue, but I don't see how people can argue that PJ is unable to charge 50-60 bucks a ticket. Bands of its' stature are definetely doing it, and I doubt that any of these bands are looking to go broke while on tour.
1) These prices are more than reasonable. When I told a friend at work that the tickets are about $150 he thought it was per ticket. At least these will be the best seats - some bands auction off the first 5-10 rows; I'll take $75 including fees instead of $800+
2) How can people be shocked that Pearl Jam is $75 when Eddie solo was $65?
Have you had a raise since 2006?
I have (thankfully), and I assume the crew for Pearl Jam has as well, and heck, maybe Ed, Jeff, Mike, Stoney and Matt deserve a raise as well. (Boom plays for free, its a labor of love for the big guy)
Oh, and the tix are down to $144 a pair for Tampa, at this rate Mansfield will be free!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe the band should take booms stance then. just kidding. I have had a raise since 2006 but it wasnt a 20% raise.
Main point of thread. Todays ticket prices seem to go against what they once stood for. Its not whether you are rich or poor, because they cant charge $10 cause they wouldnt make any money. But im sure they could make a decent living charging $50.
I think the best way to judge whether these prices are solely due to inflation or otherwise is to judge them not on the prices themselves, but against other bands of their caliber that are playing shows this year. That way, you can judge Pearl Jam against their peers. However, when judged in this manner, they still do not fare greatly. R.E.M. charges slightly more than them, but Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead and Foo Fighters all have lower charges than 77 dollars (that number is not including presumable service charges). Radiohead is between 39 and 55, Foo Fighters is 25-45 and Dave Matthews Band is 37 to 72 dollars. These bands also don't use a blanket charge, but instead charge more for the best seats and less for the worst. So inflation is definetely an issue, but I don't see how people can argue that PJ is unable to charge 50-60 bucks a ticket. Bands of its' stature are definetely doing it, and I doubt that any of these bands are looking to go broke while on tour.
That is an interesting point about the blanket charges. Would people prefer if the best seats in the house were $150 if that meant you could get 3rd level for $45?
1) These prices are more than reasonable. When I told a friend at work that the tickets are about $150 he thought it was per ticket. At least these will be the best seats - some bands auction off the first 5-10 rows; I'll take $75 including fees instead of $800+
2) How can people be shocked that Pearl Jam is $75 when Eddie solo was $65?
Dont you think that is a bad thing that your friend thought $150 was a good deal. No concert should cost that much and that is the problem.
Eddie solo for $65 looks expensive compared to seeing the whole band for $70
That is an interesting point about the blanket charges. Would people prefer if the best seats in the house were $150 if that meant you could get 3rd level for $45?
If PJ used Scaled pricing, fan club members would pay much more.
By keeping it as-is, those in the lousy seats who pay the same price as fanclub members are actually subsidizing the 10C seats...its a good thing!
R.E.M. charges slightly more than them, but Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead and Foo Fighters all have lower charges than 77 dollars (that number is not including presumable service charges). Radiohead is between 39 and 55, Foo Fighters is 25-45 and Dave Matthews Band is 37 to 72 dollars. These bands also don't use a blanket charge, but instead charge more for the best seats and less for the worst.
This is not true...
Two tickets for Radiohead in WPB are $142.00 ($55+$16X2)
Two tickets for Dave Matthews in Saratoga are $184.00 ($75 +$17X2); That is the charge for all pavillion seating.
Pearl Jam is not using a blanket charge for amphitheatres; the lawn will be cheaper.
Rough math:
$50/ticket
12,000 avg. attendence
10 shows
Gross= 6,000,000
Say they just get 25% That would be 300,000 for a months worth of work per member (excluding boom because he probably takes a smaller cut)
If one makes $50/hour they would gross 102,000/year. That is a decent amount of change for one person.
I think the best way to judge whether these prices are solely due to inflation or otherwise is to judge them not on the prices themselves, but against other bands of their caliber that are playing shows this year. That way, you can judge Pearl Jam against their peers. However, when judged in this manner, they still do not fare greatly. R.E.M. charges slightly more than them, but Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead and Foo Fighters all have lower charges than 77 dollars (that number is not including presumable service charges). Radiohead is between 39 and 55, Foo Fighters is 25-45 and Dave Matthews Band is 37 to 72 dollars. These bands also don't use a blanket charge, but instead charge more for the best seats and less for the worst. So inflation is definetely an issue, but I don't see how people can argue that PJ is unable to charge 50-60 bucks a ticket. Bands of its' stature are definetely doing it, and I doubt that any of these bands are looking to go broke while on tour.
Do the bands you listed have sponsors that take away some of the cost of putting on a concert?
(Actual curiosity. Don't care to argue. Just bought tickets and am going to buy more so I obviously have no problem with the prices.
Rough math:
$50/ticket
12,000 avg. attendence
10 shows
Gross= 6,000,000
Say they just get 25% That would be 300,000 for a months worth of work per member (excluding boom because he probably takes a smaller cut)
If one makes $50/hour they would gross 102,000/year. That is a decent amount of change for one person.
so you say...
how about we slash your income...? I think you make too much...
I'm not complaining but when you have fanatics like us $70+ a ticket really adds up, especially when you hit up five or six shows on a tour. All these crappy bands that pay $500 a ticket know that no one will want to come back so they have to milk it for all it's worth. Perhaps we can all save money if Pearl Jam wasn't so damn talented!
That is an interesting point about the blanket charges. Would people prefer if the best seats in the house were $150 if that meant you could get 3rd level for $45?
Well, my two points were this
- That there are bands of Pearl Jam's size and popularity that keep their tickets lower than Pearl Jam seems to be doing on this tour (this is of course assuming that the 77 dollar thing is accurate, which I'm not sure about). I mean, would anyone be able to answer for me why Radiohead, for example, is able to keep prices down and PJ cannot? There's certainly no less demand for Radiohead than Pearl Jam. People here were saying that's it all about inflation, and although that plays a part, that doesn't explain why some bands that have been around as long as PJ (about) and are as popular are able to charge less.
-Someone paying the same amount for the back row behind the stage at MSG as the person in 10th row dead center is absolutely ridiculous, whatever band it is. I do not think any band should be charging 150 dollars for a show, but I think it would be a better idea if the 10th row center seats were 77 and the cheap seats were 40 or so.
Maybe the band should take booms stance then. just kidding. I have had a raise since 2006 but it wasnt a 20% raise.
Main point of thread. Todays ticket prices seem to go against what they once stood for. Its not whether you are rich or poor, because they cant charge $10 cause they wouldnt make any money. But im sure they could make a decent living charging $50.
BEFORE replying please note that numbers used are for illistrative purposes ONLY:
Yes Pearl Jam could charge less and make gobs of $$$, but what about their own crew, local crews, promoters, venue staff, etc etc etc? 6 guys in a band, at least one tech per band member, 50 security(conservative estimate) 15 local crew, promoters anon. lets's say there's 100 ppl that your 75 dollar ticket needs to pay, that averages to 75 cents from your ticket going to each person involved in making a Pearl Jam show possible, just consider it as "tipping" everyone involved instead of assuming that Pearl Jam is trying to steal your money
"So forget the other boys because my love is real.
Come off your battlefield."
But when is it too much? So I take it you dont have a problem with the gas companies making money had over fist then?
oh my, quite the correlation....are you saying PJ and Exxon are one in the same...?
anyhoo, in regards to gas prices, I to take issue with the manipulation of the supply, i.e., randomly shutting down refinery's to shorten supply, thus driving up gas prices....
Rough math:
$50/ticket
12,000 avg. attendence
10 shows
Gross= 6,000,000
Say they just get 25% That would be 300,000 for a months worth of work per member (excluding boom because he probably takes a smaller cut)
If one makes $50/hour they would gross 102,000/year. That is a decent amount of change for one person.
I am sure that people in third-world countries think that a minimum-wage earner in the U.S. lives like a king...its all relative.
I'm not complaining but when you have fanatics like us $70+ a ticket really adds up, especially when you hit up five or six shows on a tour. All these crappy bands that pay $500 a ticket know that no one will want to come back so they have to milk it for all it's worth. Perhaps we can all save money if Pearl Jam wasn't so damn talented!
Not true. I spent about 11K last tour on the Rolling Stones and I was certainly not alone.
There's Pearl Jam, The Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, Robert Johnson......and then everybody else.
For today's economy, there is nothing wrong with the prices PJ are charging for their shows. If anyone recall one of the recent interviews Ed game in RS, he already hinted that ticket prices would HAVE to be raised due to <b>wear and tear on the body</b>, economy, etc.
What exactly does wear and tear on the body have to do with higher ticket prices? Are you saying touring these days is more taxing for some reason? I don't understand.
Two tickets for Radiohead in WPB are $142.00 ($55+$16X2)
Two tickets for Dave Matthews in Saratoga are $184.00 ($75 +$17X2); That is the charge for all pavillion seating.
Pearl Jam is not using a blanket charge for amphitheatres; the lawn will be cheaper.
I don't get what you're saying; you're proving my point, unless we somehow know that the Pearl Jam tickets are 77 dollars with all additional service charges attached. If that's not the case, and the 77 dollars is the base charge, then it is higher than the highest base charges for Radiohead (55 dollars) Dave Matthews Band (72-75 dollars), and Foo Fighters (45 dollars).
Like I was saying, Pearl Jam's prices are not astronomical; I was saying there were some bands of their stature that are keeping prices cheaper.
Does nobody follow the news? I'm sure I'm not the only one watching the value of the USD plummet compared to other currencies. And of course oil (futures) more than doubling in 2-4 years...
While neither of those directly impact the band (well, oil maybe), the indirect effects are assuredly staggering. Cost of supplies (gas, buses, etc), venues upping their rental fee, ensuring carbon credits are where they need to be, etc.
Anyway, ticket prices are directly related to Pearl Jam's insane amount of greed.
What exactly does wear and tear on the body have to do with higher ticket prices? Are you saying touring these days is more taxing for some reason? I don't understand.
I imagine doing something when you're in your early twenties is less tiring and stressful than doing that same thing when you're in your forties.
Comments
Indeed. I do think that we as PJ fans have been coddled for years. Nobody else cares for their fans the way PJ does, we're all pretty damn spoiled.
Three crooked hearts, swirls all around
You can't spell Gossard without G-O-D
I agree that some of the bands priorities have changed.
A high school kid would have trouble with a $75 ticket price for P Jam, but luckily, most of the newer bands (not Hannah Montana-type stuff) keep their ticket prices low. At the Troubadour in L.A., the "buzz bands" usually have a ceiling of $15 for tickets, so a geeky music fan in high school ( I was one! ) can afford a ticket.
I remember paying $15 to see the Rolling Stones in 1981, but I was also able to see the Dickies at the Starwood for $6.
The higher-end bands ticket prices have risen at a much faster rate then little indie bands.
dude...thank you.
-my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
1) These prices are more than reasonable. When I told a friend at work that the tickets are about $150 he thought it was per ticket. At least these will be the best seats - some bands auction off the first 5-10 rows; I'll take $75 including fees instead of $800+
2) How can people be shocked that Pearl Jam is $75 when Eddie solo was $65?
Maybe the band should take booms stance then. just kidding. I have had a raise since 2006 but it wasnt a 20% raise.
Main point of thread. Todays ticket prices seem to go against what they once stood for. Its not whether you are rich or poor, because they cant charge $10 cause they wouldnt make any money. But im sure they could make a decent living charging $50.
That is an interesting point about the blanket charges. Would people prefer if the best seats in the house were $150 if that meant you could get 3rd level for $45?
are you...?
how do you know...?
Dont you think that is a bad thing that your friend thought $150 was a good deal. No concert should cost that much and that is the problem.
Eddie solo for $65 looks expensive compared to seeing the whole band for $70
Good point, my girlfriend thought the same thing. That tells you about ticket prices of everybody else these days.
If PJ used Scaled pricing, fan club members would pay much more.
By keeping it as-is, those in the lousy seats who pay the same price as fanclub members are actually subsidizing the 10C seats...its a good thing!
This is not true...
Two tickets for Radiohead in WPB are $142.00 ($55+$16X2)
Two tickets for Dave Matthews in Saratoga are $184.00 ($75 +$17X2); That is the charge for all pavillion seating.
Pearl Jam is not using a blanket charge for amphitheatres; the lawn will be cheaper.
Rough math:
$50/ticket
12,000 avg. attendence
10 shows
Gross= 6,000,000
Say they just get 25% That would be 300,000 for a months worth of work per member (excluding boom because he probably takes a smaller cut)
If one makes $50/hour they would gross 102,000/year. That is a decent amount of change for one person.
Do the bands you listed have sponsors that take away some of the cost of putting on a concert?
(Actual curiosity. Don't care to argue. Just bought tickets and am going to buy more so I obviously have no problem with the prices.
so you say...
how about we slash your income...? I think you make too much...
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006
But when is it too much? So I take it you dont have a problem with the gas companies making money had over fist then?
Well, my two points were this
- That there are bands of Pearl Jam's size and popularity that keep their tickets lower than Pearl Jam seems to be doing on this tour (this is of course assuming that the 77 dollar thing is accurate, which I'm not sure about). I mean, would anyone be able to answer for me why Radiohead, for example, is able to keep prices down and PJ cannot? There's certainly no less demand for Radiohead than Pearl Jam. People here were saying that's it all about inflation, and although that plays a part, that doesn't explain why some bands that have been around as long as PJ (about) and are as popular are able to charge less.
-Someone paying the same amount for the back row behind the stage at MSG as the person in 10th row dead center is absolutely ridiculous, whatever band it is. I do not think any band should be charging 150 dollars for a show, but I think it would be a better idea if the 10th row center seats were 77 and the cheap seats were 40 or so.
BEFORE replying please note that numbers used are for illistrative purposes ONLY:
Yes Pearl Jam could charge less and make gobs of $$$, but what about their own crew, local crews, promoters, venue staff, etc etc etc? 6 guys in a band, at least one tech per band member, 50 security(conservative estimate) 15 local crew, promoters anon. lets's say there's 100 ppl that your 75 dollar ticket needs to pay, that averages to 75 cents from your ticket going to each person involved in making a Pearl Jam show possible, just consider it as "tipping" everyone involved instead of assuming that Pearl Jam is trying to steal your money
Come off your battlefield."
oh my, quite the correlation....are you saying PJ and Exxon are one in the same...?
anyhoo, in regards to gas prices, I to take issue with the manipulation of the supply, i.e., randomly shutting down refinery's to shorten supply, thus driving up gas prices....
I am sure that people in third-world countries think that a minimum-wage earner in the U.S. lives like a king...its all relative.
Not true. I spent about 11K last tour on the Rolling Stones and I was certainly not alone.
I hope you got a quickie from Keith Richards for that price.
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006
What exactly does wear and tear on the body have to do with higher ticket prices? Are you saying touring these days is more taxing for some reason? I don't understand.
I was a bit upset that I was not invited back to the "rattlesnake inn" backstage area, but did have quite a collection of great seats.
I don't get what you're saying; you're proving my point, unless we somehow know that the Pearl Jam tickets are 77 dollars with all additional service charges attached. If that's not the case, and the 77 dollars is the base charge, then it is higher than the highest base charges for Radiohead (55 dollars) Dave Matthews Band (72-75 dollars), and Foo Fighters (45 dollars).
Like I was saying, Pearl Jam's prices are not astronomical; I was saying there were some bands of their stature that are keeping prices cheaper.
While neither of those directly impact the band (well, oil maybe), the indirect effects are assuredly staggering. Cost of supplies (gas, buses, etc), venues upping their rental fee, ensuring carbon credits are where they need to be, etc.
Anyway, ticket prices are directly related to Pearl Jam's insane amount of greed.
The end.
Certainly not Radiohead and DMB; I'm not a big fan of Foo Fighters, so I don't know about them.
I imagine doing something when you're in your early twenties is less tiring and stressful than doing that same thing when you're in your forties.
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006