65 dollars?

LeilaMoonTurtle

why $65 for Ed shows?

100 Pacer

LeilaMoonTurtle wrote:

why $65 for Ed shows?

transportation of equipment and personnel, hotel/food/catering costs, venue rentals, insurance fees, portion of revenues donated to charity and a modest profit don't come cheap,...

fanch75

Because socialites only perform for the Bourgeoisie

otis mcfluster

Sawyer wrote:

....because he's generous....consider yourself lucky.

Here here.

yosi1

fanch75 wrote:

Because socialites only perform for the Bourgeoisie

Ding ding ding.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

65 isnt too bad.

keeps the commoners and peasants out.

fanch75

100 Pacer wrote:

transportation of equipment and personnel, hotel/food/catering costs, venue rentals, insurance fees, portion of revenues donated to charity and a modest profit don't come cheap,...

LOL

Modest profit.

Just like the "reason" the band doesn't play the South is because they can't make any money playing venues that are "only" 75% full.

:rolleyes:

Yet 80's rock bands like LA Guns can tour clubs and charge only $10-$15 per ticket and play in front of 150-300 people, and yet somehow stay on the road and be profitable.

I don't mind that Vedder makes a shitload of money, but I just love Jamily-created justifications so they can go to bed at night dreaming that Pearl Jam Inc doesn't have a profit motivation. It does! It's up to you to decide if it's okay or not. I'm fine with it.

100 Pacer

fanch75 wrote:

LOL

Modest profit.

Just like the "reason" the band doesn't play the South is because they can't make any money playing venues that are "only" 75% full.

:rolleyes:

Yet 80's rock bands like LA Guns can tour clubs and charge only $10-$15 per ticket and somehow stay on the road and be profitable.

I don't mind that Vedder makes a shitload of money, but I just love Jamily-created justifications so they can go to bed at night dreaming that Pearl Jam Inc doesn't have a profit motivation. It does! It's up to you to decide if it's okay or not. I'm fine with it.

there's a difference between not making AS MUCH money as hoped, and LOSING money (logistical and production costs remain constant despite box-office appeal),...i frankly don't blame PJ for not choosing to play at Southern US venues simply because it's not worth it financially COUPLED WITH the fact venues aren't 100% sold out, b/c if the demand to sell-out venues instantly was there then PJ, i think, WOULD play the South without thinking twice.

i, for one, have NEVER bought into the so-called "Jamily-created justifications so they can go to bed at night dreaming that Pearl Jam Inc doesn't have a profit motivation." as you put it lol, i.e. i have no qualms about the $5,000,000 - $6,000,000 the 10C likely generates on 10C memberships every year alone. PJ is a business, and revenue is stretched to afford lengthy breaks in-between tours (which are the real revenue generators for the band). and i have no issues with Ed charing $65 per ticket. i can tell, after watching each of the band members (minus Ed) driving into Benaroya Hall in their personal cars the day of the show, NONE of them are hurting

rockpants

Standard concert fare these days for international acts, at least around these parts.

fanch75

100 Pacer wrote:

there's a difference between not making AS MUCH money as hoped, and LOSING money,...

Please explain, and tie that explanation into the scenarios that I gave.

binauralsounds

65 bucks for just Ed when I saw PEARL JAM for less than that per ticket last tour? Uhhhhhhh, okay......

I'll pass.

He had better play his ass off. I saw Cornell 3 times on his last tour for an average of 50 bucks a ticket. He played about 2 1/2 hours a night.

digster

rockpants wrote:

Standard concert fare these days for international acts, at least around these parts.

I don't know; as far as an average fare, this is more than Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead (at least in the U.S.), R.E.M., Wilco, and many other acts. I'm surprised tickets are this expensive; I got into a Bruce Springsteen solo show for less money.

I'm on the east coast, so I wouldn't get a chance to go anyway. But it's a fair question, especially considering a (presumably) solo acoustic show would cost much less money than a Pearl Jam show for example.

rockpants

fanch75 wrote:

Yet 80's rock bands like LA Guns can tour clubs and charge only $10-$15 per ticket and play in front of 150-300 people, and yet somehow stay on the road and be profitable.

Booking fees for piss-tank clubs aren't as high as nice theatres holding a few thousand people. You can only charge what people will pay for. I kinda doubt people would pay more than $20 for an LA Guns nostalgia trip.

100 Pacer

fanch75 wrote:

Please explain, and tie that explanation into the scenarios that I gave.

see the edited post.

Beck..

id pay 65$ to see ed

binauralsounds

Sawyer wrote:

take into account venue size as well....

Well, when Chris Cornell played the Palace here in Louisville, tix were bout 50 bucks. It's a very small and beautiful venue.
He played about 2 1/2 hours with full band and brought the house down!!!!!!

High Fidelity 2000

That is pricey for a solo performer. Even if the theaters are nice or high rent or whatever. Hold onto your seats when the ticket prices are announced for the next whole-band tour. $65 for one member of PJ= $325 for all 5 members...Boom plays for free. Kidding on that total, but seriously, it'll be above $65 I bet you.

You realize when everyone is shut out of Ten Club tickets, the ticketmaster ones will be $75-80 with the fees, right? I'm sure Ed is looking at it as just a fun new outing, and I'm sure he's going to give a bunch of the money away to the WM3 or Surfriders or something, but it's still pricey for the individual.

And yes, I'm sure the shows will be well worth the price. Wish I could see one. Is this going to be the biggest descent on one state by PJ fans ever? Probably.

fanch75

100 Pacer wrote:

see the edited post.

Fair enough, your edited post pretty much agrees with what Im saying. They charge what they can, because they can, and there's a profit motive, and you're fine with this.

I don't see the connection "between a difference of losing money and not making as much money."

That's a bit different (or at least I took it a bit different) than your original statement that he had to charge this in order to make a "modest profit."

whispering hands

fanch75 wrote:

LOL

Modest profit.

Just like the "reason" the band doesn't play the South is because they can't make any money playing venues that are "only" 75% full.

:rolleyes:

Yet 80's rock bands like LA Guns can tour clubs and charge only $10-$15 per ticket and play in front of 150-300 people, and yet somehow stay on the road and be profitable.

I don't mind that Vedder makes a shitload of money, but I just love Jamily-created justifications so they can go to bed at night dreaming that Pearl Jam Inc doesn't have a profit motivation. It does! It's up to you to decide if it's okay or not. I'm fine with it.

considering ed makes 36percent of all pj profit and the rest of the band makes 16 who knows how that goes now that boom's in there, but he cuts way higher than the other members that's more than modest profit not to mention this whole tour profit goes to him alone, but hey that's what he does for a lving rock on ed rock on

High Fidelity 2000

binauralsounds wrote:

Well, when Chris Cornell played the Palace here in Louisville, tix were bout 50 bucks. It's a very small and beautiful venue.
He played about 2 1/2 hours with full band and brought the house down!!!!!!

Ah, true dat. I saw him in Vegas for $40 at the Palms Pearl, an awesome small theater/club. He had to pay his band members and yep, 2 1/2 hour show. The whole time I was thinking how cool it would be if Pearl Jam played 2 nights there someday instead of MGM (Tool did it a few months ago).

rockpants

digster wrote:

I don't know; as far as an average fare, this is more than Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead (at least in the U.S.), R.E.M., Wilco, and many other acts. I'm surprised tickets are this expensive; I got into a Bruce Springsteen solo show for less money.

I'm on the east coast, so I wouldn't get a chance to go anyway. But it's a fair question, especially considering a (presumably) solo acoustic show would cost much less money than a Pearl Jam show for example.

Notice I said "'round these parts". Then notice my location.

Boss tickets are: $115, $67.50 (w/ E Street, though).
Rush tickets are: $85, $65, $45.
Tom Jones is playing the same venue as Eddie is, and his ticket prices are:
$89.50 and $75.
radiohead's date won't be for awhile, but in the past - 5 years ago - they were in the $60-range. I would expect them to be between $65 and $100 this time around.
DMB - I think they were on par with Rush, but I can't say for sure.

100 Pacer

fanch75 wrote:

Fair enough, your edited post pretty much agrees with what Im saying. They charge what they can, because they can, and there's a profit motive, and you're fine with this.

That's a bit different (or at least I took it a bit different) than your original statement that he had to charge this in order to make a "modest profit."

when i used the term "modest profit" i had the following in mind: Ed is out there for his own pleasure, to perform for a receptive audience, to earn a living etc. BUT given that his audience is open, willing, and ready to fork over the $65 why should he NOT be allowed to earn the modest profit i mentioned,...i didn't mean it the way you read it, that PJ should be altruistic in their concert fee charges according to the naive fans - i meant that Ed should NOT play for free, but at the same time he won't be clearing $100,000 gross profit off every show,...realistically speaking, i think Ed will take ~$25,000 per concert after all charges (ticket revenue and clothing/poster sales)

BUT i truly do NOT believe that there is profit "motive", Ed didn't go into this with a "how much can we charge" mentality in my humble opinion. HOWEVER, i do think, since he'll be donating a generous amount to the WM3 off this tour that he'd LIKE to earn as MUCH as possible for them while at the same time making it affordable enough for some average-income fans to attend, as opposed to those that would be more than willing and able to spend $1000 per ticket.

fanch75

rockpants wrote:

Booking fees for piss-tank clubs aren't as high as nice theatres holding a few thousand people. You can only charge what people will pay for. I kinda doubt people would pay more than $20 for an LA Guns nostalgia trip.

If he can charge $65 for the gig, then again I'm totally cool with that. I'm still grinning about the "Jamily" justifications for it, believing that PJ is evolved beyond profit motive. That's my only point. I don't care if he charges $2000 per ticket.

So, enjoy. Me personally, I'm not willing to pay to fly across the country to hear Vedder sit on a stool and play acoustic/protest/riot act/into the wild songs with a 15 minute spoken-word vigil on the evils of tax cuts & consumerism thrown in the middle.

I'd rather pay $20 and see LA Guns (a band, by comparison, that actually has to tour to make a living) sing songs about running around Hollywood being awesome instead of paying $65 to have Vedder preach to me about the evils of consumerism right before he and his entourage jump into a limo.

pjtradeking

Fuck me, that didnt take long.....

electronblue

smile75 wrote:

id pay 65$ to see ed

me too if i had 65$ besides i don't think
ed should be sold too cheaply..more like fine vintage wines...~

digster

rockpants wrote:

Notice I said "'round these parts". Then notice my location.

Boss tickets are: $115, $67.50 (w/ E Street, though).
Rush tickets are: $85, $65, $45.
Tom Jones is playing the same venue as Eddie is, and his ticket prices are:
$89.50 and $75.
radiohead's date won't be for awhile, but in the past - 5 years ago - they were in the $60-range. I would expect them to be between $65 and $100 this time around.
DMB - I think they were on par with Rush, but I can't say for sure.

I got a Springsteen solo ticket for 55 back when he did his Devils and Dust tour...I believe 65 dollars gets you in the door to an E Street Band show this tour, or at least that's what I saw for the Giants Stadium shows. I mention DMB cause they're often compared to Pearl Jam as being one of the 'affordable' big acts; they were also 55 dollars to 65 for their most recent tours. Like most acts these tickets have all been raising in the past ten years.

I had a ticket for the 2006 Radiohead tour (although I didn't get a chance to go), and I believe it was around 57 dollars without Ticketmaster fees. You also have to keep in mind these are all full band shows; the prices are being split among five to seven band members, with a traveling crew, catering for them all, etc. These coming shows are likely to be one singer/songwriter with a bunch of guitars. It's just a surprisingly steep price. Also, PJ and Eddie have toured and treated their fans with such integrity over the decades is a double-edged sword; while it's what makes us all rabid fans who follow them around, it also makes it more likely that we'll call foul if we think that they're charging too much.

I mean, I know that many teenagers who love his music probably wouldn't be able to go to one of these shows; 65 dollars plus charges is a shitload of money for someone who has a part time job delivering a paper and a ten buck allowance from the parents.

High Fidelity 2000

fanch75 wrote:

I'd rather pay $20 and see LA Guns (a band, by comparison, that actually has to tour to make a living) sing songs about running around Hollywood being awesome instead of paying $65 to have Vedder preach to me about the evils of consumerism right before he and his entourage jump into a limo.

Wow, sounds like LA Guns earned a new fan! Awesome indeed.

100 Pacer

SOLAT319 wrote:

Were they environmentally concious cars?

LOL as i was typing that line, i was thinking to myself "would i get banned for discussing this?", but i don't see that happening, so here goes: on the afternoon of the Benaroya Hall performance, the band members drove the following cars into the venue:

- Jeff drove a black Audi A4 (late-90s model)
- Mike drove a silver BMW 528i (late-90s model)
- Stone drove a navy blue Volvo C70 (early-00s model)
- Matt drove a black BMW M3 (mid-90s model)

pjtradeking

100 Pacer wrote:

LOL as i was typing that line, i was thinking to myself "would i get banned for discussing this?", but i don't see that happening, so here goes: on the afternoon of the Benaroya Hall performance, the band members drove the following cars into the venue:

- Jeff drove a black Audi A4 (late-90s model)
- Mike drove a silver BMW 528i (late-90s model)
- Stone drove a navy blue Volvo C70 (early-00s model)
- Matt drove a black BMW M3 (mid-90s model)

And didnt ed show up in his 70's volvo wagon or his 70's Nova? Thought I heard that...:D

100 Pacer

pjtradeking wrote:

And didnt ed show up in his 70's volvo wagon or his 70's Nova? Thought I heard that...:D

i can't speak to that because i didn't see/hear that.

Ledbetterman10

rockpants wrote:

Standard concert fare these days for international acts, at least around these parts.

Eddie Vedder isn't an international act....Pearl Jam is. $65 is too much for Ed solo.

I'd argue that the band is very much about making money nowadays and that's understandable. I mean, they probably didn't make the money from '92 to '95 that the biggest band in the world is supposed to make with the non-ticketmaster tour and stuff to that effect. Tickets for the Binaural tour were $35 and tickets for the Riot Act tour were $55. I've heard people on here say that that is because of inflation. a twenty dollar price difference for concert tickets over 3 years? yeah right. that band changed their ways. hurts me in the pocket but $60 is very fair to see an act like Pearl Jam. but as I said before, it's way to much to see Ed solo.