Is it me or is $75 for a solo ticket expensive?

BrainOfJD wrote:

Look, they're a good band and I had fun at the shows this year. But I can't help feeling like they're slowly turning into a parody of themselves.

I don't think they are anything close to that yet, but sometimes I look at bands like the Eagles who charge ridiculous prices for tickets and the crowd is filled with 50-something executives and I think, please don't let that ever be PJ.

One thing that struck me about this tour was Verizon's sponsorship -- I wonder how Ed feels about the stacks of big glossy ads that were handed out after all the shows? Didn't seem very "green" to me.

I've never been one of the fans who bought into their politics or linked my enjoyment of the music to any kind of belief, but one thing I can't ignore is hypocrisy. I'm hoping this stuff isn't a trend.

Fair market value as far as I'm concerned

JakeYanachek wrote:

dont know if this has been mentioned, aint gonna bother reading through all this....but

for $77 i got to see pearl jam @ msg. you know. the whole band, a really neat lighting show and they played for close to 3 hours both nights.

in april, i saw ev in berkely for $65 i think? played around an hour and a half. no fancy lights, no BOOOOOOOOOOOM.

so, whats my point? i will GLADLY pay $75 to not see you douche bags high-fiving each other every time a song from ten is played.

ed played 30 songs in an 1 1/2 hours? wow

bootlegger10 wrote:

Because it is $75. In your relative situation it may be a lot of money, but in actuality it isn't. I realize how I may sound, but I don't care. Ed isn't touring for college kids.

Look, the deal is Eddie is charging this money because he can, because he knows he has a fanbase in each city that will be willing to pay that amount of money to see him. So all these excuses, saying it’s for other reasons than that are just that; excuses that are likely not the truth. If Eddie’s fanbase was unwilling or unable to buy tickets for this amount of money, the tickets would not be 75 dollars. Although I think it goes against the image of Eddie as the people’s musician (this certainly isn’t something Ian Mackaye would do, for example), I don’t think it’s important enough to rail about it forever. I will however note that one of the reasons I may be unable to see Eddie is that I spent what little money I’ve been able to save on other tickets for bands like R.E.M., Dave Matthews Band, My Morning Jacket, Wilco, and Radiohead. Funny trivia, all of these bands cost less than Eddie will. That’s I think is a little extreme, when I’m able to get pretty close to the stage for some of the most popular critically-acclaimed bands of our time and may be shut out of an acoustic performance. However, Eddie can charge what he wants, and the West Coast tour obviously showed there will be a demand for it.

However, what pisses me off are posts like this one, this high-and-mighty bullshit. Eddie’s “not playing for college kids?” Who the hell do you think gave this band their start in the first place? It was high-schoolers and college kids, teenagers and twenty-somethings, all of them without much money. This band was not so high and mighty then. What changed? Well, many of those broke teenagers became successful upper/middle class employees, who then became supervisors, so on and so forth. In short, you got money. Congratulations. But before you spout arrogant nonsense like you did, think about how there are many teenagers and college kids who may like Pearl Jam, and may go to a concert, but will now not go considering the prices. Last I heard, Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam don’t play for only certain people that have a certain amount of money in their bank account. I just wonder sometimes how people got to be fans of such a political and socially-oriented band when you can post something like that. Pretty ridiculous.

Sincerely,

One of those broke college kids that Eddie isn’t touring for

I just wish he was coming to Detroit.

All I can say after seeing Ed both nights at Berkeley, $75 is 100% worth it for "the experience." It is an "experience," be very sure of that. You will walk out of there dragging your jaw on the ground. Get there early, see Liam, and settle into your chair for an awakening. Ed is the truth.

$75 is nothing compared to what these tickets will go for on the open market ie ebay, stubhub, ticketfast, etc.

The tickets will sell out in less then a minute in some cases so $75 is more then fair if you ask me.

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

How much do I think it costs to rent out a theatre?

-Much less than it costs to rent out Madison Square Garden

How much do I think it costs to pay Ed's crew and the union guys at the venue?

-Much less than it costs to pay Pearl Jam's crew and the union guys repsonsible for the saftey of 20,000 people.


So why the high prices?

Traveling costs, equipment transport, insurance, etc...

I'm sure it is less than a full blown PJ show, with less equipment, etc.. but most things have a base or minimum price no matter what you do.. therefore, I would believe that in relationship to a PJ show, the costs would be higher, percentage-wise.. Also, the revenue generated in a small venue is much less than that of an Arena that seats 20-30k. What it all boils down to is, do you want to pay the price or not? There will be folks that miss out on tix no matter how hard they try to throw their 150.00 at the 10C and go through a scalper and pay hundreds.. 75.00 is OK with me.

Peace

digster wrote:

This is definite, but what I find a little strange is how people try to excuse the ticket price, to show that Eddie had know hand in this or that he has no choice but to charge this much. Basically, to show that the same reasoning behind this price is what gave the fans affordable tickets in the nineties and the early part of this decades. I'm sorry, but I just think that's BS.

They could certainly do this tour for a cheaper ticket price, but they know that people will pay this much so they want to make more money than they would have. I guess there's no problem with that, but let's call it what it is. They're not charging 75 because it's a smaller venue, etc...they're charging this much because they can.

And if I can get my boss to pay me Ed's salary for my work, would I be wrong? It's his career.. this is how the man makes his living. Should he starve on the side of the road in between gigs to make the fans happy? Maybe we won't feel good until we know he makes minimum wage.. maybe he should entertain everyone for free? And I should go to my nine to five for free. Makes sense. It seems like people only think that the band is working when they are on stage.. If this was the case, there would be no material to play at these so called overpriced gigs. They don't just get paid for 2-3 hours of stage time a couple days a week a couple months a year.

Peace

Just an after thought, but this stuff about prices in the 90's.. does anyone recall the price of a gallon of gas then? A pack of smokes? A pound of hamburger, or a whole chicken? AVOCADOS!! I used to buy a bag of ten avocados for a dollar! The times they are a changin' my friends.. and they have been. We all need to make more just to live, including Ed, Mike, Jeff, Stone, Matt.. bleh.

digster wrote:

Look, I'm not angry about it. You're absolutely right that Ed can charge whatever he wants, and if he has enough people that will pay the ticket charge, then good for him. As someone put it earlier, that is capitalism after all. But ease up on the dramatics. They'd all be doing all right and they would pull a profit if the tickets were 20-25 dollars lower; otherwise, how can one explain all the ticket prices that are lower than Eddie's?

Now obviously due to demand Eddie is charging more than the band from Wisconsin doing a cross-country tour for ten bucks a show, but both tours have expenses. Eddie's acoustic tour is low-maintenance; he wouldn't be on the curb if he lowered the prices. This is exactly what I was talking about; I love this attitude that he had no choice or that there'd be no profit if tickets weren't this high. Of course there would be; the type of fanbase Eddie has means he can charge it and people will pay which means more profit for the artist, management and crew. It's the same reason Neil Young can charge over 150 bucks for his shows; his fanbase is primarily older and retired with alot of money in the bank. Unfortunately, this means that some fans, especially younger fans such as myself, don't buy tickets and don't get to experience the show. But as you said, Eddie is able to charge this, and that's fine.

Sorry, I realize that Ed won't be sitting on the road side starving, but it just seems a bunch of fans here won't be happy unless it's that way.. yet they profess to love the art that PJ and/or Ed is making. It's very odd to me. I try to give as much support to any endeavor that I love to keep it going... to make it worthwhile to the performers.

I'm not so much arguing with you than just a particular mindset here. In fact, I don't really see it arguing at all as opposed to just trying to point out that yes, there are costs involved and yes, Ed does want to profit from his efforts, as do we all.

Peace