Fading celebrity and wackily out-of-proportion ticket prices

Tickets for The Eagles in Providence Saturday were $127.50, $89.50, $47.50 and $27. Crazy? I think so, but 14,000 people didn't. So who's wrong?

And don't forget that many of these "fading celebrities" are not fading celebrities to their longtime fans, many of whom are older and might have a few dollars to rub together and may have waited years to see their heroes (the Eagles show was the first "reunion" show in Providence, so it was their first show here in more than 20 years).

I hate to sound capitalist about this, but, well, this is a purely capitalistic situation. And since the response of rapacious record companies as well as of many downloaders is "musicians make all their money touring anyway," well, now what?

Mostly I wanted to marvel at the idea of paying 25 bucks for Digable damn Planets.

Okay, but this doesn't really explain the sudden spike in ticket prices I started noticing a few years ago.

I mean, compare that price to hooker or drug money, and much better bang for your buck. So to speak.

I know a guy who's actually going...

Trust me, both artists and promoters are very cautious about ticket pricing. You can't go beyond what the market will bear, otherwise you end up with an empty room. As for feeling "taken advantage of," well, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Any salesman will tell you that there's no such thing as an objective "good" deal or "bad" deal, there is only the perception of one or the other. So, feeling like a sucker is essentially entirely up to you.

Now, if someone can point out an instance where an artist was charging a (perceived to be) "gouging" price and the venue was empty, what you've got is a horrendous failure to read the market. Nothing more, nothing less. That happens all the time. The most egregious examples I can think of would be the occasional large scale outdoor venue event in the summertime that doesn't sell. MANY of those end up with free ticket giveaways just to make the crowd look respectable.

This is why I'd rather see a local band 99.9% of the time. For 5 bucks you can see a band up close and personal and hang out with them after the show.
Once in a while you'll see something totally brilliant and it's much more rewarding than paying $50-$100 to see some "big star" go through the motions.
The last name band I went to see was They Might Be Giants in 2001. It was $10 and totally worth it.

Yeah, sorry. You got it in first by being concise while I was bloviating.

-- Rick Massimo (rmassim...), March 24th, 2005.

it's cool, you win because I just learned a new word! bloviating! awesome!

After a certain point I think people are stupid to pay the high prices, but hey, to each his own.

Haha, yeah I thought bloviating was a good one, too.

OMG ROFFLE, I hope you aren't making that up.

But, as many people have pointed out that there is an audience willing to pay that much for older acts (althought $100+ for U2 is obscene...I can go rent a Mel Gibson movie much cheaper if I want to see pompous proselytizing)....

I wasn't willing to pay $25 to see Interpol. I've missed them about three times now.

In NC, where I'm originally from, the Ticketmaster markup is terrible...my $30 White Stripes tickets cost more like $60. Seeing what a fucking nutcase Jack White is in person is pretty amusing, but Whirlwind Heat was their opener--unbearable (IMO, of course).

Exactly, these are for SAPS. Anyone who thinks those shows are worth it needs to get a life and stop being such a fanboy, or be a fanboy of someone who's not famous enough to headline the fucking Shoreline Amphitheatre.
I've sort of promised myself not to ever shell out for another of these. If you can't see the band with your own eyes, give it up.

And I paid $35.00 for Lou Reed at Crobar....

And also $35.00 to see the Motorhead/Monster Magnet show at B.B. King's.

I am someone who paid something like $30-$40 to see the Strokes at the Universal Ampitheater last year. They remain thirty or forty of the best dollars I have ever spent on anything, including drugs, in my entire life.

Oh wait I take that back! I spent $48 or so on Radiohead, because everyone went on about how I had to see Radiohead live, and I figured, well, if I'm going to a big arena show, it might as well be Radiohead. And yeah, they were all right, but I definitely wasn't feeling the vibe of standing in a concrete amphitheatre, hundreds of feet away from the stage. I don't really understand why people like going to big shows like that -- most of the best shows I've been to have had a certain intimacy (even if the venue is packed, it's better when the crowd is close to the stage and the band can interact with them).

I paid a good amount to go to see Smokin Grooves (Outkast, Lauryn Hill, Roots) at the Shoreline and that was the only show I ever checked out at that venue. That place is so fucking massive I just dont get the point. I also went to smoke blunts, so that added to the appeal as well.

I paid around $50 to see Moz at the Universal Ampitheater a couple months ago and it wasnt that great. The spectacle was alright, but the music wasnt so great.

Seriously.