downer mydnyte wrote:
Some musicians choose to keep a low profile because with mass popularity comes mass compromise.
Just because you can get away with charging $200 for a concert ticket doesn't mean you have to do it. There are choices. Only a very few rock stars have actual guns to their backs.
While that can be true for some artists, for almost all artists, it's not. It's a business and 99% of the time it's based on supply & demand.
FalseDichotomy wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Btw, Mike Watt doesn't charge high prices simply because he's not that popular and wouldn't be able to.
Say that to Ian MacKaye. I dare you.

Ok.
Ian MacKaye could not charge high prices if his life depended on it either...
OBDULA X wrote:
Frank could have got alot more than he was getting even on the 88 tour.
In the markets that he hadn't played yet since the summer/fall North American leg was cancelled? Yes...especially since there would've been return engagements scheduled for a handful of larger markets. But definitely not for the vast of majority markets where he already played and wouldn't have played again on this tour because demand had already been met.
OBDULA X wrote:
I do understand supply and demand. More people are demanding lower ticket prices. Do The Stones or even Aerosmith NEED to charge So much for tickets ? Not even......Greed.
No, unfortunately, you don't understand it. The primary ingredient of supply and demand is net profit. And 99% of the time, there are no exceptions. Remember, promoters, booking agents, the band, crew, venue, venue employees, caterers, stockholders, etc., all take a slice of the pie. The Stones and Aerosmith (like almost all artists) charge what they do, because they know an x amount of people will pay an x amount of $$$ based on where their demand is at a given point in time. If they weren't that popular, they wouldn't get away with charging the prices they're charging and consequently would have to charge lower prices.
OBDULA X wrote:
Beacon Theatre
New York, NY
Dec. 17, 2010
$172,590
2,709 /
2,794
1 /
0
$95, $70, $45, $35
$63.71
Live Nation
In 3 years top price goes up $60....Holy shit !
Dude, ZPZ played 3 other shows in the NYC/NJ area earlier that year. Whereas, this year, so far there's only ONE show in the NYC/NJ area. That makes a difference and ultimately means prices HAVE to be higher...
downer mydnyte wrote:
DB doesn't seem to know the FACT that Watt could have easily (in the 80s and 90's) played the muzik biz game, censored himself, watered down his music, kissed muzik executive ass and been a rockstar if he had chosen that artistically bankrupt and shallow path.
Every professional cover band is in it for the money.That's fine but don't try to pretend it's anything more than a product. Or maybe it's the only way these geeks can get laid.
You don't seem to understand the FACT that I'm talking about his concert demand and that he couldn't charge high prices if his life depended on it. Musical integrity is a different issue altogether here...
_________________
ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM
Because of Obamination's spending & socialist BS, America and much of the world will endure one of the worst depressions in history in
5...4...3...2...