Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:59 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:44 pm
Posts: 251
downer mydnyte wrote:
Everyone in the music industry knows you can make a modest living without jacking up ticket prices. Thing is, they have chosen to be in cahoots with the major corporations. They have to make a big profit. Most of these boring old farts are in it to make as much money as they possibly can.

If Dweezil wasn't in it for the money he'd be playing original material. Right? He'd be in it for the music. When you're in it for the music you create new music.

I'm not criticizing him for being in it for the money. It makes a lot of sense. Just don't try to tell me he's contributing anything to music. That is, unless a watered down version of something that was once vital and awesome in it's original form is considered a contribution to music.


Couldn't have said it better.

Disco.... You are wrong ! $150 :shock: for even a FRANK concert is still too much today, much less a cover band playing Franks music . I refuse to pay it. For anyone. It's just not worth it. :smoke:

_________________
Ob'dewlla 'x
Bob is a douche !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
OBDULA X wrote:
Couldn't have said it better.

Disco.... You are wrong ! $150 :shock: for even a FRANK concert is still too much today, much less a cover band playing Franks music . I refuse to pay it. For anyone. It's just not worth it. :smoke:


No, I'm not wrong. If YOU don't want to pay $150 to see a concert, that's fine (in virtually all cases, I wouldn't either). But that's just YOUR opinion. The market isn't based on YOUR opinion.

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

In almost all cases, the scaling of ticket prices are based on what the particular market will bear for any given artist(s).

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 3:42 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: The Short Forest
Here's to hoping there's a Buffalo or Rochester show booked that same week.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:18 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3217
Location: Between the Badges
"What the market can bear" bears little resemblence to what is sold when it comes to concert tickets. Which market, the one in which teenagers can't take part in unless they have rich parents? Didn't always used to be the case, so the market must be either multiple markets or one multi-faceted market that changes constantly. How about the market where scalpers buy tickets in bulk then charge rich people many times over the price that the other market previously priced them at? What about the pavilion seats that don't sell, only to be occupied by lawn seat purchasers during showtime? Looks like the market got the wrong price on those. What about the market demand made not by those in the market but by those who would seek "demand", such as kids who have favorite Disney tv shows demanding to see their favorite stars? Child demand? They demand what they are told to demand. In some cases, the market can bear much more than what many bars charge at the door. Other cases, the market can bear less since shows often don't sell optimum amounts of tickets. It seems that "what the market will bear" is tantamount to "what you can shake em down for or go broke trying".

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
"What the market can bear" bears little resemblence to what is sold when it comes to concert tickets. Which market, the one in which teenagers can't take part in unless they have rich parents? Didn't always used to be the case, so the market must be either multiple markets or one multi-faceted market that changes constantly. How about the market where scalpers buy tickets in bulk then charge rich people many times over the price that the other market previously priced them at? What about the pavilion seats that don't sell, only to be occupied by lawn seat purchasers during showtime? Looks like the market got the wrong price on those. What about the market demand made not by those in the market but by those who would seek "demand", such as kids who have favorite Disney tv shows demanding to see their favorite stars? Child demand? They demand what they are told to demand. In some cases, the market can bear much more than what many bars charge at the door. Other cases, the market can bear less since shows often don't sell optimum amounts of tickets. It seems that "what the market will bear" is tantamount to "what you can shake em down for or go broke trying".


That's nice.

But the last time I checked, no one was holding a gun to anyone's head to pay top dollar to see their favourite artists. And again, in the vast majority of cases, prices are scaled based on supply and demand. If not enough seats are filled to meet the projected net profit/gross, prices will drop (that includes scalper tix too). And a good example of that is included in my Prince review I just posted. When you say that it didn't always used to be the case...well, demand didn't used to be this high either.

I don't know why so many people don't understand supply and demand. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying it's the way it works...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:21 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3217
Location: Between the Badges
You can keep Prince. Sure, he's talented, but bores me to death, kinda like blanket statements about supply and demand.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Disco Boy wrote:
When you say that it didn't always used to be the case...well, demand didn't used to be this high either.


I'm not so sure about that. Demand for concert tickets seemed pretty high in the 1980s when many big bands were often playing two sold-out nights at the Richfield Coliseum (about 18,000 seats) in the greater Cleveland market (where I grew up). The Coliseum is gone now, so most big bands play at Quicken Loans Arena (about the same size). However, rarely do any bands play two nights there.

In my high school years (1983-87), I attended almost forty concerts, most of them big shows. No current high school student could afford to see that many concerts now, unless they are working part-time at least twenty hours a week (which I was not -- I babysat my younger brother for a dollar an hour, and occasionally cut the grass at a local cemetery for $3/hr, yet I still could afford to see all these shows and usually buy a concert shirt and tour program too). All tickets were the same price, whether you were on the floor or in the nosebleeds (unless you bought scalped tickets, of course, which I did not). And parking was free, unlike the $10 fees (and higher) at the parking garages by Quicken Loans Arena.

Plus, TicketMaster charged only a dollar per ticket in the 1980s. Boy, am I bumming myself out and feeling old. :cry:

I wonder how many concerts the average high school kid sees these days.

But you are right, DB. These prices will stay high as long as people are willing to pay them. Sure, I wanted to see Roger Waters a couple years ago, but not for $200 (especially when I saw him in 1985 and 1987 for much less). Today, the most I will pay for a ticket is about $65, and I only pay that amount about once every three years. Luckily, most of the touring acts that I like now aren't that popular and play at small halls for $25 or less.

Full disclosure: I saw ZPZ in 2007. The ticket was around $60 (including service charge), but I went for free thanks to a friend. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gone. I saw FZ three times for much cheaper. Why would I pay so much more to see a substitute? I'd rather spend that money on ZFT -- FZ releases.

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
FalseDichotomy wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
When you say that it didn't always used to be the case...well, demand didn't used to be this high either.


I'm not so sure about that. Demand for concert tickets seemed pretty high in the 1980s when many big bands were often playing two sold-out nights at the Richfield Coliseum (about 18,000 seats) in the greater Cleveland market (where I grew up). The Coliseum is gone now, so most big bands play at Quicken Loans Arena (about the same size). However, rarely do any bands play two nights there.


Demand = ticket sales gross. Attendance doesn't. Attendance is adjustable based on how the prices are scaled or set, after promoters determine what the ticket sales gross is projected to be. And yes, attendance was higher for most shows back in the '70s & '80s when concerts were more affordable. But generally speaking, that's because demand wasn't as high then...

FalseDichotomy wrote:
In my high school years (1983-87), I attended almost forty concerts, most of them big shows. No current high school student could afford to see that many concerts now, unless they are working part-time at least twenty hours a week (which I was not -- I babysat my younger brother for a dollar an hour, and occasionally cut the grass at a local cemetery for $3/hr, yet I still could afford to see all these shows and usually buy a concert shirt and tour program too). All tickets were the same price, whether you were on the floor or in the nosebleeds (unless you bought scalped tickets, of course, which I did not). And parking was free, unlike the $10 fees (and higher) at the parking garages by Quicken Loans Arena.

Plus, TicketMaster charged only a dollar per ticket in the 1980s. Boy, am I bumming myself out and feeling old.

I wonder how many concerts the average high school kid sees these days.


First of all, tickets weren't tier-priced as often back then because the prices were so cheap. Secondly, tickets weren't only a dollar in the '80s. And lastly, you have to remember that most artists, at least in rock, that are arena/shed draws are classic acts with older and more affluent fan-bases. There's actually only about a dozen or so rock artists that have been established in the past 20 or so years that can fill arenas/sheds (10,000-30,000 capacity venues), let alone stadiums (30,000-80,000+ capacity venues). Whereas, teens generally listen to / follow artists that are nowhere near as popular and don't have massive and/or dedicated fan-bases in comparison.

FalseDichotomy wrote:
But you are right, DB. These prices will stay high as long as people are willing to pay them.


Yep...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:41 am
Posts: 442
Location: Centerville, Norway
ZPZ is actually a good example that supply and demand aren't the only forces determining price. Dweezil has stated again and again that he wants to reach a young audience and introduce them to Zappa's music. To consider only what you could squeeze out of the customers for profit goes against that idealistic purpose, because the highest possible price of the market would in many cases scare away the youngsters. If Dweezil's true to his word, he must consider this in some cases. And that's just one simple example of idealistic considerations possibly influencing price. A seller can decide if he wants to give the buyers a good deal or not. Call it hippie ethos or what you will. Everybody's world doesn't revolve around the dollar.

_________________
If I'm not alone... How long have I been asleep?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
DC Boogie wrote:
ZPZ is actually a good example that supply and demand aren't the only forces determining price. Dweezil has stated again and again that he wants to reach a young audience and introduce them to Zappa's music. To consider only what you could squeeze out of the customers for profit goes against that idealistic purpose, because the highest possible price of the market would in many cases scare away the youngsters. If Dweezil's true to his word, he must consider this in some cases. And that's just one simple example of idealistic considerations possibly influencing price. A seller can decide if he wants to give the buyers a good deal or not. Call it hippie ethos or what you will. Everybody's world doesn't revolve around the dollar.


I'm aware of what Dweezil's stated. But the 30 and under demographic comprise of such a small percentage of Zappa fans, that they're barely picked up on the radar. Also, promoters basically already know what ZPZ's demand is and follow the rules of supply and demand accordingly, just like almost everyone else. So I fail to see your point...?

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Disco Boy wrote:
...And a good example of that is included in my Prince review I just posted...


The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
You can keep Prince. Sure, he's talented, but bores me to death, kinda like blanket statements about supply and demand.


Let me guess...his favorite song is...

Purple vein, purple vein.
Purple vein, purple vein.
Purple vein, purple vein.

I only wanted to see you underneath my purple vein.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:44 pm
Posts: 251
DC Boogie wrote:
ZPZ is actually a good example that supply and demand aren't the only forces determining price. Dweezil has stated again and again that he wants to reach a young audience and introduce them to Zappa's music. To consider only what you could squeeze out of the customers for profit goes against that idealistic purpose, because the highest possible price of the market would in many cases scare away the youngsters. If Dweezil's true to his word, he must consider this in some cases. And that's just one simple example of idealistic considerations possibly influencing price. A seller can decide if he wants to give the buyers a good deal or not. Call it hippie ethos or what you will. Everybody's world doesn't revolve around the dollar.


We all know Dweezil is true to his word. Ya, right !

_________________
Ob'dewlla 'x
Bob is a douche !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 20733
Location: Somewhere in time
OBDULA X wrote:
We all know Dweezil is true to his word. Ya, right !



That train ain't never late... :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Disco Boy wrote:
tickets weren't only a dollar in the '80s.



No shit, Sherlock. I was referring to TicketMaster's service charge per ticket.

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Disco Boy wrote:
you have to remember that most artists, at least in rock, that are arena/shed draws are classic acts with older and more affluent fan-bases. There's actually only about a dozen or so rock artists that have been established in the past 20 or so years that can fill arenas/sheds (10,000-30,000 capacity venues), let alone stadiums (30,000-80,000+ capacity venues). Whereas, teens generally listen to / follow artists that are nowhere near as popular and don't have massive and/or dedicated fan-bases in comparison.


Many arena concerts that I saw in the 1980s were by new-at-the-time bands. U2 sold out the Coliseum in 1985. Prince sold out two nights in 1984. And the audience was largely teens and college students, hardly affluent fan bases. Prices weren't tiered because promoters hadn't become totally consumed by greed yet, and the precedent hadn't been set yet by The Eagles' reunion tour (first big tour to blatantly gouge their fan base. They succeeded, and other big bands and promoters followed suit).

There was more demand for live music in the 1980s, for large and small shows and for local band gigs too. Why? Rock radio was still influential. MTV was breaking new bands. Today, rock radio is anemic at best, and MTV plays about ten music videos a day.

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Good article here:

http://internetfm.com/2012/09/will-conc ... op-rising/

"[A] prime seat to see the Beatles in Chicago 1966 cost $5.75 – in today’s dollars this is $37.60 – almost ten times less than what you would pay for a huge act today.

Things were different then of course – touring was done mainly to promote record sales and tickets were priced below market purposely to make sure shows were safely sold out and to reward fans for their record-buying loyalty. This produced what economists call a consumer surplus. Some of that surplus was soaked up by the secondary ticketing market.

Then things changed last decade as recorded music revenue declined, bands toured more, and ticket prices went up – dramatically. According to Pollstar, in 2000 the average ticket prices was $41. In 2008, it was $67 – a 40% increase in just 8 years."

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2354
One more time for the herd....

Just because you can get away with fleecing your audience doesn't mean you have to do it.

Supply and demand is one of the simplest things in the world to understand. We all get it.

Point is, generosity and inclusiveness is apparently impossible for some to understand. Seems like DZPZ hides behind the lame "supply and demand" excuse. His prices often exclude the working class folks who need to prioritize their spending.

Dweezil wants to play for yuppies. He's as bad as Glen Frey and Don Henley. At least those assholes write their own material.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:44 pm
Posts: 251
His Mother is a Space Cadet......Now that's a good one !

_________________
Ob'dewlla 'x
Bob is a douche !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
You can keep Prince. Sure, he's talented, but bores me to death, kinda like blanket statements about supply and demand.


The Prince shows here earlier this week are a perfect example because it explains how supply & demand works. But it appears you'd seemingly rather stay ignorant on this issue and/or just don't want to know...?

FalseDichotomy wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
tickets weren't only a dollar in the '80s.



No shit, Sherlock. I was referring to TicketMaster's service charge per ticket.


Then why didn't you state that, genius? :roll:

FalseDichotomy wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
you have to remember that most artists, at least in rock, that are arena/shed draws are classic acts with older and more affluent fan-bases. There's actually only about a dozen or so rock artists that have been established in the past 20 or so years that can fill arenas/sheds (10,000-30,000 capacity venues), let alone stadiums (30,000-80,000+ capacity venues). Whereas, teens generally listen to / follow artists that are nowhere near as popular and don't have massive and/or dedicated fan-bases in comparison.


Many arena concerts that I saw in the 1980s were by new-at-the-time bands. U2 sold out the Coliseum in 1985. Prince sold out two nights in 1984. And the audience was largely teens and college students, hardly affluent fan bases. Prices weren't tiered because promoters hadn't become totally consumed by greed yet, and the precedent hadn't been set yet by The Eagles' reunion tour (first big tour to blatantly gouge their fan base. They succeeded, and other big bands and promoters followed suit).


1. While U2 and Prince were still establishing their fan-bases at that point in time, they were NOT new.
2. I said teens generally follow artists that are nowhere as popular as classic artists. And the classic artists / teens I was referring to are considered classic / teens now.
3. By the '80s, prices were already starting to be tiered more often because demand was already starting to grow relatively quicker than in the '70s.
4. The Eagles hadn't toured in 14 years by the time of their Hell Freezes Over reunion tour. And hence, since demand was through the roof, prices had to be very high. The reason why some others followed suit is because demand primarily dictated the price increase as well. Again, in almost all cases, promoters already know where demand is for any given artist before the concerts go on sale. And that's because they calculate it and then scale, set and/or tier the prices according to supply & demand. Sometimes concerts are underbooked or overbooked, due to routing issues or venue availability or even independent promoters who make rookie errors when calculating demand. But generally speaking, they're not wrong very often.

FalseDichotomy wrote:
There was more demand for live music in the 1980s, for large and small shows and for local band gigs too. Why? Rock radio was still influential. MTV was breaking new bands. Today, rock radio is anemic at best, and MTV plays about ten music videos a day.


The average level A arena / level B theatre draw in the '80s grossed $150,000-$200,000 / $40,000-$60,000 per night. The average level A arena / level B theatre draw today grosses $500,000-$600,000 / $125,000-$200,000 per night. So I fail to see your point?

FalseDichotomy wrote:
Good article here:

http://internetfm.com/2012/09/will-conc ... op-rising/

"[A] prime seat to see the Beatles in Chicago 1966 cost $5.75 – in today’s dollars this is $37.60 – almost ten times less than what you would pay for a huge act today.

Things were different then of course – touring was done mainly to promote record sales and tickets were priced below market purposely to make sure shows were safely sold out and to reward fans for their record-buying loyalty. This produced what economists call a consumer surplus. Some of that surplus was soaked up by the secondary ticketing market.

Then things changed last decade as recorded music revenue declined, bands toured more, and ticket prices went up – dramatically. According to Pollstar, in 2000 the average ticket prices was $41. In 2008, it was $67 – a 40% increase in just 8 years."


Interesting article but they make several mistakes, especially the part about purposely underbooking shows, which almost never happens. And...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Ticket prices would NOT be as high if demand was NOT as high.

This is as simple as apple pie to comprehend.

downer mydnyte wrote:
One more time for the herd....

Just because you can get away with fleecing your audience doesn't mean you have to do it.

Supply and demand is one of the simplest things in the world to understand. We all get it.

Point is, generosity and inclusiveness is apparently impossible for some to understand. Seems like DZPZ hides behind the lame "supply and demand" excuse. His prices often exclude the working class folks who need to prioritize their spending.

Dweezil wants to play for yuppies. He's as bad as Glen Frey and Don Henley. At least those assholes write their own material.


No, you don't get the rules of supply & demand at all. Because if you did, you wouldn't have posted the above. Also, ZPZ are NOT making as much as you think on the road any longer. The first two years ('06 & '07), they did well and equalled what FZ did during his final tours in the '80s. But since then, they've returned to most markets almost every single year, which eats away at demand. And because of this, ZPZ's demand is now 50-75% lower in most markets than it was first two years...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Prince sucks ass. Anybody who would admit to paying money to see and write a review about "The Artist Formerly and Continuously Known As A Hack" on a Frank Zappa forum, of all places, is a poser and probably jacks off to his picture of Brett Michaels that he keeps under his pillow at night.


Purple vein, purple vein...


Last edited by SPACEBROTHER on Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2863
Location: Chicago, sort of.
I like Prince in small doses. But the two ultimate tests are always (1) did I buy the CD, and (2) if I bought it, do I actually listen to it. Both answers are no....... If I listened to an entire album I'd be bored.

_________________
Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...


Last edited by Ronny's Noomies on Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:53 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3217
Location: Between the Badges
Disco Boy wrote:
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
You can keep Prince. Sure, he's talented, but bores me to death, kinda like blanket statements about supply and demand.


The Prince shows here earlier this week are a perfect example because it explains how supply & demand works. But it appears you'd seemingly rather stay ignorant on this issue and/or just don't want to know...?

Thats encouraging that you want me to read more of your writing, but I'm gonna stop at the Prince review even though you are confident that it holds the secrets of your economics understanding.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2354
Disco Boy wrote:
since demand was through the roof, prices had to be very high.

Not true.
Disco Boy wrote:
you don't get the rules of supply & demand at all.

You don't know how to read.

(edited for your enjoyment)

Controlling your own prices is certainly possible if you really care enough to participate.
High demand just means a lot of people who might want to go wont get in. If you charge a reasonable price, at least everyone has a fair chance at getting in. If you charge 400 dollars, you have simply excluded the working class types. You know, the ones who put you up there to begin with.

Or, these "artists" could change their bullshit, mainstream act and do something fresh and experimental which would drive fans away. Like, say, Coltrane did in the mid 60s.


Last edited by downer mydnyte on Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts: 976
Location: Austin
$80 for a Steely Dan ticket for this year - 2013. I wouldnt pay $150 but that is a good price for some damn fine music in my opinion.

_________________
Take a penny... give a shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Prince sucks ass. Anybody who would admit to paying money to see and write a review about "The Artist Formerly and Continuously Known As A Hack" on a Frank Zappa forum, of all places, is a poser and probably jacks off to his picture of Brett Michaels that he keeps under his pillow at night.


Purple vein, purple vein...


That's nice. And your lame-ass opinion about Prince is something I should consider...because?

Ronny's Noomies wrote:
I like Prince in small doses. But the two ultimate tests are always (1) did I buy the CD, and (2) if I bought it, do I actually listen to it. Both answers are no....... If I listened to an entire album I'd be bored.


Fair enough. But Prince is WAY better live. Trust me. I've seen him live 3 times now and those were the 3 best concerts I've ever attended. As far as I'm concerned, NO ONE touches him. Which, at least for me, is saying something, because he's not even my favourite artist (FZ is). However, he definitely places in my top 10...

The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
You can keep Prince. Sure, he's talented, but bores me to death, kinda like blanket statements about supply and demand.


The Prince shows here earlier this week are a perfect example because it explains how supply & demand works. But it appears you'd seemingly rather stay ignorant on this issue and/or just don't want to know...?

Thats encouraging that you want me to read more of your writing, but I'm gonna stop at the Prince review even though you are confident that it holds the secrets of your economics understanding.


There's no secrets. I've laid it all out for everyone to read.

downer mydnyte wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
since demand was through the roof, prices had to be very high.

Not true.


Yes, it is true.

downer mydnyte wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
you don't get the rules of supply & demand at all.

You don't know how to read.


No, it's just that you're not comprehending what I'm saying.

downer mydnyte wrote:
(edited for your enjoyment)

Controlling your own prices is certainly possible if you really care enough to participate.


Name one very popular artist that doesn't charge high prices. I'll wait here.

downer mydnyte wrote:
High demand just means a lot of people who might want to go wont get in. If you charge a reasonable price, at least everyone has a fair chance at getting in. If you charge 400 dollars, you have simply excluded the working class types. You know, the ones who put you up there to begin with.


Of course a lot of people won't get in if prices are high. But you act as though they're owed something. They're not. And almost no artist charges $400, unless it's a VIP package of some sort, which are a very small percentage of the total amount of tix sold.

downer mydnyte wrote:
Or, these "artists" could change their bullshit, mainstream act and do something fresh and experimental which would drive fans away. Like, say, Coltrane did in the mid 60s.


If Prince performed a hits tour, which would have to be in arenas, and not what he's currently doing, which is an intimate venue tour of mostly rock-oriented obscure tracks, B-sides, deep album cuts and a bunch of new material, he'd do TWICE the business. Neil Young, David Bowie, Peter Gabriel and others have done similar types of tours on a smaller scale as well...:roll:


Anyway, in short, blame the popularity of the artist, not the prices charged for high demand...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group