rolling stones take the cake, icing, and all the shit in

who in their right noggin would pay those prices to see them at mci? first you have to pay $100 to get the password, then upwards of $600 for a package seat, or $450 for a floor seat.

thanks mick, and the rest of you rest home veterans, for showing us how desperation will fuel your drug scarred veins of rock.

Originally posted by walkonby:
who in their right noggin would pay those prices to see them at mci?

frankly, if the market didn't exist they wouldn't be doing it.

they're also including $60 nosebleeds, which is a decent price for dad-rock cash-in tours these days

Wow. That is pretty sick. I really like the Stones from the late 60's up until about 1973, but that is really just vile that they would expect people to pay that much.

Originally posted by bearman:
that is really just vile that they would expect people to pay that much.

but are you surprised? didnt the stones set the gold standard in the early 90s for overpriced cash-in deals (whether it be $100 jackets or $200 tickets)?

seems like this is just a logical extension of what they've been about for the last 15 years or so

and you know the thing will sell out . . . with a second date added.

mikey tyson was able to sell out $1000 floor seats at mci. i love this town.

is the mummy still behind the drum kit?

he looks so brittle…i bet he breaks in half a la montgomery burns during this tour.

The Eagles I think were the ones to break the $150 mark on their reunion tour. Just because it's "logical" to be the next step doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's a concert! 2 hours of music. Let's look at it in perspective…it's 2 hours of entertaintment. Think about what $400 can buy in other terms (groceries, paying bills, etc.), and then it starts to make more sense. I have paid good money for shows, but after a certain point it just starts to be totally absurd to me and NOT worth it. True, some people will pay that, but to some of us it is mind-boggling…a leap of $100 compared to the tickets from a tour 3 years ago IS a significant jump. Even the $300 last time around seemed excessive to me.

Originally posted by bearman:
The Eagles I think were the ones to break the $150 mark on their reunion tour. Just because it's "logical" to be the next step doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's a concert! 2 hours of music. Let's look at it in perspective…it's 2 hours of entertaintment. Think about what $400 can buy in other terms (groceries, paying bills, etc.), and then it starts to make more sense. I have paid good money for shows, but after a certain point it just starts to be totally absurd to me and NOT worth it. True, some people will pay that, but to some of us it is mind-boggling…a leap of $100 compared to the tickets from a tour 3 years ago IS a significant jump. Even the $300 last time around seemed excessive to me.

Actually, I saw a Rolling Stones live show on HBO and it was close to 4 hours…however, only two of those hours were their classic tunes. The rest were from Mick and Keith's solo albums. So you are right of it being only 2 hrs of entertainment…

oh my god

this makes me sick.

I am sick in tired of these high priced cash in tours.

How come all these bands are trying to make money!?!?!?!!? imagine if we all started doing our jobs just for a paycheck!!!!!

hey, i totally agree with you bearman … but you and i both know there are plenty of flush baby boomers who have no problem ponying up the cash for the show

so if i were the stones, then why not take them for all they're worth? they know they're over the hill and no longer relevant, their live show is strictly nostalgia-fueled, so it's not like they're "depriving" lesser affluent fans of some kind of magic

if this was a band at the height of their relevance and power (and there are many 'modern' acts who charge outrageous prices), i would be rightfully indignant that they rape their fans … in this case, fuck, let them take the dumb rich folks for all they're worth

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
a band at the height of their relevance

what the hell are you talking about????

is there a way to gauge this? i dont get it. is there a "relevance-o-meter" so we can tell not only if a band is relevant or not, but WHEN they were relevant. thats so cool.

and here i thought u2 was sticking it to me.

Originally posted by walkonby:
and here i thought u2 was sticking it to me.

they are. and in 20 years, U2 shows will be $800!!!!

payday, bloody payday

where the royalty checks have no name (except bono)

Originally posted by sonickteam3:

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
a band at the height of their relevance

what the hell are you talking about????

is there a way to gauge this? i dont get it. is there a "relevance-o-meter" so we can tell not only if a band is relevant or not, but WHEN they were relevant. thats so cool.

oh you're such a contrarian! i love it!

let's see, i'll just look at the stones

last 3 studio albums since their "comeback":
1997 - bridges to babylon
1994 - voodoo lounge
1989 - steel wheels

all of these albums are solid, traditional throwbacks and all of them basically exist in a vacuum, unaffected by trends or currents in modern music … they could have been released in 1975 or 1980 and noone would have noticed the difference

on top of that, their last "great" album came in 1981 and it's generally accepted that the stones are a 60s/70s band who have stuck around, briefly dabbling in new-wave crappiness but for the most part playing the nostalgia card for 25 YEARS now

is there some strict "relevance-o-meter"? of course not, and using the words "relevant" or "irrelevant" when describing a band is unfortunate, but nonetheless it's widely accepted music vocab

and if you can't see that the stones were "relevant" in their 60s/early 70s heydey, and "irrelevant" (bad word, i know) now, then you're one stone short of a quarry.

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
oh you're such a contrarian! i love it!

and i love how you talk out of your ass all the time.

:)

you're a constant reminder why i dont read music magazines.

somebody go look on ebay and see how much someone already has two tickets for sale for the mci show. go mick, go keif.

Originally posted by sonickteam3:

Originally posted by walkonby:
and here i thought u2 was sticking it to me.

they are. and in 20 years, U2 shows will be $800!!!!

U2 is a perfect example, for the most part they've remained classicist throughout their career, but have managed to stay "relevant" in the modern music industry

it's a remarkable coup, and they're able to rake in the huge cash of "nostalgia" acts while still selling new albums and staying on magazine covers … more power to em

Is a band that sells 20,000 overpriced tickets relevant? Whether I want to think so or not, probably…. Relevant, popular, it's a sticky argument. Is Beyonce relevant? Is Usher relevant? They can sell the hell out of a concert, though.

Point is, they can sell the tickets. I'd say I find it amazing, but I just paid $200 to see U2, so who am I to point fingers…

-edit-

Better example, I paid close to $200 (I think…) to see Simon and Garfunkle. NO WAY they are still 'relevant,' whatever that means, but damn if they're not icons and I'd never seen them before.

Originally posted by sonickteam3:

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
oh you're such a contrarian! i love it!

and i love how you talk out of your ass all the time.

:)

you're a constant reminder why i dont read music magazines.

that's cute … so you disagree with what i said?