FWM: Touring This Year? - Page 2

dissention · #16 02-08-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catinthedark

I don't know much about the music biz, and maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the four of them have anything to do with the inflated ticket prices. If you go back and read articles from around the time of The Dance, Lindsey was specifically asked about the ticket prices, and he made a crack about the exhorbitant price of Eagles tickets ($150) and said Fleetwood Mac would never be asking that kind of money if he had anything to do with it. Here in Canada, the price was $150 for top tickets for this tour. I can't remember what my US tickets were - but I know by the time I put exchange on, they were way more than $150. I think one was $181. I think the people in charge see FM as a band with a potentially wealthy audience. Older, established, probably for the most part professional. That spells $$ - and they (the industry officials) probably figure if they can get it, they'll charge it.

As for touring... I would love to see any touring - anything that gets them out there and closer to me!

But I'm also dying for a new Stevie album, a new Lindsey album, and more so, a Buckingham-Nicks II album. My biggest fear is that we've seen their last tour....

They have everything to do with ticket prices, dear.

catinthedark · #17 02-08-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

They have everything to do with ticket prices, dear.

You know this.... how?

Darling?

Honestly, I think there really are a lot of business dealings and such that artists are left out of. The music biz is not at all about the craft or the art or the creativity. That's the artist's part (real artists, not the pre-fab Britneys et al). The rest of it is all controlled by the money-makers. To them, artists are "product" and tours are "marketing opportunities." I think they set the prices, not the performers. They look at the numbers, they crunch them, they say this is what you have to charge to break even, this is what you have to charge to make a profit. We'd be silly and naive to think FM toured for... 15 months was it?.... because they couldn't stand to get off the road, or because there was huge demand. Sadly, they needed to add those dates to make back what was spent. It wasn't about what they wanted to do - it was dictated by the industry officials.

strandinthewind · #18 02-08-2005, 01:23 PM

I think they are aware of the ticket costs and they must on some level know. I base this one:

the amount they get per show (WELL over $200,000 for the four)

the private 727 (as opposed to a bus

)

the luxury suites (drops in the bucket IMO)

the 10 or more backing musicians/singers - etc.

and many other perks.

I do not begrudge them one bit as I would do the same. AND - apparently they priced themselves correctly because the market sustained the price for the most part in that the tour sold well - not sold out mind you - but well enough.

dissention · #19 02-08-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catinthedark

I think they set the prices, not the performers.

The artists are the ones who are really calling the shots when it comes to ticket prices, look no further than the Rolling Stones and Fleetwood Mac. Fleetwood Mac had a contract to get a minimum of $750k a show. That's what set their ticket prices.

dissention · #20 02-08-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think they are aware of the ticket costs and they must on some level know. I base this one:

the amount they get per show (WELL over $200,000 for the four)

the private 727 (as opposed to a bus

)

the luxury suites (drops in the bucket IMO)

the 10 or more backing musicians/singers - etc.

and many other perks.

I do not begrudge them one bit as I would do the same. AND - apparently they priced themselves correctly because the market sustained the price for the most part in that the tour sold well - not sold out mind you - but well enough.

Well, of course you would.

strandinthewind · #21 02-08-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Well, of course you would.

I do not know of anyone who would not. They might say they would not - but let me see them in the same situation

Again, the market bore the price. They were accurate

dissention · #22 02-08-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not know of anyone who would not. They might say they would not - but let me see them in the same situation

I'm not in that situation, so I couldn't really say, but as of right now I wouldn't. It's just a waste of a lot of money and I wouldn't need massages and luxurious suites to keep myself pampered on the road. Get me a nice bus and I'm fine (because I don't fly anyways).

Sort of reminds me of my neighbor who just got a plasma TV. Why buy a TV for thousands of dollars when you can just get a regular one for a couple hundred? It's a waste to me, but it's their money.

dissention · #23 02-08-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, the market bore the price. They were accurate

Doesn't make them any less greedy.

But they're a corporate rock outfit, that's what they're supposed to be like.

strandinthewind · #24 02-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . Sort of reminds me of my neighbor who just got a plasma TV. Why buy a TV for thousands of dollars when you can just get a regular one for a couple hundred? It's a waste to me, but it's their money.

a plasma tv when we cannot fund education

- Thus, my point about the $40 million inaug.

strandinthewind · #25 02-08-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Doesn't make them any less greedy.

But they're a corporate rock outfit, that's what they're supposed to be like.

Greed is subjective. There is no litmus test.

dissention · #26 02-08-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

a plama tv when we cannot fund education

- Thus, my point about the $40 million inaug.

And my point being that while it's their money, it doesn't make it any less disgusting and tacky.

strandinthewind · #27 02-08-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

And my point being that while it's their money, it doesn't make it any less disgusting and tacky.

But can you apply that standard to yourself. You have never ever bought anything you could have done without

dissention · #28 02-08-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Greed is subjective. There is no litmus test.

That's right. And they embody my definition of greed.

strandinthewind · #29 02-08-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

That's right. And they embody my definition of greed.

But your life would to someone else - thus my point of who the hell am I to tell someone what to charge or how to spend their money lest the same standard be applied to me

dissention · #30 02-08-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But can you apply that standard to yourself. You have never ever bought anything you could have done without

Of course I have, everyone has. But I see a small difference between buying a shirt you don't need or buying a CD you don't need and throwing a $40 million party you don't need. They're both wasteful, but they're very different extremes of wastefulness.