Chicago Tribune Article: "Fleetwood Mac, Revisited"

[strandinthewind]

Wow - this thread certainly has become interesting!!!!!!

I have said before and will always say - the correct price for anything that is non-essential to human life is what the market is willing to pay. In this case, the "market" for a FM concert is most of us fans and "we" apparently are willing to pay the asked price because the concerts on this tour are either sold out or close to it. In fact, most statistical models would indicate they could have charged 20% more, which is $150, for the same seats and left the other lesser priced seats the same price and gotten the same result in the end. So, FM clearly has not gotten the price of the tickets too expensive from a solely economic point of view.

A couple of people have argued that this is too greedy and have asserted a moral argument here. I, however, am unsure there is a significant moral point of view here (e.g. no one will starve, die, etc., if they do not see FM in concert). Leaving my apparent love for the band and my incessant concert going ( ) aside, FM clearly is an optional product in that not being able to see them live is not like being unable to afford food, water, etc. So, it is sort of like not being able to buy a $500 Versace belt when you cannot afford to see FM live. Is Versace immoral for charging $500 for a belt? I say no, they are not. In fact, I think if someone wants to pay $500 for a belt, so be it, despite my personal views on the subject. Remember, freedom of choice must work both ways to work at all (i.e. who am I to tell anyone how to spend their disposable income? ). Moreover, companies like Versace, Prada, etc., obviously have found a huge market that is more than willing and apparently able to pay for their non-essential services. Are they immoral for this? I say no. Are they greedy? I again say no because people are willingly paying for their craft, which can also be defined as art, even though I amy not like some of it, etc. Like FM, no one is forcing anyone to buy their non-essential product.

Having said that, does it suck if you cannot afford a $500 Versace belt and really, really want one. Yes, it does. Moreover, at what level does the greed stop? I am sure there are some people who would say FM is being greedy at $60 at ticket. Therein lies the rub.

P.S. I LOVE economic arguments, perhaps because in the end there usually is no one correct answer

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Tusk57
Carne, I meant by saying it's none of our business not about how high one has to pay to get a ticket (of course you should), but about how they spend the money they get from you buying said ticket!

OK, fair enough. I don't give a crap what they do with their money. But I do care how much ticket prices are, and I find it somewhat disingenuous for a band member to claim he/she doesn't know, or has nothing to do with ticket prices.

I agree with Sugar that this band doesn't really give a crap about the fans. Plain and simple.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

I agree with Sugar that this band doesn't really give a crap about the fans. Plain and simple.

Now someone is finally saying something sensible.

Also, it isn't so much that they're charging so much, it's the manner in which they are doing it. Look at Tom Petty and then look at Fleetwood Mac. Who's in it for the money and who's in it for having a good time and pleasing fans and loving music? We all know what Fleetwood Mac is in it for. Like Stevie so eloquently put it:

"THIS ISN'T ABOUT ART, IT'S ABOUT FINANCES."

[Tusk57]

If they are only in it for the money, than how do you explain those charity concerts Stevie gives in Phoenix every year? And even Lindsey plays in them from time to time. I know they can't rival Mother Theresa but cut them some slack, please!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
. . . Like Stevie so eloquently put it:

"THIS ISN'T ABOUT ART, IT'S ABOUT FINANCES."

I still think there is far more to that line than VH-1 showed. I think she was mimicing someone based on her delivery and body actions when she said it. She could also be talking about anything from the current plot of All of My Children to her arguing not to sing Dreams in favor of another song on tour. Until we see the whole segment, we will never really know.

Assuming she meant that she is in it only for the money, I say more power to her for having the nads to say it.

[Les]

Originally posted by blodge
Wow, some of you have gotten uncharitable in your assessment of Lindsey's truthfulness.

I tend to agree with you.

There is no hypocrisy between what he wrote in WTWCT and the ticket prices.

Lindsey said: "I understand what you're saying about the equation between ticket prices and the use of the word 'greed,' and, yes, what we're doing is part of the corporate machinery, but I would question whether there is really a contradiction there. We are part of a large-scale band that cannot pretend it is anything other than that.

He frankly admitted it, which is why he said there isn't a contradiction in what he sang and what the tickets cost. He copped to it. Fleetwood Mac as a business is very much a part of the corporate world.

As for whether or not he really knows what ticket prices are like...I can easily believe he doesn't. I can also easily believe that he could know if he wanted to, but chooses to keep a distance from those issues. This is a guy who has continually discussed his extreme distaste for "the machinery" of being in a mainstream band for going on 25 years. He's rarely, if ever, enjoyed anything about the business end of the music business. His career is marked largely (though not entirely) by artistic choices that were not the most brilliant business choices because he tends to marry himself to the art and divorce himself from the rest. His answer, while certainly not the most inspiring thing he could have said, and not the smartest way to conduct "business", is, I think, at least honest.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Les
. . . As for whether or not he really knows what ticket prices are like...I can easily believe he doesn't. I can also easily believe that he could know if he wanted to, but chooses to keep a distance from those issues. This is a guy who has continually discussed his extreme distaste for "the machinery" of being in a mainstream band for going on 25 years. He's rarely, if ever, enjoyed anything about the business end of the music business. His career is marked largely (though not entirely) by artistic choices that were not the most brilliant business choices because he tends to marry himself to the art and divorce himself from the rest. His answer, while certainly not the most inspiring thing he could have said, and not the smartest way to conduct "business", is, I think, at least honest.

Although I see your point about LB not knowing about the actual price of the tickets, etc., I still think he must have had some clue given the vast production that he admitted this venture is.

However, LB's own comments contradict him having no interest in the accounting side of it all. He is the one that said more than once that doing The Dance tour certainly would give a boost in interest and therefore help the commercial marketability of his then upcoming solo project. Remember, as great as that record was, LB lost money on OOTC and the subsequent tour. He also said he offered to put up the money to make SYW a double CD. Finally, I am sure his manager had to get approval from him regarding his per concert fee before agreeing to it. So, I think he clearly knows a lot about the commercial aspects especially when he is with FM (as opposed to solo) and there are other fish and their shark managers in the sea with him and his own shark(s)

I do think, however, they are all great artists that realize that to compete, they have to be commercially viable - I do not slam them for this in the slightest as it is the way of the world

[Les]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
However, I have to say LB's own comments contradict him having no interest int he accounting saide of it all. He is the one that said more than once that doing The Dance tour certainly would give a boost in interest and therefore help the commercial marketability of his then upcoming solo project. He also said he offerered to put up the money to make SYW a double CD. Finally, I am sure his manager had to get approval from him regarding his per concert fee before agreeing to it. So, I think he clearly knows a lot about the commercial aspects especially when he is with FM and there are other fish and their shark managers in the sea with him and his own shark

I'm not saying he has no sense at all. Of course he's aware that he's got a much higher profile in FM than on his own.

But I'm not sure how his offering to absorb any losses for making SYW a double CD supports your argument. If anything, to me, that indicates again that he was thinking with his heart about the music he wanted to put out, not about what the "smart business move" was to make. Single CDs do sell better than doubles and his offering to personally absorb any losses says he was willing to lose money. Is that a smart business move? In relation to the decision to cut the album from 2 CDs to 1, Mick said (paraphrasing), "Lindsey is focused on the art and I understand that too, but at some point, I can be at least practical." This says to me that he thinks Lindsey is impractical and focused on the art too much in situations where he believes business decisions need to be made.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Les
I'm not saying he has no sense at all. Of course he's aware that he's got a much higher profile in FM than on his own.

But I'm not sure how his offering to absorb any losses for making SYW a double CD supports your argument. If anything, to me, that indicates again that he was thinking with his heart about the music he wanted to put out, not about what the "smart business move" was to make. Single CDs do sell better than doubles and his offering to personally absorb any losses says he was willing to lose money. Is that a smart business move? In relation to the decision to cut the album from 2 CDs to 1, Mick said (paraphrasing), "Lindsey is focused on the art and I understand that too, but at some point, I can be at least practical." This says to me that he thinks Lindsey is impractical and focused on the art too much in situations where he believes business decisions need to be made.

I am not saying LB is smart in business. In fact, there is a bunch of evidence is to the contrary As you correctly noted, LB seems on most levels to care about the music, etc. In fact, I think both LB and SN care very much about the artistic value of their music. I was just addressing your argument that LB is removed from the business aspect and concentrates mostly on the art. I think SN and LB are very aware of the business aspects of making music, which includes ticket prices. In fact, I praise them for being able to work in this scheme.

I just think the reporter in the article hit the nail on the head when he said, LB, I find it strange that you complain in the song about record company's being greedy and then you charge $125 for most of the tickets to your concerts. I think the implication was LB and FM are perceived as greedy and hypocritical because they are living like royalty on the backs of their fans and then have the gall to call other's greedy when it suits them. I guess the implication is there is a distaste for FM to live in such a way. I do not share that distaste because, as I mentioned earlier, if people are willing to pay for it - more power to them. Moreover, all musicians make money off of their fans and, as I mentioned earier, it is somewhat impossible to have everyone agree on where to draw the line over which they must cross to be perceived by everyone as not being greedy.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Tusk57
If they are only in it for the money, than how do you explain those charity concerts Stevie gives in Phoenix every year? And even Lindsey plays in them from time to time. I know they can't rival Mother Theresa but cut them some slack, please!

I wasn't referring to Stevie necessarily, I was referring to the band as a whole. Stevie is the most in-tune with the fans and she knows the business because, unlike the others, she didn't stop being a part of it after The Dance. She knows prices. And I'm sure that Lindsey loves being a part of fundraising for such a good cause; that's not disputed. But that doesn't disguise everything else like Jonathan Todd, the fan club, ticket prices, and willingness to sell-out.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I still think there is far more to that line than VH-1 showed. I think she was mimicing someone based on her delivery and body actions when she said it. She could also be talking about anything from the current plot of All of My Children to her arguing not to sing Dreams in favor of another song on tour. Until we see the whole segment, we will never really know.

Assuming she meant that she is in it only for the money, I say more power to her for having the nads to say it.

I taped the show and after watching, rewound that part and watched it again. She was as serious as serious can be and the look on her face looked to be anger. As infuriating as Erica Kane can be, I doubt it was about AMC or her relationship with Lindsey or even a particular song. But Stevie hit the nail on the head, it is about finances, not art. JT and the fan club isn't art, it's an embarassment.

Anyways, she watches GH!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
. . .. Anyways, she watches GH!

LMAO - I could not remember which one she said she watched when she was on Rosie

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I guess the implication is there is a distaste for FM to live in such a way. I do not share that distaste because, as I mentioned

I don't think the reporter took it that far. The intent was clearly to point out that Lindsey was railing against something that he appears to be participating in. To wit, why lambast the industry when you're jumping right into bed with it to charge tickets prices on the high side?

Then the reporter really presses, asking him why he's chosen to not involve himself in pricing. Again, perfectly legitimate question. Listen, buddy, you're in a position to do something about it, so why are you criticizing in one breath and in the next saying that you don't involve yourself in these matters?

I don't think the reporter was making a comment on Lindsey's or the other members' lifestyles.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by trackaghost
. . . Designer labels are elitist, how disappointing that you equate them with music. People are willing to pay for designer labels, so that justifies the price? well maybe but I always like to think artists want their music to be for everyone and not just for those who can afford it, where the point about designer clothes is that they are to make a statement almost that you can afford it!

While I agree it is not a perfect one, it was just one of many analogies. Another one would be that no new car cost under $10,000 that I can think of. In fact, I think the average price of a new car is about $20,000, which is a huge amount of money to alot if not the majority of people. The car companies charge these prices because that is what the market is willing to pay even if they know that a certain percentage of the population cannot afford the $200 to $300 monthly payment associated with this lower $10,000 price. There are many more examples. In any event, I was just trying to say FM is getting the price they are asking and as long as they do, they will keep asking it.

Also, even though I am "guilty" of not letting it get in my concert going way, I agree the prices are too high. I think FM should do something like a few free concerts for fans that cannot afford a ticket, etc. But, we shall see if that ever happens

In any event, I agree with you that "I'm an idealist but I kinda want my singers, my artists, my idols, to be passionate about what they are doing, and want to do it regardless of how much they are being paid." It is just that I know all of FM is on that private 727, they all stay in suites at the best hotels, they all have the best things money can buy while on tour, etc. So, I have concluded that this reality has bludgeoned (sp?) me enough that when stars such as FM want all of the creature comforts mentioned - I have to pay for it if I want them to continue

[blodge]

Dissention,

I take it that you believe FM members to be micromanagers who made the decision to float meet and greets at outrageous prices, what price the album should go for, what price the tickets will go for, perhaps what merchandise will be offered, etc. Maybe you believe everything JT has done was done with their explicit approval.

How the heck did they ever get the time to put the album out and rehearse for the concerts?

I'm not saying they're totally divorced from this. LB had to know this was an expensive proposition to put this album out and take this band on tour. Does that mean he knew top seats should go for $140 or $150?

Even if they knew down to the penny how much everything was going to cost and how much they were going to charge, etc., you suggest that they obviously thought they were hot because they were willing to charge so much ... were they wrong? Are they not one of the great bands of all time?

FYI, here in Phoenix, we've had several bands come through here charging that kind of money. The Eagles are up after FM. I believe the top seats for the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney were even more money. I believe the Dixie Chicks were somewhat up there, too. Hell, I don't even think it was cheap to go see Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera, and I don't think anyone's going to remember them as two of music's great acts ... their fans today may well be embarrassed tomorrow that they were ever into those two.

I don't think any of us know for sure what LB or anyone from FM know about the business side of the operation. Maybe details. Maybe generalities. Maybe they keep themselves in the dark on purpose (which is possible.) We're all just flapping our gums (or exercising our fingers, in any case) when we talk/write about this.

I do know, as a journalist, that stars are sometimes insulated from the real world. It's unfortunate that this is so. Still, if they're going to get what the market bears for their talent, well most everyone here does on some scale or another. It doesn't necessarily make them greedy. It doesn't necessarily make them elitist. It probably puts them in danger of becoming either or both, like many stars are. But you'll have to show me more than just your conjecture that they had to know about prices, JT's shenanigans, etc., for me to believe that is absolutely so.