If you think paying $100 - $150 for a rock concert is too much...

[metaldad]

I think it's too much, but this comes from a guy that remembers paying $7.50 for a show

[treeduck]

I think it's too much, but this comes from a guy that remembers paying $7.50 for a show

Pah you'd pay $500 dollars just like that to get a look at Bieber's new show! It's Skullriffic

[Stan Getz]

To me I can't afford not to go! They're my favorite band since the late 70's, and even when times were bad I scrounged and found a way to see them or other bands I wanted to. If you're passionate about Rush...find a way...at this stage in their career there's no guarantee of more tours. Over the course of a lifetime whats money spent on things you love doing...you'll make more money...you can't replace chances missed.

 

As far as the band is greedy, everything costs too much...how can I put a price on the pleasure of a lifetime of listening to and seeing Rush perform? To me it is priceless...I hope to hell they are making millions and keep going a few more tours...they work their ass off for us and they earn every dollar.

[fonzbear2000]

I'll bet the same people, on here, whining about ticket prices, are driving H3 Hummers, or F350 Diesel trucks, that get about 15 mph, with fuel about to go back up to $4, per gallon.

Actually, it's usually quite the opposite. People will complain about the prices of gas, groceries and other similar services but will have no problem shelling out huge amounts of money to see their favorite bands and sporting events.

[bathory]

damn.

[driventotheedge]

Also, aren't Broadway shows really pricey too?

 

Broadway shows were cheap when I went to NYC three years ago, saw Wicked for under $40 although it was in the back row. Your sig pic is awesome at Rush Road, I don't know how many times I have driven by that but I was lazy and just took a pic of the sign from the car.

Thanks. I'm going to try to get a pick of me sitting on my motorcycle in front of that sign one of these days (wearing a Rush shirt of course :) )

 

 

BTW as it relates to the discussion on this thread (LOL), my first concert was Grand Funk Railroad in like '75 or '76 and I believe I paid a whole $4.00 for it.

Edited January 10, 2013 by driventotheedge

[Lorraine]

...my first concert was Grand Funk Railroad...

 

"I'm getting closer to my home..."

 

I still love that song.

[Tommy Sawyer]

For all the people reminiscing about cheaper tickets:

 

Here's what a $100 in 2013 is worth in the past:

 

1965 - $13.68

1970 - $16.85

1975 - $23.37

1980 - $35.79

1985 - $46.74

1990 - $56.77

1995 - $66.20

2000 - $74.80

(Source: http://www.bls.gov/)

 

Just something to consider. :) Tickets have gone up, but apparently only by a factor of 2 or 3 since 1970.

[Thunder Bay Rush]

Interesting. So, when I was making $2.10 an hour washing dishes at the Ponderosa Steak House in Ottawa, I guess it wasn't so bad after all! (Still sounds brutal though!)

 

I still don't think rock bands charging $100 - $150 for a seat are overcharging if - they put on a big show like Rush does. Imagine what it must cost to keep KISS or Motley Crue on the road... holy shittin' shit!

[Cygnus 2112]

Interesting. So, when I was making $2.10 an hour washing dishes at the Ponderosa Steak House in Ottawa, I guess it wasn't so bad after all! (Still sounds brutal though!)

 

I still don't think rock bands charging $100 - $150 for a seat are overcharging if - they put on a big show like Rush does. Imagine what it must cost to keep KISS or Motley Crue on the road... holy shittin' shit!

 

I paid $240 for a row 13 floor ticket for KISS in 2011. And then a week later RUSH announced they were going to Vancouver two days later. I had to miss the time machine tour for KISS.

[calirush]

For all the people reminiscing about cheaper tickets:

 

Here's what a $100 in 2013 is worth in the past:

 

1965 - $13.68

1970 - $16.85

1975 - $23.37

1980 - $35.79

1985 - $46.74

1990 - $56.77

1995 - $66.20

2000 - $74.80

(Source: http://www.bls.gov/)

 

Just something to consider. :) Tickets have gone up, but apparently only by a factor of 2 or 3 since 1970.

 

The value of money went a lot further in the past. Gas was cheaper as well. Here are samples of real tickets back in the day.

 

http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/tours/840613ticket.jpg

 

http://images.wolfgangsvault.com/prince/1980s-ticket/memorabilia/COW850304-T8.jpg

http://images.wolfgangsvault.com/metallica/1980s-ticket/memorabilia/SFC851231-T8.jpg

http://www.acdc-bootlegs.com/approvedimages/13289.jpeg

[thirteen]

God damn there's some whingers around here.

Count yourselves lucky you didn't have to pay for a ticket + airfares + accommodation to see Rush like I did.

[the masked drummer]

I often hear people complain about the price of rock concerts these days. Not just Rush, but many bands. I heard that U2 was charging $300 for basic seats last year for the 360 Tour. And, Paul McCartney shows go for about $400 - $600 in some venues.

 

Here's a way to make yourself feel a bit better about shelling out more than $100 for Rush or your other favourite bands. First, realize the enormous costs of keeping such a huge show on the road for months at a time. I honestly don't know how they can do it for the prices that they charge... just imagine what Rush's payroll is per DAY (whether it's a show day or not) for their crew. Everyone must be fed (local caterers?) each day... they need a place to sleep, sometimes on a bus, sometimes in a hotel room. Those tour buses must cost a fortune to lease per day. Then, the drivers must be paid... fuel, trucks, security, on and on. That's not even mentioning what is would cost to rent the sound and lighting system... WOW! Don't forget the venue takes a huge chunk of the gate receipts... so does the promotor, agents... managers.

 

Now compare these prices to that of big name stand up comics, such as Larry, the Cable Guy, Chris Rock, Dane Cook, Russell Peters and Jeff Dunham. These guys often charge $80 - $100 a seat. BUT - they don't have a huge stage show, a crew of 40 people, six buses and trucks and food to pay for. They cruise into town with one (1) micophone (I'm exaggerating to make my point), no road crew and no buses or trucks. Very little production other than what is already present in the venue. Dane Cook sold out the hockey arena in Boston... 18,000 people. VERY little expenses to cover.

 

I remember twenty years being dragged into the Pantages Theatre in Toronto to see the Phantom of the Opera. The seats were $120 each. 20 years ago... and they didn't have to tear down, travel to the next city and set up all over again. The place was packed.

 

So, based on my assumptions, who is over charging for their live shows? I don't think Rush is. Or, U2, or the Stones or, or, or...

I often hear people complain about the price of rock concerts these days. Not just Rush, but many bands. I heard that U2 was charging $300 for basic seats last year for the 360 Tour. And, Paul McCartney shows go for about $400 - $600 in some venues.

 

Here's a way to make yourself feel a bit better about shelling out more than $100 for Rush or your other favourite bands. First, realize the enormous costs of keeping such a huge show on the road for months at a time. I honestly don't know how they can do it for the prices that they charge... just imagine what Rush's payroll is per DAY (whether it's a show day or not) for their crew. Everyone must be fed (local caterers?) each day... they need a place to sleep, sometimes on a bus, sometimes in a hotel room. Those tour buses must cost a fortune to lease per day. Then, the drivers must be paid... fuel, trucks, security, on and on. That's not even mentioning what is would cost to rent the sound and lighting system... WOW! Don't forget the venue takes a huge chunk of the gate receipts... so does the promotor, agents... managers.

 

Now compare these prices to that of big name stand up comics, such as Larry, the Cable Guy, Chris Rock, Dane Cook, Russell Peters and Jeff Dunham. These guys often charge $80 - $100 a seat. BUT - they don't have a huge stage show, a crew of 40 people, six buses and trucks and food to pay for. They cruise into town with one (1) micophone (I'm exaggerating to make my point), no road crew and no buses or trucks. Very little production other than what is already present in the venue. Dane Cook sold out the hockey arena in Boston... 18,000 people. VERY little expenses to cover.

 

I remember twenty years being dragged into the Pantages Theatre in Toronto to see the Phantom of the Opera. The seats were $120 each. 20 years ago... and they didn't have to tear down, travel to the next city and set up all over again. The place was packed.

 

So, based on my assumptions, who is over charging for their live shows? I don't think Rush is. Or, U2, or the Stones or, or, or...

 

The thing we have to keep in mind even though some bands spend an astronomical amount of money on stageshow, crew and travel expenses is that the ticket agents are making a killing and "the talent" retains 74 avg, up to 90% of gross ticket price. I think that's fair. It's no secret why bands tour relentlessly as long as people keep showing up. . And there's no such thing as "overcharging" when customers (fans) keep buying concert tickets. They're telling the artist the price is worth it. So, yeah, I agree they're not overcharging. Now I wish tix were a lot cheaper, trust me, but there's only so much I can change. :codger:

[Lorraine]

I have a question that maybe someone here knows the true answer to.

 

When I started to watch DVDs of concerts, I began to notice how quickly bands were going from one song to the next without giving the audience much time to clap their hands sore and scream themselves hoarse for them. It never used to be like that. Concerts would last for hours and no one rushed through anything. When I mentioned it to someone, I was informed that the bands now have to pay to buy the time at the venue, and that is why they rush through a concert because they are only allowed to be there for the amount of time they payed for. In other words, the bands rent the venue for a few hours.

 

I always thoughts the the venue invites the band to play at the place and that the money for the ticket sales went part to the venue and part to the band.

 

Apparently, I was wrong.

 

Does anyone here know if I was given the right info?

[upstateNYfan]

The venue does not invite the band. The band rents the facility.

 

Inflation has little to do with prices; it's just a small factor. The major factors are the band's status and record sales. Touring is the primary revenue stream, because artists sell significantly less units than before.

[Thunder Bay Rush]

I agree with upstateNYfan.

 

I think the band rents the venue for the day, not by the hour. And, since the internet really got moving around 2000 - 2005, bands don't sell nearly as many CDs as they used to. For example, all of Rush's albums previous to Vapour trails in 2001 went either platinum or gold. But, none have since, as far as I know.

 

Clockwork Angels was on You Tube, entirely, almost immediatley after it was released to retailers. People just go on line and get it for free. This is something I just don't understand and why bands allow this to happen is beyond me. Hey, didn't Lars Ulrich start something about that at one time? If I was in a band I would NOT allow my product to be stolen from me. This is ridiculous. When someone goes to work in the morning, they get paid, whether they work as a plummer, a waitress, a doctor or a teach... a musician should be treated the same way.

 

So, today, bands go on the road and the bigger acts that can charge top dollar, do. At one time, the main reason bands toured was to promote their latest album with hopes people would buy it. They rarely made any money on the road, if any at all.

 

If you're watching a concert DVD and it seems to be "rushed" between songs, it's likely that the editing process removed some of the "dead air" that would make the concert drag on for longer than necessary. Personally, I like to see the WHOLE concert they way it really happened. But, maybe time limits on DVDs give reason to look for dead spots to eliminate some time.

 

Good luck!

[Lorraine]

Thank you, upstateNY and Thunder Bay. I never knew that a band rents the venue.

 

So...let me see if I have this straight. A band puts out the word that they are interested in touring. Local rock concert promoters pick it up and invite the band into their designated area. Then the band rents a venue at which to perform. Do I have it right?

 

One last thing that I have always wondered about since I was in high school (back in the stone age).

 

Has anyone here ever wondered what it must be like and how it must feel to be up on stage and look out at ten, twenty, forty or sixty thousand fans going wild just for you?

[upstateNYfan]

The other thing is that Rush are unusually disciplined and organized when it comes to their concerts. They play their hearts out and deliver every time. I've seen a fair amount of concerts across all genres (except rap and country) and Rush are unique in their intensity and organization. The "dead air" is almost non-existent. Efficiency helps them deliver and, of course, lets them get out of there to their myriad interests.

[Lorraine]

The other thing is that Rush are unusually disciplined and organized when it comes to their concerts. They play their hearts out and deliver every time. I've seen a fair amount of concerts across all genres (except rap and country) and Rush are unique in their intensity and organization. The "dead air" is almost non-existent. Efficiency helps them deliver and, of course, lets them get out of there to their myriad interests.

 

I can only attribute it to intelligence and keeping their feet firmly planted on the ground despite (or maybe because of) their fame. That they have managed to remain pretty much untainted by their fame (within reason...I am sure it has affected them profoundly) is a tribute to each of them. It speaks volumes for each one of them.

[Aikenrooster]

I agree with upstateNYfan.

 

I think the band rents the venue for the day, not by the hour. And, since the internet really got moving around 2000 - 2005, bands don't sell nearly as many CDs as they used to. For example, all of Rush's albums previous to Vapour trails in 2001 went either platinum or gold. But, none have since, as far as I know.

 

Clockwork Angels was on You Tube, entirely, almost immediatley after it was released to retailers. People just go on line and get it for free. This is something I just don't understand and why bands allow this to happen is beyond me. Hey, didn't Lars Ulrich start something about that at one time? If I was in a band I would NOT allow my product to be stolen from me. This is ridiculous. When someone goes to work in the morning, they get paid, whether they work as a plummer, a waitress, a doctor or a teach... a musician should be treated the same way.

 

So, today, bands go on the road and the bigger acts that can charge top dollar, do. At one time, the main reason bands toured was to promote their latest album with hopes people would buy it. They rarely made any money on the road, if any at all.

 

If you're watching a concert DVD and it seems to be "rushed" between songs, it's likely that the editing process removed some of the "dead air" that would make the concert drag on for longer than necessary. Personally, I like to see the WHOLE concert they way it really happened. But, maybe time limits on DVDs give reason to look for dead spots to eliminate some time.

 

Good luck!

I agree with this post. But, some bands have played it correctly, I think Trent Reznor of NIN released several entire albums for free digital download and told everyone to tell their friends to steal it off the internet, because the record companies were marking up the price of the CDs too much. Personally, I like getting free music from Slaker and Grooveshark and then paying a little more to go to the concert, BECAUSE, I am only going to pay to see acts that are THE BEST. I have a lot of albums that are "one hit wonders" because there was no internet back in the old days.

 

I think the best acts can still make it big today, with concert revenues, merchandise, BlueRayDiscs, etc, The only beef I have today is finding good music. Gees, there is so much junk out there, particularly County/Western music: that genre has really gone to heck.

[Aikenrooster]

Thank you, upstateNY and Thunder Bay. I never knew that a band rents the venue.

 

So...let me see if I have this straight. A band puts out the word that they are interested in touring. Local rock concert promoters pick it up and invite the band into their designated area. Then the band rents a venue at which to perform. Do I have it right?

 

One last thing that I have always wondered about since I was in high school (back in the stone age).

 

Has anyone here ever wondered what it must be like and how it must feel to be up on stage and look out at ten, twenty, forty or sixty thousand fans going wild just for you?

Brother, I think we all have. The first time I imagined this was back when I was a teenager and we got cable TV and MTV played that video of Guns n' Roses' "Paradise City," and I thought, "Man, that would be awesome!"

[Aikenrooster]

The venue does not invite the band. The band rents the facility.

 

Inflation has little to do with prices; it's just a small factor. The major factors are the band's status and record sales. Touring is the primary revenue stream, because artists sell significantly less units than before.

I have to disagree with this. I agree with you that inflation is just ONE factor, but I disagree that it's not a major factor. I think maybe you should contemplate the 'EXPONENTIAL' or "domino effect" that inflation has on EVERYTHING.

[upstateNYfan]

The venue does not invite the band. The band rents the facility.

 

Inflation has little to do with prices; it's just a small factor. The major factors are the band's status and record sales. Touring is the primary revenue stream, because artists sell significantly less units than before.

I have to disagree with this. I agree with you that inflation is just ONE factor, but I disagree that it's not a major factor. I think maybe you should contemplate the 'EXPONENTIAL' or "domino effect" that inflation has on EVERYTHING.

 

Look at the table presented earlier in the thread that shows empirical data. It's not a major factor—what is major is the lack of unit sales due to computers (the internet) and the band's status. Example: run the numbers when they were arguably at their commercial peak in '81-'84. Ticket prices—even with inflation—were nowhere near as pricey now.

[upstateNYfan]

Here:

• Members
  
• 
  
• 6396 posts
  

• Gender:Male
  
• Location:Dayton, OH
  
• Interests:Golf, Music, Backpacking, Hammocks, Theatre, Science, Math
  

 

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

For all the people reminiscing about cheaper tickets:

 

Here's what a $100 in 2013 is worth in the past:

 

1965 - $13.68

1970 - $16.85

1975 - $23.37

1980 - $35.79

1985 - $46.74

1990 - $56.77

1995 - $66.20

2000 - $74.80

(Source: http://www.bls.gov/)

 

So, let's say in '82 $100= $42.50. What were the most expensive non-scalped seats then? Not even close.

[Jeffrey]

Concerts have indeed become very expensive but at least I get GREAT value with the cost associated with a Rush ticket. Generally all my concert expense is with one band so it doesn't affect me. Compared to going to a football, hockey or basketball game, a Rush concert is still a fabulous deal. I'm just glad that it's 2013 and we can still be talking about the cost of Rush tickets.