Tom Petty is one of my new heroes

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Discoteque

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
3,568
Location
Hotter 'n' hell Texas: Dallas
Hard to imagine that ANY music nowadays gets banned, esp. with all sex and violence lyrics out there, so when I heard that Tom Petty's new album had been banned in certain locations, I wanted to find out why. I did....and Tom is now one of my rock-n-roll heroes! (hope this hasn't been posted already!)

http://news.dmusic.com/print/5643

Tom Petty Is Pissed
by David Wild for Rolling Stone

The man who told the world "I Won't Back Down," "Don't Do Me Like That" and "Don't Come Around Here No More" doesn't need any assertiveness-training course. Tom Petty's determined, sometimes defiant attitude has collided with the music business throughout the years. For instance, in 1982 Petty recorded Hard Promises with the Heartbreakers, only to find that his then-record company had plans to use his name to initiate a new, higher $9.98 list price for albums. Petty withheld the tapes and threatened to retitle his record $8.98 in protest.
That same spirit is alive and well on Petty's latest album, The Last DJ, which takes a hard look at the lack of moral grounding in the music business. The title track has kicked up considerable controversy, with some radio stations seeing the song as a slap in the face and banning it. But Petty is not just biting the hand that feeds him. Music is only the beginning of what's pissing him off these days. "The Last DJ is a story about morals more than the music business," he says. "It's really about vanishing personal freedoms."

1 Radio is not even worth listening to <---AMEN TO THAT!
"I don't really give a flying fuck about any of it. I've tuned out. But I was elated when my song was banned. I mean, nothing could have complimented me more than to hear they just banned it at such-and-such a station because it's anti-radio. Now, in 2002 to have a song banned that doesn't have a dirty word, doesn't advocate violence -- it's fascinating, you know. Like, what are you afraid of? No record has ever been made that was more pro-radio, you know.

"I remember when the radio meant something. We enjoyed the people who were on it, even if we hated them. They had personalities. They were people of taste, who we trusted. And I see that vanishing. I thought it was a good metaphor to start the album."

2 All anyone thinks about is money
"You don't hear any more of, 'Hey, we did something creative and we turned a profit, how about that?' Everywhere we look, we want to make the most money possible. This is a dangerous, corrupt notion. That's where you see the advent of programming on the radio, and radio research, all these silly things. That has made pop music what it is today. Everything -- morals, truth -- is all going out the window in favor of profit.

"I don't think it's a good attitude in your life to feel that you have to be rich to have self-esteem. You know, I saw a billboard in New York I wish I had photographed. It was for the TNN network. It said three words against a patriotic background of red, white and blue - BIGGER, YOUNGER, RICHER. Now, I find that fascinating: 'Bigger, younger, richer.' This whole idea of being wealthy has gone too far. I never ride in a limousine, you know. I feel gross if I get in a limousine. One good thing about the Sixties was it sort of was the opposite back then. You looked silly trying to appear rich."

3 It's ridiculous to make people pay twenty dollars for a CD
"It's funny how the music industry is enraged about the Internet and the way things are copied without being paid for. But you know why people steal the music? Because they can't afford the music. I'm not condoning downloading music for free. I don't think that's really fair, but I understand it. If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve a lot of the industry's problems. You are already seeing it a little -- the White Stripes albums selling for $9.99. Everyone still makes a healthy profit; it might get the music business back on its feet."

4 Only a complete greedhead would charge $150 for a concert ticket
"My top price is about sixty-five dollars, and I turn a very healthy profit on that; I make millions on the road. I see no reason to bring the price up, even though I have heard many an anxious promoter say, 'We could charge 150 bucks for this.' I would like to do this again and maybe come through and not leave a bad taste in people's mouths. I was at one of our gigs recently, and I was just stunned driving in that it cost thirty dollars to park your car. It's so wrong to say, 'OK, we've got them on the ticket and we've got them on the beer and we've got on everything else, let's get them on the damn parking.' You got to care about the person you're dealing with."

5 Record labels don't care about artists
"An act like ours wouldn't even be around today if someone hadn't brought us along and let us make mistakes and grow at our own pace. Today it seems that if you don't have a hit -- or even if you do -- they have no use for you the next time. It's like, 'Well, why wait for these guys to come back with another hit when we can bring in somebody else?' It's an asinine way to conduct yourself. These people are looking at balance sheets, not music. Most people involved in putting this music on the air or bringing it to us aren't really listening to it."

6 Filthy lyrics make me sick
"I'm frustrated by what I hear. Maybe it's not meant for me. Personally, I'm way too bright for a lot of the hip-hop lyrics to affect. I'm much too smart to think that jewelry or how cool I am is really going to change much about my personality. If you're dumb enough that it entertains you, have a great time. But I am seeking more than that.

"When I was a young rock & roll star, I was really fascinated and shocked at times by the power that I had, by the power of my words, and shocked that it can be taken wrong. I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that an artist has to take some moral responsibility for what he or she is putting out there. And I think a lot of these young kids are going to have to learn the hard way before they realize that you can actually do some damage if you're being careless or frivolous in what you're saying."

7 Only a sick culture would sexualize young girls
"It's disgusting. It's not just pop music, it's fashion, it's TV, it's advertising, it's every element of our culture. Young women are not being respected, children aren't being respected. Why are we creating a nation of child molesters? Could it be that we're dressing up nine-year-old women to look sexy? And even if we're wrong, let's not do it anyway. I really don't put it past these advertising people to say, 'Well, look, we made a lot of money when we brought the nine-year-old out and made her look like a hooker. Let's do it again.' "

8 Why are we rewarding people for being rich?
"Getting back to the whole issue of ticket prices: We don't do the Golden Circle/VIP thing. I don't see how carving out the best seats and charging a lot more for them has anything to do with rock & roll. A lot of the time, some corporation's bought up these seats with someone's money who doesn't even know it's being spent -- and they are going to use it to entertain clients. A lot of the people who buy these seats don't give a damn about the music -- they're going to get a waiter. What you see from the stage is a group of people just talking to each other, not really interested in being there at all. And the poor guy who really is interested, he's sitting way in the back."

9 And TV is worse
"I think television's become a downright dangerous thing. It has no moral barometer whatsoever. If you want to talk about something that is all about money, just watch the television. It's damn dangerous. TV does not care about you or what happens to you. It's downright bad for your health now, and that's not a far-out concept. I think watching the TV news is bad for you. It is bad for your physical health and your mental health. The music business looks like, you know, innocent schoolboys compared to the TV business. They care about nothing but profit. They will make a movie about murdering their kids, you know? And they'll put the guy who killed them on TV. And before long, he might even have his own show."

10 A lot of artists are as greedy as the industry
"Let me say this so it's definitely in the story: I don't think the industry is entirely to blame. Let's face it: The music industry has always been laughably corrupt, always. It's the artists themselves that often cause problems. Artists aren't necessarily business people. And they aren't neces-sarily aware of all the things that go on in their names. Some just want to make some music, but there is a lot of greed among artists as well. Whether or not we know it, we are all to blame. I think it's time -- starting with the artist -- to try to be a little more responsible and aware of what goes on in our name."


Tom Petty ROCKS. :D
 
It's a little strange for me to see this criticism posted on the forum of a band that actually does charge around $150 for their seats (was it $150 for gold circle seats on elevation?). Does that make U2 total greedheads? I don't think so.
Radio is what got Tom Petty to where he is. He's not exactly a underground artist. Ironic that I heard him on the radio about 20 minutes before reading this :lol:

Petty has $55 concert tickets (for his current tour), he's a multimillionaire and a major pothead. Let's not pretend like he's a revolutionary. He's just another artist biting the hands that feeds him and then continuing to feed. I guess it's become pretty cool for artists to launch this kind of hypocrisy. :(
 
Re: Re: Tom Petty is one of my new heroes

boywonder said:
It's a little strange for me to see this criticism posted on the forum of a band that actually does charge around $150 for their seats (was it $150 for gold circle seats on elevation?). Does that make U2 total greedheads? I don't think so.
Radio is what got Tom Petty to where he is. He's not exactly a underground artist. Ironic that I heard him on the radio about 20 minutes before reading this :lol:

Petty has $55 concert tickets (for his current tour), he's a multimillionaire and a major pothead. Let's not pretend like he's a revolutionary. He's just another artist biting the hands that feeds him and then continuing to feed. I guess it's become pretty cool for artists to launch this kind of hypocrisy. :(

U2 has little control over their ticket prices when it comes down to it. I think this is a coordinated game between two near monopolies--SFX, the stadium / arena promoter, and TicketMaster, the ticket seller. Also, if you add third-party ticket brokers to the equation, it is artificially driving up demand. It is suspected that TicketMaster does back-handed dealing with the ticket brokers, who likely give the monopoly kickbacks with all the mark-up.

Does that make U2 total greedheads? No. Does that make Universal Music, SFX, and TicketMaster greedy? You bet, and it defeats the whole illusion of competition.

Melon
 
The market decides what U2 is worth, not the corporations or U2 themselves. U2 charge based on what demand is. U2 have always charged a ticket price designed to maximize profit. Its the price at which the band will be able to sellout the arena or the Stadium they are playing. Charge to little and there is profit loss which often goes to scalpers. Charge to much and few people will come and not enough money will be made to pay for the tour.

Demand determines price, which is why AC/DC had an average ticket price of 40$ on their 2001 tour while U2 had an average ticket price of 80$. AC/DC often failed to sellout suggesting they should have perhaps dropped their ticket price even more. Clearly, the demand to see AC/DC is a small fraction of the demand to see U2. U2 on the other hand sold out every show they played on the Elevation tour which suggest that many of the shows had tickets that were slightly underpriced. Expect slightly higher ticket prices on the U2 tour for 2004 unless of course U2 decides to play larger Stadiums. If the band attempts a Stadium tour like POPMART in 1997, ticket prices will drop to attract more people to meet all the extra supply of seats that are available in stadiums and not Arena's.
 
Re: Re: Re: Tom Petty is one of my new heroes

melon said:


U2 has little control over their ticket prices when it comes down to it. I think this is a coordinated game between two near monopolies--SFX, the stadium / arena promoter, and TicketMaster, the ticket seller. Also, if you add third-party ticket brokers to the equation, it is artificially driving up demand. It is suspected that TicketMaster does back-handed dealing with the ticket brokers, who likely give the monopoly kickbacks with all the mark-up.

Does that make U2 total greedheads? No. Does that make Universal Music, SFX, and TicketMaster greedy? You bet, and it defeats the whole illusion of competition.

Melon

U2 has little control? Hogwash. if they say we're not going to sell our tickets for these prices, can SFX force them to go on tour? Afraid not.

If that doesn't make U2 total greedheads, doesn't that mean that Petty's point that bands that do that are total greedheads invalid because they are other factors involved?
 
Discoteque said:
7 Only a sick culture would sexualize young girls
"It's disgusting. It's not just pop music, it's fashion, it's TV, it's advertising, it's every element of our culture. Young women are not being respected, children aren't being respected. Why are we creating a nation of child molesters? Could it be that we're dressing up nine-year-old women to look sexy? And even if we're wrong, let's not do it anyway. I really don't put it past these advertising people to say, 'Well, look, we made a lot of money when we brought the nine-year-old out and made her look like a hooker. Let's do it again.' "

This is a growing problem in our culture. Major apparel chains market thong underwear to elementary school age girls. At my son?s kindergarten and 1st grade talent shows, some of the girls were dressed up to look ?sexy?.

When will parents actually parent their children? If parents don?t parent, the marketers will have their field day.
 
STING2 said:
The market decides what U2 is worth

Yes, particularly when that market is populated with a good proportion of third-party ticket brokers. :|

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
When will parents actually parent their children? If parents don?t parent, the marketers will have their field day.
yep. tonight's episode of the sitcom i'm watching basically revolves around some kid who lives in anarchy, and his parents who refuse to discipline him because he's "special" and "unique" (not in the handicapped way, but in the way that they think he's a genius way).
 
I wonder for the next tour if u2 will have an 'intimate' stage show like Elevation or a big show like Popmart or Zootv. I mean they have now cashed in big time on this tour and to have a huge show like before will mean they make a lot less money so this will be interesting to see. Personally I think it will be sort of like this tour except in stadiums but a bit more of a stage show.
 
I think petty just uses U2 as an example in his article.
They maximize their profit and that is strange because the singer looks like someone who loves to talk but dosn't act himself.
I think we would all be glad if Bono would be like other artists and would use his influence in the music industry to stop this money-maximizing-trend or would at least say "we're diffent" we don't play that capitalistic game, we don't need 400.000.000 Dollars profit - we just need enough for a beautiful life , we don't want to rip of our fans. Please spend 100$ for the poor - 40$ for the ticket is enough.

At least this behaviour would fit to his "Robin Hood image"

btw. that's pretty much the same with their singles - why do they sell 4 different versions of Electrical Storm with nearly no new stuff on it?
They know that hardcore fans will buy all 4 wersions even if 3 CDs would be filled with 4 mins of silence.

it's true we don't have to buy it (i bought the 2 track single for example) but there are some U2 addicted people who don't have the free choice they have to buy everything their "goods" sell.

10 Years ago Music was more to me than business - i bought about 2-5 CDs per week. Meanwhile CD Prices doubled, Concert prices too - lots of music just sounds like the 1000'th remake of a CD i own for years. I feel like someone tries to rip me off and because of that it's no more fun for me to go into a record store and look for new releases listen to them and buy them.
Because of that i only buy 2-5 CDs (including music DVDs) per year now.
And no - i don't use napster or something like that. Music industry just get me to a point where i don't like to consume that stuff anymore.

Klaus
 
I thought:

>8 Why are we rewarding people for being rich?
>"Getting back to the whole issue of ticket prices: We
>don't do the Golden Circle/VIP thing. I don't see how

is a direct mentioning of U2 - or did any other have "Golden Circle Seats"? (never heared of that before)

Klaus
 
U2 does not rip anyone off. U2 does not decide the price of tickets, consumers do. The more consumer demand U2 tickets, the more they increase in price. A "Robin Hood" move by U2 would simply mean that ticket brokers that resell the tickets would be making the millions of dollars in profit. Bottom line is:
If your not going to make what your worth, then someone else is going to(the ticket brokers and scalpers in this case). Faced with this problem, U2 would rather go ahead and make what their worth or almost what their worth instead of having scalpers and brokers make all that money for doing nothing. But its not the fault of scalpers or brokers either, the price of a product or service is typically based on the demand for that product or service. Consumers determine demand!
 
Tom Petty is banned from radio for telling the truth. If all those opinions were false, or even slightly false, he would be banned. It's that simple.

Disco: I too have a new found respect for this man. I'm surprised Bono hasn't come out with a similar stance on the record industry. Very surprised.
 
A correction to the post listed above. I meant to say that if his statements were false or even slightly false they wouldn't be banned.

Sorry
 
Re: Re: Tom Petty is one of my new heroes

boywonder said:

Petty has $55 concert tickets (for his current tour), he's a multimillionaire and a major pothead. Let's not pretend like he's a revolutionary. He's just another artist biting the hands that feeds him and then continuing to feed. I guess it's become pretty cool for artists to launch this kind of hypocrisy. :(

How is he hypocritical? He obviously doesn't give a damn whether he's banned or not. He made the record and what happens to it after that doesn't matter much to him--he knows his fans will buy it whether they hear it on the radio or not. And he admitted making millions at a fair ticket price--the point being, you CAN make millions, if that's what you want, without ripping fans off at every single turn. And what does being a pothead have to do with anything?

Indeed, Tom Petty still rocks after all these years. :up:
 
Re: Re: Tom Petty is one of my new heroes

nbcrusader said:


This is a growing problem in our culture. Major apparel chains market thong underwear to elementary school age girls. At my son?s kindergarten and 1st grade talent shows, some of the girls were dressed up to look ?sexy?.

When will parents actually parent their children? If parents don?t parent, the marketers will have their field day.

Yes, I see similar things with my sisters' kids. My neice was batting her lashes at boys and trying to be sexy since she was 5 and she doesn't even watch much TV at home. Sexiness is so deeply integrated into our pop culture that my sister doesn't even know specifically where her kids get these ideas. All she knows is that it's not in her home. But once she sends them to school there's not much she can do except damage-control. Man, I really don't envy parents today in that respect.
 
Tom Petty is great, but if he were really charging a fair ticket price, every single one of his shows would be a sellout. Tom Petty like every artist out there, except temporarily Pearl Jam, who charge what they are worth market wise. But lets just say that Tom Petty does charge that "fair ticket price" and all his shows start to sellout. In come the ticket brokers and scalpers who will buy up the tickets and sell them at the correct market price. Money that would have gone to Petty if he had charged the correct price, now goes to the Scalpers and brokers.
 
Re: Re: Re: Tom Petty is one of my new heroes

joyfulgirl said:


How is he hypocritical? He obviously doesn't give a damn whether he's banned or not. He made the record and what happens to it after that doesn't matter much to him--he knows his fans will buy it whether they hear it on the radio or not. And he admitted making millions at a fair ticket price--the point being, you CAN make millions, if that's what you want, without ripping fans off at every single turn. And what does being a pothead have to do with anything?

Indeed, Tom Petty still rocks after all these years. :up:

He's a hypocrite for charging upwards of $65 for his crappy concert tickets. The fact that bands\acts like Streisand, U2 and Madonna sell tickets for even more relative to Petty doesn't make his ticket prices necessarily reasonable. He's a hypocrite for attacking radio when radio was ESSENTIAL to his popularity.

I laughed when he talked about morals and truth going out the window in favor of profits. When the hell was rock and roll about morals and truth? Anyone look to Tom Petty for moral guidance? I certainly don't look for my "truth" in music.

He doesn't deserve to be on a high horse. No popular musician should be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them (that created their popularity and $$$) and ALSO get praised for it. It's like a yuppie kid loving RATM.

The pothead part was just a swipe at pothead musicians in general. I get a good laugh anytime Dave Matthews or Snoop Dogg start to comment on politics. The pot has definitely worked its "magic".

So let's get to the point, let's roll another joint
Let's head on down the road
There's somewhere I gotta go
And you don't know how it feels
You don't know how it feels to be me

Yes, I don't know how it feels to be you. Responsible lyrics? I guess rolling another joint would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do (thick Tina Fey-like sarcasm)
 
Whatever. You have your high horse, he has his. To say 'no popular musician should be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them" is like saying they don't have the right to criticize, which everyone certainly does. I certainly exercise the right to constructively criticize the hand that feeds me if I think it can be better. Maybe you don't think his criticisms are constructive and you certainly have a right to that opinion. Also, his concerts are probably not considered crappy by the fans that are happy to pay the $65. Most of my friends are disgusted that U2 charges $130 but I can afford it and it's worth it to me and I tell them to mind their own business. What's fair in ticket prices is generally pretty subjective.
 
STING2 said:
In come the ticket brokers and scalpers who will buy up the tickets and sell them at the correct market price.

Or they overcharge them to the point that it is financially profitable to throw the rest of the tickets in the trash.

I'm shocked that you can even consider this a "market," because that would require something we once called "competition." We have one ticket seller monopoly, and ticket resellers that are always more expensive. But I guess what we learned from the 1980s is that anything goes?

I only find it amusing that the only difference between ticket brokers and scalpers is that it is a business versus an individual--and ticket brokers are legal, while scalpers are not. Brokers should be illegal just as scalpers are.

Melon
 
Last edited:
I think the fact that I posted this article in Bang And the Clatter, and passed around a copy to my friends should indicate where I stand on the matter. Tom Petty kicks ass. Nuff said.
 
STING2 said:
A "Robin Hood" move by U2 would simply mean that ticket brokers that resell the tickets would be making the millions of dollars in profit.

Wrong - there are Bands who care about ticket pricing and they make conctracts that the ticket price max. is 20$ for example.
(Afik Cure did that in the times they were verry popular in Europe).
U2 did that too (special prices (50% off) for fans from the former "east block" in Vienna)
so they showed they can if they want to.
Klaus
 
joyfulgirl said:
Whatever. You have your high horse, he has his. To say 'no popular musician should be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them" is like saying they don't have the right to criticize, which everyone certainly does. I certainly exercise the right to constructively criticize the hand that feeds me if I think it can be better. Maybe you don't think his criticisms are constructive and you certainly have a right to that opinion. Also, his concerts are probably not considered crappy by the fans that are happy to pay the $65. Most of my friends are disgusted that U2 charges $130 but I can afford it and it's worth it to me and I tell them to mind their own business. What's fair in ticket prices is generally pretty subjective.

First, I never said anything about preventing him from criticizing the hand that feeds him. If you had read more carefully, I said he shouldn't be able to bite the hand that feeds him AND also get praised for it. Why praise someone who is so well off and has nothing to lose? It's not like he's putting a lot on the line.

I certainly don't think his criticisms are constructive. They are too broad and vague. People are greedy, TV is bad, radio has changed, morals are gone. No DUH! He's not much different from any old geezer at a retirement home complaining about the same things (movie tickets were a dime in my day, children respected their parents, kissing and cussing on TV weren't allowed, people had respect for each other, etc etc).

I don't think you should judge concerts by what their true fans are willing to pay because some of them are willing to play $500 to see the concert while others can't afford to pay much more than $20 to see the same concert. So, you're right when you said it's subjective. If it is subjective, why is a multimillionare complaining about $130 ticket prices? Why doesn't he do what Klaus was talking about (the Cure example)? Why create ticket ranges where the richer fans who can afford $55-65 ticket prices can get better seats? He can REFUSE to tour. He can play GA only venues. Give it a shot! Do it for the reefer, Tom!
 
Klaus,

I think that you might misunderstand what Ticket Scalpers and Brokers do when tickets are sold below market value for a concert. They buy up the tickets at the lower list price whether there is a contract or not, when the tickets go on sale to the public. They then resell their tickets at a price which meets the demand in the market.

A contract making the ticket price max 20$ has no effect on Brokers and Scalpers who buy the tickets once they go on sale. They buy hundreds or thousands of tickets for a single show at that 20$ price and resell them for what ever market demand really is for that show, whether it be 30$ or 100$. The Scalpers and the Brokers make far more money per ticket than the artist does. But if the artist were to charge what their market value was, scalpers and brokers would have a much more difficult time reselling the tickets and making a profit, especially if the concert does not completely sellout.

Melon,

If Scalpers and Brokers often were able to overcharge certain tickets so as to make a profit regardless whether they sold most of their tickets and could throw the unsold tickets away, there would be a lot of empty seats at these Sold Out concerts. That does not usually happen, certainly not at any of the sold out performances I have been to since 1991.

It is a market and the competion is between the artist who are on tour and also music entertainment vs other types of entertainment. Ticketbastards service charge on the U2 shows I saw last year was only 5 dollars. Thats only 5% of the cost of the total price, list price plus service charge which equaled 90$ for that ticket. Other shows that I went to for U2, I ordered over the internet and the service charge was often double there, but still a fraction of the total. It would be nice if there were other ticket agencies, but you'd only be saving 2 or 3 dollars a ticket at most if there was. I don't like the fact that Ticketmaster has a virtual monopoly on the sell of tickets, but competition here would only provide a drop of a dollar or two in the service charge.

Ticket resellers are always going to be more expensive if the show is a sellout and demand to see the show is high. But lets go back to the POPMART tour in 1997. Stadiums are huge places with capicities that are three to four times the size of the average arena. The POPMART shows I went to in Philadelphia and New York did not sellout completely until the band was about to hit the stage. In this market with thousands of tickets still on sell only weeks or days before the show begins, I saw ticket scalpers and brokers attempting to resell their purchased $52.50 U2 tickets for as little as $20. U2s decision to play massive stadiums that are difficult for anyone to sellout meant a massive increase in the supply of tickets available. More importantly, U2 may have charged slightly more than what market demand was for U2 shows in stadiums in 1997 for POPMART contributing to lower attendance at shows than there was for ZOO TV.(more importantly the POP album was a lot less popular).

All of this meant that POPMART was not a good tour for scalpers and resellers for two reasons. First the initial price of the ticket was high relative to available market supply and demand. Second there was no point to go to scalpers and resellers for most Stadiums shows because most of the shows did not completely sellout and those that did, did so only the day of the show. This meant Scalpers and Brokers usually lost money and ended up selling most of their tickets at prices below market value in order to get rid of them. Not that U2 did not make truck load of money on this tour, it is still the 3rd highest grossing tour in history with $172 million dollars made from 93 shows around the world with 4 million people in attendance.

I see nothing wrong with Brokers and Scalpers. It was thanks to a Broker that I was finally able to secure a GA ticket for U2 last year and thereby get inside the Heart. I had attempted at 4 shows before that to get a GA ticket but had not succeeded.

When it comes to the price of a ticket, it all about demand, whether its the initial list price set by the artist, you or I, or someone else is reselling it. If the artist charges what he is worth and the show is not completely sold out, anyone attempting to resell the ticket and make a profit is going to have a very tough time. Even if a show does sellout, if an artist plays multiple shows there, that will cut down on the business scalpers and brokers can do. But if the artist does not price his tickets based on demand or does not play enough shows to meet demand, business will be good for scalpers and brokers as they correctly meet the market demand for these tickets
 
boywonder said:


First, I never said anything about preventing him from criticizing the hand that feeds him. If you had read more carefully, I said he shouldn't be able to bite the hand that feeds him AND also get praised for it. Why praise someone who is so well off and has nothing to lose? It's not like he's putting a lot on the line. [/i]

Sorry, my mistake. Yet I still don't really see that there's much difference between criticizing (which I equate with your 'biting') the hand that feeds, and doing so along with getting praised for it. :shrug:

I see your points, but I disagree. And the pot thread has taken up all of my FYM energy for the day, you'll be happy to know :lol:, and I realize I just don't care that much about this topic to argue it any further. Tom Petty is kind of a cranky old man, always has been, always will be, I'll agree with you there, but I continue to respect him for speaking his mind.
 
joyfulgirl said:


Sorry, my mistake. Yet I still don't really see that there's much difference between criticizing (which I equate with your 'biting') the hand that feeds, and doing so along with getting praised for it. :shrug:

I see your points, but I disagree. And the pot thread has taken up all of my FYM energy for the day, you'll be happy to know :lol:, and I realize I just don't care that much about this topic to argue it any further. Tom Petty is kind of a cranky old man, always has been, always will be, I'll agree with you there, but I continue to respect him for speaking his mind.

Well, I'm just saying that criticism should be both constructive and meaningful. First, I don't think his criticism is constructive for the reasons I stated earlier. I think the meaning is lost when the critic is so intimately tied into what he criticizes. Also, I would praise criticism if the critic had something to lose (MLK, Gandhi) rather than someone who doesn't have anything to lose. For him, I'm sure it's just mental masturbation more than a "crusade". I'm sure it falls flat with a lot of people like if George Bush had criticized fuel efficiency in SUVs. Peace out.

BTW, I've got several Tom Petty albums and I enjoy his music.
 
Sting2:
There are ways to make it hard (impossible) for Scalpers/Brokers :

1. Don't sell 100+ Tickets to one person
2. Don't sell Tickets to companies who abused it before
3. make it illegal to resale tickets for a higher price then the "list price" (by purchasing this you agree...)
4. Send security ppl out to find scalpers and if you see people doing that call the police / if you find ticket agencies who sell overpriced call the police...
6. Make sure that there are lots of tickets left for sale at the night of the show (heck there seems to be no english word for "Abendkasse")

You can't make it 100$ sure - but you can create as much pain as possible for those guys.

Klaus
 
Klaus said:
(heck there seems to be no english word for "Abendkasse")
evening cash register? i just literally translated it, so i dunno. :laugh:

it's funny. at first, when i read tom petty's rant, i was thinking, "yeah! more power to him for speaking his mind!" but now after reading some of the posts that have criticized what he said, i agree. if only he had made his rant more constructive, like saying this sucks in the music industry, this should be done instead, it would've been great. but instead he just comes off like some bitter old grump.
 
please be nice to me its just my humble opinion

i dont know much about what's fair in ticket pricing in the concert business, but its not like any really popular band will let their fans see a free concert anytime soon. its how musicians make a living after all. u2 doesnt let fans see a free concert. they don't give away their cd's for free. same thing for tom petty. its how they make a living. some overcharge on their ticket prices, some don't. some say they don't have control over the ticket prices. i think its true, because you have to remember all those people who help set up the stage, the production, the printing of the tickets, the advertising, all that shit...they have to get paid too don't they? i hope i'm making sense? thats just my .02
 
Back
Top Bottom