Wow.
You've painted a completely different picture of me than who I really am.
(another great benefit of the internet) I can't wait to go home in my imaginary sportscar and yell at my imaginary butler.
You know what's funny?
There is a HUGE hole in my savings. Where there used to be money, there are ticket stubs from seeing U2 and other favorite bands.
I made that choice.
I slept out on concrete in the hot sun with my fellow fans. You can call them unwashed (we all were) but I don't.
So your argument is people without the money can't afford to go?
Ummm...ok.
I'm not sure what my argument would be.
I can't afford a lot of things. Should the makers of those things lower their prices?
If you can't afford to go to a U2 show, you can't afford to go to a U2 show.
Great observation there buddy.
...and I'm not living on a commune, or in squalor either. While I wouldn't describe myself as rich or wealthy, I have more than enough money to buy Gold Circle tickets, or whatever the fuck these scumbags call it to make you feel privileged when buying them. But as much as I love music and some of the artists that charge this kind of money, I won't play ball.
What you did admit to, though, is being a pretty die-hard fan. And that's fine. What I'm saying is how can you expect to draw in the NEW fans when they're forced to compete with die-hards for the cheap tickets, and only have the expensive stuff leftover? It's just not very inclusive. And aren't U2 supposed to be populists?
There are a lot of things that people want but can't have, choose to get over something else, or sacrifice in order to get. Live music shouldn't be the luxury that some bands are making it. ZooTV and PopMart tickets weren't exorbitant, even compared to what the average U2 fan may have been making back then. I was 20 years old in 1992, I remember getting tickets. Same with PopMart, though there was a noticeable increase. What was strange was that despite how stripped-down Elevation was, the ticket prices were hugely inflated in that 4 year interim.
The question is, why didn't U2 overcharge a long time ago? Are you telling me they couldn't have got away with more expensive tickets, at least on ZooTV? And what suddenly costs them so much more now, that didn't back then? While they still have a high production value, these tours can't be anywhere near what it cost to haul around the 90's materials. No way. I'm just wondering why, instead of passing along the savings to the consumer, they stuck the knife in even further? Everything they make at this point is gravy. They can take a smaller percentage and still retain some dignity and Best Band In The World status, you know.
It's the same thing as artists who use their songs to sell products. The question isn't "What's the big deal?", it's "What is the mindset of the artists who WON'T do this?" Other acts, like R.E.M., Radiohead, and Pearl Jam COULD charge more, but they don't. Why are they not as concerned with getting more money? The answer: because their managers aren't as greedy. And I recognize that U2 bears some of this responsibility as well, but what I always hear coming out of McGuinne$$'s mouth always sounds like business, and not much about the fans or the music.
Another question is, why do we even know who McGuinne$$ is? Why is he even being quoted on a website for fans? The guy's a fucking suit. What does that have to do with the art? You know who else is a well-known manager? Colonel Tom Parker. I don't know who the hell Radiohead's manager is, and that says a lot.