Another Speech by Paul Mcguinness

[toscano]

You don't think radio is paid for? You've never wondered why so many advertisements? You don't think libraries are paid for? You are being ridiculous. By just conceding and saying why should we pay for anything we "just listen to" is completely ignoring the fact that many man hours, musicians, engineers, etc would be broke. I sure hope you aren't hoping to be a sound engineer or studio musician when you get older.




No one is saying fine everyone. But packaging the internet with different options like most are now and giving a portion of the high download speed packages sounds at least like an alley to explore.

But people with high download packages aren't necessarily stealing music. Might as well go after PC manufacturers with high CPU speeds, or higher speed WLAN manufacturers. Hell, go after Atheros or Broadcom or Marvell, they make the fastest highest bandwidth WLAN chips that go in the routers.

Also, people like who DON'T have the highest speed packages download a lot too, trust me if you have a good cable company like ours, you don't need the highest-end packages to comfortably download a lot of stuff, another reason cable kicks DSL's ass.

 

[toscano]

Bono said he would perform even if he made no money at his art.
<>

McGuinness would never let him

 

[U2girl]

So we should be comparing U2 to dinosaur acts and prima donna divas?

That certainly isn't the image the band seems to want to project, especially when they take newer, less mainstream bands out on tour with them, and want to compete with them for the younger audience.

And what's the difference between Bruce Springsteen and the Stones or McCartney, except that you know he charges a hell of a lot less than those acts and doesn't help your argument? In the U.S., they are playing the same venues, same with R.E.M. and Pearl Jam.

I'm saying let's compare artists that are at the top live draws, that are THE big names, do elaborate tours and charge a similar amount of money for tickets.
So touring wise, that would be U2/Stones/McCartney/Madonna, yes.

Springsteen is a great live act, but is he up there with the above in that comparison, with all those elements considered ? I wouldn't put him next to them. In US they play arenas, but how many out of the acts mentioned in this thread can still play stadiums worldwide ?

 

[toscano]

Gas was 85 cents a gallon in 1992 when I drove to see ZOO TV in Philly.
The U2 ticket was 32.50 or so.
Gas is now 4.00+
U2 tickets are in line with that.
Not to mention I saw 11 Elevation shows and paid about 55 per ticket and had excellent view, in some cases front row in the heart.

We have yet to see ticket prices at the $4+/gallon, so we don't know whether they are in line with that or not.

However, Gas isn't the main factor in whether or not one can afford a ticket, it's th eticket cost vs. the amount of money one makes, so the other example was much more relevant.

The majority of seats in most arenas were over $100 last , including the nosebleeds, and the lower level seats at the back of the arena.

Ticket prices have exceeded personal incomes by leaps and bounds, and as Lazarus said, U2 to associate themselves witht he likes of Pearl Jam and REM, it's the apologists who like to use Stones or Madonna as it buttresses their arguments a bit better.

 

[toscano]

I'm saying let's compare artists that are at the top live draws, that are THE big names, do elaborate tours and charge a similar amount of money for tickets.
So touring wise, that would be U2/Stones/McCartney/Madonna, yes.

Springsteen is a great live act, but is he up there with the above in that comparison, with all those elements considered ? I wouldn't put him next to them. In US they play arenas, but how many out of the acts mentioned in this thread can still play stadiums worldwide ?

All of them. REM ? Yes. (R.E.M. tickets, concerts and tour dates. Official Ticketmaster site.)

Pearl jam ? Yes.

If you're looking to compare them to bands who play multiple arena shows in US and stadiums worldwide, better throw in Foo Fighters (highet ticket prices < $50 last US tour), Metallica (can't remember exactly, believe <$60 last time), Iron Maiden (<$80 for 3rd row ticket a few weeks ago on first of 2 sold out shows at Verizon), the Cure (top ticket price was high in Socal 135, but still lower than U2's will be, and they played 3 and a half hours), Most places their high ticket prices is <$70, etc.

So, your call, compare them to artistic contemporaries (U2, Pearl Jam) who draw on a similar but slightly lower scale at the same venues, or compare them to dinosaur nostalgia acts who draw on a similar or slightly larger scale (Stones, McCartney, Elton John, etc).

 

[lazarus]

And again, do U2 consider themselves peers of McCartney, The Stones, and Elton, or of those other bands? I guarantee you they would say the latter. The last thing they want to be considered is a dinosaur act, but that's exactly how they price themselves now, even if it's on the lower end of that scale.

 

[corianderstem]

I can't wait to go home in my imaginary sportscar and yell at my imaginary butler.

That totally made me laugh.

And my diamond shoes are too tight!

(And yes, that's all I have to contribute to this thread.)

 

[U2girl]

And again, do U2 consider themselves peers of McCartney, The Stones, and Elton, or of those other bands? I guarantee you they would say the latter. The last thing they want to be considered is a dinosaur act, but that's exactly how they price themselves now, even if it's on the lower end of that scale.

I guess they - and the market - consider themselves peers in the ticket pricing.

McCartney or Stones may not be what they used to be musically, but they do still put on a good live show, and are still a big enough ticket draw. U2 on the other hand is still - whether or not fans agree on the last few albums - making music that people want to hear and are promoting the new album on each tour.

 

[U2girl]

All of them. REM ? Yes. (R.E.M. tickets, concerts and tour dates. Official Ticketmaster site.)

Pearl jam ? Yes.

If you're looking to compare them to bands who play multiple arena shows in US and stadiums worldwide, better throw in Foo Fighters (highet ticket prices < $50 last US tour), Metallica (can't remember exactly, believe <$60 last time), Iron Maiden (<$80 for 3rd row ticket a few weeks ago on first of 2 sold out shows at Verizon), the Cure (top ticket price was high in Socal 135, but still lower than U2's will be, and they played 3 and a half hours), Most places their high ticket prices is <$70, etc.

See the criteria again (where's Sting2 for stats?). Foo fighters are big in America but I think U2 is far more renowned worldwide. Metallica was huge once but not so since the early 1990s. Cure are a more obscure band and Iron Maiden is a nostalgia act.

 

[toscano]

See the criteria again (where's Sting2 for stats?). Foo fighters are big in America but I think U2 is far more renowned worldwide. Metallica was huge once but not so since the early 1990s. Cure are a more obscure band and Iron Maiden is a nostalgia act.

Your criteria was not "who is more renowned", but "who is a similar draw".

Foo fighters are playing arenas in US and Stadiums in Europe

Metallica played arenas to the same degree as U2 on their last tour, and are playing stadiums in Europe and Asia

Cure just sold out 2 big shows in LA and are playing arenas in US and stadiums in Europe, hardly obscure

Iron Maiden again are playing multi night arena shows in US, and STADIUMS in Europe. As for being a nostalgia act, the tour before this one (in 2006) they played their entire new album start to finish, and if you want to talk nostalgia acts, well, you've got your fave comparisons (Stones, McCartney, etc)

REM and Pearl Jam, same thing, multi night arenas in US, STADIUMS in Europe.

You really ought to do your homework.

 

[U2girl]

Your criteria was not "who is more renowned", but "who is a similar draw".

As was "THE big names, elaborate tours and charging a similar amount of money for tickets".
I think "who is a draw" should include the popularity of a band/solo act's last album and their current work. (and total album sales)

When was the last time Foo fighters/Metallica/Cure/Iron Maiden/Pearl Jam/REM had a hit the size of Beautiful day or the seller album like All that... ? Can they play the same venues ? Yes, but that's not the be all and end all of this argument and I would not put any of those in that prime live category that the acts I mentioned (and I do think U2 should be included) belong to.

 

[U2girl]

it's the apologists who like to use Stones or Madonna as it buttresses their arguments a bit better.

And the anti team will use anyone that *can* play a stadium and happens to charge less.

 

[toscano]

As was "THE big names, elaborate tours and charging a similar amount of money for tickets".
I think "who is a draw" should include the popularity of a band/solo act's last album and their current work. (and total album sales)

When was the last time Foo fighters/Metallica/Cure/Iron Maiden/Pearl Jam/REM had a hit the size of Beautiful day or the seller album like All that... ? Can they play the same venues ? Yes, but that's not the be all and end all of this argument and I would not put any of those in that prime live category that the acts I mentioned (and I do think U2 should be included) belong to.

You keep changing the argument to buttress your point, now it's single sales ? and album sales ?? For that matter, when was the last time McCartney or the Stones had something sell as well as that ?

ATYCLB tour was most UN-elaborate, yet went into new heights of ticket prices for the time

When was the last time the Police released anything ? or genesis ? Yet they're raking it in on tour.

The way you keep changing and refining the parameters of the argument you will eventually get to a point where there is no act to compare it to. So, if U2 like to use Pearl Jam and REM as contemporaries, let's compare to those. but I know you won't like that as the comparison won't be favorable. Pearl jam has been known to play up to 3 hours and play different sets every night, I'll take that over an "elaborate" tour. Vertigo wasn't THAT elaborate either by the way.

 

[toscano]

And the anti team will use anyone that *can* play a stadium and happens to charge less.

You were the one saying the acts they were being compared to couldn't play to similar crowds. you changed your argument after that one was refuted.

 

[gvox]

BVS, don't misrepresent. Just because YOU paid $50 to see U2 doesn't mean that was what most people paid. You had the CHEAPEST U2 tickets, versus what likely were the most expensive Radiohead and PJ seats.


Keeping it under $100 shouldn't be a challenge.

You're right, and you should tell Radiohead that. $50 was not their highest ticket price, not by a long shot.

I saw numerous different U2 shows in different parts of the arena, if I were to average them all out, it would be well under $100 per show.

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Ok. Can we just fire Paul? He makes U2 look bad.

 

[Iskra]

Ok. Can we just fire Paul? He makes U2 look bad.

Yes, we should always fire people we disagree with.

Go read your U2 history.
He is the fifth member of the band and if it wasn't for him, some guy named Paul would be pumping your petrol in Dublin.
A guy named Larry would be driving your bus.
Some guy named Dave would be delivering your mail and some poor bloke named Adam would be trying to sell you spoons.

Stop bashing Paul.
You're making U2 fans look bad.

 

[U2girl]

You keep changing the argument to buttress your point, now it's single sales ? and album sales ?? For that matter, when was the last time McCartney or the Stones had something sell as well as that ?

ATYCLB tour was most UN-elaborate, yet went into new heights of ticket prices for the time

When was the last time the Police released anything ? or genesis ? Yet they're raking it in on tour.

The way you keep changing and refining the parameters of the argument you will eventually get to a point where there is no act to compare it to. So, if U2 like to use Pearl Jam and REM as contemporaries, let's compare to those. but I know you won't like that as the comparison won't be favorable. Pearl jam has been known to play up to 3 hours and play different sets every night, I'll take that over an "elaborate" tour. Vertigo wasn't THAT elaborate either by the way.

It's not as easy as "band A and band B play the same venues, so they should both be charging the same".

I adressed Macca and Stones, look up a few posts above in this thread. See also Genesis and Police - nostalgia, plus touring is where the money comes since for most artist album sales keep going down.

I agree the tickets are expensive and they did go up for last two tours. My guess is more demand means a higher price at smaller venues, inflation etc. - there's probably lots of elements and factors that we don't even know. But then again, there were polls in the Tour forum where a healthy percentage saw 5, 10 or more shows.

I'm not changing "parameters", I only added album sales - I have said who U2 ought to be compared live but as those acts charge a lot, you seem to think that is foul play. Contemporaries doesn't mean same prices, and the setlist argument isn't working since U2 has never been, and won't be, a setlist-heavy-rotating/jamming band. Not good enough musically, more interested in conveying messages on tours and focusing on the spectacle aspect and not with Bono's lyric memory. Speaking of setlist, Vertigo ring a bell ? And yet people still moaned.

 

[Iskra]

Oh and I just saw REM at the Greek.
That venue holds arund 10k people.
We will never see U2 at the Greek.
REM also had some cool videos displays based on the technology that U2 helped develop.
People seem to forget how many toys U2 brings with them and the fact that they are usually innovating stage tech as they go along.
Last I checked, it wasn't free.

I just paid 4.39 for a gallon of gas here in SF.
I tried to argue with the attendant to lower it for me since I've been buying gas since 1990 and he didn't bite.
He also didn't go for any of my other arguments.
- Its the same oil we've been using for years
- Other gas stations are cheaper
- Shell isn't as popular as Texaco once was
- My boss hasn't given me a 30 percent raise since Jan
- Your owner is greedy
- Your station is pretty basic, not like the ARCO across the street with the video screens at the pump

I say they fire that attendant.

 

[hiphop]

I´ve seen many good shows but U2 always was special. Sure we would all like lower ticket prices - and I personally would like if their shows weren´t sold out fifteen fucking minutes after sales start (some people have to work)

The funny thing is I don´t go to some gigs of superstars because I just think that´s a rip off.. and if they don´t have promo tickets, you know what

But a U2 show was always so special, at least the shows I saw. Of course U2 know this. Bono surely agrees a show can be a spiritual event.

I have never felt ripped off by a U2 show but would feel ripped off paying the inflated ticket prices for most other acts,.. with some exceptions, ie. Prince (unfortunately never saw him live)

 

[Gluey]

So what is everyone actually arguing about now? The fact they feel ripped off by life? The fact that different bands charge different ticket prices? The fact that someone is threatening their perceived and incorrect right that they should be able to download music for nothing? That it's wrong for someone to voice their opinion and try and look out for the artists who are being constantly ripped off?
How dare people raise prices!
How dare the guy down the road earns more and keeps getting better stuff!
How dare we don't get music for free!
How dare there isn't a flat rate for concert tickets for all the bands!
How dare someone argue with you!

Good grief, grow up and get over yourselves! It's starting to make me sick to read how greedy and self righteous some people are getting over this.

Paul has worked his arse off, along with the rest of the band for them to all get to where they are today. It has been a team effort. For anyone to slam any part of that group - all 5 of them - is incredibly wrong and narrow minded. I'd like to see any one of you step into their shoes and get them to where they are today - intact and literally the top of their game.

You know what? In my supermarket the same product is sold for different amounts, and packaged slightly differently. I don't mouth off at the managers etc, I just choose which one I like best or can afford and go with it. Same with petrol....same with any bloody product that's on the market. Music is not different.

[/END RANT]

 

[Iskra]

So what is everyone actually arguing about now? The fact they feel ripped off by life? The fact that different bands charge different ticket prices? The fact that someone is threatening their perceived and incorrect right that they should be able to download music for nothing? That it's wrong for someone to voice their opinion and try and look out for the artists who are being constantly ripped off?
How dare people raise prices!
How dare the guy down the road earns more and keeps getting better stuff!
How dare we don't get music for free!
How dare there isn't a flat rate for concert tickets for all the bands!
How dare someone argue with you!

Good grief, grow up and get over yourselves! It's starting to make me sick to read how greedy and self righteous some people are getting over this.

Paul has worked his arse off, along with the rest of the band for them to all get to where they are today. It has been a team effort. For anyone to slam any part of that group - all 5 of them - is incredibly wrong and narrow minded. I'd like to see any one of you step into their shoes and get them to where they are today - intact and literally the top of their game.

You know what? In my supermarket the same product is sold for different amounts, and packaged slightly differently. I don't mouth off at the managers etc, I just choose which one I like best or can afford and go with it. Same with petrol....same with any bloody product that's on the market. Music is not different.

[\END RANT]

Amen.
And with that, someone should close this thread.

 

[Gluey]

I´ve seen many good shows but U2 always was special. Sure we would all like lower ticket prices - and I personally would like if their shows weren´t sold out fifteen fucking minutes after sales start (some people have to work)

The funny thing is I don´t go to some gigs of superstars because I just think that´s a rip off.. and if they don´t have promo tickets, you know what

But a U2 show was always so special, at least the shows I saw. Of course U2 know this. Bono surely agrees a show can be a spiritual event.

I have never felt ripped off by a U2 show but would feel ripped off paying the inflated ticket prices for most other acts,.. with some exceptions, ie. Prince (unfortunately never saw him live)

HipHop I agree with what you say about the U2 shows.

However I don't look at other inflated prices as being ripped off. Try living in New Zealand where concerts of the international level are few and far between. I've paid some big money for the cheapest tickets available to them purely because I WANT to see them. I don't care if my U2 ticket was actually CHEAPER than the other big acts I've seen in the past 2 years. I wanted to see these other bands, they don't come often, and I was just stoked to get the opportunity. They charge what they charge, and they all have reasons behind it. I get over it and just enjoy the show.

 

[Gluey]

Amen.
And with that, someone should close this thread.

Thanks


I don't usually rant

 

[hiphop]

Right gluey!!

so for derailing this thread i will throw in that unfortunately i will miss Bob Dylan but I will see Lou Reed performing Berlin. fuck. yeah.

 

[BVS]

But people with high download packages aren't necessarily stealing music.

Yes, and all my taxes aren't exactly going to the places I want them too, nor am I always using up the service charges that ticketmaster makes me pay anyways...

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, I'm not sure what is, my whole argument is against those who just turn a blind eye and ask "why should I pay for something I just listen to"?

This whole thread is really quite ridiculous, almost every other post I see people are comparing apples to oranges, or completely overlooking certain facts.

When it comes down to it, I don't like it when artist aren't getting paid. Yes we all know U2 is beyond this equation, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the band starting out, the studio drummer, the up and coming producer that won't ever be, etc...

But go ahead and turn your blind eyes and don't pay a cent, because what's the point, you just listen to it... it's like air if you really think about it.

 

[lazarus]

Good grief, grow up and get over yourselves! It's starting to make me sick to read how greedy and self righteous some people are getting over this.

I don't know who you're addressing this too, but now you're accusing US of being greedy? Aside from the person who feels all music should be free (something I don't agree with), no one asked for a handout. And as I previously stated, I can afford these tickets. I just feel it's a bit unfair to expect newer or younger fans to shell out $100 to see a band who's trying to appear vital.

We're trying to have a discussion here, and terms like "grow up" and "get over yourself" add NOTHING constructive to the conversation. You don't want to read this stuff? Stay out of the fucking thread then.

I suppose in your world, anyone who works hard for something can just go ahead and squeeze the market for all it's worth, and is some kind of hero for doing so? Do you think it's okay that oil companies are basking in record profits while the average joe has to pay more and more out of his pockets? I don't begrudge U2 the success that they've had, and I know very well what they (and Paul) had to do to get there. But it seems to me they are totally out of touch in terms of the value people place on things like concerts, and what many have to sacrifice to attend one of theirs.

 

[VintagePunk]

Paul has worked his arse off, along with the rest of the band for them to all get to where they are today. It has been a team effort.

[/END RANT]

Not to even mention the personal financial risks he took in the early days, which would have led to disaster, had the whole U2 thing not panned out. Yikes.

I just can't wrap my head around the argument that U2 charge too much for their shows, and the comparisons with other groups. I'd put forward that there really is no one to compare them to. They are far more popular, and their tickets are more in demand than Pearl Jam, REM, etc, and unlike The Stones, The Police, etc, they always tour with new material. Do *any* of these other acts, old or new, sell out virtually every arena and stadium that they play in worldwide in minutes?

The way I see it, they probably charge way less than what the market will bear. They could probably still raise prices (or at least the prices of their lower-end tickets) and the demand would still be there, they would still sell out as quickly. This seems to me that it makes this whole discussion a moot point. As long as their tours sell out in minutes, I'm sure that overcharging isn't even something they consider.

 

[hiphop]

But it seems to me they are totally out of touch in terms of the value people place on things like concerts, and what many have to sacrifice to attend one of theirs.

Hey lazarus, bullshit talks money walks. I´ll let you book and promote an artist, rent a hall, pay all travels/ flight tickets/ gas, promotion and distribution of 10,000 flyers and 2,000 posters, distribution of CDs to radio & TV stations, organize an interview with band, pay food, drinks and limos for the band, bring in some groupies. see the rider for the tech stuff & we talk about your cut when you´re ready. Deal?

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Yes, we should always fire people we disagree with.

Go read your U2 history.
He is the fifth member of the band and if it wasn't for him, some guy named Paul would be pumping your petrol in Dublin.
A guy named Larry would be driving your bus.
Some guy named Dave would be delivering your mail and some poor bloke named Adam would be trying to sell you spoons.

Stop bashing Paul.
You're making U2 fans look bad.

Paul's the fifth member? Ok then. How about Lou Pearlman? The guy who actually CONTRACTED himself as a '6th member' to his artists...you may have heard of some of them; Backstreet Boys and NSync. He's now doing 20 yrs behind bars for fraud. But he started those groups...does that mean they owe him something? HELL NO.

Just because Paul helped get U2 started does not mean he is entitled to a job as their manager. Groups change managers all the time, and thrive. U2 does not need Paul. He needs them.