Prices are HIGHER on this tour...
-
"The price is higher than the time before"
-
thenightfish:
walliebaby:
Oobu--oh my, Bruce does indeed have a crazy stage set up with lighting and screens and such. Quite a show!
Um, not sure which Springsteen show you saw that at, but Bruce doesn't use screens for graphics in arenas the way Paul does. There are 2 screens on each side of the stage to show closeups and the video feed, but that's usually it. In arenas, his staging is completely open at the back so people can sit behind the stage. For stadium shows, Bruce does not sell seats behind the stage; in stadiums they use a big screen behind the band for the video feed. But otherwise all his effects are done with lighting. He does charge less for his tickets than Paul does (to keep this on-topic), but from what I hear, his per-show guarantee is quite high, which is why he tends to skip certain cities on his tours--because the promoters won't meet it.
That's what I'm talking about! Let the music do the talking! Here is George Strait in Albuquerque last month: http://abqjournal.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ihJU1n7zY74
-
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130412/THINGSTODO02/304120020/Price-range-Paul-McCartney-tour-tickets-similar-2002-visit-Indianapolis According to this story, Paul's ticket prices for his Indianapolis show are nearly the same as they were 11 years ago, when he played there in 2002.
Tickets ? on sale at 10 a.m. April 19 ? are priced $59.50 to $252. When McCartney played the same venue 11 years ago, tickets were priced $50 to $250.
That's pretty amazing, actually, if he's held ticket prices that steady for a decade.
-
Michelley:
Tickets ? on sale at 10 a.m. April 19 ? are priced $59.50 to $252. When McCartney played the same venue 11 years ago, tickets were priced $50 to $250.
That's pretty amazing, actually, if he's held ticket prices that steady for a decade.
Well, yes and no. The range of prices has remained mostly the same since 2002. However..... the location of the 'price breaks', has vastly changed. In 2002, the only $250s were the front half of the floor, and the two lower level sections closest to the stage. Mid/back floors were $125.... Most lowers were $125, and some really far away lowers were about $85. This time around.... the ENTIRE floor is $250... The vast majority of the lower level is $250 too.... Only a small handful of really far away $150 lowers (and some side-view lowers at $150) So, while the price range is close to what it was in 2002, prices have really gone up. Most of those same seats that were $125 in 2002, are now $250 in 2013, etc, etc.... (PS - I am only comparing arena shows from 2002 to 2013... The stadiums and ballparks are generally priced differently than the arenas.)
-
rlj1010:
Michelley:
Tickets ? on sale at 10 a.m. April 19 ? are priced $59.50 to $252. When McCartney played the same venue 11 years ago, tickets were priced $50 to $250.
That's pretty amazing, actually, if he's held ticket prices that steady for a decade.
Well, yes and no. The range of prices has remained mostly the same since 2002. However..... the location of the 'price breaks', has vastly changed. In 2002, the only $250s were the front half of the floor, and the two lower level sections closest to the stage. Mid/back floors were $125.... Most lowers were $125, and some really far away lowers were about $85. This time around.... the ENTIRE floor is $250... The vast majority of the lower level is $250 too.... Only a small handful of really far away $150 lowers (and some side-view lowers at $150) So, while the price range is close to what it was in 2002, prices have really gone up. Most of those same seats that were $125 in 2002, are now $250 in 2013, etc, etc.... (PS - I am only comparing arena shows from 2002 to 2013... The stadiums and ballparks are generally priced differently than the arenas.)
See I think that's a valid approach. A $125 ticket in 2002, adjusted for inflation, would cost about $160 today. And a $50 ticket in 2002 would be $63. There are A LOT more of the $59 to $125 tickets than there are $250 seats so, in effect, the people who can least afford to pay the higher tickets are getting a good deal here. Of course I'm no math major! I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Well, $250 was crazy in 2002 and it is crazy in 2010. That's like being charged $50 for a hamburger in 2002, then being happy your still being charged only $50 for a hamburger in 2013.
-
RMartinez:
Well, $250 was crazy in 2002 and it is crazy in 2010. That's like being charged $50 for a hamburger in 2002, then being happy your still being charged only $50 for a hamburger in 2013.
Well it was my choice to buy that $50 hamburger in 2002. And if I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to buy that $50 hamburger again in 2013, I'd be kinda thrilled that a burger so good still cost $50 after 10 years.
-
Michelley:
There are A LOT more of the $59 to $125 tickets than there are $250 seats .....
I don't actually think that's true. I believe there are a only a very, very limited number of $57 and $87 tickets this tour. There are no $125s.... But there are $150s. The entire floor is $250 Most of the lower level is $250 Just a few of the worst lower level sections are $150 Most of the upper level is $150 Some of the furthest away uppers are $87 and the last few rows of those furthest away upper sections are $57
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
Well, $250 was crazy in 2002 and it is crazy in 2010. That's like being charged $50 for a hamburger in 2002, then being happy your still being charged only $50 for a hamburger in 2013.
Well it was my choice to buy that $50 hamburger in 2002. And if I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to buy that $50 hamburger again in 2013, I'd be kinda thrilled that a burger so good still cost $50 after 10 years.
Well, you enjoy that $50 dollar burger! I'll find one for $5 and enjoy mine!
-
RMartinez:
Michelley:
RMartinez:
Well, $250 was crazy in 2002 and it is crazy in 2010. That's like being charged $50 for a hamburger in 2002, then being happy your still being charged only $50 for a hamburger in 2013.
Well it was my choice to buy that $50 hamburger in 2002. And if I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to buy that $50 hamburger again in 2013, I'd be kinda thrilled that a burger so good still cost $50 after 10 years.
Well, you enjoy that $50 dollar burger! I'll find one for $5 and enjoy mine!
Had a $60 burger in Vegas once (sorry Paul!).... it was unreal.
-
rlj1010:
RMartinez:
Michelley:
RMartinez:
Well, $250 was crazy in 2002 and it is crazy in 2010. That's like being charged $50 for a hamburger in 2002, then being happy your still being charged only $50 for a hamburger in 2013.
Well it was my choice to buy that $50 hamburger in 2002. And if I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to buy that $50 hamburger again in 2013, I'd be kinda thrilled that a burger so good still cost $50 after 10 years.
Well, you enjoy that $50 dollar burger! I'll find one for $5 and enjoy mine!
Had a $60 burger in Vegas once (sorry Paul!).... it was unreal.
I have paid $50 for a burger before. No regrets!
-
harleyblues:
with unblocked seating how could one mind that? Nice pic btw... cool of Bruce S to keep his tix prices low~ good for him~ wonder how many he employs while on tour?
Good question! Just talking about the band only, there are 15 members, including the backup singers and the *horn* section! Bruce has a similar pricing structure to Paul in that there are very few lower-priced tickets, most Springsteen tickets are in the $95 range, just as I agree that most of Paul's tickets seem to be in the $250 range on this tour. But Bruce also does not offer VIP packages the way Paul does; his floor is all standing so there are no "front row seats."
-
Bruce definitely offers better value for money as far as ticket prices go. But the simple fact is... I like Paul better. So I'd rather spend $250 on Paul, than $100 on Bruce.
-
I like Paul better than Bruce. And I am paying $0 this year.
-
And I love them both, so I go to see them both. And it's hard to really compare them or their ticket pricing structures, because their performance styles are so different. Personally I do think that Paul's music and performance can stand on its own and doesn't require all the extra graphics and screens that he uses. I assume that's all part of the ticket pricing, but maybe Paul's tickets would still be priced the same even without all the extra stagecraft, it's hard to say.
-
thenightfish:
And I love them both, so I go to see them both. And it's hard to really compare them or their ticket pricing structures, because their performance styles are so different. Personally I do think that Paul's music and performance can stand on its own and doesn't require all the extra graphics and screens that he uses. I assume that's all part of the ticket pricing, but maybe Paul's tickets would still be priced the same even without all the extra stagecraft, it's hard to say.
Yeah, at the end of the day it is all speculation. What is actually happening is reality of the situation. Like you said, you love them both so you go to both. I am quite content to watch it all unfold on the internet and save my money.
-
Still nothing quite like being there....
-
rlj1010:
Still nothing quite like being there....
But I have been there, and it is fun. So I do know what it is like. I'm content to miss it this time round. No regrets.
-
thenightfish:
walliebaby:
Oobu--oh my, Bruce does indeed have a crazy stage set up with lighting and screens and such. Quite a show!
Um, not sure which Springsteen show you saw that at, but Bruce doesn't use screens for graphics in arenas the way Paul does. There are 2 screens on each side of the stage to show closeups and the video feed, but that's usually it. In arenas, his staging is completely open at the back so people can sit behind the stage. For stadium shows, Bruce does not sell seats behind the stage; in stadiums they use a big screen behind the band for the video feed. But otherwise all his effects are done with lighting. He does charge less for his tickets than Paul does (to keep this on-topic), but from what I hear, his per-show guarantee is quite high, which is why he tends to skip certain cities on his tours--because the promoters won't meet it.
Stadium show, several screens and a walkway into/around the audience.
-
walliebaby:
Stadium show, several screens and a walkway into/around the audience.
Ah, stadium show, thanks, that's why more screens. For the arena shows, there's no walkway built. When he wants to head into the crowd, he just walks to the end of the front stage, goes down the steps, and walks down the aisle between the mezz seats and the GA people til he gets to the back platform that divides the Pit from the rest of the floor. By doing this he actually brings himself closer to people who are sitting towards the back of the arena, even though it is only for about 3 or 4 songs, depending on the show. sorry to get off-topic again ops: but just trying to explain the differences in staging between Paul and Bruce since it was brought up. Walking into the crowd is something I don't think Paul will EVER do.