THE 'FRESHEN UP' TOUR 2018
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
It would be lengthy, but I thoroughly approve of the ID'ing process. At least one member of the concert-going party could have a receipt in addition to their ticket(s) that verifies which tickets were purchased by that person and that they are in fact together as a party, with matching ID to suit. It's a shame it has come to this. The folks that actually pay these outlandish prices, officially and un-officially are ultimately the ones to blame though.
It's like that everywhere in the entertainment/ sports industry. They charge their prices because the market supports it. Doesn't matter what fan bought it, it would be sold as long as people wanted to sit closer to Paul. And there is a never ending number of them. So while I understand people's disappointment, for many years of seeing Paul I could only afford or get crappy seats and at the times was happy to get them at all. But now at 53 years old when I can finally afford to treat myself and buy VIP tickets for better seats, I will certainly not apologize for that. I paid my dues! And even in the lean years many times if you wanted closer tickets you had to pay exhorbinant prices to scalpers and then later eBay and StubHub , etc......
nothing has changed except now the artist is getting the money.
Exactly. It's fan-fueled and the artists crave the cash. There's no turning back.
Newsflash, Artists always craved the cash and now with music sales scuttling, touring is where they make the bulk of their money. I doubt you've ever gone into to work and told your boss not to pay you or pay you less
It's disappointing to see that as a the main concern for too many in the final stage of their life. An example of someone swimming against the curve, is Roger Hodgson. I'll be seeing him at the Maryland Hall in Annapolis tomorrow night. His venues hold probably about 10% of Paul's yet with ticket prices typically ranging from $50-$100 as a flat rate (usually not tiered pricing). He often carries a band with him, or sometimes goes solo. He has minimal merchandise and the pricing is not inflated. The Supertramp CD's are the same price as what you would pay in a record store etc. This will be the third time I have seen him. The first time I saw him, I contacted his manager with requests of a meet and greet which she happily obliged to at no additional cost. Roger took his own time after his own show to talk to me for about ten to fifteen minutes about MY musical goals and attributes. I was amazed by his interest in my life. He kindly signed and personalized my program including "Let your heart guide your song -Roger Hodgson".
Some would call this bad business. I consider it humility and compassion to the highest degree. If Roger Hodgson can afford to make decisions such as those described above, and still live and exceptionally wealthy lifestyle, I think Paul McCartney can advocate for his fans in the ticket-buying process. Paul McCartney could never perform another concert for the rest of his days and make more money sitting absolutely still than I can after working my ass off for a year.
I would call it neither, I would call it a performer nowhere near the reputation and a much lower tier performer. He plays small venues because he can no longer fill large ones. His ticket prices are where they are so that he can continually perform for decent sized crowds. If he charged much more even those small venues would be empty. I like Roger Hodgson but to compare him to Paul at this stage of his career is laughable. To try to turn a declining performer who even at the very top of his game not in the same level as McCartney into a hero for not charging high prices when in fact not many would pay much more to see them, a very foolish argument. Why not use the local bar band that has a $2 cover charge? Had you used somebody like Bruce Springsteen, you would have made somewhat of an argument but not with Hodgson. It's actually quite funny
I appreciate your input on this forum and you've been a great help to me in the past, so I'd like to make it clear I'm not attempting to argue here, merely clarify. That being said, I was comparing character not popularity. If you measure someone's musical "game" by how many seats they can fill, then we have different defitinions of musicality. I'm also not sure what these "levels" are that you refer to. Musicians are people...not sports teams that we compare stats to. If we were to consider musicality for a moment, Roger Hodgson's voice hasn't aged. He truly sounds just like the record. He's also a far more accomplished keyboardist than McCartney. They're about equals on guitar and of course, Hodgson wouldn't have an ounce of his songwriting skills if not for Lennon and McCartney. This is also keeping in mind that Sir Paul has eight years on Roger. But ultimately, I find it quite rude to consider him a "declining performer" when he sounds more authentic to his albums on stage than Paul does at this point. It's almost like the blind allegiance that Sinatra attained into the '90's when the ship had clearly sailed. The power of a performer's delivery is not defined by the size of their venue. I would only place Hodgson behind Billy Joel and Elton John (and of course McCartney) if I were considering the performances that have had the greatest emotional impacts on me through the display of their catalog and skills in performing it on stage
I'm looking to argue either but I guess the same way you take issue with some of my wording, I do to yours as well. You make it sound that because Roger Hodgson charges less money that he is somewhat morally superior or being of better character. When I say " Declining Performer" , it means a performer that is no longer maintaining mainstream popularity and relegated to smaller venue shows. If Roger could sell out stadiums, he would be doing it. For me, that term does not mean that his musical skill or singing voice is inferior. In fact, everytime I've seen Roger, I've been very happy with his performance. But whether you like it or not, the underlying factor of them going out on tour is to earn a living and make money. Their professional status and the amount of people that he can draw to those events dictate the size of venue that they play and the price of the tickets that they can charge. I think his playing and singing are still excellent.
and when I mention "levels" it is meant as level s of popularity which translates in the amount of people he can draw to any given concert. While with Supertramp, the reached very impressive, short term popularity. Many people that I know would not know him just by his name, but say Supertramp and then many would. Even at the height of Supertramp's popularity, they never achieved the heights of Paul, Elton , Billy And many others and definitely not their sustained desire by their fans in masses to see them live
And while popularity does not define the level of musicality or talent, neither is what's I am measuring. If there is no audience interest, then Roger or any other performer would not be doing concerts . And I definitely respect the fact that his shows have personally touched you. I get that, one of the best shows I've been to was Joe Brown who in his 80's is now relegated to even smaller venues than Roger. But it was one of the most charming and entertaining performances I've seen. Of course others may disagree because music I see a personal thing.
i agree with you that size of venue or even current popularity have anything to do with talent, musicality or the power of their particular performance. But those things have everything to do with what's size vEnue that they can book and the ticket prices that they can charge. There is no moral superiority because the charge less, this is not their noble cause. It is no omage to the fans. If their promoter thought they could charge the money Paul does and play to large venues where lots of people will pay those fees, they would. That's the plain and simple truth.
Every year tours or shows are cancelled due to lack of sales. Early 2000's , ELO had to cancel a US tour sales went totally flat. I know, I had tickets.
if you had used Bruce Springsteen as your example, it would have been a better measuring stick as his popularity, catalog and length duration is somewhat close. While his Broadway tickets are very expensive, most tours, even the last one, most tickets are under $150.....they used to be $75 for most seats. While he could have garnered much more, he did make an effort to stay affordable on purpose. Difference is though, Bruce is still doing massive world tours during the course of the year while Paul is no longer engaged in that. Paul has many more moving parts while Bruce prefers a very stripped down show.
-
100% correct Bob. I am happy the other poster got a meet and greet with Roger. He was probably 1 of maybe 2 people who requested that for that show. Paul would literally have to meet thousands of people per show if he were to be so "humble". And yes, if Roger was on the level of Paul's popularity he would be charging an arm and a leg as well.
I saw Mick Taylor(guitariist for the Stones during their golden years) solo in a club years ago. Humble guy. Signed autographs after the gig.
That same Mick Taylor re-joined the Stones from 2012-2014, and played a handful of songs nightly with them. Needless to say I could never got to interact with him the way I did when I saw him solo.(For $30 FYI) WHY?!?! Because he was with the Rolling F-ing Stones thats why!. Those tickets were $750 a pop!
-
Paul received an award in Australia last evening. At the end of his video acceptance speech (perhaps from England) he said "See you soon!" Not sure if that means "See all my fans out on tour soon!" or "See you in Australia soon!" but thought it was interesting.
-
hengirl wrote:
Great discussion from both of you if you will allow me to put my take on it it’s this,if Roger could fill larger venues then he would and yes he would charge more too,they all do it they’re in it to make money to say otherwise is utter nonsense,limited merch? All that means to me is he can’t sell a wide range so why stick yourself with gear you can’t shift?
i saw Bruce on the river tour a couple of years back,yes his tickets where reasonable I paid more for Billy Joel for instance,but I found his merch really expensive Roger Waters on The Wall tour,a show I’d have expected to be very expensive but ticket wise I thought good value,it was the merch which made your eyes water price wise.
point I’m trying to make I suppose one way or the other artists one way or the other are after your spending money they don’t do this for the good of their health just the good of their back balance,that any artist declined in popularity plays smaller venues they have to work that bit harder for their corn,it’s up to you if you think they’ve earned it.
to finish I wonder what price tickets for Paul if he did a Springsteen type show?
Not only have I pondered, I've wished for a scaled down production for at least one tour for Paul. For Bruce, it gives him the freedom to change setlists nightly, heck, the man takes requests!! To see Paul playing a like show would be absolutely mind blowing
-
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
100% correct Bob. I am happy the other poster got a meet and greet with Roger. He was probably 1 of maybe 2 people who requested that for that show. Paul would literally have to meet thousands of people per show if he were to be so "humble". And yes, if Roger was on the level of Paul's popularity he would be charging an arm and a leg as well.
I saw Mick Taylor(guitariist for the Stones during their golden years) solo in a club years ago. Humble guy. Signed autographs after the gig.
That same Mick Taylor re-joined the Stones from 2012-2014, and played a handful of songs nightly with them. Needless to say I could never got to interact with him the way I did when I saw him solo.(For $30 FYI) WHY?!?! Because he was with the Rolling F-ing Stones thats why!. Those tickets were $750 a pop!
And don't get me wrong, artist at this stage of their careers playing these small, intimate venues are great for the fans. Many of them do meet and greets because of hey do have to work harder for their money. But usually you pay more for it. I met the Zombies that way. Rick Springfield, Pat Benatar, Debbie Gibson, Billy Idol, Kenny Rogers, Foreigner, ZZ Top, Ozzie Osborne and many others have done it or still do it. Absolutely no knock on small venue shows, as a fan experience they can be incredible. My point is that can never take the business factors out of the equation . They will always be there. Prices and size of venues are a direct result of that. But to Wix's point, it doesn't detract from the actual show itself. I saw Peter Cetera earlier this year in a small theater near Boston....Lynn, MA......it was a great show !! But I would lie if I said that if I felt their ticket prices were too high that I would skip their shows. Paul, Bruce, The Stones, Elton John, Sting, Billy Joel and some others and I don't really wrestle with price value
-
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
-
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
-
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
-
LadyLeslie wrote:
Paul received an award in Australia last evening. At the end of his video acceptance speech (perhaps from England) he said "See you soon!" Not sure if that means "See all my fans out on tour soon!" or "See you in Australia soon!" but thought it was interesting.
His tour of Australia last year was a success, so I won't be surprised if he announces a few shows over there in late October / early November.
-
puppywhimpers wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
No reason for popcorn, not being confrontational. Just a genuine interest in seeing it
-
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Ringo was in Israel last month, so hopefully Paul will return after a 10-year absence.
-
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Usually I think that Fans On The Run page is not a confiable source. I have no idea where this rumor comes from.
Last year FOTR said that Australia and New Zealand shows were cancelled. That wrong infomation caused panic for some fans. Not cool.
-
5th-beatle wrote:
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Ringo was in Israel last month, so hopefully Paul will return after a 10-year absence.
Yes he was. And I attended the show (which was great!). I hope Paul will return to Tel Aviv, but I couldn't find anything related to the rumors Fans On The Run posted unfortunately
-
Renan Takenouchi wrote:
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Usually I think that Fans On The Run page is not a confiable source. I have no idea where this rumor comes from.
Last year FOTR said that Australia and New Zealand shows were cancelled. That wrong infomation caused panic for some fans. Not cool.
Yes... I hope the rumors are true. It's been 10 years since his last (and first) visit to Israel
-
Renan Takenouchi wrote:
Yahllil wrote:
Fans on the run posted on Facebook that there is a rumor about a show in Israel. Did anybody heard something!? I can't find anything!
Usually I think that Fans On The Run page is not a confiable source. I have no idea where this rumor comes from.
Last year FOTR said that Australia and New Zealand shows were cancelled. That wrong infomation caused panic for some fans. Not cool.
I agree, I do not trust them at all. I also doubt Paul would come back to Australia after one year of visiting, when he previously left a 25 year gap. I would also doubt Israel if they are the only source of the information.
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
I cannot give you that in writing from an outside source.
-
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
I cannot give you that in writing from an outside source.
Ok, fair enough. Thought you might be quoting a industry article or magazine article that could be pulled up. Would be interested in seeing it if true. The times I've seen Brian, the venues have been packed and meet and greet lines long so the statement rather surprised me
-
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
Bob Gannon wrote:
WixRocks wrote:
I'm amazed at the support for the financial endeavors of billionaires we've never met!
I don't think any response I construct would thoughtfully launch the conversation in any new directions but ultimately I think the difference we have, is that I do not consider money to be the number one reason these guys perform. Maybe part of that is naive on my part because it pains me to think that the initial sole idol I've looked to in my own musical journey, is only in it for the money. Here's another comparison you'll probably scoff at: Brian Wilson. Most of Brian's recent tours have lost money, yet he contains. He was literally carried onstage in Canada a few nights ago after returning from back surgery. Yes, he's in the smaller venues too BUT, is anyone from the 60's rock scene considered as much or more of a songwriter legend than Paul McCartney? I think the two are certainly on even playing fields as far as legendary "status" goes. Now, Brian's voice is long since shot and his piano playing is minimum if een existent some nights yet he actively chooses to LOSE money to perform for his fans.
This isn't ALL about the dough.
I'd certainly love to see the data or article claiming that his recent tours have lost money
I cannot give you that in writing from an outside source.
Ok, fair enough. Thought you might be quoting a industry article or magazine article that could be pulled up. Would be interested in seeing it if true. The times I've seen Brian, the venues have been packed and meet and greet lines long so the statement rather surprised me
I agree, I was shocked when informed as well, perhaps it was an exaggeration on this person's part but they explained the laundry list of needs that Brian Wilson has off stage for his personal health when traveling that add up, in addition to the massive band he carries and the typically small venues he plays.
-
I don't agree with the arguments that Paul's primary motivation to play live is to make money. If it was then he's pretty useless at it.
If I were his manager then I'd suggest, for example, that he did 10 consecutive nights at the O2 arena in London . Get a support act in,who would perform for free just for the opportunity to support Paul on tour. Then for Paul himself,play a one hour set, playing acoustic guitar or a piano. No backing band, no pyrotechnics, no films, just Paul alone on stage playing his hits...unplugged as it were. Keep everything as low key and as cheap as possible to maximise profit.
But Paul doesn't do that. He has a backing band who needs paying, he has all the expense of assembling and dismantling the lighting rig etc for just one show, he has the films, pyrotechnics etc etc, all of which cost money. I'm sure he does make a slight profit from each show but no where near as much as he could do if he was only motovated by making as much money as possible. Naturally, Paul doesn't want to make a loss but as far as I'm concerned he's prime motivation is as its always has been, he simply loves playing live and enjoying the feedback from his audience.