Jason

*almost* picked up field tickets for the Stones on the first day of the regular sale. Only $397 a piece for 19 rows back. Would have been more of an investment for resale, but didn't have $800 to tie up that long.

Plus, the temptation to use them would have been too great...

Mike86

I can't believe tickets for The Rolling Stones are that much. That's honestly ridiculous especially considering that the seats are back quite a ways even if they are on the floor. I just don't think that they're worth that much in their current state as their live performances I've seen (not in person obviously) are pretty much shit. Granted I realize that most of the price is probably just because they know they can charge that and people will pay it for the opportunity to say they've seen The Rolling Stones.

DaveWadding

I paid $100 for an Eagles ticket. Don't think I'd go more than that for anyone still around.

statcat

The most I ever spent was just $50+ some other fees for one of the Raspberries reunion shows in 2007. Can't really imagine spending lots on a concert. Mostly just go for the $10-$30 shows but haven't gone to any in years.

Decker

I think the very worst Eagles seats are $150 or so now. There was nothing in the lower level of the MGM for under $300 (or maybe $400) last time they were here in Vegas (they seem to come here a lot). I think it's insane what they want for tickets. I've seen them twice from awful seats and would still see them again if they weren't so damn greedy with the ticket prices.

Can't believe how little some of you spend on concert tickets. I'm thrilled if I can get a ticket for under $100 -- and that doesn't happen much any more.

BTW : Upon further reflection, I think I remembered the price of two tickets instead of each. No way I paid $350 each for Billy Joel. Most I ever spent was around $300 for U2 seats and I got a single $750 ticket for the last Stones tour for $250 + fees on Stub Hub --figured it hurt less spending that much knowing that another guy was taking a $500 hit on my seat.

DaveWadding

My seat was GREAT. it was on the side, but right up near the stage. way better than I ever anticipated. I thought the prices for floors were really bad ($175-250 each) but I got lucky.

rw2516

But they're not really seeing The Stones.
MY SOAPBOX
These current shows by classic artists are 25% the quality of the bands in their prime at 20-30 times the cost.
I can understand the inflation. I can understand people grow old and people die. I understand this is the best possible show available and we have to settle for what we can get but it's just not worth it.
After inflation is figured into the ticket price:
10% off for lower quality due to age
10% off for members replaced by nameless muscians
10% off for band members sitting during songs they use to stand
10% off for going acoustic on songs they use to rock
10% off for extra muscians on stage to pick up slack
$50 is just about right.
If I'm going to pay big bucks to see The Who, I don't want more than four guys on the stage and I want them to rock so hard they need to be taken off on stretchers.
If I pay big bucks to see the Eagles, Don Felder is with them, there is only one drum set on stage and Henley plays drums on every song and sings every song from behind the drums.
The '09 Zeppelin show is the way it should be done. Just the four guys coming out and giving a show that was really no different than a show from their prime except for the absence of Bonham.

auto

My buddy makes the same argument about discounting based on age, etc.

Funny, most of my booked upcoming concerts are damn near senior citizens.

Steve Windwood
Steely Dan
Faith No More
Rolling Stones
Elvis Costello

inri222

The Bus

Most shows I go to are in the $15–30 range for shows here in New York; the same shows would be $8–20 in Philadelphia.

The most I've paid for tickets was for Coldplay, which I don't regret as it was their first tour where they turned into a giant arena band. I paid something like $400 for the pair in a bid, and the difference between face value ($90) and the bid went to Oxfam (or a similar charity).

I would pay $100 for Springsteen, U2, or the Stones. Maybe a little more depending on the venue or date.

Once I see a band live, I am OK not seeing them live again since I already have those good memories. If the new album is especially good, I may want to hear those songs live again.

The exception to all of the above are the Pogues. If they tour again I will pay $200 to see them.

rocket1312

The most I ever paid was like $110 per seat to see Elton John about 5 years ago. It's the only time I've ever spent over $100 for any show and the only reason I could ever justifying paying more than that would be a Roger Waters/David Gilmour reunion or if Elton John did a more intimate sort of tour where he promised not to play the same 25 songs that he plays at every show. Even in those two scenarios I couldn't imagine paying much more than $250-ish for a ticket.

Mike86

I agree that bands that aren't able to perform up to what they used to or don't have all of their original members shouldn't charge a premium price just because they can but alas. Paul McCartney for me was totally worth paying a fairly high price for (although he was nowhere near as high as The Rolling Stones price mentioned) and put on a great show considering his age and whatnot. Some bands just need to learn when to hang it up or be realistic about what they're charging.

rw2516

When McCartney did Wings Over America in 1976 I bought an extra ticket just to keep for a souvenier. Face Value $7.75
Couple other I have intact:
Led Zeppelin 1977 $9.95. General admission=front row
Eric Clapton 1974 $5.00 General admission=front row

cungar

Yeah I have a bunch of those 70s/early 80s unbelievably cheap ticket stories. Hate to sound like an old fart but the shows were way better then too.

johnnysd

I almost paid $1000 to see the Zeppelin O2 concert six years ago. I would still pay a lot to see them again (saw them in 75 I think) but they are getting up there now.

tonyc3742

Went to a New Years Eve classical concert and jazz performance last year, tix were 85/90 or so. Great show.
Rock concerts - I definitely prefer the 10-25 range and venues, but I think the most I recall paying is around 50-60 bucks.
Some shows have had corollary expenses:
* 15$ show, six hour round trip drive - so gas money (Misfits)
* Free VIP tickets won in a contest, but six hour round trip and overnight hotel (last years GWARBQ)
* All of DragonCon's expenses (but Freezepop was an awesome show)

I don't like a lot of the big-name, big-ticket, big-venue bands; at least not enough to pay the ticket prices. I passed on Motley Crue, Iron Maiden, and Martina McBride over the last couple years because the tix were in the $150 range.

Last tix I bought were for KMFDM - $22.

sportsfan64

I paid $75-$85 for Eagles tix from ebay back in 2003 in Philly. They were nosebleed seats, but we were able to move down close to the stage midway through the concert. Somehow we found empty seats.

movieking

I think that my max was $150-$175 a ticket, and I think that it was Paul McCartney, although I think that Springsteen & U2 were in that range when I saw them as well. I've paid close to that to see Brad Paisley and some other country artists recently.

A buddy of mine paid $500 for a pair of Stones tickets in TO last year for his wife's 40th birthday. He found better tickets, paid the same amount and expected to be able to flip the other tickets. He couldn't. I can't remember if there were more tickets released or if there was another show added, but he took a wash (this doesn't include the cost for the flight and hotel to see the concert)...

Sort of off topic, but I've drastically cut down on the concerts I see now. I just find it hard to justify paying $500 for a couple of hours of entertainment (adding in costs for drinks, rides, sitters, supper, or some combination of each). I'll still pay to see some of my favorites, but I'm much more picky than before.

tonyc3742

Whereas I'm trying to see more I grew up near Atlanta and went to school in Athens, which had just a little bit of music. Even when I was within walking distance of ten clubs with something going on pretty much every night, I didn't go to shows that often.
Now if a band I'm into plays anywhere within a "local" area, for less than 50 bucks, I'll try to make it.

Damfino

I have also paid about $250 each for 2 Stones tickets. This was back in the 90s when premium pricing seems to have started in Las Vegas. A lot of Vegas locals now go out of town for concerts. I saw U2 in Anaheim for about half of what it would have cost here.

beavis69

I'm debating paying $80 after fees for the Rockstar Mayhem tour right now. The bill is kinda crappy but I did want to see Slayer (again) and King Diamond (who I've really wanted to see). Just not sure those two are worth $80.

Decker

I didn't know that. I just kept wondering how everyone else has gotten away with paying so much less than I'm used to.
My daughter wants to go to see Taylor Swift in Rock In Rio but those tickets are $300 face value without even a seat to sit in. I had a hard time getting my head around spending that sort of money on a festival ticket. Hearing that Vegas ticket prices are jacked up makes more sense.

rw2516

Not sure if everyone is still alive but I'd go $250/ticket to see these.

Mott The Hoople-original lineup
Ronnie Montrose and Sammy Hagar
Spiders From Mars
Traffic
Yes-Fragile lineup
Eric Burden

Although not a Nugent fan, I really like the songs Meatloaf sings on Free-For-All. Ted Nugent w/Meatloaf on vocals(entire show) would be something to see. I'd go $100 on it.

Ky-Fi

There have been some valid points about aging bands not being the same as their earlier incarnations, but I would argue that that opposite can also be true.

I can think of a few artists I've seen some 15-30 years after their heyday:

Joe Strummer
X
The Specials
The Fixx
Johnny Marr
Morrissey
Simple Minds

...that arguably sound better today (Joe Strummer was in '99, actually) than they ever did. You have to figure that 20 years down the line, if they're still alive, they've probably cut back/eliminated the drugs/drinking thing, and if they've been playing steadily over that time, they're probably better musicians. And, modern equipment, effects, sound systems and venues have generally improved.

I'm not saying they always will sound better than they did in their prime---it seems like it's hardest for singers to maintain the vocal quality of their youth---but they're not always worse.

creekdipper

$30 for single group/solo artist.

$35 for a bluegrass festival ticket just a few years back to see Tim O'Brien, Ralph Stanley, Ricky Skaggs & Ky Thunder, CherryHolmes, Doyle Lawson & Quicksilver, Peter Rowan/Tony Rice, and several other early morning opening acts such as Greencards. Music from 8:30 or 9:00 AM until 12:30 or 1 AM next morning.

Ky-Fi makes a great point about some artists improving in some areas due to getting clean & healthier. On the other hand, some manic performances seemed drug-fueled. Just depended on how bad the habit had gotten when they hit your area. Also good points about improvement in sound technology.

I'd say Richard Thompson, while always good, just keeps improving with age. Same for a lot of solo artists (especially more singer-songwriter/folkier types). Re: X, I'd say that John Doe sounds pretty good, but not too sure about recent Exene. I could be happy just listening to Johnny Marr do instrumental versions of Smith tunes.