Fleetwood Mac

[dentalplan]

16 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

There's an argument for it, haven't got any facts to back it up but it certainly feels that the cost of gig tickets is rising faster than the annual cost increase for a Glastonbury ticket.

Last time Paul "The Macca" McCarthy played Glastonbury, he was charging £30 standing, and Glastonbury was £112 back then, so I guess you're right as I imagine his standing this year was more than the correlating £67.50. But I think the same people rapidly priced out of Glastonbury are rapidly priced out of seeing legendary bands anyway. Just kinda (obviously) annoys me when one ridiculous price is used to encourage another, particularly when it's important that not everyone onsite actually goes to the headliner.

6 minutes ago, billum said:

Could be argued that a fixed admin fee would be fairer - does it cost more to send out a £200 than a £75 one? Do they gold-plate the envelope? Or are they, indeed, just taking the piss

In the way that you all get the same service then yeah, that's why delivery charges don't change between price levels. But it's incredibly common in many industries - especially for luxury items - for the service charge to be relative to the price of the thing you're paying for.

[billum]

4 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

In the way that you all get the same service then yeah, that's why delivery charges don't change between price levels. But it's incredibly common in many industries - especially for luxury items - for the service charge to be relative to the price of the thing you're paying for.

Yeah bummer

[Hugh Jass]

14 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Last time Paul "The Macca" McCarthy played Glastonbury, he was charging £30 standing, and Glastonbury was £112 back then, so I guess you're right as I imagine his standing this year was more than the correlating £67.50. But I think the same people rapidly priced out of Glastonbury are rapidly priced out of seeing legendary bands anyway. Just kinda (obviously) annoys me when one ridiculous price is used to encourage another, particularly when it's important that not everyone onsite actually goes to the headliner.

I've paid £200 today for two tickets to FM, but this will most likely be the last time I'll ever do it. They're the last of the "legendary bands" I've still to see. Seen Macca, The Stones, The Who, Bowie (RIP), Queen (& AL), and many more from the older generation, pretty much every major act of my generation and everyting I want to see from the current gen.

From now on it'll have to be something pretty dramatic to tempt me to part with £60+ for a ticket, will be focusing more on day festivals with stellar undercards.

[McCor]

The fact the pre-sale hasn't even sold out yet says a lot about the pricing / Buckingham lovers

[Havors]

The thing with Glastonbury.... most band would be stupid to not take a big pay cut for a set or even do it for free. The publicity it brings them is priceless. But then you have bands like Fleetwood Mac who do not need any publicity so the only reason for them to do it would be just because they would love to do it... They obviously care more about the money than experiencing something like Glasto. 

[henry bear]

31 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

From now on it'll have to be something pretty dramatic to tempt me to part with £60+ for a ticket, will be focusing more on day festivals with stellar undercards.

The 2021 FM reunion tour with Buckingham?

I’m no big fan of FM, but like you wanted to see them once, and caught them at the O2 on the last tour. Can’t help but think that the era of these 1960’s acts must be coming to a close soon, catch ‘em while you can.

Would love to see the Kinks again, especially at Glasto.

[McCor]

1 minute ago, Havors said:

The thing with Glastonbury.... most band would be stupid to not take a big pay cut for a set or even do it for free. The publicity it brings them is priceless. But then you have bands like Fleetwood Mac who do not need any publicity so the only reason for them to do it would be just because they would love to do it... They obviously care more about the money than experiencing something like Glasto. 

The same can be said for their shows though. The could play Wembley for free and foot the bill themselves no doubt. The likes of Noel Gallagher charging £60.00 when he doesn't need the money. Yet small bands walk out of a gig with £25 between them having paid for a hire van (which they will sleep in), and drive themselves from Manchester to Swindon and back. Its all wrong I tell you!!!!!!!!!

(Buying FM ticket tomorrow....)

[billum]

6 minutes ago, McCor said:

(Buying FM ticket tomorrow....)

Why wait until tomorrow?

https://www.gigsandtours.com/tour/fleetwood-mac?pre=fmpre&awc=7816_1540454751_7af62beb65664792a1fc2dc10a95e4a5&AFF=aw

[McCor]

Just now, billum said:

Why wait until tomorrow?

https://www.gigsandtours.com/tour/fleetwood-mac?pre=fmpre&awc=7816_1540454751_7af62beb65664792a1fc2dc10a95e4a5&AFF=aw

That's when I get paid. I've helped A LOT of people today with that link though. Hoping the karma gods are looking down come April....

[billum]

Just now, McCor said:

That's when I get paid. I've helped A LOT of people today with that link though. Hoping the karma gods are looking down come April....

Aha - good luck tomorrow then ?

[Havors]

48 minutes ago, McCor said:

The same can be said for their shows though. The could play Wembley for free and foot the bill themselves no doubt. The likes of Noel Gallagher charging £60.00 when he doesn't need the money. Yet small bands walk out of a gig with £25 between them having paid for a hire van (which they will sleep in), and drive themselves from Manchester to Swindon and back. Its all wrong I tell you!!!!!!!!!

(Buying FM ticket tomorrow....)

I imagine Noel's cut from £60 ticket price is not much once venue, promoters, admin, taxman, band, crew etc etc have all been paid?? 

Gigs have always mainly just been a way of getting word out and promoting your new music. Its not needed as much these days with the internet and spotify.

£170 for tickets and the such is obviously to line the bands/singers pockets I would imagine? 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Havors said:

Gigs have always mainly just been a way of getting word out and promoting your new music. Its not needed as much these days with the internet and spotify.

incorrect.

Gigs are more important than ever as an income stream, because there's not the big income streams from physical sales that there used to be (and the income from streaming is very low in comparison).

It's also often the case that bands have sold off future royalties for cash now, in order for them to have developed to a standard where they might financially self-sustain - but that means the self-sustaining comes from the income from playing gigs.

[FakeEmpire]

Exactly this.   Gigs/Festivals are the main source of income for most musicians now and, for as long as that continues, prices will continue to rise.

Streaming just generates money for the big labels and major streaming hits.

[Havors]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

incorrect.

Gigs are more important than ever as an income stream, because there's not the big income streams from physical sales that there used to be (and the income from streaming is very low in comparison).

It's also often the case that bands have sold off future royalties for cash now, in order for them to have developed to a standard where they might financially self-sustain - but that means the self-sustaining comes from the income from playing gigs.

Good points.

[Havors]

2 minutes ago, RyanS said:

Exactly this.   Gigs/Festivals are the main source of income for most musicians now and, for as long as that continues, prices will continue to rise.

Streaming just generates money for the big labels and major streaming hits.

The big stars and bands dont need the gigs for revenue though surely? They make millions anyway. The smaller acts and new acts yes I guess they do rely on the income. 

[Yokel Again]

I think as well, with Fleetwood Mac / heritage acts - a lot of the audience is dare I say older, wealthier, and going to be going to one x1 big gig a year for some nostalgia rather than loads of £20 band in somewhere smaller type gig goers. The same who buy their vinyl of old albums in Sainsburys etc.

Clearly there are large number of people willing to pay it.

 

(Sweeping generalisations here, but you know what I mean).

[Smeble]

Wowzers, that’s eyewateringly expensive, and one of the reasons we only do festivals, the last gig we went to was ray Davies at the forum in bath a few years ago.

arena or stadium gigs are just far too expensive nowadays, saw the eagles a few years ago at the O2 and what an awful venue that is, never again.

[FakeEmpire]

9 minutes ago, Havors said:

The big stars and bands dont need the gigs for revenue though surely? They make millions anyway. The smaller acts and new acts yes I guess they do rely on the income. 

I read somewhere that a lot of the older acts signed these dodgy deals where they signed away future rights to their back catalogues.   Then streaming came along and made those back catalogues worth more than new music.   The collapse in physical sales and getting naff all from the streaming/digital income forced a lot of these bands back out on the road to plug the holes in their retirement funds.  It also explains the huge rise in "remastered" editions as a way of reclaiming those digital rights.

I'm not saying that Fleetwood Mac need the money though, they're obviously loaded and just after every penny they can get, but it does go some way to explain why a lot of these bigger acts are charging a fortune to continue in the lifestyles they're used to.

[Havors]

6 minutes ago, RyanS said:

I read somewhere that a lot of the older acts signed these dodgy deals where they signed away future rights to their back catalogues.   Then streaming came along and made those back catalogues worth more than new music.   The collapse in physical sales and getting naff all from the streaming/digital income forced a lot of these bands back out on the road to plug the holes in their retirement funds.  It also explains the huge rise in "remastered" editions as a way of reclaiming those digital rights.

I'm not saying that Fleetwood Mac need the money though, they're obviously loaded and just after every penny they can get, but it does go some way to explain why a lot of these bigger acts are charging a fortune to continue in the lifestyles they're used to.

Simon Cowell is taking everyone's money by playing the triangle on the backing of songs so he can claim royalties ?? 

[dondo]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

incorrect.

Gigs are more important than ever as an income stream, because there's not the big income streams from physical sales that there used to be (and the income from streaming is very low in comparison).

It's also often the case that bands have sold off future royalties for cash now, in order for them to have developed to a standard where they might financially self-sustain - but that means the self-sustaining comes from the income from playing gigs.

I remember watching that documentary on Sky Arts earlier this year about festivals and Mark Ellen was saying similar that years ago bands used to tour to promote a record and that they made most of their money from  record sales so income from tours was less important but nowadays the reverse is true that they need the income from touring more.  Perhaps why ticket prices are higher these days (outside of normal inflation) in my opinion.

[thewayiam]

2 hours ago, RyanS said:

Exactly this.   Gigs/Festivals are the main source of income for most musicians now and, for as long as that continues, prices will continue to rise.

Streaming just generates money for the big labels and major streaming hits.

Some might say if music was always purchased and not retrieved through other means that prices would have stayed a bit more reasonable.

[Boris]

Obviously the same accusation was levelled at the Stones for years- that they were basically too tight-arsed to play for the reduced Glastonbury fee. But they did... (eventually). Dunno to what extent it was 'reduced' mind.

[henry bear]

26 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

Some might say if music was always purchased 

Go and tell it to the man who cannot shine

[billum]

6 minutes ago, Boris said:

Obviously the same accusation was levelled at the Stones for years- that they were basically too tight-arsed to play for the reduced Glastonbury fee. But they did... (eventually). Dunno to what extent it was 'reduced' mind.

Some sources say it was 10% of their 'normal' fee, whatever that really means. The standard fee last time Macca and Coldplay headlined was famously £200,000, and it's said that the Stones made a loss on their appearance because they built an ego ramp out the front of the stage (Adele did too didn't she?).

I'd also heard somewhere that the Stones in fact got £500k, which has got to be a lot less than what they'd expect from any normal appearance, but who knows how it's even worked out what with expenses and tax allowances etc. once accountants get involved. A nice little loss playing Glasto can help offset one's tax bill in that super-league no doubt

[Penrhos]

It's not just FM - U2's tickets for the current tour topped out at over £200 once fees were added for the decent low tier seats.

What I really object to is the scam that Livenation and Toutmaster do where they have a "Golden Circle" and partition off the standing section directly in front of the stage and charge 3-4 times more for access. It'd be like Glastonbury sealing off the section in front of the crush barrier off and charging a grand for a ticket to access it.

TRNSMT did it in 2018 and I for one will boycott any festival or artist that does this....

https://highwayqueens.com/2018/07/09/why-the-trnsmt-golden-circle-and-all-exploitative-vip-standing-areas-must-go/

 

The front rail is for fans that turn up early and queue for the privilege to be on the rail not for the privileged.