The cost of concerts and so on

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> I don't think we can complain too much about TED making money right
> now.

LB:

The main reason for high concert ticket prices is simply that while touring
used to be only for promotion, and the band made the real money on the
album sales, the costs of touring have risen while the profits on albums
have dropped. Even a few short years ago, tickets were fairly reasonable. I
saw The Who in Raleigh NC, 1997, for only $20. A bargain, definitely).
If they're going to make a profit, even the stripped-down version of the
band (costs less that way, and I'm glad because I prefer them this way) and
they have a chance to actually make a profit this tour. Quad didn't make a
profit? How many performers were there? Ditto with Daltrey losing money on
the Townshend celebration orchestra tour.

> I've got to think the reason for no world tour is Pete.

Brian:

Still they could do limited shows, which isn't really any different than
the US tour. If they did say three or four dates in Europe, no one would
have to travel farther than fans in the US will. In the UK they could do
one venue for several nights.
As for South America...have they EVER played there?
Anyway, this is a way for Pete to limit his traveling to a couple weeks at
the most. It would also keep costs down quite nicely.

> how Napster is going to cost the Recording Industry $3 billion a year.

That doesn't bother me, but how much it will cost the performers is the
problem. Will musicians have any incentive to record and perform if they
aren't going to be able to even recoup the cost? Oh, the solution might be
drastically higher concert prices. And I mean DRASTICALLY.

> time to time , but no jamming.

Rommel:

Good! The entire Page/Crowes thing bothers me anyway. It's as if Townshend
took U2 on a Who cover band tour.


         Cheers                                 ML