Author Topic: Let's just accept this is about money...  (Read 4598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Passenger789

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2017, 10:10:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I mean, sure.  But I don't see this being a new development for a band that was charging $250 for seats during the last couple of tours.  All of their tours are about money.  Not just this one.

I see the OP as a way to de-legitimize this tour compared to the "it's all about the art, maaaan" view regarding their previous ones.  I think this tour can be every bit as artistic and, yes, entertaining, as their previous ones.  Just like a classical concert, consisting of material 100's of years old, can be a moving experience without playing a single "new song".  I'll judge for myself when I see it.  If them not touring new material is a turnoff--and hey, I get it, not everyone will be into this--fair play.

So are people here saying that if they had announced a 40th anniversary tour of just random, grab-bag hits that it was all over and they were just about money?

I think some are, yes.  I think some are worried that's the case with this tour.  I guess I just find all of the hand-wringing about the motives behind this tour to be a tad overdone.  U2 have been doing stadium shows, and charging some pretty hefty ticket prices, for decades now.  It's not like they HAVEN'T been a giant, corporate, capitalist rock band until now.  Maybe I'm just old enough to accept that this band has been complicated for a long time now.

To me, two facts -- and these are not opinions, these are FACTS -- have separated U2 from the money-grubbers:

1. New material. Before this tour, U2 always, always, always had a new album they were touring behind, and they played those songs extensively until they just weren't working in a live setting or the album wasn't as popular as they had hoped. Compare this to other 'legacy' acts who might play two songs off a new album. People don't buy much music any more, and when they do, they aren't albums by guys in their 50s. They play those songs because they are proud of them, not to move albums. Want proof? How many people did you see leaving your 360 Tour show during MOS? Despite what Bono said, I saw a lot.

2. And this is HUGE people, so please listen up before you get on U2 about being about money: THAT FLOOR. That floor, man. That GA floor, and those $70 GAs. Are you kidding me right now? Do you know what Springsteen charged for GA floors last time out? $175 with fees. DOUBLE what U2 are charging with fees. DOUBLE. Mr. Blue Collar Man Of The People here, not Kiss, OK? DOUBLE. Let that sink in for a second. Now, let's look at the bands who do reserved floors and what they are charging. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars. The Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Tom Petty.

What do you think it would cost to get within water-spitting distance of Mick Jagger? $500? $700?
How about Bono?

Yeah. Cut them some slack, folks.
Right on Saint, completely agree, indeed let's cut them some slack ..... + I would add these 4 guys love playing live, they've said it over & over again & the bands history confirms this. If it really was about the "money", don't you think that they would add a gazillion more shows & cities around the world to this tour??
 
I don't get why so many "hardcore fans" (I am hardcore myself, but a "realistic" hardcore :) ) keep trying to read into or attribute the Boyz motivations when we are not in their heads.... the band as always been sincere about their intentions when they do say what their motivations are for such or such activity/actions, wether it's discussing album releases or touring. Sure they change their minds, or adjust the plan as they go, and yes sometimes they talk too much, but the original motivations & plans are always sincere, I don't see how "hardcore fans" can continue to doubt this after the bands 40 year history of being honest in their intentions.

It is clear now, as per the recent interviews by the band, that not only will they play JT in full, but they will be road testing some of the SOE songs.... that is not about money, it's about their constant fears, or desire, to make the best music they can, as they have always tried to do during their 40 year history (and yeah this time part of this tour is also to generate interest in the upcoming SOE album, remember the band plainly said that they released SOI the way they did because they really wanted people to hear what took them 5 years to complete + their constant need/want/bordering on a sickness to be relevant... they have said this over & over again that they still & always want to be relevant)!

And Saint has a GREAT point about ticket prices, U2 have ALWAYS had a minimum 25% of their concert tickets priced under $50 (now $70). Just one example among many many, for 360 in Montreal, 70,000 tickets of the 160,000 were $50...... but it's all about the money?? Pleeaasse!!

Oh and Rathfarn & Robgallawy, you make a great points as well!
Nuf said :) Enjoy the shows folks!!   
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 10:20:30 AM by Passenger789 »

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,287
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2017, 01:40:13 PM »
Thanks for taking the time to read that long post, Passenger789.

We cannot calculate the amount of money U2 has 'left on the table' over the years. Any time they have gone out with a fancy stage setup, they have hurt their own bottom line in favor of ART, and that friends is where the rubber meets the road. Long-time fans (and anyone who has read Bill Flanagan's book) will remember that they would have LOST money on ZooTV after selling four million concert tickets were it not for t-shirt sales! If they were all about the money, they could have gone out in jeans and t-shirts and played in front of one large screen and charged the same amount of money because of the massive popularity of Achtung Baby. They lost money on PopMart. The subsequent Elevation and Vertigo, while extremely cool and intimate, were less expensive from a production standpoint and they likely made some money back. 360 was a such a huge undertaking that you had a Blackberry presence, which is fine if it underwrites the ticket cost.

My overall point was, there's a difference between getting paid a fair or even hefty sum and squeezing every last penny out of a tour. If U2 wanted to do that, the floors would be reserved, the best seats would cost in excess of $700 and the cheapest ticket in the house would be $125. And they could get it. Look how fast they sold out Monday. They could have played more shows in more markets and changed 5x what the charged for some tickets.

Let's remember something: we are talking about one of the three best live acts in the history of mainstream rock and roll here. How do you put a price on that experience?

Offline Passenger789

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2017, 02:01:49 PM »
That's why I agree Saint, I too am aware of the costs of the previous ZOO & POP stadium tours, just did not want to re-write all about those points as well :) and indeed as you point out, if it was all about the money they would & could get those crazy tickets prices of other artists.
I especially like your comparison to The Boss (of which I am also a huge fan) & his "working man" floor ticket prices loll.
Cheers!!

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,216
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2017, 02:02:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for taking the time to read that long post, Passenger789.

We cannot calculate the amount of money U2 has 'left on the table' over the years. Any time they have gone out with a fancy stage setup, they have hurt their own bottom line in favor of ART, and that friends is where the rubber meets the road. Long-time fans (and anyone who has read Bill Flanagan's book) will remember that they would have LOST money on ZooTV after selling four million concert tickets were it not for t-shirt sales! If they were all about the money, they could have gone out in jeans and t-shirts and played in front of one large screen and charged the same amount of money because of the massive popularity of Achtung Baby. They lost money on PopMart. The subsequent Elevation and Vertigo, while extremely cool and intimate, were less expensive from a production standpoint and they likely made some money back. 360 was a such a huge undertaking that you had a Blackberry presence, which is fine if it underwrites the ticket cost.

My overall point was, there's a difference between getting paid a fair or even hefty sum and squeezing every last penny out of a tour. If U2 wanted to do that, the floors would be reserved, the best seats would cost in excess of $700 and the cheapest ticket in the house would be $125. And they could get it. Look how fast they sold out Monday. They could have played more shows in more markets and changed 5x what the charged for some tickets.

Let's remember something: we are talking about one of the three best live acts in the history of mainstream rock and roll here. How do you put a price on that experience?

Historically U2 have not been about the $, and your Zoo TV example proves the point, but it's not 1992 anymore. The band has obviously changed a lot in the last 20 years. In 1992 U2 wouldn't accept corporate sponsorship for their tours, even if it meant they may lose money on the tour. In 1992 U2 wouldn't raise ticket prices by only $5 to ensure a profit. They wouldn't sell their music for ads. Now we've seen Blackberry kiosks at their shows. We see ticket prices close to $300. We see Love is Blindness in a bloody perfume commercial! Whether we want to admit it or not, these guys are not the same as they were.

Are they going for every last penny? No, they keep the floor tickets at a reasonable cost. I'm in the same camp as Briscoe. I believe they are touring JT for the money. Sure, there could be and probably are other reasons that factor in (they like to play live, album isn't ready, etc...) but the lure of doing a stadium run for 3 months for an obscene amount of $ was what probably got this ball rolling. I'm looking more forward to this tour then the last couple so I was more then happy to shell out $300 for a ticket. But no part of me thinks they are doing these shows because JT is magically relevant again and they needed to sing those songs this summer. It's an easy payday and land development in Malibu isn't cheap.

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,287
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2017, 02:07:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's why I agree Saint, I too am aware of the costs of the previous ZOO & POP stadium tours, just did not want to re-write all about those points as well :) and indeed as you point out, if it was all about the money they would & could get those crazy tickets prices of other artists.
I especially like your comparison to The Boss (of which I am also a huge fan) & his "working man" floor ticket prices loll.
Cheers!!
Yes, I also love Bruce Springsteen. It just goes to show there are shades of grey. There's this false perception that U2 are a big corporate machine and Bruce lives in a 1982 Buick Regal parked in some lot in New Jersey somewhere. :) And that's just not the case. I don't think Bruce's prices are outrageous given the quality and length of the performance, but to put a white hat on Bruce and a black hat on U2 over prices is just fantasy. It just isn't that simple. For one thing, Bruce does have about as plain a stage setup as possible, BUT he has a ton of musicians to pay. To compare the two really is apples and oranges, and I do it only to point out the inconsistencies. Thanks again for your kind words.

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,287
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2017, 02:20:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for taking the time to read that long post, Passenger789.

We cannot calculate the amount of money U2 has 'left on the table' over the years. Any time they have gone out with a fancy stage setup, they have hurt their own bottom line in favor of ART, and that friends is where the rubber meets the road. Long-time fans (and anyone who has read Bill Flanagan's book) will remember that they would have LOST money on ZooTV after selling four million concert tickets were it not for t-shirt sales! If they were all about the money, they could have gone out in jeans and t-shirts and played in front of one large screen and charged the same amount of money because of the massive popularity of Achtung Baby. They lost money on PopMart. The subsequent Elevation and Vertigo, while extremely cool and intimate, were less expensive from a production standpoint and they likely made some money back. 360 was a such a huge undertaking that you had a Blackberry presence, which is fine if it underwrites the ticket cost.

My overall point was, there's a difference between getting paid a fair or even hefty sum and squeezing every last penny out of a tour. If U2 wanted to do that, the floors would be reserved, the best seats would cost in excess of $700 and the cheapest ticket in the house would be $125. And they could get it. Look how fast they sold out Monday. They could have played more shows in more markets and changed 5x what the charged for some tickets.

Let's remember something: we are talking about one of the three best live acts in the history of mainstream rock and roll here. How do you put a price on that experience?

Historically U2 have not been about the $, and your Zoo TV example proves the point, but it's not 1992 anymore. The band has obviously changed a lot in the last 20 years. In 1992 U2 wouldn't accept corporate sponsorship for their tours, even if it meant they may lose money on the tour. In 1992 U2 wouldn't raise ticket prices by only $5 to ensure a profit. They wouldn't sell their music for ads. Now we've seen Blackberry kiosks at their shows. We see ticket prices close to $300. We see Love is Blindness in a bloody perfume commercial! Whether we want to admit it or not, these guys are not the same as they were.

Are they going for every last penny? No, they keep the floor tickets at a reasonable cost. I'm in the same camp as Briscoe. I believe they are touring JT for the money. Sure, there could be and probably are other reasons that factor in (they like to play live, album isn't ready, etc...) but the lure of doing a stadium run for 3 months for an obscene amount of $ was what probably got this ball rolling. I'm looking more forward to this tour then the last couple so I was more then happy to shell out $300 for a ticket. But no part of me thinks they are doing these shows because JT is magically relevant again and they needed to sing those songs this summer. It's an easy payday and land development in Malibu isn't cheap.

I remember reading an interview a few years ago with David Gilmour, in which he mused about how people just could not believe that he would turn down the kind of money he would get to tour with Roger Waters as Pink Floyd. He said, in so many words, I have more money now than I can spend. Literally. I give a ton away and everyone thinks I am this big philanthropist, when the truth is, I just cannot use all the money I have now. There's no other reason to go out as Pink Floyd than for more money, and I don't need more money. There comes a point when you wonder, how much money can you even spend? I wonder that with Mick and Keith; it is like a sexual thing with them. They CRAVE money.

I don't want to make any assumptions about you, but speaking for myself, I live a comfortable life for an American worker, and I am filthy rich on a global scale. I have a house, two cars, a decent job, my wife makes good money, and we live a comfortable existence in a small Southern town. I said that to say ...

I have no idea what U2 money looks like. I don't *think* anyone on this forum does. To you and I, a development in Malibu is pricey. It isn't to Edge. You are talking about millions of dollars when the guy in question has HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. U2 don't need to tour for money. Honest. They don't. They broke the bank after financing Joshua Tree on their own when Island was about to go bankrupt. That's one reason they were able to do what they did on ZooTV. They didn't have to. They've made a lot of money since the disaster that was PopMart.

While royalties off albums aren't what they used to be, U2 are one of the few bands that can still earn a comfortable living off what they've already done without ever doing another thing in their lives. And that's to say nothing of their investments over the decades.

You think Bono and Edge have mortgages on those houses they own on the French Rivera? They paid for those on DAY ONE. Their hay has been in the barn for a long time, my friend. When you consider the expense of putting one of these tours on to start with, yes, everyone is going to get paid and paid handsomely, but it isn't like Bono said 'Uh oh; Eve didn't get that part in the new Star Wars movie and she's going to need me to knock out that rent in New York City; better hit the road!'

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,810
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2017, 02:23:01 PM »
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the cheap GA's haven't meant anything to me.  Either by bad luck, or by purposefully going with other seats, the U2 tickets I've bought the past couple of tours have been the most expensive standard priced tickets of ANY concerts I've seen.

And I know this is the first time the band has toured without having new material to promote.  Sure, that's something different.

My point is, even taking those points into account, it doesn't matter anyway, and saying "it's just about money" is something you could say about any of their tours, at least in the past 20 years.  (People forget that PopMart saw a sizable price jump from Zoo TV--I paid about double in 1997 what I did in 1992.)  When I saw 360, my favorite moments were when they were playing songs decades old.  That entire show could be whittled down to maybe 3 songs for me, the most recent of which was from 1995.  So if they did that show but excised the NLOTH material, and put in more of the stuff that I liked (which many confirm was the case for the later leg that I passed on), is that somehow bad?  I don't necessarily think so.  And as I said elsewhere, I've seen other bands touring without new material: Paul McCartney, Kraftwerk, and Genesis, to name three.  Each blew me away, to varying degrees.  I don't think any of those shows are less for being "greatest hits shows".  If U2 are stalled creatively, even temporarily, there's no shame in them putting on a new show and going on tour.  It's not like they've done this before, even with the original JT tour.  I just think there's a bit of "puritanism" about rock bands needing to have new material every tour, even if that puritanism only applies to certain bands.  Bob Dylan's been on tour pretty much permanently for 30 years, both with or without new albums to promote.  Do people deride that as being "just for the money"?

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,287
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2017, 02:37:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the cheap GA's haven't meant anything to me.  Either by bad luck, or by purposefully going with other seats, the U2 tickets I've bought the past couple of tours have been the most expensive standard priced tickets of ANY concerts I've seen.

And I know this is the first time the band has toured without having new material to promote.  Sure, that's something different.

My point is, even taking those points into account, it doesn't matter anyway, and saying "it's just about money" is something you could say about any of their tours, at least in the past 20 years.  (People forget that PopMart saw a sizable price jump from Zoo TV--I paid about double in 1997 what I did in 1992.)  When I saw 360, my favorite moments were when they were playing songs decades old.  That entire show could be whittled down to maybe 3 songs for me, the most recent of which was from 1995.  So if they did that show but excised the NLOTH material, and put in more of the stuff that I liked (which many confirm was the case for the later leg that I passed on), is that somehow bad?  I don't necessarily think so.  And as I said elsewhere, I've seen other bands touring without new material: Paul McCartney, Kraftwerk, and Genesis, to name three.  Each blew me away, to varying degrees.  I don't think any of those shows are less for being "greatest hits shows".  If U2 are stalled creatively, even temporarily, there's no shame in them putting on a new show and going on tour.  It's not like they've done this before, even with the original JT tour.  I just think there's a bit of "puritanism" about rock bands needing to have new material every tour, even if that puritanism only applies to certain bands.  Bob Dylan's been on tour pretty much permanently for 30 years, both with or without new albums to promote.  Do people deride that as being "just for the money"?

My first U2 Tour was PopMart. I saw two shows. I still have the ticket stubs. $52.50. And those shows had reserved floors. I was in the middle of row four. Thanks Propaganda!

And here's my response to what you are saying: You are making the decision to not take advantage of the best deals U2 has to offer. That's your choice and your reasoning is none of my business, but I don't think it is 'fair' to U2 to pass up the steal that are the GAs and the nosebleeds but talk about how expensive the seats you chose to purchase were. You had many options, and for whatever reason, that's the option you took.

If I go into McDonald's and they have five burger options for under $2 and I choose to buy the one that costs $15, do I get to call their food overpriced? Or complain that I can't afford McDonald's because I only have $3? I don't think it works that way.

Your point about Dylan is a good one. For some reason, Dylan, Springsteen and few others largely get a pass, though I suspect there are some in their own fan communities that don't like what they do. I know the the voices of dissent are getting louder in the Springsteen camp. For some reason, U2 and Coldplay are simultaneously beloved and loathed in a way that Bruce, Dylan and Macca just aren't. They get universal adoration.

Offline Passenger789

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2017, 02:55:59 PM »
This is a great thread, honestly  :) All the above are good points/valid arguments!

But the original post was about whether or not this tour is about "just the money", and I don't believe it is. As some of you have acknowledged above, even the ones that think it is primarily about the money, there are other factors weighing into the decision to tour the JT album before having new material released. It is these other factors (based on the bands history & what they sincerely say themselves) that leans me to feeling that the money aspect is considerably further down the list of reasons they are doing this tour.
Some of you have admitted as much without actually saying that loll .... sure the money will be good, but it's not the main reason... that's my story & I,m sticking to it loll

The simple truth is we will never know for sure if the 1st reason is "for the money" or not.

p.s. as you know Johnny Feathers, the $200-$300 ticket price ranges for the better seats are pretty much standard fare now & last several years for the top 5 pop/rock acts, the Madonna's, Beyonce's, Coldplay's, The Boss, Prince even though not considered top 5 last several years (RIP), and especially those geriatric Stones, etc etc

Cheers all!!...... well I can tell you I much prefer this conversation to the ones about the ticket pre-sales/sales/Ticketmaster problems on other threads & at U2.com :) 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 03:17:38 PM by Passenger789 »

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,287
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2017, 03:32:16 PM »
It the tour was just about money, it would be longer, have higher ticket prices and there would be zero reason to tie it to TJT. As popular as that album was and is, a simple U2:40 Greatest Hits Tour would have been way more marketable the world over. Cash-grab tours don't play to two dozen cities with $70 GAs and stop. Or devote a quarter of the set to songs only fans will know.

If this is a cash-grab, it's a poor excuse for one!

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,810
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2017, 04:21:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the cheap GA's haven't meant anything to me.  Either by bad luck, or by purposefully going with other seats, the U2 tickets I've bought the past couple of tours have been the most expensive standard priced tickets of ANY concerts I've seen.

And I know this is the first time the band has toured without having new material to promote.  Sure, that's something different.

My point is, even taking those points into account, it doesn't matter anyway, and saying "it's just about money" is something you could say about any of their tours, at least in the past 20 years.  (People forget that PopMart saw a sizable price jump from Zoo TV--I paid about double in 1997 what I did in 1992.)  When I saw 360, my favorite moments were when they were playing songs decades old.  That entire show could be whittled down to maybe 3 songs for me, the most recent of which was from 1995.  So if they did that show but excised the NLOTH material, and put in more of the stuff that I liked (which many confirm was the case for the later leg that I passed on), is that somehow bad?  I don't necessarily think so.  And as I said elsewhere, I've seen other bands touring without new material: Paul McCartney, Kraftwerk, and Genesis, to name three.  Each blew me away, to varying degrees.  I don't think any of those shows are less for being "greatest hits shows".  If U2 are stalled creatively, even temporarily, there's no shame in them putting on a new show and going on tour.  It's not like they've done this before, even with the original JT tour.  I just think there's a bit of "puritanism" about rock bands needing to have new material every tour, even if that puritanism only applies to certain bands.  Bob Dylan's been on tour pretty much permanently for 30 years, both with or without new albums to promote.  Do people deride that as being "just for the money"?

My first U2 Tour was PopMart. I saw two shows. I still have the ticket stubs. $52.50. And those shows had reserved floors. I was in the middle of row four. Thanks Propaganda!

And here's my response to what you are saying: You are making the decision to not take advantage of the best deals U2 has to offer. That's your choice and your reasoning is none of my business, but I don't think it is 'fair' to U2 to pass up the steal that are the GAs and the nosebleeds but talk about how expensive the seats you chose to purchase were. You had many options, and for whatever reason, that's the option you took.

If I go into McDonald's and they have five burger options for under $2 and I choose to buy the one that costs $15, do I get to call their food overpriced? Or complain that I can't afford McDonald's because I only have $3? I don't think it works that way.

Your point about Dylan is a good one. For some reason, Dylan, Springsteen and few others largely get a pass, though I suspect there are some in their own fan communities that don't like what they do. I know the the voices of dissent are getting louder in the Springsteen camp. For some reason, U2 and Coldplay are simultaneously beloved and loathed in a way that Bruce, Dylan and Macca just aren't. They get universal adoration.

Just to clarify: I'm not complaining about ticket prices. I just don't see the cheap GA's as proof that they aren't about money, either, and that's completely fair. They make up for those cheap GA's with the expensive tickets. Also, people don't necessarily include the cost of several years' membership to the fan club to get those tickets. You might get some extra stuff along the way, but everyone who bought presale tickets already paid more than what the ticket stub says. And I think that's completely fair, even if it can sometimes be hard to swallow if you'd rather not subscribe to a band for a chance at better tickets.

As for why I didn't take advantage of those GA's, don't think I didn't try, at least for Elevation and Vertigo. Just because they were there, didn't mean they were easy to get. And I signed up for their fan club before Vertigo, and got top priced 300-level tickets through the presale for my trouble. I think the system has probably improved over the years, and maybe I'm a bit savvier for the experience, but I was certainly not pleased at the time, and didn't bother renewing until last week. These days, I prefer having a seat and NOT having to queue all day. I'd rather pay more money than the time and energy involved for the whole GA experience, so it's a wash, and I'm happy for those who get to enjoy it. I had 2nd row for Zoo TV Outside Broadcast ($32, including fees), so I had my day.  :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,763
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2017, 05:39:37 PM »
Don't really agree with 'if it was a cash grab it would be longer'. That thought is too simple. With TJT they have an amazing opportunity to rake in a lot of money in a short period of time.

Minimal promotion (compare the number of interviews to a new album!) and minimal travel - for a big return.

It may extend to other regions if successful.

Offline KenpoMatt

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 320
  • The first wealth is health.
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2017, 11:39:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is not a hating post at all, I'm sure the JT shows will be great and successful.

The variety of topics discussing the past few tours have all descended into Is/Isn't it a Greatest Hits tour? It's the same as back in the old Wire days when the Greatest hits albums were released... the debates are similar.

What makes this easier to deal with is to just accept that it's all about money. The JT tour is not about art, not about F$#%king up the mainstream, not about breaking new ground. It is about money.

And that's fine! Bands are allowed to make money, no bands set out to be anything but big.

If this wasn't about money, they would be touring new areas other than those they played 18 months ago. The US. Europe. Those markets again get the gigs because... they are the strongest financial markets for the band to play.

Edge embarrassed himself in the interview about the reasons behind the tour. Bono pulled it back a little bit.

They're a big band, with huge earning power, and this tour is exploiting this to its maximum.

I'm sure they'll be great shows. I've bought tickets to one of the shows in Berlin (remains to be seen if I get there). But I've done it having fully accepted that I'm paying money for something designed purely to make a lot of money in a relatively short period of time. I give money, they give me a show, deal done.

Just accept that it's about money, about using nostalgia to make that money, and to extract large sums from those who can now afford tickets over $150 - The over 35s.

I've accepted it. It works. It's business.

And it's good business.

I agree that is partly about money, but I think its more about "contractual obligation" to be honest.

They're not happy about SOE so far, but need to tour due to commitment with live nation, hence nostalgia tour ( which I 'll gladly go see ). But I wish they would just release the bloody album and tour it. It gets to a point where debuting at number 1 on the charts is irrelevant, and this band is at that point. They can still be the biggest band in the world, sell out shows, write meaningful new music and not be # 1 in charts.

They would get way more respect if they put their music out to compete with the Arianna Grande's and Taylor Swifts of the world and fail from a charts stand point rather than trying to boil their tunes down to the same level as them.

Offline Saint1322

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,287
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2017, 07:33:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Don't really agree with 'if it was a cash grab it would be longer'. That thought is too simple. With TJT they have an amazing opportunity to rake in a lot of money in a short period of time.

Minimal promotion (compare the number of interviews to a new album!) and minimal travel - for a big return.

It may extend to other regions if successful.

That's kind of my point. This tour is so cost-effective that it if were a pure money grab, it would be longer to maximize the investment. If you can turn a massive profit with this format at each show you play, why do a short run when you can do a longer one? Selling out 12 shows when you could sell out 20 isn't 'all about money' and that's what this thread is about. I am not saying they don't want to make some money; I am saying they don't have to/need to and there is more to it than that.

Offline fortheloveofmoney

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2017, 09:02:34 AM »
This is a very efficient tour. Huge income for minimal effort. It's a very successful cash grab. since we're not privy to the band's personal feelings, maybe they just wanted to do the minimal amount of work, be away from families for limited time, etc.

There probably won't be any stupid "claw" type structures so staging costs will be less than in the past also.

And it's because it's a short run that it will be so profitable, make people travel to the show rather than bring the show to every nook and cranny of the country, which would guarantee they DON'T sell out.

It's fine to make money, nothing wrong with it at all, just admit it !