Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Wolfman

Paul Stanley says "Bands are failing their fans"

Recommended Posts

Not sure if I agree with him 100% but I do agree that prices are a joke. I saw EC/Winwood and paid $150 a ticket and had okay seats...not cool but I did pay... so to quote Zep..Nobody's Fault But Mine...wish everyone was like Pearl Jam...$45 a ticket gor three hours of pure rock!

P.S. You might not like Kiss or Gene Simmons but Paul is one of the really good guys of rock

Kiss guitarist Paul Stanley has accused modern day rock bands of failing to provide their fans with value for money at concerts.

The frontman has hit out at the "useless and pathetic" bands who charge fans high prices for concert tickets, but fail to perform a decent gig.

He told Australia's Daily Telegraph, "Good economy or no economy, we have no intentions of stopping. We gave up doing this for money a long time ago, we love it, but we still get paid.

"Rock and roll is in a pathetic state. Bands think they can get up on stage and strum their guitars and then download it - it's useless and pathetic.

"We're sick and tired of seeing bands getting up on stage and not giving value for your buck."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if I agree with him 100% but I do agree that prices are a joke. I saw EC/Winwood and paid $150 a ticket and had okay seats...not cool but I did pay... so to quote Zep..Nobody's Fault But Mine...wish everyone was like Pearl Jam...$45 a ticket gor three hours of pure rock!

P.S. You might not like Kiss or Gene Simmons but Paul is one of the really good guys of rock

Kiss guitarist Paul Stanley has accused modern day rock bands of failing to provide their fans with value for money at concerts.

The frontman has hit out at the "useless and pathetic" bands who charge fans high prices for concert tickets, but fail to perform a decent gig.

He told Australia's Daily Telegraph, "Good economy or no economy, we have no intentions of stopping. We gave up doing this for money a long time ago, we love it, but we still get paid.

"Rock and roll is in a pathetic state. Bands think they can get up on stage and strum their guitars and then download it - it's useless and pathetic.

"We're sick and tired of seeing bands getting up on stage and not giving value for your buck."

It sounds noble until you realize that Kiss sells every piece of crap merchandise their obsessed fans will buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds noble until you realize that Kiss sells every piece of crap merchandise their obsessed fans will buy.

That's more Gene then anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean much coming from a guy who's band charges a $100 a ticket for their concerts. Not to mention their setlists are exactly the same night in and night out. It's also proof positive that Paul Stanley doesn't get out much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, the man obviously hasn't been to any Metal or Indie shows. I saw Bloc Party, Deerhoof, and Smoosh for 35 bucks a ticket. And I'm seeing Opeth, 3, and Deathmarch in May for 31 bucks a ticket. People are just going to see the wrong bands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why these bands charge soo much, is because they have to put so much into there concerts. They all have these elaborate stages with video screens, lights galore, and the extra musicians to cover for themselves. If the stones and kiss went out and toured with just guitars and amps, those tickets would not sell. They have to provide a show to get people to come out, and with the cost of a show, not a concert, the tickets go up. I would love to see Led Zeppelin have the same stage setup as the O2 show. I know they had lights and a giant TV screen, but they didn't have the rest of the crap that make the stage nice. It takes three full days to set up the Genesis concerts. That why to much fucking work. Just set up a P.A. tower, throw some lights on it and call it a day.

Zep is going to charge an arm and a leg, but because it there first tour in 29 years, it most likely be there last.

Who sets the prices for tickets. I know the artist would want a certin amount, but could't the venue just charge as much as the markert could handle?

Edited by Pb Derigable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I'd rather go see a band play in a small venue with great acoustics and just have them up their with their instruments and play for 3 hours, I don't need any lights or other shit.

Edited by Jarlaxle 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason some of these band charges so much is because the Eagles paved the way for the $100 a ticket thing when they embarked on their Hell Freezes Over Tour over 11 years ago. Once promoters figured out the public would pay that much for concerts nearly every band under the sun has reunited for similiar tours.

That said, I rarely attend the big arena tours any more myself. I'm just as content to see up and coming artists play much smaller venues at much more reasonable prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine Zep in 5,000 seat venue. Not like an open area, but with seats. That would be cool. I can never understand why you would go see sombody play when youre more then a half of afooball field away. I ve been to a few concerts, and if im more then 50 yards away, im doing somthing else then watching the band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just imagine Zep in 5,000 seat venue. Not like an open area, but with seats. That would be cool. I can never understand why you would go see sombody play when youre more then a half of afooball field away. I ve been to a few concerts, and if im more then 50 yards away, im doing somthing else then watching the band.

I only started going to 18,000 seat arenas AGAIN about 5 years ago. I'm very selective when I do go and usually willing to pay $$$ for a good seat.

I've only been to ONE football stadium show. In 1990 for Paul McCartney and somebody GAVE me two tickets.

I love your signature.

Edited by JethroTull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still i like paul stanley and as far as the merchandise goes these guys own it which is smart that means they make the money instead of the record company besides rock bands in general may only last ten years, who the hell wants to go work at mcdonalds after being in a popular and rather sucsessful band. this is there college and the only thing they know and musical "integrity" doesn't put food on the table or feed the kids. The american public is so fenicy its know wonder these bands charge what they do. they've been put in a position to take the money why you can and you'd do the same if you were in that position!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The american public is so fenicy its know wonder these bands charge what they do. they've been put in a position to take the money why you can and you'd do the same if you were in that position!!!

I'm going to be much quicker to hand over my money to artists such as Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Black Crowes and others that have made an actual effort to keep ticket prices down, not the ones out there doing it solely for the cash. Page and Plant took a huge stand in the mid-90s by not going the $100 a ticket route when they very well could have. That was in direct response to the Eagles who were charging upwards of $100 a ticket at the time. I was more than happy to pay $35 for seats in the 14th row to see Page & Plant at the Omni in Atlanta. Fuck groups like the Eagles that are out there sucking Wal Mart's dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear that and i actually agree im just sayin it aint easy but i have 4 kids so i see things a little differently then most. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still i like paul stanley and as far as the merchandise goes these guys own it which is smart that means they make the money instead of the record company besides rock bands in general may only last ten years, who the hell wants to go work at mcdonalds after being in a popular and rather sucsessful band. this is there college and the only thing they know and musical "integrity" doesn't put food on the table or feed the kids. The american public is so fenicy its know wonder these bands charge what they do. they've been put in a position to take the money why you can and you'd do the same if you were in that position!!!

3 periods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't right, but it's economics in action. The only way that they will stop paying 100 bucks is to stop people from the tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason some of these band charges so much is because the Eagles paved the way for the $100 a ticket thing when they embarked on their Hell Freezes Over Tour over 11 years ago. Once promoters figured out the public would pay that much for concerts nearly every band under the sun has reunited for similiar tours.

My friend and I were trying to figure out who was the first to start these high prices...there's the answer :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason some of these band charges so much is because the Eagles paved the way for the $100 a ticket thing when they embarked on their Hell Freezes Over Tour over 11 years ago. Once promoters figured out the public would pay that much for concerts nearly every band under the sun has reunited for similiar tours.

That said, I rarely attend the big arena tours any more myself. I'm just as content to see up and coming artists play much smaller venues at much more reasonable prices.

They also started the reunion tour and the final tour schemes. I think they did.

I know page and plant had some extra musicains with them, but how was there stage. was it plain or was it an art show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I'm going to be much quicker to hand over my money to artists such as Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Black Crowes and others that have made an actual effort to keep ticket prices down, not the ones out there doing it solely for the cash. Page and Plant took a huge stand in the mid-90s by not going the $100 a ticket route when they very well could have. That was in direct response to the Eagles who were charging upwards of $100 a ticket at the time. I was more than happy to pay $35 for seats in the 14th row to see Page & Plant at the Omni in Atlanta. Fuck groups like the Eagles that are out there sucking Wal Mart's dick.

So true,....,

If the 'fact' or 'rumour' that Plant and the rest of the lads was offered 100M,and he/they turned it down,.....well bloody well good for them!

Go see a group of shows,or up and coming artist,ye like,or,thank Crom a artist who wants to you come to hear and see his or hers show without breaking your bank account!

There is sooooo much good music,both new and old out there,...vote with your wallet people!

KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They also started the reunion tour and the final tour schemes. I think they did.

I know page and plant had some extra musicains with them, but how was there stage. was it plain or was it an art show?

I think we can blame the Stones for stadium rock tours (1969) and The Who for final tour schemes (1982). Everyone who keeps buying tickets is to blame for higher ticket prices, as Ticket Bastard, etc. and the artists themselves ultimately can only reap

what the market will bear. The Western World has many relatively affluent societies.

I would describe the '95-'98 Page/Plant stage shows as minimal. There was a back drop,

basic lighting and the video screens. I remember being disappointed that the Egyptians were confined to a little non-descript cubicle as opposed to something more lavish. The

stage show in my imagination far surpassed what was actually presented but with them

it's always been about the music first and foremost.

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose there is a value to patronizing the arts, but the higher the ticket price gets the more you exclude people from the lower economic strata from having a chance to hear the music live. These days the cheap seats are in the $40.00 range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I REPEAT, there are PLENTY of shows you can go to that are just as awesome if not better than stadium shows where the tickets are general admission and only 30 bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I REPEAT, there are PLENTY of shows you can go to that are just as awesome if not better than stadium shows where the tickets are general admission and only 30 bucks.

Robert Plant and Alison Krauss tickets are $49.00 for the cheap seats in Los Angeles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we can blame the Stones for stadium rock tours (1969) and The Who for final tour schemes (1982). Everyone who keeps buying tickets is to blame for higher ticket prices, as Ticket Bastard, etc. and the artists themselves ultimately can only reap

what the market will bear. The Western World has many relatively affluent societies.

I would describe the '95-'98 Page/Plant stage shows as minimal. There was a back drop,

basic lighting and the video screens. I remember being disappointed that the Egyptians were confined to a little non-descript cubicle as opposed to something more lavish. The

stage show in my imagination far surpassed what was actually presented but with them

it's always been about the music first and foremost.

Thankyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we can blame the Stones for stadium rock tours (1969) and The Who for final tour schemes (1982). Everyone who keeps buying tickets is to blame for higher ticket prices, as Ticket Bastard, etc. and the artists themselves ultimately can only reap

what the market will bear. The Western World has many relatively affluent societies.

I would describe the '95-'98 Page/Plant stage shows as minimal. There was a back drop,

basic lighting and the video screens. I remember being disappointed that the Egyptians were confined to a little non-descript cubicle as opposed to something more lavish. The

stage show in my imagination far surpassed what was actually presented but with them

it's always been about the music first and foremost.

What is the point of being stingy about staging artists? I can appreciate cutting costs to make the music more accessible to the less affluent, but when you have a larger audience it makes sense to present musicians well visually, especially to favorably impress the audience in the back row.

True, the visual should balance the music well, but not to total exclusion, unless you are deliberately using a stark, minimalist staging for artistic effect; even then, it's what works the best that matters.

Maybe part of it is the practical side of touring; you have just so much time before you are on with a live audience, and a stage takes time to assemble.

Maybe the concept of using a cubie was used for lack of an orchestra pit; but as long as you already have the people onstage the audience will see them anyway. It seems they wanted to keep the focus mainly on Page and Plant; they could have used a curtain to allow the other musicians to blend into the background, something transparent and wispy in vertical panels.

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...