Would you pay $10K to get front row tickets to see Motley Crue, Def Leppard and Poison?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,165
640
126
The same can be said (sort of) as the Eagles are still touring without Glenn. I wouldn't see the now...and they're charging more than ever!? See them before another member passes? It's insane.

But, God Bless capitalism. Maybe, just maybe someone will pay the $10k. You never know!
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,383
146
I saw Poison (with Warrant) back in 1989 or 1990. It was a really good show back during the heyday of 80s hair metal.

Even though I never saw them live, Motley Crue and Def Leppard would have been a good back then as well. That said, all three bands are way past their prime now, (especially Motley Crue).

I still can't believe Motley Crue did all of the "we will never play as a band again agreement" final tour BS, and just a couple of years later they're back. A lot of artists say it's their final time touring and later change their minds, but Motley Crue went above and beyond that with their publicity:
https://www.iheart.com/content/2019...mtley-cre-will-not-break-final-tour-contract/
But Sixx is pre-empting any talk of a way around of the band's 2014 pact to never again perform beyond the last date of its farewell tour. The band was the first to ever sign a binding legal document agreeing to a "cessation of touring" beyond the year 2015. He says there are times when he regrets the contract, but a deal is a deal.

I still wouldn't pay $10k to be front row for any band.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,571
126
Yes it is just me or Mick Jagger the ugliest male singer around? Kind link that ugly Mexican who played in a lot of action movies. Spy Kids and Predators are the two film that comes to mind.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,165
640
126
Who cares if he's ugly? He sounded great in 2002 and he still sounds great. Amazing!
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
14,777
3,071
136
i can't think of any artist worth 5 grand. Not one. I wouldnt pay five grand for a single ticket if David Bowie was sitting next to me jerking me off while Tina Turner duets with Whitney Houston.
Man i paid like $15 to see the Glass Spider Tour.

More recently we had $100 tickets to see Wayne Shorter and we thought that was price gouging.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,585
126
That's completely true, they only had three gold albums and three singles at #2 or better before Buckingham and Nicks. So, yeah, absolutely no one.
you can reach gold just by selling albums to your friends and family.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
These tickets are for high net worth individuals for whom $10K is like $10 for you and I. Not for me.
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
25,311
6,350
146
no lindsey buckingham no care.

no one would have ever heard of fleetwood mac without buckingham and nicks.
I only listen to the original Mac with Jeremy Spencer and Peter Green, Fleetwood and MacVie.
Ok, maybe up to the time with Danny Kirwin and Bob Welch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lxskllr

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
71,015
13,959
126
www.anyf.ca
I can't think of any type of event I would spend that kind of money on. 10k is something that would take me years to come up with. Like, I could put that on the credit line any time, but to pay it back I mean. I can't imagine blowing it on something that lasts a short time and then is over.

Even paying like $500+ for say, hockey tickets is hard to swallow for me. I often look into it as it would make a cool Christmas gift for my dad but it's just so much money.

I would like to get to a point in life where I have a secondary income so I have money to blow on stuff like that, but I'm not at that point now.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,563
14,967
146
That's completely true, they only had three gold albums and three singles at #2 or better before Buckingham and Nicks. So, yeah, absolutely no one.

I liked them MUCH better before the "Rumors generation" of the band. They were great in the late 60's and very early 70's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OccamsToothbrush

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,370
11,517
136
I still can't believe Motley Crue did all of the "we will never play as a band again agreement" final tour BS, and just a couple of years later they're back. A lot of artists say it's their final time touring and later change their minds, but Motley Crue went above and beyond that with their publicity:

I'm pretty sure I've seen The Damned do their "final fairwell" tour about 4 times now!
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
21,358
16,566
136
I wouldn't pay £10K UKP to see all my favourite musicians (ignoring whether they're dead or not) in one concert.

I'd think twice about paying £100 UKP to see a musician I like playing in concert, after all that means an extra £100 because I'd hardly go without my wife. That's just aside from the high chance I'd have to pay loads of extra money in travel and somewhere to stay.
 

OccamsToothbrush

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2005
1,389
828
136
you can reach gold just by selling albums to your friends and family.

Can you get a platinum album and a #1 single that way too? Just grow up, you said something stupid and got smacked. Fleetwood Mac was a VERY successful blues rock band before they went bubblegum pop which is where you began noticing them. For some serious music fans the Buckingham-Nicks era marked the end of Fleetwood Mac as a serious band, not as their beginning.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
I wouldn't spend $10,000 - or $1,000 - or even $200 on concert tickets. Mostly because I don't spend retarded amounts of money for 3 hours of enjoyment (if you can even call it that). The same goes for shit like football games.

Most I've done lately is spend maybe $50 - $100 to see a stand-up comedian (Saw a combo Dave Chappele w/ Jon Stewart and it kicked ass).

Concerts are just so meh. I'm not paying hundreds to see a fat Axl Rose. Todays bands suck so I don't care to see today's music either... so... get off my lawn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

OccamsToothbrush

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2005
1,389
828
136
The same can be said (sort of) as the Eagles are still touring without Glenn. I wouldn't see the now...and they're charging more than ever!? See them before another member passes? It's insane.

But, God Bless capitalism. Maybe, just maybe someone will pay the $10k. You never know!

Nostalgia is expensive and capitalism works. The people going to see the Stones and the Eagles now are people that went to see the Stones and the Eagles in the 1970s, had a great time and want to relive some cherished memories. They have the money for it and don't mind spending it. If it was such a stupid idea nobody would buy the tickets and the tours would fail. But they're packing them in, which means the tickets are priced fairly to what the market is willing to pay. Did you see the attendance figures for the Stones 2017/2018 No Filter Tour? They were selling out Football stadiums that seat 50,000+. 100,000 people for two dates at Soldier Field in Chicago with an AVERAGE ticket costing more than $210.
 
Last edited:

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,165
640
126
I may not be old but I love these classic bands. My wife and I have seen the Eagles 3 or 4 times in the last 15 years or so and I'm guessing the tickets were on average $100 each. Now Glenn has passed and the prices have skyrocketed?

The most I've paid for a concert was probably $250 each on a couple of occasions. Once was for U2 and the other time was The Police when the toured in '06ish.

Nostalgia sells but prices have in general gone up quite a bit in recent years.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,585
126
Can you get a platinum album and a #1 single that way too? Just grow up, you said something stupid and got smacked. Fleetwood Mac was a VERY successful blues rock band before they went bubblegum pop which is where you began noticing them. For some serious music fans the Buckingham-Nicks era marked the end of Fleetwood Mac as a serious band, not as their beginning.

maxresdefault.jpg


bare trees didn't go gold until 1976 (4 years after release and a year after buckingham and nicks joined) and platinum until 1988 (so, more than a decade later)

compare that to fleetwood mac, the first album with buckingham and nicks, which went gold in its year of release, 1975 (so, before bare trees). or, you know, rumours which went gold 2 weeks after release and platinum just a month after release in 1977. it was 12x platinum before bare trees hit platinum.

so, no, fleetwood mac did not have a platinum album before buckingham and nicks, and didn't even have a gold until buckingham and nicks. (future games didn't go gold until 2000, and mystery to me didn't go gold until the end of 1976).
 
Last edited: