Price of UK show
Vince Bowdren
over £70 (including booking fee etc). Does anybody else think that's a bit
steep?
--
Vince
Wayne Lomas
last ) Tom gig, so small price to pay in some respects
Wayne
"Vince Bowdren" <vince-re...@jobstream.com> wrote in message
news:memo.2004090...@blah.jobstream.com...
Gary
"Wayne Lomas" <wa...@rhymin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:chq96h$5o8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Yes, but I guess we'll all pay it !!
Not me, I think it's a disgustingly high price. Enormously disappointing
:-((
Gary
"El Rayo X" <elr...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:kG30d.18281$cV6....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
x-no-archive: yes
> Well Gary, I recall this same discussion from 1999.
> The prevailing sentiment then was "These ticket prices are obscene."
> However, every show sold out.
Well "obscene" is the word that springs to mind and has been echoed by all
those who I was planning to go with.
> If demand remains high and 2004 ticket prices are lowered, what's that
make?
> An opportunity for scalpers!
A small opportunity maybe, but that's a specious logic IMO, however, you're
welcome to your opinion.
I'd never consider paying that kind of money to see any artiste, I saw The
Black Rider at the Barbican earlier in the year, that'll do me thanks ;-)
chrishathway.co.uk
50 I could stomach, even expect. never seen a price that high before. 71.50
total.
But like they say, if enough folk can afford to pay it then...
Just won't be me. which is a shame. for me.
Chris H.
Kenchie
(BST) you did state the following;
after waiting 16 years! I won't be going sadly.
--
Kenchie
[insert unfunny tagline here]
Ross
aren't even on sale yet but theres folk on E-bay selling them already......
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10049&item=2268941523&rd=1
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16067&item=2269008240&rd=1
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10049&item=2268941243&rd=1
---- Ross
"Kenchie" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1baadce4a...@news.zen.co.uk...
Sarah V.
news:memo.2004090...@blah.jobstream.com...
> over £70 (including booking fee etc). Does anybody else think that's a bit
> steep?
Like El Rayo, I remember this same exact discussion 5 years ago. I spent
about $350 for two shows (tickets + transportation) which was super
expensive for me at the time. I'd only been employed for 2 weeks when tix
went on sale and I was making $13 an hour. But I went anyway. Glad I did.
I don't really have too much of a problem with an artist pricing their shows
any way they want. Tom doesn't owe anyone an inexpensive show. He is
apparently in very high demand and can get a good salary for his time. Who
wouldn't do that if they could? If someone told you that you could earn
double the money doing the exact same job, would you say no? Why should he?
Just because he is an artist doesn't mean he shouldn't make fiscally
responsible decisions.
I feel bad for people who are so strapped they actually can't afford to go,
but I think most people are just saying, "eh, £70, I don't want to go that
badly." And that's your choice.
--
Sarah V., 3000+ miles from the nearest announced TW show
Gary
"Sarah V." <sa...@diespammersdie.raindogftp.com> wrote in message
news:Fy40d.407625$%_6.5650@attbi_s01...
> I don't really have too much of a problem with an artist pricing their
shows
> any way they want.
Sure, but it's an unusually high price. That kind of amount is usually
synonymous with the likes of Barbara Streisand (ahem)...
>Who wouldn't do that if they could?
I wouldn't. Yes, really ;-P
> Just because he is an artist doesn't mean he shouldn't make fiscally
> responsible decisions.
Agreed. But other "in high demand" artistes can do gigs in London with a top
price of £35. Is Tom really that strapped for cash?
Regards
Gary
Sarah V.
message news:chqobm$6gh$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Sure, but it's an unusually high price. That kind of amount is usually
> synonymous with the likes of Barbara Streisand (ahem)...
Like her or not, she's very popular. Her tickets are in demand. I don't
think high prices go with poor quality, if that's what you're suggesting...
> Agreed. But other "in high demand" artistes can do gigs in London with a
top
> price of £35. Is Tom really that strapped for cash?
I'm surprised tickets are so cheap there. A sampling of medium and
high-demand acts here in Boston from ticketmaster.com:
Phil Collins $95 (£53)
Jimmy Buffet $84 (£47)
Gloria Estefan $126.50 (£71)
Lenny Kravitz $55.50 (£31)
Bette Midler: $151 (£85)
Morrissey: $61.50 (£34)
Tom's prices don't seem that out of line to me, considering that stuff is so
much more expensive in London than in Boston.
--
Sarah V.
Peter Reed
expensive for the time but worth every penny.
But...
In Paris there were 3 prices, equivalent to £35, £45 and the best seats £55.
The Carling Apollo is bigger and as far as i can see, every seat is priced
the same.
The issue for me isn't ticket price but the quality of the ticket for the
price.
Theres too many bad seats priced at £70 for this to be considered a fair
ticket price.
Plus, i'm writing this at 4 am in the UK, 5 hours before tickets go on sale
and the only
authorized on-line ticket outlet provides no seating plan or means to pick
your seat. You basically pay your money and pray. This all adds up to a very
disappointing situation for fans. Its just poor organization. Should the man
himself take any blame?
maybe yes, maybe no.
Thats showbiz for ya.
BTW,
Can i also take this opportunity to thank the saintly Sarah V. for the
raindogs ftp. At least if anyone misses the London show theres a good chance
that it'll turn up sooner or later on her ftp. I may not owe Tom Waits
anything beyond the price of a concert ticket or the price of a cd, but i
sure owe her a great deal.
Thanks.
"Sarah V." <sa...@diespammersdie.raindogftp.com> wrote in message
news:QQ50d.158261$Fg5.114506@attbi_s53...
Sarah V.
news:chr6k0$lo6$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> In Paris there were 3 prices, equivalent to £35, £45 and the best seats
£55.
> The Carling Apollo is bigger and as far as i can see, every seat is priced
> the same.
I read that there would be two ticket prices, although the second tier is
only about £10 cheaper. Ticketmaster doesn't have it up at all yet, and
Stargreen only lists the higher price... odd.
> At least if anyone misses the London show theres a good chance
> that it'll turn up sooner or later on her ftp.
I sure hope so... get your recording devices ready, everyone!
--
Sarah V.
Joseph McDonnell
don't know - maybe the cheap seats are outside). Presumably the shows in
Holland will be pretty much the same. If I remember correctly, I paid 125
guilders last time he came here. 99 Euros translates to 218 guilders, an
increase of 75%. Ouch!
Back then, people were complaining about the price (anybody here remember the
troll EvilSam or Elvis or whatever he was called?)
Joseph
chrishathway.co.uk
over £70'
If only I'd've not been so dispirited by this I could've hit the ground running
today when ticket master listed their tickets in two tiers, 65 quid and 55. And
maybe I would've snagged a ticket or two - at the lower price.
Chris H.
Vince Bowdren
ross.m...@blueyonder.co.uk (Ross) wrote:
> All a bit too pricey for me I'm afraid, but it's quite funny how the
> tickets
> aren't even on sale yet but theres folk on E-bay selling them
> already......
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10049&item=2268
> 941523&rd=1
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16067&item=2269
> 008240&rd=1
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10049&item=2268
> 941243&rd=1
>
www.getmetickets.net (a bunch of well-organised touts with a website) were
selling them (for prices between 175 and 395 pounds) on Thursday, before
they even went on sale properly. They have been investigated and
prosecuted a few times (they were featured on Watchdog when found to be
selling glastonbury tickets, along with fake id to get past the gate) but
seem to be thriving.
--
Vince
Gary
> Like her or not, she's very popular. Her tickets are in demand. I don't
> think high prices go with poor quality, if that's what you're
suggesting...
No, that's not what I was suggesting. My point was that those kind of ticket
prices tend to be the province of those who perceive themselves as
'superstars' and are so out of touch that they have no concept of what
constitutes an excessive price or not. Or perhaps don't care.
Although I see that prices were lower via Ticketmaster, £70 is in the region
of a festival ticket here, with a multitude of bands to enjoy.
> I'm surprised tickets are so cheap there. A sampling of medium and
> high-demand acts here in Boston from ticketmaster.com:
I would counter that with I'm surprised that tickets in the USA are so
expensive. But then we in the UK have to pay so much more for CDs...
> Phil Collins $95 (£53)
Phil Collins is in high demand?! Enormously depressing ;-(
So you think that something in high demand means it *has* to be priced
higher? While it may be human nature, it doesn't make it right or
acceptable.
Regards
Gary
Sarah V.
message news:chss6d$pjl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I would counter that with I'm surprised that tickets in the USA are so
> expensive. But then we in the UK have to pay so much more for CDs...
You have to pay a lot more for a lot of things in London... CDs, books,
movies, restaurants, taxes, transportation, real estate, um... just about
everything except concert tickets, I think. ;-)
> So you think that something in high demand means it *has* to be priced
> higher? While it may be human nature, it doesn't make it right or
> acceptable.
Obviously it doesn't HAVE to be priced higher, but I do think it's perfectly
acceptable. And I don't think it's somehow morally wrong, either. Music is
his career and he is entitled to whatever people are willing to pay. And
obviously a LOT of people were more than willing to pay the ticket price.
Remember, lot of "big" acts that are charging $30-$60 are also playing big
arenas, and making at least as much money per show than Tom will do with his
"obscene" prices at this gig.
After selling out the show in 17 minutes, I think we can see that TW clearly
priced his tickets well below what they are actually worth to his fans.
--
Sarah V.
Gary
> You have to pay a lot more for a lot of things in London... CDs, books,
> movies, restaurants, taxes, transportation, real estate, um... just about
> everything except concert tickets, I think. ;-)
Yup!
> Obviously it doesn't HAVE to be priced higher, but I do think it's
perfectly
> acceptable. And I don't think it's somehow morally wrong, either. Music is
> his career and he is entitled to whatever people are willing to pay. And
> obviously a LOT of people were more than willing to pay the ticket price.
Yes, the problem with this is that it excludes many people (like myself) on
lower incomes. While some may shrug their shoulders and say that's a fact of
life, I think in the realm of art it is immoral if no consideration is made
for such sections of society. I find it hard to swallow to have to lump Tom
with the likes of Streisand and Madonna...
Regards
Gary
Sarah V.
message news:chtegr$bre$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Yes, the problem with this is that it excludes many people (like myself)
on
> lower incomes. While some may shrug their shoulders and say that's a fact
of
> life, I think in the realm of art it is immoral if no consideration is
made
> for such sections of society. I find it hard to swallow to have to lump
Tom
> with the likes of Streisand and Madonna...
I do see your point... but I just don't see how it really makes sense,
quite. No matter how cheap the tickets are, the same number of people will
see the show. So it's not that he'd be making it accessible to more people
with cheaper tickets. The sad truth is that some things - like really
hard-to-get concert tickets - are expensive luxuries, and not everyone can
afford them. I can't afford to buy a Picasso. Should they give me one for
free? It's art, damnit! It's immoral not to give me one!!
Where's the cutoff for right and wrong, anyway? $70? $80? $85? $100? Is
there a firm number you can give TW for future reference? I'm sure it would
be useful... ;-)
--
Sarah V.
chrishathway.co.uk
Of by folks wanting to re-sell them on ebay ect?
Chris H.
Gary
> I do see your point... but I just don't see how it really makes sense,
> quite. No matter how cheap the tickets are, the same number of people will
> see the show.
The same number, but inclusive of society, rather than excluding certain
groups.
> I can't afford to buy a Picasso. Should they give me one for
> free? It's art, damnit! It's immoral not to give me one!!
It's immoral to deprive *viewing* of it to those who cannot afford one, or
even pay for entrance to an exhibition.
Hence free art galleries, with donations from those who can afford to pay.
> Where's the cutoff for right and wrong, anyway? $70? $80? $85? $100? Is
> there a firm number you can give TW for future reference? I'm sure it
would
> be useful... ;-)
As I said, the going top rate tends to be around £35 for most gigs. If
artistes want to make more money and the demand is there, they do more than
one gig!
Regards
Gary
Gary
x-no-archive: yes
> Buy yourself a piano..
Have one thanks.
> Write a song.
Have done thanks.
> Become a successful artiste.
Sadly haven't done that.
> Do concerts for free for the poor, if you can.
I would gladly do that - if I was in demand!
:-P
Philip Williamson
message news:chuhsi$ek6$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Sarah V." <sa...@diespammersdie.raindogftp.com> wrote in message
> news:vWs0d.279896$8_6.138513@attbi_s04...
>
>> I do see your point... but I just don't see how it really makes sense,
>> quite. No matter how cheap the tickets are, the same number of people
>> will
>> see the show.
> The same number, but inclusive of society, rather than excluding certain
> groups.
So Tom's excluding the poor. I've been priced out of Tom's shows every time
(except the Bone Machine tour, where I was stuck in a car on I-5 with my
workmates when they went on sale). I couldn't afford to see him in San Jose
when I was in college, and I couldn't afford the $100 tickets when he played
at the Raven in Healdsburg. Not "wouldn't"; couldn't. If I could loan myself
the money from now for back then, I'd do it in a shot. If ticket prices are
$350 in the U.S. this time around, I won't do it.
Reflecting on it, though, maybe I would. $350 is 'too much' for a concert,
but $350 for a week in Scotland or Paris is a bargain. $350 to fly to Tokyo
for an evening of running around and just LOOKING at everything... I might
do that.
What people are paying (and they are paying) for is something valuable to
_them_. One of the things that adds value is that Tom tends to play smaller
venues. Pink Floyd plays the Coliseum, and Tom plays the Paramount. 43,662
seats vs ...a good many fewer.
So if it's worth it to you, you'll pony up the dollars, take out a loan, or
be deprived by the circumstance of poverty, just like the poor sods who
didn't get tickets even with three phone lines going and an internet
connection. They wanted to pay, but still couldn't go. Life is full of
disappointment. Part of what makes people want it so much is that it's hard
to get. If you could go see Tom Waits any weekend you wanted, you might put
it off forever.
And... there ain't a lot of Tom to go around, and he won't live forever.
Because he's an artist he's obligated to pay himself minimum wage? All
artists are socialists? "We know that our fans will always take care of us,
even when we're old and shot, so we'll play for free while we can still
bring this magic to the people we live to please."
NO. Art is valuable, and he's already selling his recordings for 'the going
rate'. ANYONE can get all the Tom Waits they can stand. His performances are
rare (hence more valuable), and again his 'art' involves small spaces, which
limits his income from each gig. Someone else rightly pointed out that
scalpers do exist. Tom won't charge more then $35 for his tickets, but
people will buy them up and resell them for $400. I'm poor, I've scraped
together the $70 for me and my wife, but an easy $800 looks like rent to me
now...
And...he could play every night for a week in a 900 seat theater and see the
same 400 people night after night. How fair is that? Should we have limits
on the number of times people can have that experience? Spread it around a
bit? Even then, like Sarah pointed out, only 6900 people will see the show.
Maybe musicians should be required to play Every Night, so the maximum
number of people can see them and be touched by their magic. Maybe artists
should have a weekly quota, so the maximum number of other people can have
some of their art.
>> I can't afford to buy a Picasso. Should they give me one for
>> free? It's art, damnit! It's immoral not to give me one!!
> It's immoral to deprive *viewing* of it to those who cannot afford one, or
> even pay for entrance to an exhibition.
> Hence free art galleries, with donations from those who can afford to pay.
If you've heard about my art, and want to see it, it would be immoral to
deny you entrance to my house?
Oh... did you mean 'Great' art?
>> Where's the cutoff for right and wrong, anyway? $70? $80? $85? $100? Is
>> there a firm number you can give TW for future reference? I'm sure it
> would
>> be useful... ;-)
> As I said, the going top rate tends to be around £35 for most gigs. If
> artistes want to make more money and the demand is there, they do more
> than
> one gig!
Why should Tom Waits work harder to make you happy? Why don't you go get a
second job to make him happy?
Should art be free? Hell no. Art is one of the most valuable commodities
that has ever existed. All humans make art, make music, dance. After eating
and shitting, art-making is one of the few human constants across cultures.
We also have spiritual beliefs and fermented beverages...
I'm an artist, and I have a good job (commercial art). I love art, I think
it's valuable, and maybe I'd like to sell some myself sometime. Suddenly the
light went on for me, and I realized that if I really thought art was
valuable, it only followed that I should buy some. It's worthwhile, like
food, right? I've only bought a couple of pieces, and I've paid ~$400 each.
This is a lot of money for a lot of people. I've heard people just gasp that
a painting costs even that much, but it's a bargain for good art. (for bad
art: "spike srough zee head!"
Frank Frazetta commands enormous prices for napkin sketches. Good for him!
Fuck yeah! People pay it because they want one badly enough, but also
because they can sell it later for more money. Maybe there's a 'going rate'
for napkin sketches he should adhere to? I think the going rate for most
napkin sketches is $0; that's what I've paid for ones I plan to frame...
Concert experiences are the opposite of napkin sketches. Each napkin sketch
can only be made once. Tom Waits can put on a concert for 1000 people, but
each of them leaves with something unique and precious. It can't be sold,
bartered, or taken. It's yours forever. For a performance, the audience's
experience is the "thing", and it's a one-way trip. For the napkin-drawer
(or a recording artist), the experience was in the making, and cannot be
gotten back. That's apropos of nothing, except to return to my original
point that it's up to each person to decide how much that experience might
be worth to them.
Anyway, all this to just say "boo-fuckin-hoo" and advise you to only listen
to Fugazi because they charge $5 for shows and $10 for CDs.
Cheers,
Philip
and here's where I hang my ass out the car window: www.philipwilliamson.com
Gary
"Philip Williamson"
<inklingremovethiswholebitafterinkling@sonicremovethiswholebitaftersonictoo.
net> wrote in message news:3Ba1d.13490$54.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Because he's an artist he's obligated to pay himself minimum wage?
Is anyone here suggesting that?
> "We know that our fans will always take care of us,
> even when we're old and shot, so we'll play for free while we can still
> bring this magic to the people we live to please."
Did anyone suggest he should be playing for free?
>Tom won't charge more then $35 for his tickets,
Oh really?!
> If you've heard about my art, and want to see it, it would be immoral to
> deny you entrance to my house?
Unless your house doubles as an art gallery, that's a rather crass
retort.
If you held an exhibition with an entrance price twice that of any other
exhibition, with no concession prices for those disabled or unemployed, I
would find that objectionable. If you have no qualms about doing that,
that's your prerogative.
> Why should Tom Waits work harder to make you happy?
I wasn't suggesting that he should. I only suggested that if his motive was
primarily financial, then he should do what other artistes do and charge a
more reasonable ticket price and play more than once to satisfy his
accountants.
Of course I accept that Tom himself may be totally clueless on how much is
being charged.
>Why don't you go get a
> second job to make him happy?
Because I'm unable to work at the moment.
> Should art be free? Hell no.
I think that statement illustrates why so many people dislike US citizens
and its culture. The notion of everything being market-driven and an
absence of moral values <sigh>
To counter that, thankfully there are people like Sarah, who runs her FTP
site without charge to others :-)
> Art is one of the most valuable commodities that has ever existed.
In this context, by 'valuable commodity' I assume you mean
financially.
Its value is as *art itself*, *not* how much in demand it is or how much
someone is willing to pay for it. As a by-product, art may have a financial
value, but this has no real meaning artistically speaking.
> Concert experiences are the opposite of napkin sketches. Each napkin
sketch
> can only be made once. Tom Waits can put on a concert for 1000 people, but
> each of them leaves with something unique and precious. It can't be sold,
> bartered, or taken.
The singularity of the napkin is irrelevant. It, like a concert, *could* be
viewed by 1000 people, each left with their own unique experience of that
moment.
> For a performance, the audience's
> experience is the "thing", and it's a one-way trip.
The artiste doesn't enter into the equation in your view? Surely a good
concert is one of reciprocity, a connection between the artiste and the
audience, with the former enjoying it in equal measure.
> Anyway, all this to just say "boo-fuckin-hoo" and advise you to only
listen
> to Fugazi because they charge $5 for shows and $10 for CDs.
Thanks for those kind words ;-P
Just to help you grasp what can be seen in London and at what cost, here's a
little list of upcoming gigs:
Peter Hammill: £17.50 - £20.00
Kronos Quartet: £12.50 - £30
Lea DeLaria: £17.50
Ute Lemper: £7-£30
George Duke: £20
Jan Garbarek: £10-£25
Regards
Gary
Philip Williamson
"Gary" <ga...@franklin49deeleetdisbit.neinspamfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ci58ba$4gn$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> If you've heard about my art, and want to see it, it would be immoral to
>> deny you entrance to my house?
>
> Unless your house doubles as an art gallery, that's a rather crass
> retort.
> If you held an exhibition with an entrance price twice that of any other
> exhibition, with no concession prices for those disabled or unemployed, I
> would find that objectionable. If you have no qualms about doing that,
> that's your prerogative.
Crass? I don't understand that, so I'll just bleep over it.
You basically said that all people have a divine right to art, which I agree
with... in the abstract. Art does not come from the ether, though; people
make it up. It doesn't get shat out of a universal silo of fun; real people
have to do real work to make it.
However, when I've had exhibitions, it's not only free, there's wine and
coffee and kool ade for anyone who comes.
>> Why should Tom Waits work harder to make you happy?
>
> I wasn't suggesting that he should. I only suggested that if his motive
> was
> primarily financial, then he should do what other artistes do and charge a
> more reasonable ticket price and play more than once to satisfy his
> accountants.
> Of course I accept that Tom himself may be totally clueless on how much is
> being charged.
>
>>Why don't you go get a
>> second job to make him happy?
> Because I'm unable to work at the moment.
My point is that playing two shows is twice the work; it's a second job.
Whoops! Sorry about that; good luck.
>> Should art be free? Hell no.
> I think that statement illustrates why so many people dislike US citizens
> and its culture. The notion of everything being market-driven and an
> absence of moral values <sigh>
>
> To counter that, thankfully there are people like Sarah, who runs her FTP
> site without charge to others :-)
Well, Sarah's special.
I think "by should art be free hell no" I mean " should you EXPECT art to be
free?" Free art is great and admirable. There's a guy who makes little
paintings and puts them out on the street up on little ledges or hung on
nails. That's cool. It's cool because he decided to do that, not because
someone demanded it of him.
Art IS free. You can make all the art you have time for. You can look at the
art made by people and nature all day long for a million years, and you'd
never get tired. But can you expect someone else to make art for you? No. Do
you have a right to look in their notebooks? Why would you?
>> Art is one of the most valuable commodities that has ever existed.
>
> In this context, by 'valuable commodity' I assume you mean
> financially.
> Its value is as *art itself*, *not* how much in demand it is or how much
> someone is willing to pay for it. As a by-product, art may have a
> financial
> value, but this has no real meaning artistically speaking.
You assume wrongly. I mean that art is one of the few things that endures.
Human squabbles fade; "important" people are forgotten, entire civilizations
fade into dust, but their _stuff_ lives on. Which pope was it who
commissioned the Sistine Chapel ceiling again?
You (I think) are saying that art is a staple, like food or water. I agree.
I also think you can make your own, like a big green plant makes food from
sunlight. Because it's a necessity, you think you have a right to it at a
reasonable price. Fair enough, but that's fairly subjective, and the guy
with the water concession in the desert probably won't see things your way.
There's a finite supply of Tom-Waits-for-real, there's only one source and
demand is high.
>> Concert experiences are the opposite of napkin sketches. Each napkin
> sketch
>> can only be made once. Tom Waits can put on a concert for 1000 people,
>> but
>> each of them leaves with something unique and precious. It can't be sold,
>> bartered, or taken.
>
> The singularity of the napkin is irrelevant. It, like a concert, *could*
> be
> viewed by 1000 people, each left with their own unique experience of that
> moment.
As could a recording of the songs performed in a concert, which we will
shortly be able to purchase for a reasonable price. The singular experience
of seeing Tom live is just that: singular. You can relive it in your mind or
through a recording, but it will never happen again for you like that. The
value you put on that experience is up to you to determine. If others value
it more, or you are limited by circumstances, you may miss out.
>> For a performance, the audience's
>> experience is the "thing", and it's a one-way trip.
>
> The artiste doesn't enter into the equation in your view? Surely a good
> concert is one of reciprocity, a connection between the artiste and the
> audience, with the former enjoying it in equal measure.
?? I don't mean one-way from the performer to the audience, I mean one-way
in time. An object you create is injected into time and sent downstream, to
affect an unknown and potentially infinite number of people. A performance
is art "out of time", and exists only in memory. All these people bring
themselves together to have a time which is shared, but unique for each.
A recording of a performance is an object, but the experience is an
experience.
>> Anyway, all this to just say "boo-fuckin-hoo" and advise you to only
> listen
>> to Fugazi because they charge $5 for shows and $10 for CDs.
>
> Thanks for those kind words ;-P
Well, it wouldn't hurt you to put on a little Minor Threat from time to
time, if only to savor the phrase "boo-fuckin-hoo". :)
> Just to help you grasp what can be seen in London and at what cost, here's
> a
> little list of upcoming gigs:
> Peter Hammill: £17.50 - £20.00
> Kronos Quartet: £12.50 - £30
> Lea DeLaria: £17.50
> Ute Lemper: £7-£30
> George Duke: £20
> Jan Garbarek: £10-£25
Good. Go see 'em. I'm sure they're all just as good as Tom Waits. Better,
maybe. You could see half the shows on this list for the cost of one Tom
Waits ticket, I guess, but I can't do the currency conversion. How many "Ute
Lempers" to one "Tom Waits"?
Philip Williamson
-- Bad Scooter --
> I think "by should art be free hell no" I mean " should you EXPECT art to be
> free?" Free art is great and admirable. There's a guy who makes little
Is it art or is is just showbusiness - who gives a damn ?
We are Tom's audience and it really hurts me (and a couple
others, I believe) to see how little important we are to him when
it comes to live performances (I mean their quantity and ticket
prices, not the quality of course)...
--Maciek from Poland