Red Mosquito

mkay0 wrote:Any of these rumors sourced back to people who have leaked things in the past? This feels insane considering what we have seen from them recently

LetMeSleep wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Well that's alright.

Those in WA and SA might disagree.

That'll change. There's no way they'd only do 7 shows across AUS/NZ with 2x 2 night stands.

tragabigzanda wrote:THIS IS HOW PEARL JAM SHOULD TOUR NOW:

1. A series of small, premium priced shows at intimate venues (think Benaroya Hall). Ticket prices are like $400 each, and portions of every sale benefits local charities. They do an acoustic set followed by a rawk set.

2. They do a limited number of economy priced shows in all the major markets so average joe can attend. Tix are $100 and they prohibit flex pricing.

So they would do like four small, pricey benefit shows in the Northeast, followed by a three-night stand at MSG. Rinse and repeat around the country.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:THIS IS HOW PEARL JAM SHOULD TOUR NOW:

1. A series of small, premium priced shows at intimate venues (think Benaroya Hall). Ticket prices are like $400 each, and portions of every sale benefits local charities. They do an acoustic set followed by a rawk set.

2. They do a limited number of economy priced shows in all the major markets so average joe can attend. Tix are $100 and they prohibit flex pricing.

So they would do like four small, pricey benefit shows in the Northeast, followed by a three-night stand at MSG. Rinse and repeat around the country.

I like the model they've done the past two years. Play the US every year (or close to every year), but choose two regions and play 6-10 dates in each region. That way each region has multiple options for seeing a show every 3-4 years.

As a Midwesterner, I don't like the new trend of playing multiple shows in major cities only. I get all the reasons why an artist chooses to do this, but it can really make it hard for large swaths of the country to see a show for a reasonable price.

But wouldn’t you be well served by say, a $100 arena show in STL or maybe Chicago, and a $400 intimate show in KC?

tragabigzanda wrote:

dad wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:THIS IS HOW PEARL JAM SHOULD TOUR NOW:

1. A series of small, premium priced shows at intimate venues (think Benaroya Hall). Ticket prices are like $400 each, and portions of every sale benefits local charities. They do an acoustic set followed by a rawk set.

2. They do a limited number of economy priced shows in all the major markets so average joe can attend. Tix are $100 and they prohibit flex pricing.

So they would do like four small, pricey benefit shows in the Northeast, followed by a three-night stand at MSG. Rinse and repeat around the country.

I like the model they've done the past two years. Play the US every year (or close to every year), but choose two regions and play 6-10 dates in each region. That way each region has multiple options for seeing a show every 3-4 years.

As a Midwesterner, I don't like the new trend of playing multiple shows in major cities only. I get all the reasons why an artist chooses to do this, but it can really make it hard for large swaths of the country to see a show for a reasonable price.

But wouldn’t you be well served by say, a $100 arena show in STL or maybe Chicago, and a $400 intimate show in KC?

$400 seems absurd tho...even for an intimate show.

Tix for the most recent tour flexed to almost $800

tragabigzanda wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

dad wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:THIS IS HOW PEARL JAM SHOULD TOUR NOW:

1. A series of small, premium priced shows at intimate venues (think Benaroya Hall). Ticket prices are like $400 each, and portions of every sale benefits local charities. They do an acoustic set followed by a rawk set.

2. They do a limited number of economy priced shows in all the major markets so average joe can attend. Tix are $100 and they prohibit flex pricing.

So they would do like four small, pricey benefit shows in the Northeast, followed by a three-night stand at MSG. Rinse and repeat around the country.

I like the model they've done the past two years. Play the US every year (or close to every year), but choose two regions and play 6-10 dates in each region. That way each region has multiple options for seeing a show every 3-4 years.

As a Midwesterner, I don't like the new trend of playing multiple shows in major cities only. I get all the reasons why an artist chooses to do this, but it can really make it hard for large swaths of the country to see a show for a reasonable price.

But wouldn’t you be well served by say, a $100 arena show in STL or maybe Chicago, and a $400 intimate show in KC?

$400 seems absurd tho...even for an intimate show.

Tix for the most recent tour flexed to almost $800

Sure, but how many people actually paid that price? I wouldn't pay $400+ to see PJ. It's not Disney world.

But if you’re paying $100 plus travel to STL, you effectively are paying that much

mkay0 wrote:Any of these rumors sourced to black people who have leaked things in the past? This feels insane considering what we have seen from them recently

tragabigzanda wrote:THIS IS HOW PEARL JAM SHOULD TOUR NOW:

1. A series of small, premium priced shows at intimate venues (think Benaroya Hall). Ticket prices are like $400 each, and portions of every sale benefits local charities. They do an acoustic set followed by a rawk set.

2. They do a limited number of economy priced shows in all the major markets so average joe can attend. Tix are $100 and they prohibit flex pricing.

So they would do like four small, pricey benefit shows in the Northeast, followed by a three-night stand at MSG. Rinse and repeat around the country.