This is long, sorry. May want to just move on past it. Nothing to see here...
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:spycouple Wrote:We complain about politicians but we still have to vote, right?
This is a fallacial counter-argument. The dynamic of market viability for live entertainment is in no way comparable to that of popular elections.
The comparison wasn't in terms of market volatility, it was in terms of market participation and political participation. The point is with respect to believing in the ideal of a "consumer democracy", which is what you're arguing for by saying essentially "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Put it this way: if you think the political process is corrupt and you endlessly complain about it, you may choose not to vote. As in, "well, I don't believe this is fair, I don't think it's working, so I'm not going to vote." In a democracy, the non-vote is still a vote and, worse still, has no effect on changing the system that you're complaining about.
Quote:Quote:I wouldn't underestimate the role that cultural production plays in national and global economies. We're well past the Industrial Age of staple concerns such as fuel and bread and circuses. Of course, substitute "entertainment" for "circuses" and, well, same deal.
You aren't seriously trying to argue that the setting of ticket prices according to market demand has a comparable influence on the Canadian and global economy to that of the price of a barrel of oil, are you? Are you?
It's not a comparison, i'm just looking at industrial production and cultural production as both being production. Both are part of everyday life. You can't just put the cultural stuff aside. (nice rhetoric there, btw, with the "you aren't seriously...?" and the "...are you?
Are you?" lines
)
How much media and entertainment do you consume per day in $$ if you could guess? How much gasoline do you consume in a day if you could guess? I'm sure you could sit down and do some rough estimates and comparisons, but whatever. The point is that they're both aspects of what you consume in your daily life, therefore they are
by definition part of an economy (global or national).
Quote:As for the rest of your diatribe, all I can say is you are making it far, far more complex than it really is, spycouple.
Perhaps... no, you're right, but at least it's not as simple as throwing a market at the problem. Always a convenient and logical solution, but always more complex when actually implemented.
Quote:Concert ticket prices are not established by throwing darts at a pinwheel. It is fixed at the highest possible price where all interested parties are certain that the seats will still get filled, while not jeopardizing future sales.
Period.
No argument there on the motivation, but to assume certainty on knowing what price will fill seats on the open market is a stretch. How many seats are sold in blocks to large buyers when the price point is overshot, thereby ensuring a "sellout"? Further, artist development and future sales have historically not been the music industry's strong suit (e.g. see the Spellman article on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.alternatemusicpress.com/news.html">http://www.alternatemusicpress.com/news.html</a><!-- m -->)
Quote: If certain bands / promoters / agents / labels make mistakes in calculating such, then they risk missing out on potential revenue.
Will this happen to TTH because they ask fans to shell out a total of $75 for 16 shows?
I think not.
Short-term revenue? Long-term revenue? You're not being specific. And in that sense, if you've got a short-term contract where your job was only to "maximize revenue" for your firm with no other specifications, would you be concerned about the long-term revenue? I think not.
In terms of missing out on potential revenue, well, (and note the upcoming rhetorical use of pathos) I can speak directly to this point and say that I have shelled out A LOT of $$$ over the years on concerts. So like many here, I've contributed to these music industry revenues on numerous occasions, for better or worse. However, the first concert I ever went to was The Who way back on on (one of) their reunion tours ('89, i think). I wasn't a fan of The Who at the time, but my big brother took me to the concert since I was a young kid who he felt should probably go to a concert at some point. He wasn't even a big fan of the The Who either, and I'm sure the ticket prices in that day weren't that cheap for such an event. What does this have to do with anything, besides the price of tickets for The Who? Well...
The thing that I wonder about now, with ticket prices where they're at, is how it affects such initial concert going experiences or repeat concert experiences and their longer term effects on an artist's revenues, i.e. that quasi-romantic notion of "the gift of music". It's a damn expensive gift now, and I'm not trying to be cheap about it. It just runs the risk of losing those kinds of (what I feel anyway) are important social and cultural interactions.
Quote:It's not nearly as risky as turning out something as soft as "In View", however.
Hey, if you don't like it, don't listen to it!
(good debate fodder, btw. And yeah, its the "service taxes" that are really the ire-inducers)
cratch: 
