A lot of people are wondering why the Stones (among other acts) charge so much for tickets these days.

There is an interesting article at Slate.com which attempts to eplain the economics of rock tours. I thought it was relevant, so here is the link:

[www.slate.com]


Here's an excerpt:

"In some ways, the rockonomy resembles the increasingly winner-take-all American economy. The rich are getting richer, and it's good to be the king or queen of pop. In 1982, the top 1 percent of artists banked 26 percent of ticket revenues; in 2003, they garnered 56 percent.

Baby-boomers are the primary driving force behind a lot of these trends. Nostalgia-seeking, age-resisting boomers have more disposable income than youngsters, and so have more to spend on expensive tickets at the box office. Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones topped the income-earning chart in 2002. The top 16 earners in 2002 also included 1970s-vintage draws like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, the Eagles, Elton John, and Bruce Springsteen. On tour, Barry Manilow and Neil Diamond easily out-earn Britney Spears and Kid Rock."

RedneckRobot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 1982, the top 1 percent
> of artists banked 26 percent of ticket revenues;
> in 2003, they garnered 56 percent.

Exactly the point I was trying to make about putting the competition out of business in my "Dealers and Junkies" thread.

And yet you do see a lot of relatively young (under 40) people at the concerts and when you think about it, what they are actually paying for is the chance to experience SOMEONE ELSE'S NOSTALGIA! Incredible! And that's why, when you see the Stones or the Who, what you are really seeing is a theatrical performance; the Stones or the Who trying to be the way they think people remember them, or the way a young person might imagine them to have been.