Quote
Irix

Quote
hockenheim95

What's the advantage of hearing Wembley 82 on CD than hearing it on Spotify?

Sound quality, because Spotify is vastly data-compressed (lossy)?

didn't even think of that because of the wild quality variety of the bootleg world but yeah

Quote
Irix

Quote
hockenheim95

If something like this would ever happen then I can still download those albums.

It happened e.g. with GRRR!, the Abkco Singles 1963-71 or the Singles 1971-2006 (173 Tracks).

Listening via Streaming until the physical releases are on clearance for a good price works of course too.

I only have Spotify since 2 years so I don't know exactly what has been there in the past. But The Abkco Single Box Sets are there complete but for the 1971-2006 there is only a Sampler.

But using Spotify doesn't prevent anyone from buying stuff that is not available there in any other format you like. I see it as a very good addition and listening over Spofity on the Hi-Fi at home or on the car is very easy

Quote
hockenheim95

But The Abkco Single Box Sets are there complete but for the 1971-2006 there is only a Sampler.

Yep, the Abkco Singles 1963-71 are on Spotify while the full 173-Track-version of the 1971-2006 Singles is only on Apple Music (iTunes). Maybe a kind of competition ....

The prices of vinyl in general have sky rocketed recently and it is definitely not a Stones phenomena. You would imagine that as records become more popular and therefore production levels increase that they would reduce in price. But that hasn't happened.

The return of vinyl is more of an emerging business opportunity than an emerging market

I would suggest to everyone doing a blind listen if they really can differentiate Spotify from a lossless file (don't forget to put Spotify on the highest quality setting). I'd say for the average user of this forum (who isn't the youngest anymore) it really does not make much of a difference or it is that small that is doesn't matter to you in your daily music listening. Will save you lots of money surely (and you can still buy stuff of not so rich artists you want to support)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-04-14 18:16 by StonedRambler.

Isn't it strange? The less you get, the more you pay. I'd pay $300 USD to see the '72 Stones in concert. I wouldn't pay $100 USD to see the current version. I didn't go near the bloated prices at Sofi when they played Los Angeles. Just like I won't go near there for the upcoming McCartney concert next month. Paul's voice is just about gone, but you'll pay exorbitant prices to hear it.

It's all relevant. Someone paid $5,300,000 for a copy of Superman Comics #1. Not the first appearance, which was Action Comics #1, but a book that was a reprint of early Superman stories.

The Rolling Stones no longer have relevance. They're a commodity. There's no novelty, no surprise. You don't even get what you paid for. All these vintage acts are just vacuuming up all the money they can before retirement.

Quote
24FPS
Isn't it strange? The less you get, the more you pay. I'd pay $300 USD to see the '72 Stones in concert. I wouldn't pay $100 USD to see the current version. I didn't go near the bloated prices at Sofi when they played Los Angeles. Just like I won't go near there for the upcoming McCartney concert next month. Paul's voice is just about gone, but you'll pay exorbitant prices to hear it.

It's all relevant. Someone paid $5,300,000 for a copy of Superman Comics #1. Not the first appearance, which was Action Comics #1, but a book that was a reprint of early Superman stories.

The Rolling Stones no longer have relevance. They're a commodity. There's no novelty, no surprise. You don't even get what you paid for. All these vintage acts are just vacuuming up all the money they can before retirement.

Not all. Bob Dylan and his band still bring it. The Ryman show was sublime.

Quote
24FPS
Isn't it strange? The less you get, the more you pay. I'd pay $300 USD to see the '72 Stones in concert. I wouldn't pay $100 USD to see the current version. I didn't go near the bloated prices at Sofi when they played Los Angeles. Just like I won't go near there for the upcoming McCartney concert next month. Paul's voice is just about gone, but you'll pay exorbitant prices to hear it.

It's all relevant. Someone paid $5,300,000 for a copy of Superman Comics #1. Not the first appearance, which was Action Comics #1, but a book that was a reprint of early Superman stories.

The Rolling Stones no longer have relevance. They're a commodity. There's no novelty, no surprise. You don't even get what you paid for. All these vintage acts are just vacuuming up all the money they can before retirement.

well, it depends on what you want (and/or expect). There was no video show in early seventies. The sound wasn't really good etc.

Beside all that there are too many rich or super rich people – especially on the art market (I mean people for whom it doesn't make much difference if the pay 5 million oder 20 million dollars for a sketch by Picasso or bottle of wine or some old comic book or a rare record etc.)

Economics 101. Supply and demand.

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Economics 101. Supply and demand.

Except that it's not. When even John Oliver reports on the scam that's equivalent to the sparrows shouting it from the rooftops

The conundrum actually is that with an honest supply-and-demand setup you'd likely have much pricier tickets than with the model they currently perpetrate

Quote
24FPS
Isn't it strange? The less you get, the more you pay. I'd pay $300 USD to see the '72 Stones in concert. I wouldn't pay $100 USD to see the current version. I didn't go near the bloated prices at Sofi when they played Los Angeles. Just like I won't go near there for the upcoming McCartney concert next month. Paul's voice is just about gone, but you'll pay exorbitant prices to hear it.

It's all relevant. Someone paid $5,300,000 for a copy of Superman Comics #1. Not the first appearance, which was Action Comics #1, but a book that was a reprint of early Superman stories.

The Rolling Stones no longer have relevance. They're a commodity. There's no novelty, no surprise. You don't even get what you paid for. All these vintage acts are just vacuuming up all the money they can before retirement.

A rich relative paid some $4000 to entertain us. Earlier we spent some €500 on him and his wife. We thought it was a too big a difference, but he said that it wasn't was fair to compair. It's about the feeling of being entertained and the amount of money is not important.

Some pay millions for a piece of art, which I maybe think is only worth a few thousand bob. The Rolling Stones are still very relevant. With the upcoming tour many young people talk about them, based on TV commercials about the tour. "wow, they must be a big thing, want to see them, but can't afford them". Even after 60 years they can still be the "talk of the day"!
Why are you on IORR if you think they are not relevant anymore. Get yourself a relevant act or thing that makes you happy instead of wining about the Stones, I'd say.

Be happy



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Economics 101. Supply and demand.

Except that it's not. When even John Oliver reports on the scam that's equivalent to the sparrows shouting it from the rooftops

Are you saying that if people didn't buy tickets/records at such prices, they wouldn't drop the prices? C'mon now. It may be a bit more nuanced than simple supply and demand, but without the demand, these prices simply would not be so high.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Economics 101. Supply and demand.

Except that it's not. When even John Oliver reports on the scam that's equivalent to the sparrows shouting it from the rooftops

Are you saying that if people didn't buy tickets/records at such prices, they wouldn't drop the prices? C'mon now. It may be a bit more nuanced than simple supply and demand, but without the demand, these prices simply would not be so high.

There's no answer to that because for a minority of buyers there is no upper boundary. This market is an anomaly as the prime objective now is drying up the secondary market.

The Stones are close to Streisand territory, no nuances there, but I figure a lot of bands learn a lesson about their fan demographic by way of pricing errors

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Economics 101. Supply and demand.

Except that it's not. When even John Oliver reports on the scam that's equivalent to the sparrows shouting it from the rooftops

Are you saying that if people didn't buy tickets/records at such prices, they wouldn't drop the prices? C'mon now. It may be a bit more nuanced than simple supply and demand, but without the demand, these prices simply would not be so high.

There's no answer to that because for a minority of buyers there is no upper boundary. This market is an anomaly as the prime objective now is drying up the secondary market.

I agree. But, IF those few buyers in the minority didn't pay that amount, the prices would drop. It is a big IF, but that doesn't make it not true. The fact that the masses don't get together and choose to stop buying high priced tickets in order to stop the inflation, is one of the main problems. It'll never happen, but it'd do the trick, at least temporarily.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Economics 101. Supply and demand.

Except that it's not. When even John Oliver reports on the scam that's equivalent to the sparrows shouting it from the rooftops

Are you saying that if people didn't buy tickets/records at such prices, they wouldn't drop the prices? C'mon now. It may be a bit more nuanced than simple supply and demand, but without the demand, these prices simply would not be so high.

There's no answer to that because for a minority of buyers there is no upper boundary. This market is an anomaly as the prime objective now is drying up the secondary market.

I agree. But, IF those few buyers in the minority didn't pay that amount, the prices would drop. It is a big IF, but that doesn't make it not true. The fact that the masses don't get together and choose to stop buying high priced tickets in order to stop the inflation, is one of the main problems. It'll never happen, but it'd do the trick, at least temporarily.

well, on the long run I expect that cheap tickets will even get cheaper. Those (very) rich people need the masses to create a certain atmosphere for the rich to consume. That's why football clubs still offer some relative cheap or at least inexpensive tickets. Like the Stones they don't do this for charity reasons.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
24FPS
Isn't it strange? The less you get, the more you pay. I'd pay $300 USD to see the '72 Stones in concert. I wouldn't pay $100 USD to see the current version. I didn't go near the bloated prices at Sofi when they played Los Angeles. Just like I won't go near there for the upcoming McCartney concert next month. Paul's voice is just about gone, but you'll pay exorbitant prices to hear it.

It's all relevant. Someone paid $5,300,000 for a copy of Superman Comics #1. Not the first appearance, which was Action Comics #1, but a book that was a reprint of early Superman stories.

The Rolling Stones no longer have relevance. They're a commodity. There's no novelty, no surprise. You don't even get what you paid for. All these vintage acts are just vacuuming up all the money they can before retirement.

A rich relative paid some $4000 to entertain us. Earlier we spent some €500 on him and his wife. We thought it was a too big a difference, but he said that it wasn't was fair to compair. It's about the feeling of being entertained and the amount of money is not important.

Some pay millions for a piece of art, which I maybe think is only worth a few thousand bob. The Rolling Stones are still very relevant. With the upcoming tour many young people talk about them, based on TV commercials about the tour. "wow, they must be a big thing, want to see them, but can't afford them". Even after 60 years they can still be the "talk of the day"!
Why are you on IORR if you think they are not relevant anymore. Get yourself a relevant act or thing that makes you happy instead of wining about the Stones, I'd say.

Be happy

I am happy. This is also a nostalgia site. The Stones may no longer be relevant as artists, but where else would I hear about El Mocambo, something I'm truly interested in? Anything 1990 and before I like to hear about. I pretty much separate them into two Rolling Stones groups. The second one, starting with Voodoo Lounge is not even near the same level as the earlier, better incarnation. Although the exception was the No Security Tour, where they were on fire from touring so much, and took it from stadiums to arenas.

Quote
StonedRambler
I would suggest to everyone doing a blind listen if they really can differentiate Spotify from a lossless file (don't forget to put Spotify on the highest quality setting). I'd say for the average user of this forum (who isn't the youngest anymore) it really does not make much of a difference or it is that small that is doesn't matter to you in your daily music listening. Will save you lots of money surely (and you can still buy stuff of not so rich artists you want to support)

The difference between a CD quality and MP3 quality is very noticeable. I was playing a CD of one of my recordings in the parking lot at a show last week and the second CD was damaged and skipping so I streamed the high res MP3 from my cloud storage. The people I was with questioned whether it was the same recording. It was noticeable and this was on my car stereo. If you want to save money that way so be it, but its an inferior product. The same thing is true for pit and prime seats versus nosebleed seats. We all have things we value and if sound is important then it may be worth the cost depending on the difference in price. Paying for the packaging is a waste of money in my opinion unless it is used as artwork for display purposes. Paying extra for colored vinyl doesn't sound better and is not worth extra.

If people have the extra money they will spend it up to their perceived value. A lot of people do and they will spend it. Lamborghini just released a new model and it sold out with folks paying over $100K above sticker to get one. They could have bought a Prius. Maybe they should donate more to others but that's a seperate discussion.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
georgie48

Quote
24FPS
Isn't it strange? The less you get, the more you pay. I'd pay $300 USD to see the '72 Stones in concert. I wouldn't pay $100 USD to see the current version. I didn't go near the bloated prices at Sofi when they played Los Angeles. Just like I won't go near there for the upcoming McCartney concert next month. Paul's voice is just about gone, but you'll pay exorbitant prices to hear it.

It's all relevant. Someone paid $5,300,000 for a copy of Superman Comics #1. Not the first appearance, which was Action Comics #1, but a book that was a reprint of early Superman stories.

The Rolling Stones no longer have relevance. They're a commodity. There's no novelty, no surprise. You don't even get what you paid for. All these vintage acts are just vacuuming up all the money they can before retirement.

A rich relative paid some $4000 to entertain us. Earlier we spent some €500 on him and his wife. We thought it was a too big a difference, but he said that it wasn't was fair to compair. It's about the feeling of being entertained and the amount of money is not important.

Some pay millions for a piece of art, which I maybe think is only worth a few thousand bob. The Rolling Stones are still very relevant. With the upcoming tour many young people talk about them, based on TV commercials about the tour. "wow, they must be a big thing, want to see them, but can't afford them". Even after 60 years they can still be the "talk of the day"!
Why are you on IORR if you think they are not relevant anymore. Get yourself a relevant act or thing that makes you happy instead of wining about the Stones, I'd say.

Be happy

I am happy. This is also a nostalgia site. The Stones may no longer be relevant as artists, but where else would I hear about El Mocambo, something I'm truly interested in? Anything 1990 and before I like to hear about. I pretty much separate them into two Rolling Stones groups. The second one, starting with Voodoo Lounge is not even near the same level as the earlier, better incarnation. Although the exception was the No Security Tour, where they were on fire from touring so much, and took it from stadiums to arenas.

I agree with you on the No Security tour, but don't forget the Licks tour with the club shows! I realise that not everyone can go to many different concerts, but the Stones always added something new based on great songs they made on different albums, including Voodoo Lounge and beyond. You can't expect them to produce albums full of "great songs". No artist can, and certainly not after 60 years. But concert wise they have been great all of the time during this 21st Century. And, at least to me, those (many) concerts have been worth every Euro!
The Stones recorded a couple of crap songs in the 60s, while leaving out some great ones that surfaced on bootlegs. Taste is a tough thing to deal with. But really, it's up to them. I fully trust them to come up again with concerts this time which will please me once again. And ... most tickets are now well below 500 Euros. Counting inflation that's good

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

It's mainly the prices on concert tickets that have skyrocketed. In 1990, for example the price for a concert ticket was about 1,5 that of an LP. In other words affordable for most.

But back then, you went to the stadium or arena early, you sprinted to the front of the field and you were in 'the pit' for free. Fans who were willing to put in a some effort stood in front. Now those seats are for fans with the biggest wallets..

And indeed, you pay more and more for less. The Stones are not getting any better (to put it mildly) and the overall concert experience just isn't what it used to be. Instead of singing, dancing and clapping, half of the crowd is constantly filming of taking selfies

Quote
Stoneage
It's mainly the prices on concert tickets that have skyrocketed. In 1990, for example the price for a concert ticket was about 1,5 that of an LP. In other words affordable for most.

You got that right. In 1994, I bought a pit ticket for Pearl Jam for $19.

Quote
ribbelchips
But back then, you went to the stadium or arena early, you sprinted to the front of the field and you were in 'the pit' for free. Fans who were willing to put in a some effort stood in front. Now those seats are for fans with the biggest wallets..

And indeed, you pay more and more for less. The Stones are not getting any better (to put it mildly) and the overall concert experience just isn't what it used to be. Instead of singing, dancing and clapping, half of the crowd is constantly filming of taking selfies

in fact it's hard to say what I hate more – people singing along or people filming/taking selfies

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Stoneage
It's mainly the prices on concert tickets that have skyrocketed. In 1990, for example the price for a concert ticket was about 1,5 that of an LP. In other words affordable for most.

You got that right. In 1994, I bought a pit ticket for Pearl Jam for $19.

But they discounted it because Eddie could potentially dive on you.

I think they considered it 'hazard pay'.

Quote
slewan
in fact it's hard to say what I hate more – people singing along or people filming/taking selfies

both

If you're going to sing along, at least sing well. But yeah, it's a pet peeve at shows for sure.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Stoneage
It's mainly the prices on concert tickets that have skyrocketed. In 1990, for example the price for a concert ticket was about 1,5 that of an LP. In other words affordable for most.

You got that right. In 1994, I bought a pit ticket for Pearl Jam for $19.

Pearl Jam ????? Jeeeeeeez*s, this isn't even comparing apples with pears. We're talking about a proud, beautiful Siberiaan tiger next to a poodle dog. They're okay, Pearl Jam (I know them well because one of my daughters used to be a fan), but get real here.



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
georgie48

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
Stoneage
It's mainly the prices on concert tickets that have skyrocketed. In 1990, for example the price for a concert ticket was about 1,5 that of an LP. In other words affordable for most.

You got that right. In 1994, I bought a pit ticket for Pearl Jam for $19.

Pearl Jam ????? Jeeeeeeez*s, this isn't even comparing apples with pears. We're talking about a proud, beautiful Siberiaan tiger next to a poodle dog. They're okay, Pearl Jam (I know them well because one of my daughters used to be a fan), but get real here.

You totally missed the point, I was talking about how high ticket prices have gone. I was not comparing Pearl Jam to The Rolling Stones. That said, Pearl Jam is one of the biggest, most respected, most successful acts in rock history, not to mention the last 30 years. Your analogy is way off.