Comment on What Ticketmaster Doesn't Want You To Know: Concerts Were Cheap For Decades
towerful@programming.dev 1 month ago
I think Ticketmaster and Live Nation absolutely are to blame for hyperinflated ticket prices.
The fact that scalpers also operate is reprehensible.
I will however say that production values of a modern gig are many factors higher than they were decades ago.
Safety standards are much higher, requiring more crowd control, more planning, more specialised equipment (both for the venue, and for the production).
It’s no longer “a stack of speakers and a mixing desk with 8 channels”. PA design and installation is both a science and an art in itself to achieve an even frequency response throughout as much of the venue as possible. Never mind the production of the actual music.
It’s no longer “120 par cans over the stage and a bunch of power”, it’s a huge quantity of intelligent lighting fixtures with months of planning and days of programming.
Never mind the video side of things requiring months of preproduction with kit that would make the lighting or sound budget look like fisher price.
And all of this has to be built and run with redundancy, so the equipment list is essentially doubled, and likely a lot of spares.
Venue costs are also higher. So all of that production has to be orchestrated to go in and come out in as fast a time as possible. And packed on and off trucks in specific ways to facilitate this. Logistics of a tour are intimidating.
There are also entire university degrees based around these roles in production, people want and make a career out of touring. Places on tours are highly sought after.
Gigs are no longer just a band playing. There is a lot more show to it.
Whether this is actually what fans want is up for debate. And if it actually makes the experience better is also up for debate.
Ticket prices are obscene, and I don’t think they are inline with the production provided.
However, if the live music is in demand then there will be people that pay. A band can only play so many gigs, and venues are limited.
Some of the increased cost can be attributed to making the job easier and safer for all the crew, staff and fans.
Some of the increased cost can be attributed “putting on a better show”.
Some of the cost can be attributed to some of these jobs moving from the “passion and hobby” to “a career”.
Some of these costs can be attributed to the increased skill level required to put on these gigs.
Some of these costs can be attributed general cost of living & inflation increases.
But I think most of the costs can be attributed to the exploitative behaviour of Ticketmaster etc.
Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Mixing now requires phenomenally less equipment. We went from massive mixing boards to a collection of individual dials and now we are on very powerful digital modeling systems with a laptop interface.
Sure, these need to be dialed in at every venue, but most of the settings are staying close to the same to recreate a studio type sound with autotune turned slightly down and letting the chord change strum be left in.
towerful@programming.dev 1 month ago
Yeh, consoles and generally the engineering side has (somewhat) come down in price. But it is more expensive to actually use it in a live gig.
I don’t know anyone that would mix on a laptop for a live music gig (as opposed to a band at a conference/function) any larger than solo acoustic for 50-100 people.
It’s not that a physical control surface would make it sound better (well, especially with preproduction), but that a physical control surface allows you to react to the music faster. Anything more than 2 button presses away is too far for a live gig with any stakes.
Yes the technology is there, and it is doable. But just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. You are introducing massive disadvantages before you even start the gig.
Some comments on the increased complexity…
Wireless systems are more prevalent, along with IEMs. An 8 way stereo IEM system is a lot more than an 8 way monitor system. More expensive , and a lot more planning.
These days, it is much more common to have DSP amps, a channel (or even multiple channels) per box in an array, arrays are much bigger with additional fills and delays.
I’ve seen some of the daddy racks used in tours, they will be 2 or 3 x 30-40U racks of amps and systems per PA hang.
The rigging for the PA is more precise, requires precise measurements (both physical and spectral), and it needs someone to actually run the PA.
All of this allows an install closer to the ideal PA for the gig, with tooling and simulation to plan it in advance. Which requires a lot broader skill set and planning than throwing in whatever PA you could hire and walking around until it’s good enough.
I’d say a tour 30-40 years ago was unlikely to have a dedicated systems tech dealing only with the PA. They’d likely supervise the install and some tuning, then be a patch monkey or monitor engineer or something. Or maybe just chill out until the derig.
These days, it’s not uncommon to have someone continually monitoring the PA, amps, desk racks etc. and it is as much a skill as engineering the actual band.
20,000 people in a stadium having paid $20 a ticket is $400k budget per show. Seems like a lot, but a venue is going to cost anywhere between $100k and $500k per night.
100 crew/techs for the in, show & out is going to be $25k to $50k. Equipment hire is going to be anywhere from $50k to $500k.
Never mind rehearsal and pre-production costs.
There will be discounts for multiple nights and longer term hires, however anything like an actual tour has a lot of additional accommodation, travel and logistics costs & planning.
Audience members going to a gig at a large stadium will have certain expectations, regardless of cost.
Tech crew are going to have certain expectations working at a stadium level gig. These are professionals at (most of the time) the peak of their career.
While the equipment cost might be somewhat comparable (purchasing a couple Midas, outboard, splits, snakes would’ve been $100k to $250k. A redundant SD10 system with a monitor desk might be $150k to $350k and a hell of a lot more capable - analogue Vs digital sound arguments aside), it generally needs more people and more skill to be able to use and run these systems (analogue splits can be used drunk/hangover. Dante or madi have many layers of complication).
I’d say digital desks are a bit more fragile than analogue - when digital dies it’s dead, when analogue dies it sounds shit - which will increase the hire cost.
And by the time you have a desk that can make a live performance sound like a studio album, you also need a PA to back that up, and you need the kit to make sure the band is comfortable playing to that level.
Also, to attract reliable talent to actually work the gigs (not just the band and their requirements), a certain level of equipment is expected.
Hell, I’ve been on gigs with dedicated coms techs. All they look after is networking and voice coms systems, and the kit they are deploying makes a video engineers eyes water (you know it’s a good gig when you see anything Riedel)
Modern gigs are on another level of complexity compared to the $20 gigs of Elvis’ time.
Even $40 a ticket in a 20k stadium doesn’t leave much wiggle room.
Then you have profits for the band and organisers. And the demand will drive up prices.
Like I said, I think current big gig prices are exploitative.
But the comparison to gigs from decades ago isn’t a good one. Production capabilities are much higher, expectations are much higher, abilities and tech is much more refined.
You have to remember bands like The Beetles, Queen and Pink Floyd would be drowned out by the fans. Pretty shitty gig if you can’t hear the band.
And that’s nothing to speak to lighting, video, production and artist management departments.
Sorry for the ramble. Halfway through a bottle of wine!
As much as I love working a GOOD budget gig, I’d rather have the equipment to be able to operate at the level I’m capable of - to the point that I no longer work the shitty gigs.