▲ 1653 ▼ Reminder— (sh.itjust.works) submitted 2 years ago by SuperCub@sh.itjust.works to c/memes@lemmy.ml 122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago (10 children) $50 each no doubt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago* (9 children) That's how bands make most of their money in the streaming era and with ticketmaster raking in a big chunk of the ticket sales despite not providing much. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (8 children) They could just play shows at venues not owned by Ticketmaster permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago (6 children) That's a super naive take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Lmao why? My buddy bought tickets to a ratm show. He had no one to go with so he invited me. We got there and were bombarded with Pepsi, lysol, and tons of other brand advertising projected on every wall of the massive stadium owned by a billionaire. We waiting for an hour while the advertisements wore our souls down to nothing Then when the show finally starts it turns out most of the people there are complaining about how political the band has gotten. Maybe when your ticket prices START at $150, you may not be the band of the people you thought you were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists Just read a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bluetooth@feddit.dk 10 points 2 years ago Good luck with that permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago* (9 children) That's how bands make most of their money in the streaming era and with ticketmaster raking in a big chunk of the ticket sales despite not providing much. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (8 children) They could just play shows at venues not owned by Ticketmaster permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago (6 children) That's a super naive take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Lmao why? My buddy bought tickets to a ratm show. He had no one to go with so he invited me. We got there and were bombarded with Pepsi, lysol, and tons of other brand advertising projected on every wall of the massive stadium owned by a billionaire. We waiting for an hour while the advertisements wore our souls down to nothing Then when the show finally starts it turns out most of the people there are complaining about how political the band has gotten. Maybe when your ticket prices START at $150, you may not be the band of the people you thought you were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists Just read a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bluetooth@feddit.dk 10 points 2 years ago Good luck with that permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (8 children) They could just play shows at venues not owned by Ticketmaster permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago (6 children) That's a super naive take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Lmao why? My buddy bought tickets to a ratm show. He had no one to go with so he invited me. We got there and were bombarded with Pepsi, lysol, and tons of other brand advertising projected on every wall of the massive stadium owned by a billionaire. We waiting for an hour while the advertisements wore our souls down to nothing Then when the show finally starts it turns out most of the people there are complaining about how political the band has gotten. Maybe when your ticket prices START at $150, you may not be the band of the people you thought you were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists Just read a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bluetooth@feddit.dk 10 points 2 years ago Good luck with that permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 12 points 2 years ago (6 children) That's a super naive take. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Lmao why? My buddy bought tickets to a ratm show. He had no one to go with so he invited me. We got there and were bombarded with Pepsi, lysol, and tons of other brand advertising projected on every wall of the massive stadium owned by a billionaire. We waiting for an hour while the advertisements wore our souls down to nothing Then when the show finally starts it turns out most of the people there are complaining about how political the band has gotten. Maybe when your ticket prices START at $150, you may not be the band of the people you thought you were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists Just read a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Lmao why? My buddy bought tickets to a ratm show. He had no one to go with so he invited me. We got there and were bombarded with Pepsi, lysol, and tons of other brand advertising projected on every wall of the massive stadium owned by a billionaire. We waiting for an hour while the advertisements wore our souls down to nothing Then when the show finally starts it turns out most of the people there are complaining about how political the band has gotten. Maybe when your ticket prices START at $150, you may not be the band of the people you thought you were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists Just read a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago (4 children) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists Just read a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them) Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires. Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract. Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
