←back to thread

204 points pabs3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
modeless ◴[] No.44085353[source]
I am unsympathetic when people insist on selling things for the wrong price and then come up with these elaborate schemes for fixing the problems they themselves caused.

If they would simply sell tickets for the prices people are willing to pay in the first place then they wouldn't need to invade privacy or any of this stuff. I've heard the arguments they use to justify why they don't and they're all hogwash.

replies(4): >>44091013 #>>44092233 #>>44092261 #>>44094750 #
masswerk ◴[] No.44092261[source]
Because artists need an at least semi-competent vis-a-vis, AKA audience. This is the main proposition for entering a stage to begin with. And chances are that the most economical potent ticket buyers are not in this group and probably also not the most enthusiastic about the act. So there's a natural incentive to aim not for the highest cap, but for a somewhat realistic medium. I.e., "the prices people are willing to pay" are probably not the prices artists are willing to perform at.

(Edit: there's a reason for opera houses providing cheap standing room for enthusiasts – it keeps the art alive.)

replies(1): >>44092646 #
modeless ◴[] No.44092646[source]
If people paying high prices for tickets makes the event worse, as people seem to believe without evidence, then prices will come down, solving the problem naturally. These arguments make zero sense.
replies(2): >>44093207 #>>44094763 #
1. masswerk ◴[] No.44093207[source]
I think, in terms of art, it's more like a death march: events will become more exhausting and less emotional rewarding for the performers, so there will be less events, which will be even more exhaustive as they are exclusive. So, under these conditions, there may be no performances, at all, as relevant performers just give up. (Art is not a simple product and may scale inversely.)