Should I see Paul McCartney, or "What do you do to make decisions on shows?"

Not all of us. I have never dropped more than $30 at any given restaurant (my share) and rarely spend half that the once or so a month (or, lately, far fewer) I do eat out.

So the idea of paying $500 for a concert just is not something I can even grasp. I've flown to Japan for less - and that's what I'd rather spend my money on.

I've gone to far more concerts since Memorial Day than I have in my life (clearly, concerts are not a priority for me) - four. I've paid a grand total of $10. In the same timespan, I've probably bought 6-7 CDs.

The Foreigner show rocked, but I am neither a better or worse person because I went. There is no way I would have paid for it, though.

 

Don't go, and stop liking sports.

 

I sometimes lament the shows I've skipped more than remembered the ones I've gone to.

When Carlin died, I was glad to have seen him just months before. Whenever I see Springsteen, I always think of how many times he came through my town before, and I never got off my butt and saw him.

Saw McCartney in Kansas City arena two years ago, in Wrigley last year. Excellent both times. Nearly three hours, 30-something songs. The band is really good.

If you are a fan at all, go see him. You will not regret it.

 

You've kind of missed the point.

The point was to invest your money in things that create memories. For different people, those are completely different things. For a foodie, that $500 meal in New York is something they'll always remember. For me, it's a concert.

 

Maybe your illustration could be better.

Is what you meant something more like "To a foodie, $500 is worth it for an exceptional dining experience, but some concert fans scoff at spending money on something that's shit out in eight hours. But for both, the memories were worth the cost."

That makes more sense.

I get it. Memories.


EDITED to add: Brian, that's not intended to be snarky. Sorry if it reads that way. I just didn't get that from your post.

 

How many bands or singers would you pay $100 to see?

For me the list is short, and I don't know that I would pay that amount to see anyone in a stadium, maybe Springsteen, U2 and a reunited GNR, if that ever happens.

 

The thing is, the bands I would pay $100 to go see don't charge $100.

An Arcade Fire show would be well worth $100, but you can see them for a third of that price.

 

I saw McCartney in 1993. I think tickets were $75, plus a shitload of fees, which was the most I had ever paid for a ticket until I saw some Bruce and U2 shows years later...

 

I can't imagine that a concert in Minute Made is going to sound good or be good.

 

$100 per ticket?
I wouldn't pay $100 to see zombie Jesus have sex with Sinead O'Connor.

 

One in Minute Maid will probably be superior, yes.

 

Though you are correct, my point still stands.

In my defense, I've hated that name since the day it came to town.