I'm not sure I intended to make a case for anyone, just presenting both sides of the picture. My personal opinion is that the higher prices is from a combination of things, and while artists' greed is part of it, they aren't the only ones. I remember all too well the articles in the local newspaper here a decade or so ago when the amphitheater close to my house opened, and how eager the county supervisors were to tack on a bunch of taxes that weren't percentage based, but flat 'fees' in order to pay for schools and other things that had nothing to do with concerts or even music. People who could afford the time and money to go to concerts deserved to have to pay the tax. 85% of the people who go to the concerts don't live in that county. They were able to keep taxes on country residents from being raised and they ran for reelection on those 'accomplishments'. That's just one small example of how going to concerts is viewed as a 'luxury' and taxed and charged accordingly all up and down the spectrum of the people making the money.
This is an article I remember reading a long time ago and it took a long time to put in the right search criteria to find it again! It's from 2009 and talks about summer amphitheaters and the risks run by promoters. It says the Eagles cancelled concerts in 2010? I know a date in Hershey was cancelled almost as soon as it was announced, but were there others?
Also of note:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=128473078If the trend continues, it could spell trouble for the entire music industry, which has come to rely on income from touring to take the place of diminished sales from recorded music. But for the major promoters who are heavily invested in the machinery of touring, the threat is especially acute.
This one talks mostly about mid-level artists and why it might make more sense to sell out a 3,000 seat theater than sell 10,000 at a 18,000 seat venue.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2...our-money-goes