Basses that changed history

Re: Basses that changed history


"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:CfHVj.38043$gB5.15891@fe105.usenetserver,com ...
> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
> news:J4KdnUrLdu7ZorrVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>> news:DjBVj.87241$oQ4.84751@fe113.usenetserver,com ...
>>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>> news:UeKdnSkjFNv-AbvVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>>
>>>> "Derek Homsberg" <dhoms@gmail,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:hNudncy1IK_zCLvVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>>> I believe you are completely wrong about this. It's true that
>>>>>> the SF bands especially the Jefferson Airplane and the
>>>>>> Grateful Dead had a lot to do with Alembic's early days.
>>>>>> But at that time, the early '70s, Crosby was a *way*
>>>>>> bigger star than the Dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Crosby was very good friends with several members of the Airplane, so
>>>>> they might have come up with ideas together.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, they were all pretty buddy-buddy (Airplane, Dead
>>>> and Crosby); the Airplane recorded the CSN song
>>>> "Wooden Ships" on their "Volunteers" album around
>>>> 1969. Airplane bassist Jack Casady also had one of
>>>> the first Alembic basses. In any case, both the Airplane
>>>> and Crosby were selling tons more of records than the
>>>> Dead at that time.
>>>>
>>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but according to Lesh (in his book), selling records was never
>>> their primary goal. So, we're comparing apples & oysters.
>>
>> I was responding to the following statement you made:
>>
>> "Crosby's visibility & income were peanuts compared to
>> the Dead's."
>>
>> which was simply wrong.
>>
>> - Gary Rosen
>>
>
>
> Different income stream, especially a decade or two later. Crosby:
> Royalties. Dead: Concerts.

"a decade or two later"

Precisely. We're tallking about the time frame when Alembic
got started. At that time Crosby was at least equal, probably
ahead, on concerts and way ahead on royalties and notoriety.
Again, I agree that the Dead had a lot to do with getting
Alembic going, and I don't think anyone else cares about
this argument. But it just bugs me when people make
plain assertions that are flat-out wrong.

- Gary Rosen

Re: Basses that changed history

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:SoydnYhw7uOtwbrVnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
> news:CfHVj.38043$gB5.15891@fe105.usenetserver,com ...
>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>> news:J4KdnUrLdu7ZorrVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>> news:DjBVj.87241$oQ4.84751@fe113.usenetserver,com ...
>>>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>>> news:UeKdnSkjFNv-AbvVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Derek Homsberg" <dhoms@gmail,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:hNudncy1IK_zCLvVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>>>> I believe you are completely wrong about this. It's true that
>>>>>>> the SF bands especially the Jefferson Airplane and the
>>>>>>> Grateful Dead had a lot to do with Alembic's early days.
>>>>>>> But at that time, the early '70s, Crosby was a *way*
>>>>>>> bigger star than the Dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Crosby was very good friends with several members of the Airplane, so
>>>>>> they might have come up with ideas together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, they were all pretty buddy-buddy (Airplane, Dead
>>>>> and Crosby); the Airplane recorded the CSN song
>>>>> "Wooden Ships" on their "Volunteers" album around
>>>>> 1969. Airplane bassist Jack Casady also had one of
>>>>> the first Alembic basses. In any case, both the Airplane
>>>>> and Crosby were selling tons more of records than the
>>>>> Dead at that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, but according to Lesh (in his book), selling records was never
>>>> their primary goal. So, we're comparing apples & oysters.
>>>
>>> I was responding to the following statement you made:
>>>
>>> "Crosby's visibility & income were peanuts compared to
>>> the Dead's."
>>>
>>> which was simply wrong.
>>>
>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>
>>
>>
>> Different income stream, especially a decade or two later. Crosby:
>> Royalties. Dead: Concerts.
>
> "a decade or two later"
>
> Precisely. We're tallking about the time frame when Alembic
> got started. At that time Crosby was at least equal, probably
> ahead, on concerts and way ahead on royalties and notoriety.
> Again, I agree that the Dead had a lot to do with getting
> Alembic going, and I don't think anyone else cares about
> this argument. But it just bugs me when people make
> plain assertions that are flat-out wrong.
>
> - Gary Rosen
>


Me too. I thought you had access to accountants' records for both artists.
No? Me neither. Your guess is as good as mine.

Re: Basses that changed history


"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:f4JVj.38058$gB5.20615@fe105.usenetserver,com ...
> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
> news:SoydnYhw7uOtwbrVnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>> news:CfHVj.38043$gB5.15891@fe105.usenetserver,com ...
>>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>> news:J4KdnUrLdu7ZorrVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>>
>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:DjBVj.87241$oQ4.84751@fe113.usenetserver,com ...
>>>>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>>>> news:UeKdnSkjFNv-AbvVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Derek Homsberg" <dhoms@gmail,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hNudncy1IK_zCLvVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>>>>> I believe you are completely wrong about this. It's true that
>>>>>>>> the SF bands especially the Jefferson Airplane and the
>>>>>>>> Grateful Dead had a lot to do with Alembic's early days.
>>>>>>>> But at that time, the early '70s, Crosby was a *way*
>>>>>>>> bigger star than the Dead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crosby was very good friends with several members of the Airplane,
>>>>>>> so they might have come up with ideas together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, they were all pretty buddy-buddy (Airplane, Dead
>>>>>> and Crosby); the Airplane recorded the CSN song
>>>>>> "Wooden Ships" on their "Volunteers" album around
>>>>>> 1969. Airplane bassist Jack Casady also had one of
>>>>>> the first Alembic basses. In any case, both the Airplane
>>>>>> and Crosby were selling tons more of records than the
>>>>>> Dead at that time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but according to Lesh (in his book), selling records was never
>>>>> their primary goal. So, we're comparing apples & oysters.
>>>>
>>>> I was responding to the following statement you made:
>>>>
>>>> "Crosby's visibility & income were peanuts compared to
>>>> the Dead's."
>>>>
>>>> which was simply wrong.
>>>>
>>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Different income stream, especially a decade or two later. Crosby:
>>> Royalties. Dead: Concerts.
>>
>> "a decade or two later"
>>
>> Precisely. We're tallking about the time frame when Alembic
>> got started. At that time Crosby was at least equal, probably
>> ahead, on concerts and way ahead on royalties and notoriety.
>> Again, I agree that the Dead had a lot to do with getting
>> Alembic going, and I don't think anyone else cares about
>> this argument. But it just bugs me when people make
>> plain assertions that are flat-out wrong.
>>
>> - Gary Rosen
>>
>
>
> Me too. I thought you had access to accountants' records for both artists.
> No? Me neither. Your guess is as good as mine.

1. Then why did you say "Crosby's visibility and income
were peanuts compared to the Dead's"?

2. I have no access to the accountants' records for the
Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin but I will go out on
a limb and say they were making more money than the Dead.
Not as clearcut with Crosby of course, but I am quite
confident that if you researched e. g. Billboard charts
(for record sales) and records of concerts being played
*at the time* (by CSN&Y vs. GD) it would support my point.

- Gary Rosen

- Gary Rosen

Re: Basses that changed history

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:UuCdnWQjs6Xr5LrVnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
> news:f4JVj.38058$gB5.20615@fe105.usenetserver,com ...
>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>> news:SoydnYhw7uOtwbrVnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>> news:CfHVj.38043$gB5.15891@fe105.usenetserver,com ...
>>>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>>> news:J4KdnUrLdu7ZorrVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:DjBVj.87241$oQ4.84751@fe113.usenetserver,com ...
>>>>>> "Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:UeKdnSkjFNv-AbvVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast,com ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Derek Homsberg" <dhoms@gmail,com > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hNudncy1IK_zCLvVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>>>>>>>>> I believe you are completely wrong about this. It's true that
>>>>>>>>> the SF bands especially the Jefferson Airplane and the
>>>>>>>>> Grateful Dead had a lot to do with Alembic's early days.
>>>>>>>>> But at that time, the early '70s, Crosby was a *way*
>>>>>>>>> bigger star than the Dead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crosby was very good friends with several members of the Airplane,
>>>>>>>> so they might have come up with ideas together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, they were all pretty buddy-buddy (Airplane, Dead
>>>>>>> and Crosby); the Airplane recorded the CSN song
>>>>>>> "Wooden Ships" on their "Volunteers" album around
>>>>>>> 1969. Airplane bassist Jack Casady also had one of
>>>>>>> the first Alembic basses. In any case, both the Airplane
>>>>>>> and Crosby were selling tons more of records than the
>>>>>>> Dead at that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but according to Lesh (in his book), selling records was never
>>>>>> their primary goal. So, we're comparing apples & oysters.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was responding to the following statement you made:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Crosby's visibility & income were peanuts compared to
>>>>> the Dead's."
>>>>>
>>>>> which was simply wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Different income stream, especially a decade or two later. Crosby:
>>>> Royalties. Dead: Concerts.
>>>
>>> "a decade or two later"
>>>
>>> Precisely. We're tallking about the time frame when Alembic
>>> got started. At that time Crosby was at least equal, probably
>>> ahead, on concerts and way ahead on royalties and notoriety.
>>> Again, I agree that the Dead had a lot to do with getting
>>> Alembic going, and I don't think anyone else cares about
>>> this argument. But it just bugs me when people make
>>> plain assertions that are flat-out wrong.
>>>
>>> - Gary Rosen
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me too. I thought you had access to accountants' records for both
>> artists. No? Me neither. Your guess is as good as mine.
>
> 1. Then why did you say "Crosby's visibility and income
> were peanuts compared to the Dead's"?
>
> 2. I have no access to the accountants' records for the
> Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin but I will go out on
> a limb and say they were making more money than the Dead.
> Not as clearcut with Crosby of course, but I am quite
> confident that if you researched e. g. Billboard charts
> (for record sales) and records of concerts being played
> *at the time* (by CSN&Y vs. GD) it would support my point.
>
> - Gary Rosen
>
> - Gary Rosen
>


My guess came from comments read in an interview with Bill Graham. I suspect
his comments were based on the fact that when the Dead toured, it tended to
go on for much longer than tours by other bands. I suppose he should know a
little something about this sort of thing, being one of the biggest
promoters on the planet for so many years. Maybe not. Maybe a wish and a
prayer hold more accuracy.

Re: Basses that changed history

JoeSpareBedroom <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote:

I knew this would happen!!

> My guess came from comments read in an interview with Bill Graham. I suspect
> his comments were based on the fact that when the Dead toured, it tended to
> go on for much longer than tours by other bands. I suppose he should know a
> little something about this sort of thing, being one of the biggest
> promoters on the planet for so many years. Maybe not. Maybe a wish and a
> prayer hold more accuracy.

The problem here is, as I think both sides have stated, we're comparing
apples and oranges.

Most bands, or at least their management companies, at that time
considered touring to be a marketing tool to sell records and
merchandise. Some bands would 'lose' whopping amounts of money on
touring - but hopefully recoup that on record sales and merchandise.

The dead, it seems, considered touring to be the main thing, and
therefore had a completely different financial view of it.

They could well have made more money from tour box office receipts than
any other band at the time and still have, in total, made less money
from touring + gate receipts + merchandise - tour costs than other bands
at the time.

We'll probably never know.

What's really interesting to me is that, now royalties from CD sales
have dried up (due to music sharing and mp3's etc), far more bands are
now going out on tour with that mindset that the tour + merchandise is
the money making thing.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/

Re: Basses that changed history


"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1igty71.1ucnwnb1i3yju6N%derek@url.co.nz...
> JoeSpareBedroom <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> I knew this would happen!!
>
>> My guess came from comments read in an interview with Bill Graham. I
>> suspect
>> his comments were based on the fact that when the Dead toured, it tended
>> to
>> go on for much longer than tours by other bands. I suppose he should know
>> a
>> little something about this sort of thing, being one of the biggest
>> promoters on the planet for so many years. Maybe not. Maybe a wish and a
>> prayer hold more accuracy.
>
> The problem here is, as I think both sides have stated, we're comparing
> apples and oranges.
>

No Derek, it's just a question of the time frame. Certainly the
Grateful Dead eventually became a very successful band.
I have only been trying to point out that the assertion,
"Crosby's visibility & income were peanuts compared
to the Dead's", in reference to the time when Alembic
was just getting started, is completely ludicrous in
view of the *fact* that *at that time* Crosby had
been a key member of two bands that were both
considerably more popular than the Dead was
*at that time*.

- Gary Rosen

Re: Basses that changed history

Derek Tearne wrote:

> Most bands, or at least their management companies, at that time
> considered touring to be a marketing tool to sell records and
> merchandise. Some bands would 'lose' whopping amounts of money on
> touring - but hopefully recoup that on record sales and merchandise.

I would like to see this documented. On the surface it makes no sense. A
ticket to a show usually costs several times as much as an album. When
you count merchandise sales, the per-capita spending is even higher.
Record companies always get a big slice of the records, but get a much
smaller slice of concerts (depending on their deal, of course).

So, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to lose money on a big
ticket item in order to make money on a small ticket item.

What was different back then?

Re: Basses that changed history

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
> Derek Tearne wrote:
>
>> Most bands, or at least their management companies, at that time
>> considered touring to be a marketing tool to sell records and
>> merchandise. Some bands would 'lose' whopping amounts of money on
>> touring - but hopefully recoup that on record sales and merchandise.
>
> I would like to see this documented. On the surface it makes no
> sense. A ticket to a show usually costs several times as much as an
> album. When you count merchandise sales, the per-capita spending is
> even higher. Record companies always get a big slice of the records,
> but get a much smaller slice of concerts (depending on their deal, of
> course).
>
> So, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to lose money on a big
> ticket item in order to make money on a small ticket item.
>
> What was different back then?

In 1965 - 1968, I could get into a show to see a band (e.g., Turtles,
Cream, Spoonful, Byrds) for less than the cost of an album by the same
band.

Cost of an album: around $4.
Admission to the local place where these guys played: around $2.

Overall, ticket prices have inflated much more than album prices.

Re: Basses that changed history

RichL wrote:
> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
>> Derek Tearne wrote:
>>
>>> Most bands, or at least their management companies, at that time
>>> considered touring to be a marketing tool to sell records and
>>> merchandise. Some bands would 'lose' whopping amounts of money on
>>> touring - but hopefully recoup that on record sales and merchandise.
>> I would like to see this documented. On the surface it makes no
>> sense. A ticket to a show usually costs several times as much as an
>> album. When you count merchandise sales, the per-capita spending is
>> even higher. Record companies always get a big slice of the records,
>> but get a much smaller slice of concerts (depending on their deal, of
>> course).
>>
>> So, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to lose money on a big
>> ticket item in order to make money on a small ticket item.
>>
>> What was different back then?
>
> In 1965 - 1968, I could get into a show to see a band (e.g., Turtles,
> Cream, Spoonful, Byrds) for less than the cost of an album by the same
> band.
>
> Cost of an album: around $4.
> Admission to the local place where these guys played: around $2.
>
> Overall, ticket prices have inflated much more than album prices.

Really? A few hours of in-person entertainment was cheaper than an LP? I
mean, *my* band does that, but we're playing "Crabby Don's Bar and
Grill". What types of venues?

--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

Re: Basses that changed history

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:

> RichL wrote:
> >
> > Overall, ticket prices have inflated much more than album prices.
>
> Really? A few hours of in-person entertainment was cheaper than an LP? I
> mean, *my* band does that, but we're playing "Crabby Don's Bar and
> Grill". What types of venues?

A very few moments googling suggest that, in the 1970's an album cost
between $5 and $10 depending on the artist. Finding actual prices is
hard though - it's all people recalling how much they cost.

However, concert prices are easy to demonstrate - just image google for
concert posters and tickets.

In 1970 you could go to see Lynyrd Skynyrd and Blue Oyster Cult on the
same bill for $6

A Grateful Dead concert would have been ~$6, eg. August 5, 1974,
Philadelphia Civic Center.

Heck, for $16, in 1970 you could see The Band, Janis Joplin, Traffic,
Ten Years After, Grateful Dead, Seatrain, Mountain, Buddy Guy and more
all on the same bill! Mind you that was canadian dollars.

Which is about what I recall, for a bit under the price of an album, you
could see two bands in a reasonable venue.

And I can remember exactly how much I paid to see Johnny Cougar
Mellencamp in 1980 - nothing - the concert was free! Mostly because
only a couple of people actually bought tickets...

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/

Re: Basses that changed history

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
> RichL wrote:
>> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
>>> Derek Tearne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most bands, or at least their management companies, at that time
>>>> considered touring to be a marketing tool to sell records and
>>>> merchandise. Some bands would 'lose' whopping amounts of money on
>>>> touring - but hopefully recoup that on record sales and
>>>> merchandise.
>>> I would like to see this documented. On the surface it makes no
>>> sense. A ticket to a show usually costs several times as much as an
>>> album. When you count merchandise sales, the per-capita spending is
>>> even higher. Record companies always get a big slice of the records,
>>> but get a much smaller slice of concerts (depending on their deal,
>>> of course).
>>>
>>> So, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to lose money on a big
>>> ticket item in order to make money on a small ticket item.
>>>
>>> What was different back then?
>>
>> In 1965 - 1968, I could get into a show to see a band (e.g., Turtles,
>> Cream, Spoonful, Byrds) for less than the cost of an album by the
>> same band.
>>
>> Cost of an album: around $4.
>> Admission to the local place where these guys played: around $2.
>>
>> Overall, ticket prices have inflated much more than album prices.
>
> Really? A few hours of in-person entertainment was cheaper than an
> LP? I mean, *my* band does that, but we're playing "Crabby Don's Bar
> and Grill". What types of venues?

Yeah, I guess times have changed. The type of venue that I'm talking
about probably doesn't even exist any more. It was basically a
glorified dance hall called the Commodore Ballroom in Lowell, MA. The
capacity was around 2000, I'd guess. It had a house band, and mainly
teens would come every Saturday and dance and socialize. But once or
twice a month, they'd have *big* acts come in (our band, being one of
the backups for the house band for a while, played there periodically
and on occasion, we'd get lucky and do an opening set when someone big
was in town).

Check this out...scroll about halfway down the page:

http :// library.uml.edu/clh/Exhibit/mcom03.htm

" By the 1960s, Commodore acts included Cream, B.B. King and Johnny
Winter, Rod Stewart, the Byrds, the Kingsmen, Grand Funk Railroad and
The Turtles. Even in the 60s, the average cover charge was only $2. It
never surpassed $3.50, even for the biggest names."

In earlier days, the Commodore hosted people like Louis Armstrong, Glen
Miller, and the Dorsey brothers.

If you want to read the whole story of the place starting in 1924, go
here:

http :// library.uml.edu/clh/Exhibit/mcom00.htm

Needless to say, the place isn't there any more. I would imagine that
there were similar places scattered around the country.

Re: Basses that changed history

RichL wrote:

> " By the 1960s, Commodore acts included Cream, B.B. King and Johnny
> Winter, Rod Stewart, the Byrds, the Kingsmen, Grand Funk Railroad and
> The Turtles. Even in the 60s, the average cover charge was only $2. It
> never surpassed $3.50, even for the biggest names."

According to the inflation calculator:
What cost $3.50 in 1965 would cost $23.17 in 2007.

Re: Basses that changed history

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
> RichL wrote:
>
>> " By the 1960s, Commodore acts included Cream, B.B. King and Johnny
>> Winter, Rod Stewart, the Byrds, the Kingsmen, Grand Funk Railroad and
>> The Turtles. Even in the 60s, the average cover charge was only $2.
>> It never surpassed $3.50, even for the biggest names."
>
> According to the inflation calculator:
> What cost $3.50 in 1965 would cost $23.17 in 2007.

Yup....just goes to show, the relative perceived values of things change
over time.
That $2 admission to the Commodore would now be $13.24. Can you imagine
paying that much to see a first-rate act live these days?
Also, that $4 album would now be $26.48.

Re: Basses that changed history

RichL wrote:
> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
>> RichL wrote:
>>
>>> " By the 1960s, Commodore acts included Cream, B.B. King and Johnny
>>> Winter, Rod Stewart, the Byrds, the Kingsmen, Grand Funk Railroad and
>>> The Turtles. Even in the 60s, the average cover charge was only $2.
>>> It never surpassed $3.50, even for the biggest names."
>> According to the inflation calculator:
>> What cost $3.50 in 1965 would cost $23.17 in 2007.
>
> Yup....just goes to show, the relative perceived values of things change
> over time.
> That $2 admission to the Commodore would now be $13.24. Can you imagine
> paying that much to see a first-rate act live these days?
> Also, that $4 album would now be $26.48.

Yeh, it's pretty wild. I just looked up a picture of a ticket to see The
Beatles at The Hollywood Bowl. They were $4 to $6.

--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

Re: Basses that changed history

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
> RichL wrote:
>> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote:
>>> RichL wrote:
>>>
>>>> " By the 1960s, Commodore acts included Cream, B.B. King and Johnny
>>>> Winter, Rod Stewart, the Byrds, the Kingsmen, Grand Funk Railroad
>>>> and The Turtles. Even in the 60s, the average cover charge was
>>>> only $2. It never surpassed $3.50, even for the biggest names."
>>> According to the inflation calculator:
>>> What cost $3.50 in 1965 would cost $23.17 in 2007.
>>
>> Yup....just goes to show, the relative perceived values of things
>> change over time.
>> That $2 admission to the Commodore would now be $13.24. Can you
>> imagine paying that much to see a first-rate act live these days?
>> Also, that $4 album would now be $26.48.
>
> Yeh, it's pretty wild. I just looked up a picture of a ticket to see
> The Beatles at The Hollywood Bowl. They were $4 to $6.

And now that we've gone through this little dance, it seems apparent
that Derek's original point is valid. In *those* days, it made sense
for the major labels to regard a tour as a marketing mechanism to sell
albums.