• More
Back to PopWatch Home
EW Home

What does a $3,000 concert ticket buy you these days?

Aug 29, 2007, 01:16 PM | by Chris Schonberger

Categories: Music

Tom_l What, exactly, does a $3,000 concert ticket buy you these days?

This is probably not a question that many people have considered, but on Saturday night in the swank Long Island town of East Hampton, a crowd of 1,500 well-heeled concert-goers got to see for themselves what three Gs can buy when Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers took the stage at the ritzy Ross School. The show was the last in the Social @ Ross series that also included performances by Prince, Billy Joel, Dave Matthews Band, and James Taylor. Summer "passports" ran $15,000 and offered access to all five events, which attracted a predictable guest list of A-listers, hedge-fund managers, and other people with fantastic tans. Having come into possession of a golden ticket to the Tom Petty show, I ironed my best button-up, broke out the boat shoes, brushed up on my American Psycho quotes, and slipped past the velvet rope...

So wonder no longer: Here's what a $3,000 concert looks/sounds/tastes like:

The Spread  It's not just about the music. After exiting the lavish entrance hall of billowing black curtains and intimate red lighting, I was greeted by a row of butlers offering champagne, wine, and Bloody Marys. Beyond this alcoholic gauntlet, the grounds opened up into a carnival of opulence. Instead of cotton candy and shriveled hot dogs, food stations served fontina and black-truffle paninis, spruced-up sliders from Pop Burger (like White Castle for yuppies), and a spread prepared by Top Chef judge Tom Colicchio. No Dippin' Dots, either: carts furnished gelato and Dylan's Candy Bar provided cocktail glasses overflowing with gourmet sweets. The service, as you might imagine, was brisk and efficient.

The Audience With the riffraff-free crowd kept to a very manageable size, everyone was a VIP. White lawn chairs were spread out in front of the stage; behind, revelers could lounge around on black ottomans and cocktail tables. According to Social's press release, the décor in the marquee was meant to evoke "a smoky nightclub where Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers rule the night with a red-hot classic rock sound." Not really the image I had of Petty and Co., but the scene was fitting for the procession of celebs rolling through: Richard Gere,  Renée Zellweger, Howard Stern, Ed Burns and Christy Turlington, Warner Music CEO Lyor Cohen, and Jimmy Buffet, to name a few. While Will Arnett and Amy Poehler sat on an ottoman looking slightly bored, Mischa Barton watched from the side of the stage, and John Legend left before the show had even begun.

The Show Apparently David Blaine was supposed to be in the mix, but I never saw him. Maybe that was the trick? DJ D-Nice put together a nice set, and probably thought he was being ironic by spinning Fergie's "Glamorous," with its chants of "If you ain't got no money, take your broke ass home!" And the headliner certainly did not disappoint. Almost everyone rushed to the stage as the first chord rang through the speakers, and while Petty looked like he has been on this earth for more than 100 years, his voice is as crisp as ever. His apparent weariness was actually sort of amusing, giving his arsenal of rock 'n' roll moves — the slow clap, the backside shimmy, et al — a comic cheesiness. His body language seemed to be yawning, "I can do this forever!" I guess he had some reason to be tired, since he spent the night before playing financier Leon Black's party nearby, adding another cool $850,000 to the weekend's take.

To his credit, he played for almost an hour and 40 minutes (which comes out to $30/minute of music). Before and during Saturday night, I had never met anyone in my entire life who didn't say that "Free Falling'" was his or her favorite Tom Petty song, mostly because no one can think of any others. But Petty's the type of artist who starts playing and you realize you know all his songs, even if you didn't know they were his. From "I Won't Back Down" to "Running Down a Dream" and "Mary Jane's Last Dance," his set never hit a lull, and while the "Heartbreakers" looked like theirs were the only hearts in jeopardy, they didn't miss a beat all night.

Was It worth it? Well, it's hard to say. On the one hand, something feels slightly off about forking over $15,000 for music, especially when there is no ostensible charity component to the events other than benefiting the Ross School, which doesn't appear to need too much help, with tuition set just under $25,000. To see Prince, a $3,000 ticket is not so far off if you're talking about getting front row seats at a major arena. According to the Wall Street Journal, Barbara Streisand's Las Vegas show was the highest-priced ticket in the US last year at $1000 a pop. And, of course, regular venues don't offer the level of luxury and hobnobbing as the Hamptons series. Rich people, it seems, just don't want to deal with the hassle of concert-going anymore: Lollapalooza now offers luxury cabanas on Lake Michigan, while Washington's Sasquatch has $500 VIP passes that grant access to showers and bathrooms with AC. Things have come a long way since Woodstock… But $3,000 for Dave Matthews? That may be a little insane.

So, we want to know PopWatchers: Is there any musical act you'd pay $3,000 to see and hear? And while we're on the subject, what's the most you've ever paid for a concert ticket?


James Wed, May 6, 2009 at 07:30 AM EST

This is some people's paycheck for 3 months. That is a lot.

hnojptwys tgvsr Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:10 AM EST

pavhyrmci jydfgkb jledqhu ctxdku sfjtobiqw nuqlarksc pohjs

Luvmoz Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:09 PM EST

I would pay $3,000.00 to see the reunited Smiths

Mavis Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM EST

Why is it that most people misspell Jimmy Buffett's last name so that it appears he is some sort of long row of steam tables with dry food laying in them! He has two T's in his last name!

Cube Critic Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:38 AM EST

RBlues- I totally agree with you... my one problem with being born in 1983 is that I didn't fully appreciate the beauty of Journey until Steve was gone!

Joe C Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:53 AM EST

Oh, by the way Chris, as someone who has been a Tom Petty fan forever, I can say that 'Free Fallin' is my LEAST fave song. It's got that awful Jeff Lynne production which dragged down all of that Full Moon Fever CD. Give me 'American Girl' or 'Listen to her Heart', et al. Just saw the band last year at their homecoming gig in Gainesville Fla and they still sounded great. And TP looked as stoned as ever, lol.

Joe C Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:49 AM EST

Let's see, when Mariah Carey came to Tampa last year, I paid for a $175.00 ticket. However, there is just no way I could afford $3,000 to see any concert. Still, I don't blame TP or any other act for doing it. If people are willing to pay the price, why not? As for those of us who can't afford that, you just wait for the tour and get the less expensive tickets. It is what it is.

otto maddox Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:36 AM EST

I live in Hong Kong and fly to Australia or UK to see concerts (adding 1000 bucks or so to concerts tx) - the Shins were well worth it as were Queens of the Stone Age - Metallica not so much

Nix Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:56 PM EST

This is why they hate us.

bootsycolumbia Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:00 PM EST

If I had 3 Gs to spend on a concert, I'd go see Prince. Love him, love his music, and I'd even overlook the fact that he's a J.W. and won't sing Darling Nikki in concert anymore. My second choice would be to go back in time and see The Clash (my all-time favourite group), but I'd spend the money on the time travel machine. It wouldn't be in the punk spirit to spend $3000 for a concert ticket.

RBlues Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 05:24 PM EST

I would pay $3,000 to see Journey reunited with Steve Perry.

mscisluv Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 05:00 PM EST

Jay & Looey: I would totally go with you to see that Paul/Ringo/Sean/Eric lineup, and I would definitely pay $3000 to see it.

C.A.Oliver Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:27 PM EST

I'd pay three grand to go back in time and see Zoo TV again. Or to be able to see Springsteen, Zeppelin, and the Stones in their prime. And yes, if time travel were possible, I'd only see concerts.

snicker Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:18 PM EST

I thought that was a picture of Willie Nelson!

BayAreaDM Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:11 PM EST

If Soundgarden regrouped, and they played a SMALL venue...no not even that. No band is getting $3000 from me.

Lesley Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:57 PM EST

If I could afford it, I wouldn't mind paying the money for a something as nice as what you are describing. People can complain all they want about how many months rent it costs, but I agree with Phillip E Banks- you only go around once and if you have the money, spend it on things you enjoy.
Since I don't have that kind of money, I would only spend something like that on a personal appearance in my home by somebody I love, like Stevie Nicks. I'd want to actually meet the person and spend time with them if I am shelling out that kind of money.

NanFan56 Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:53 PM EST

I am an avid music fan for 35 years and will pay top dollar (if I have it) to be close to the band. Tom Petty has consistently the best show, I've seen him 14 times since 1978.
I was extremely tempted to pay 3k for my son and I to fly to Hawaii last November and see U2's last concert of their awesome 2005/2006 tour, Pearl Jam was the opener.
Highest ticket $250 for 2005 Paul McCartney, was 15 rows from stage and made direct eye contact with him throughout his show.

Alison Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:43 PM EST

I saw both Billy Joel and James Taylor back in the eighties, probably paid about 25-30 bucks for the tickets. The only way I'd pay that much for a concert is if I win the lottery, then I can waste my money in really big ways.

rebecca Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:11 PM EST

There is no way I would shell out $3000 (or 2 months salary) to see anyone. The most i've ever paid was $55 to see David Bowie a few years ago, but it was in a tiny venue and he played for over 2 hours - well worth the money.

A lot of the bands I would like to see this year (The Cure, Smashing Pumpkins) are averaging $60-100 a ticket; I remember seeing both of those bands when they were starting out for around $10!

keyrob Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:05 PM EST

Saw Prince's 3121 at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood for 312.00 and I got to the front row with all the A-Listers. I just saw Stevie Wonder for 108.50 Both were awesome and both in the last two months. These boys do it right and the only other folks on the planet would be the original Guns and Roses with Steven Adler on the Drums. I'd pay 5k at least to see this no champagne or A-Listers needed to go to this show.

We need real Rock for these Yuppie prices!!

Looey Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:59 PM EST

I don't know what's sadder: The flagrant waste of money when people are starving or you attending a $3,000 concert and not even knowing any Tom Petty songs. I shudder to think what type of people you are aquanted with if the only song by Tom Petty any of them know is "Free Falling." Pathetic.

JAY: When Paul, Ringo, Sean & Eric tour, give me a call....I'll shell out $3,000 and go with you.

Laurie Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:56 PM EST

$3K huh, well considering that is a third of my annual rent there is no one on earth I would pay that much to see. I could give you a list of things I would do for $3K, but that may verge on the illegal or at least outright prostitution. The show would be better than Tom Petty though.

RTA Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:52 PM EST

No, wouldn't pay that much for anyone, especially when you can catch them on tour for a much more reasonable fee. And you can catch incredible bands (like Porcupine Tree) for just $25 at the House of Blues these days.

Jay Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:44 PM EST

Two acts I would drop three grand to see: Bob Dylan (playing guitar, not keyboard like he does on tour now) with The Band backing him up and Paul and Ringo with Sean Lennon on rhythm and Eric Clapton on lead guitar.

Anna Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:34 PM EST

I went to a Tom Petty concert last summer. We paid $35 for our lawn seats, and shared a case of beer in the parking lot before the concert. He played for almost two hours and sounded great. Why bother spending so much when you can have just as much fun for a tenth of the price?

Phillip E. Banks Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:22 PM EST

If I could afford to pay $3000 to see a musical act, it would be Prince, but since I cannot, I enjoyed reading about what my $$ would get me. I won't hate on those who could afford to be there & it does sound like it was worth it. The most I ever paid for a concert was $100 in 1987 to see...Prince: I had third row , unobstructed seats & I never had a moment of remorse for spending $$ for the tickets, clothes & food. You only go around once.

Marci Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:16 PM EST

I can't think of anyone that I would pay $3000 to see. The most I've ever spent on a ticket was $55 (plus those stupid ticketmaster surcharges...ugh).


The most I've ever considered paying for a ticket was $180, but that was a VIP ticket (that's the only reason I considered paying that much).

mike Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:59 PM EST

I love reading about things spoiled yuppies can do and I can't afford. Do you know how many months of rent that is?

Stephanie Travitsky Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM EST

The music should matter, not the posh atmosphere. Now stick that into your turkey and brie paninni and smoke it!

mec Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:50 PM EST

This is utterly ridiculous. What can that school POSSIBLY need that it doesn't already have? Except maybe an in-house plastic surgeon. Sad.

Rachael Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:26 PM EST

I wouldn't pay $3,000 to see The Beatles if they were all alive.

There isn't a concert I would pay $100 to see.

Pearl Jam was just at The Vic in Chicago and tickets were going for $1-2,000. Insane.

GingerCat Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM EST

There is no musical act I'd pay that much to see and hear. Just on principle, I think it's wrong. No one needs that much money.
As for the event described here, it sounds kind of lame. It sounds like all the fun was sucked out of the concert-going experience.

Alicia Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:22 PM EST

I feel like Tom Petty should be better than this. I don't know WHY I feel like that, but... I do. I guess it was a benefit, kind of...


advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Latest Comments
Top Categories

All Categories

Blog Roll
Top Authors
Recent Posts
PopWatch Archive
July 2009
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Complete Archive