[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[troutman]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

Garth Brooks is going to shatter tour records. This isn't even a conversation.

As far as "Dad rock" goes, AC/DC just finished one of the most successful tours of all time. Ed Sheehan can not touch these numbers, not today and not tomorrow.

top tours 2016:

1. Adele
2. Justin Bieber
3. Bruce Springsteen
4. Beyoncé
5. Drake
6. Billy Joel
7. Coldplay
8. Guns N Roses
9. Pearl Jam
10. Luke Bryan

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...top-tours-2016

[troutman]

2015 Top 10 Music Tours
1. Taylor Swift
2. Garth Brooks
3. Billy Joel
4. U2
5. Ed Sheeran
6. Luke Bryan
7. The Grateful Dead
8. Kenny Chesney
9. One Direction
10. Rolling Stones

[calgaryjohn87]

Originally Posted by troutman

top tours 2016:

1. Adele
2. Justin Bieber
3. Bruce Springsteen
4. Beyoncé
5. Drake
6. Billy Joel
7. Coldplay
8. Guns N Roses
9. Pearl Jam
10. Luke Bryan

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...top-tours-2016

Originally Posted by troutman

2015 Top 10 Music Tours
1. Taylor Swift
2. Garth Brooks
3. Billy Joel
4. U2
5. Ed Sheeran
6. Luke Bryan
7. The Grateful Dead
8. Kenny Chesney
9. One Direction
10. Rolling Stones

Through the secondary market as per stated in your link. Garth Brooks doesn't have a secondary market. I tried to sell my tickets and was unable to.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...gainst-machine

Same website as you posted. Garth Brooks tour will more the double U2's tour which was the largest tour of all time.

I don't see what your problem is, your solo boy band fetish is ok in 2017 especially with the NDP in power but you need to realize that Garth Brooks is bigger then any act you listed.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

I don't see what your problem is, your solo boy band fetish is ok in 2017 especially with the NDP in power but you need to realize that Garth Brooks is bigger then any act you listed.

Ha, why so aggressive? NDP? Boy band fetish?

[calgaryjohn87]

Originally Posted by troutman

Ha, why so aggressive? NDP? Boy band fetish?

Because you seem determined on this Ed sheernan thing. We talk about arenas and worldwide acts skipping Calgary and you try to Lump Ed sheernan in with colossal acts like Ac/dc, Metallica and Garth Brooks. These are acts that have been playing football stadiums since the 80's (not Garth Brooks as he stopped touring to spend time with family) . We need venues for world class acts, not some limp wristed Brit,

[Robbob]

When it comes to the whole band debate, I never understood the logic of 'I don't want to see them so who cares'. Isn't the entire point of this concert debate is that it adds a day instead of the facility staying dark?

I don't attend concerts, but I would imagine that all the concerts that have skipped Calgary would have sold out easily. Who really cares who the act is if sells out and brings money to businesses of the city (hotels, taxis, restaurants, transit, etc).

[Senator Clay Davis]

Can't believe I have to bring this up again, but do people seriously think that building new facilities will ensure Calgary never gets skipped by big acts again? It's so weird that people think that's the cure all to ensure Calgary won't ever get skipped. Here's a newsflash: Montreal has twice the population of Calgary, and even Montreal sometimes gets skipped by big acts.

Basically if never getting skipped by big musical acts is vitally important to you, move to LA, New York, Chicago or maybe Toronto and that's about the only way you'll never get skipped. Otherwise, travel a little for shows, it's quite fun to do.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...gainst-machine

Same website as you posted. Garth Brooks tour will more the double U2's tour which was the largest tour of all time.

By your article's own admission he's forced to perform the same venue 10-15 times while practically giving tickets away to potentially (there's a lot of 'ifs' being thrown into the air) make twice as much money as U2 does playing 1, maybe 2 shows in a city. It also means it eliminates a dozen or so nights from the schedule that could be used to host musical acts that generate exponentially higher ticket prices than what Garth is selling. It works for Garth I guess but it's ridiculously inefficient on the part of the venue to be tied down for that many dates if they could be putting a higher-priced act in there instead.

Again I have to emphasize I hate arena/stadium gigs in general but there's a lot of evasive, convenient omissions being made for the article to live up to its headline. If you trade even one of those Brooks dates for another act selling higher priced tickets it's a net gain for the venue - if the nature of the venue prevents that act from performing that one show and they're forced into Brooks' wildly-ineffcient touring model instead, it's a loss. It tells me the building either isn't very busy or it can't attract anything that can carry higher demand in its ticket prices, neither is a good thing.

[jammies]

Are these acts performing for free? Is it actually a net gain for the city if a $1.8 million gate (18,000 x $100 ticket) is mostly divided between the promoter, the artist, and the venue? Let Edmonton pay for Garth Brooks to buy a baseball team, or whatever he does with his cash.

PS: Only partly kidding. I would be interested to see a study on whether concerts actually bring money into an area, or if the big cash is in walled estates for mega-stars.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by jammies

Are these acts performing for free? Is it actually a net gain for the city if a $1.8 million gate (18,000 x $100 ticket) is mostly divided between the promoter, the artist, and the venue? Let Edmonton pay for Garth Brooks to buy a baseball team, or whatever he does with his cash.

PS: Only partly kidding. I would be interested to see a study on whether concerts actually bring money into an area, or if the big cash is in walled estates for mega-stars.

I never said a net gain for the city, I said a net gain for the venue. It's why I believe the Saddledome is in fairly urgent need of replacement but why it shouldn't be the public footing its bill.

[polak]

Originally Posted by jammies

Are these acts performing for free? Is it actually a net gain for the city if a $1.8 million gate (18,000 x $100 ticket) is mostly divided between the promoter, the artist, and the venue? Let Edmonton pay for Garth Brooks to buy a baseball team, or whatever he does with his cash.

PS: Only partly kidding. I would be interested to see a study on whether concerts actually bring money into an area, or if the big cash is in walled estates for mega-stars.

Promoter books the venue. Venue makes money on their fee, parking and concessions and the promoter takes a cut as well. Artist might also take a cut of ticket sales on top of their fee and merch.

There are local promoters and major corporate players.

The EDM scene from 2010-2014 (?) was the golden age for local promoters where you'd really see a lot of money stay in the city but it never progressed to arena sized venues and now the scene has pretty much vanished.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

Because you seem determined on this Ed sheernan thing. We talk about arenas and worldwide acts skipping Calgary and you try to Lump Ed sheernan in with colossal acts like Ac/dc, Metallica and Garth Brooks. These are acts that have been playing football stadiums since the 80's (not Garth Brooks as he stopped touring to spend time with family) . We need venues for world class acts, not some limp wristed Brit,

I think you have me confused for someone else? I barely know who Ed Sheeran is, and he seems really lame. I like data though.


Top 200 NA tours, 2016 (seems to be real mix of classic acts, new country and pop):
https://www.pollstarpro.com/files/Ch...ricanTours.pdf

Top 100 Worldwide Tours, 2016:
https://www.pollstarpro.com/files/Ch...dwideTours.pdf


https://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=828819

The best metric for determining an artist’s true popularity is their ability to sell tickets for a live performance.



There was a time when radio airplay and recorded music sales were the best measure of who is hot, but today’s world of fragmented music consumption also includes on-demand audio or video streams, commercials, video games, and fashion shows.



Artists' ability to pay their mortgages now relies predominately on touring revenues generated from ticket and merchandise sales. While recorded music revenues have been in steady decline, live music dollars continue to grow despite sharp increases in ticket prices.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Can't believe I have to bring this up again, but do people seriously think that building new facilities will ensure Calgary never gets skipped by big acts again? It's so weird that people think that's the cure all to ensure Calgary won't ever get skipped. Here's a newsflash: Montreal has twice the population of Calgary, and even Montreal sometimes gets skipped by big acts.

If acts are performing in Edmonton it makes no geographical logistical sense to not also perform in Calgary. If anything Calgary should be making far more sense as a tour stop to generate some revenue travelling between the west coast and the Midwest. Edmonton is far more remote and more often than not requires going through Calgary to get to or out of anyways if touring by bus. If acts are performing in Edmonton and skipping Calgary there has to be something outright preventing them from doing it, it makes no sense for them to skip a more conveniently located, bigger city by choice.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think you have me confused for someone else? I barely know who Ed Sheeran is


[/I]

FYI limp-wristed Brit. He is much worse than firm-twisted American Garth Brooks.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Makarov

FYI limp-wristed Brit. He is much worse than firm-twisted American Garth Brooks.

Chris Gaines has the wrists of a wet noodle however

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

not some limp wristed Brit,

Thanks for the great input rookie.

[CorbeauNoir]

Seriously, if you're going to take the preschool-tier name-calling approach maybe it's not the best idea to do it in defense of a genre of music often associated with diddling farm animals...

[calgaryjohn87]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Seriously, if you're going to take the preschool-tier name-calling approach maybe it's not the best idea to do it in defense of a genre of music often associated with diddling farm animals...

Calling ed sheernan a limp wristed brit offended you?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

I never said a net gain for the city, I said a net gain for the venue.

I wasn't responding to you in particular, just to those who think we are 'missing out" on revenue from concerts. Unless "we" is ActuallyIAmKenKing, "we" stand to gain nothing from more concerts other than the convenience of not having to go to Edmonton. Unless you're hosting Coachella or another huge event that people come from all over to see, I doubt there is more money coming into a city from visitors, than is going out to outsiders - like the people actually putting on the show.

I did do some quick searches on it, but the studies are based on dubious assumptions and best-case scenarios that aren't going to apply here. Big acts go on tours that span multiple cities and continents, so you are not attracting international tourists to Calgary when they can go to London, New York, or Sydney for the exact same product. You are much more likely to get people from the rest of Alberta, Saskatchewan, or maybe Montana. Which is nice, sure, but these are not people (in general) who are putting your city on the jet-settign map, nor are they buying $250/person dinners at the most exclusive restaurants and staying in $1200/night rooms; they are driving themselves into town, eating at Moxie's and staying at the Holiday Inn Express.

Vancouver, as a counter-example, is probably making money from people in Alberta flying there to go to concerts, but that is a situation where an affluent market is underserved and it is the logical nearest substitute. I suppose there is an argument for not sending as many people to Vancouver, and now Edmonton, if they can stay home instead, but that is an even more nebulous economic benefit to try to put a realistic value upon.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jammies

I wasn't responding to you in particular, just to those who think we are 'missing out" on revenue from concerts. Unless "we" is ActuallyIAmKenKing, "we" stand to gain nothing from more concerts other than the convenience of not having to go to Edmonton. Unless you're hosting Coachella or another huge event that people come from all over to see, I doubt there is more money coming into a city from visitors, than is going out to outsiders - like the people actually putting on the show.

you can't put a pricetag on that.