This is assuming of course that all 4 lads were alive and at least semi-well, and that they had in fact broken up back in 1970, but had decided to do an “Anniversary tour.”
Keeping in mind that the Stones are charging upwards of $300 for some seats on their current tour, I could possibly see myself putting out $800, maybe $900 tops to see the Fab Four.
My sister went to see them in 1961 (approx) at the Finsbury Park Astoria (probably called the Rainbow now).
I expect she paid about £1 ($1.50).
Those were the days!
For an oldies tour?
If it was a giant stadium tour, not a dime. I’d stay home and play my records. For a show where I could actually hear and see the band without having to watch them on the TVs at the venue, I’d go maybe $80 a ticket.
I think ticket prices are outrageous. I declined to see Neil Young on his last swing through here because the decent seats were all over $60 apiece. It’s just not worth it to be herded into a huge stadium where you can’t see the band without binoculars and the sound echos off the basketball backboards.
Think about it: it’s likely that almost every weekend in your town or a town near you, there are bands playing that you can see for under $20. Not only that, but they’re playing little clubs where you can actually see and hear and experience the music up close and personal. No, they’re not all the Beatles, but if you look around, you’ll find plenty of unknown bands that are far better than the vast majority of the nostalgia acts currently doing the casino tours.
Given that they’d all be old and it would most likely be in a huge stadium, I’d probably regret it but I would easily pay comparable prices to what the stones charge. Now, If I could go back in time and see them in say 1968… I don’t think there’s a price I wouldn’t pay for that.
Well, I paid 125/ticket last May to see Paul. Times that by 4, you get 500. I’d probably pay up to $1000 though.
InternetLegend, if I was going to a concert to listen to the music, I’d buy a “Live” CD and have done with it.
Nuthin’.
Might pay t’ hear 'em , though.
If I could time-travel, I’d pay big bucks to see them in their Hamburg days when they were greasy punks.
Wouldn’t pay squat to see a “reunion” concert. Even if they were all there they still wouldn’t be the Beatles…they’d be the Ex-Beatles.
Every last penny I could afford to part with.
$30 give or take, just like any other band I might want to see live. Others have made the point that the sound and experience is not going to be all that great in a stadium format. I’d also point out that their early work (and Let It Be stuff) are best suited to live performances. The later Beatles that I really love would be hard to achieve on stage.
Here here!
Oh man…to see the Beatles-all four at once.
Eh, the Beatles did do a few cool things, I suppose (though I haven’t listened to them much, apparently Paul did some influential things on bass). There’s a whole bunch of other people/bands I’d pay to see in their younger/still living days first: The Who (saw them, but minus Loon and the Ox :(), Hendrix, Led Zep, Jaco, Sublime, Miles Davis, etc…I guess the Beatles just weren’t my style.
[Dr Evil Voice]
One… billion… dollars!
[/Dr Evil Voice]
Don’t laugh. But if you’re a big Beatles fan, try and catch a tribute band called American English. Aside from the fact that, when they talk, the guys in the band don’t do too terribly well with the Liverpudlian accent, they are REALLY REALLY good. They travel all over, but they spend a lot of time in the Chicago area in the summer. As an added bonus, they play at so many of those outdoor summer fest type venues, you can usually see them for free.
Good call. I paid $50 apiece for myself and a friend to go see him two years ago. I could live the rest of my life without getting another contact high off biker-wannabe baby boomers who never outgrew their stoner phases. Not to mention the total shite acoustics, and the shite backup singer who happens to be his lovely wife (her sister was there too, but at least had a passable voice).
Feh.
I won’t pay more than $30 with fees for any type of show anymore, unless it’s a multiple-stage, 6 or more artist festival type thing.
For the Beatles? Probably wouldn’t bother, unless I could go back in time thirtyfive years or so.
Probably not all that much. The Beatles were never a really exceptional live band (though they would have been fun to see in their Star Club days.)
The Stones and the Who were much better live acts back in their primes, and I have absolutely zero interest in seeing their current attempts to rehash their pasts. So I guess I wouldn’t be lining up for Beatles reunion tickets.
I disagree. From the footage I saw, the Beatles were an amazing live band–ever hear the Live from BBC album? All that was done live on the radio. It’s just hard to be an amazing live band when you are the first band to play in sports stadiums and you have 56,000 screaming girls drowning out the pitiful PA system that was meant to announce games, not broadcast rock n’roll. They didn’t have amazing sound systems when the Beatles played stadiums because nobody played stadiums before them. But footage from places like the London Paladium, and songs from the BBC, and other concerts on the Anthology, all point to the fact that they were great live.
Not as much as I’d pay to see Nirvana. If only I’d been old enough that my parents would have trusted me to drive to a concert before Cobain started his dirt nap… The Beatles would be nice to see with Mom and Dad, though. Say $100 a ticket max, cheap seats would be fine.
$3,000.
If it was good enough for Lorne Michaels, it’s good enough for me.
I’m with pepperlandgirl, you’ve got to put the live Beatle performances in the context of the time. Look at a 1964 Stones or Who performance, and be amazed at how ratty they looked, how weak the playing was. Unbelieveably bad. Those weren’t the days of quality PA setups.
To imagine a current Beatles concert, splice together a bit of John Lennon playing with Frank Zappa (THAT was astonishing), bits of one of McCartney’s tours (still often sold out, after all these years), and even a Ringo concert. I saw a couple of the small Ringo concerts, and the audience was having a VERY good time.
Then add to that a comment made, I think by George Martin. When one Beatles was in the studio, it was interesting. When there were two it was exciting. When there were three it was fantastic, an incredible experience. When there were all four: they were unsurpassed. There was nothing like them.
It can be easy to forget now that they’re being played in department stores and elevators that their talent once set the world on fire.
As for how much… well… quite a lot. I’d pay more to see Beethoven, but maybe that’s a little OT.
I agree with a lot of people here, that a reunion tour wouldn’t be worth all that much, but to see them live in the late 60s…I’d pay several hundred.
I would also pay buttloads of money to see Simon and Garfunkel in their prime. Funny thing is, I’m a youngin’…I’m not supposed to want to see these guys. (I’m a child of the 80s, at the tender age of 25)
Jman