Concerts

Report from the MAMAMOO concert on May 16th.

As expected, MAMAMOO delivered. No question, the best KPop concert I’ve been to. What I knew about them from YouTube is what we got.

The tour is named “My Con” which stands for My Concert. But I also learned it’s a pun for “Mic On”. Yes indeed. More than any other KPop group ever. MAMAMOO’s reputation for actually singing live is legit. I heard it with my own ears. And while singing and dancing, their live singing is better than a lot of other KPop stars singing period.

The stage production wasn’t anything too fancy. They had big video screen in the background, 8 backup dancers, a handful of costume changes, lights, smoke machines, and some confetti cannons that got used maybe 3 times. They could have done more, but it was enough. What they had they used very well to create a powerful performance.

Also, they did what I think every live music act should do, and that’s perform something live that can’t be seen elsewhere. In this case they created a medley of their solo work. However, they changed it up and each member performed the solo song of a different member. Then they performed some more of their solo songs as a whole group. I knew they were doing this because they have the same set list on every stop of this tour, but it’s still great.

And for the songs that are performed normally, they have special concert versions that are slightly remixed. Different breakdowns and renditions that are not what you get on the albums or music videos. A+. A concert should be a unique experience. We’ve all already heard these songs before, gotta spice it up.

I stand by what I said before. Even if someone isn’t a KPop fan, this is the group to see live. As long as someone likes music and dancing, this will be a good time, especially at a smaller venue.

All that said, it wasn’t perfect.

First, I wish it would have gone on a bit longer. Just maybe 2-3 more songs would have felt complete. Despite being different than other KPop groups in many ways, they were also the same. They would perform a few songs, and then take a long break to play videos or have some useless talking. I know they have to entertain the crowd while they catch their breath, but it doesn’t entertain me.

Since it was the big arena, we experimented with expensive tickets in the 12th row. I didn’t want to sit far away and watch the concert on video screens, since that’s no different than watching on YouTube. Was it worth it? Mmmm, maybe not considering how high the price was. I think we could have found a better balance of price and closeness. Moving maybe one section backwards and off to the side the view could have still been good enough at a much lower price point. So yeah, it was very good being that close, but not better enough to justify the cost vs. some of the other seats.

I brought the light stick and it was actually kinda fun to wave it around. Surprisingly they didn’t use the RF system to control the sticks centrally. We were left to control them however we felt like. This was also nice in its own way. Trying to change the color and pattern to match the performance going on, or just changing it to your favorite color. I noticed quite a few fans were in sync on that as well. Felt a little bit like a secret communication system between the fans.

Everything going on at the arena was very well managed. The only complaint is that its the arena belonging to the evil NY Islanders. I may dislike the team that plays there, but the UBS arena is a well run venue. To be expected from someplace so new.

Here’s a video from one of those people at the concert who was holding their phone up the whole time, and sitting even closer than me.

3 Likes

No more hidden fees.

I hate how nothing this is. It doesn’t make Ticketmaster-Live Nation any less of a monopoly, it just makes sure you’ll know how badly you’re being ripped off.

I agree that this is nowhere near close to actually solving this problem. However, I wont’ dismiss this as nothing. Instead I would say it is a tiny little something.

Previous system where fees are revealed at the end:

  1. Everyone sees the base price without fees and gets in the queue.
  2. Fight for seats and then see the real price.
    3a) Some people bail because the price is too high.
    3b) Some people pay, but only because of this psychological trap. If the full price was there at the start they wouldn’t have gotten in the queue.
    3c) Some people pay, and they were going to pay no matter what.

New system:

  1. Everyone sees the total real price of tickets.
  2. Presumably only the people in the 3c category actually enter the queue.
  3. People buy tickets.

This means that there will be less people in the queue fighting for tickets. 3a and 3b will just duck out when they see the price. It also means that the 3b people won’t be psychologically “tricked” into buying things they wouldn’t have bought.

Nowhere near solving the problem, but still an improvement.

It’s a very Let Them Eat Cake approach. I don’t care if the process of buying overpriced tickets is fair, I care if the prices on the tickets are fair, and they are decidedly not.

1 Like

We’ve said this before, but even if Ticketmaster is destroyed and many competing benevolent ticket systems take its place, prices will never be fair.

There is limited capacity for any live event. For any event at which the demand exceeds the capacity, prices will become unaffordable for most people. Any distribution mechanism, socialist or otherwise, will be inherently unfair.

Something that can be done immediately that I would like to see are Broadway-style ticket lotteries for other live events. Even sporting events. Put aside a ticket block for a lottery so that there will always be a way for less fortunate people to get in.

1 Like

That just straight up was not true for decades. Want to see the Stones in 1972, at the peak of their career? $54.57 in 2023 dollars. Wanna see Guns n Roses in 1991? $18.92 in 2023 dollars. These shows sold out by a wide margin and were still widely accessible. I recognize that there are some artists where this comparison is unfair (Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and Beyonce all put on far more elaborate shows than any musical act put on prior to the 90s), but there is no reason I should be paying more to see Gaslight Anthem, a cult act that is well past their prime, than it’d cost to see the Stones at their peak – let alone the absurd prices Bruce is charging for the same production value he’s been doing since he was charging 8 bucks a ticket in 1979 ($33.51 today). I’d highly recommend you read Pearl Jam’s testimony before Congress c. 1994 to better understand the mob tactics that led to the demise of this system.

Am I going to say that this is an easy thing to go back to in the era of shareholder capitalism? No. But to dismiss it as impossible is simply flying in the face of historical fact.

A small, but not insignificant factor in the increased price is increased production values. People got fancy stages now. Lasers and shit.

Another is income inequality. If you had just sold tickets to the Stones in 1972 to the 1% of wealthy people, you would not fill the seats. Now you can fill an arena with affluent people. The amount that they can afford to, and are willing, to pay pushes the price up for everybody.

Lastly, population increase. The size of the arena hasn’t expanded, but population has. In the US there are over 100 million more people, growth of over 50%, since '72. In the world there are 4+ billion more people. That matters since a lot more people are willing to travel great distances to see some shows. The number of people who want to get in who can’t get in, is greater, therefore prices are higher. Every single person who wants to be there, but doesn’t get in, pushes the price up for the person who does get in.

The NYC marathon has many ways you can get in. Imagine if sporting events only let a few people in via “pay a lot of money”!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/06/sports/how-to-run-nyc-marathon-qualify.html

Well, spectating the marathon is free because the capacity of the side of the road exceeds the demand to stand out there all day and watch. Also, because there would be no way to build a wall around it and prevent admission to people who didn’t pay. The finish line area, however, is very restricted.

Just imagine how cool it would be though. It’s the World Series, World Cup Finals, NBA Finals, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup Finals, and a row or maybe even a section of seats are full of people who could never even dream of being able to afford such an event. They just waited outside and got lucky.

Get in to run the marathon, not spectate, you dweeb.

The number of people that can participate in the marathon is 2.5 times the capacity of MSG. Even if there are > 50k people who want to do it, the number is not that much greater than 50K because most people on earth do not want to, or are not able to, run such a long distance.

Even if they reach capacity, and some people can’t get in, there aren’t enough extra people vying for slots to exert a strong upward price pressure. If they had many thousands more people who wanted in, but couldn’t get in, marathon tickets would be not much different than concert tickets.

See: the Wimbledon Queue

Of course, the only people who have time to queue for a few days in a park are the affluent, young, able-bodied, etc.

Feels like there could be a system, and I get the myriad ways economics doesn’t want to abide such a system, where they just have to set a universal regular admission price to a venue. Ticket for a show is $20, regardless of who or what is going on.

I mean it works for movies and such where it’s $10 or so to see a 9/10 or a 1/10 film, and whether it’s 90 min or 200min. Sure those aren’t live performance, so I get that, but then other live events also use such fixed systems.

TIL Wimbledon has a queue.

Most of the Broadway shows have moved to digital lotteries. There’s no waiting or being able bodied necessary. You just need an e-mail address. For some people even that is difficult, but it’s about as low as a bar can reasonably be, logistically speaking.

What are you talking about? Practically the first sentence in the article:

For this year’s race, more than 84,000 runners entered the drawing. Only about 12 percent were chosen.

Anyway, I was just saying it would be cool if say, pro sports teams had various ways to get a ticket. And only a small fraction of people got theirs through straight-up buying it with dollars.

This is so naive, and impossible. Venues big and small host very wide varieties of events. Some with high demand, and some with none. If they set the price too low, there will just be scalping. Actual people won’t save money. Instead, the money will just be abritrated into the hands of ticket brokers instead of going to the venue and the performers.

If the price is too high, then all the smaller events will be unable to use that venue, and it will sit dark. This also hurts the venue, because they still rely on those revenues. There are only so many Taylor Swift concerts. You also have college basketball games, and preseason games, in the same place.

If you just want to get the pricing correct the optimal method is to use some form of Dutch auction. You put tickets on sale and set the price at some ludicrous number like $1 million. As time goes on, the price gets lower and lower, eventually reaching some minimum price, or even $0, around the time the event starts. At any time anyone can buy as many tickets as they like at the current price. They can choose their seats freely. This continues until the event is sold out.

This system has many upsides. The venue and the performers receive the maximum possible revenues. Scalpers and ticket brokers are completely eliminated. There is absolutely no room for them to profit by arbitration.

It also eliminates any sort of rush or queue among people fighting to grab tickets quickly. You can just type in the highest amount you are willing to pay, and then you’ll find out, when the time comes, if there are tickets still available when the price reaches your level.

If an event is unpopular, it has a chance to become very accessible and popular. Some band might get a few hundred new attendees and new fans because tickets got down to $1 and people came for the heck of it.

The downside of this system is obvious. The people with the most money, willing to pay the most, get tickets. Nobody else gets in.

The other downside is that for an unpopular event, you might have nobody pay. If they know the event won’t sell out, because it isn’t popular enough then people can just wait until the last second and get the lowest possible price. Then again you would hope that people choose to pay more to get first pick of seats. At the very least, unpopular events in oversized venues would have to set a larger minimum price threshold.

1 Like

Scott I specifically excluded extravaganzas

This is the vast minority of live music events, even though the vast majority of people who go see live music only go to these. 99% of bands do not have the means or desire to put on pyrotechnics (which, by the way GnR, did have in the early 90s). Just because you’re going to shows where the price makes sense doesn’t mean industry standards make sense.

Fair enough. For the majority of events without the big production, that’s a non-factor.

The other thing worth mentioning is that there is some sort of advantage to the population push is that it can be taken advantage of geographically. Venues tend to be similar-ish sizes, even in places with lower population density. Sometimes they’re even bigger in lower population areas because they have more space.

Therefore a less fortunate person in New York City will have a hard time getting into big events. More people and smaller venues mean higher prices. But when a band makes a tour stop in say, Kansas City, ticket prices are going to be much lower across the board.

Do you actually know this to be the case or are you just guessing because that would make sense?