b00bles

So you're saying that people shouldn't be held responsible for mistakes?

mbmanus

They should absolutely be held responsible for their mistakes, just not suing them for them.

DarkShadow

well it depends if they make mistakes or forgets about something, but I think they should

Tracie

They have, sorta.

I went to the Boston show in Feb '04 and it was talked about as being the final show of the Fallen Tour (Even amy said it during the show). I spent quite a bit of money on a ticket so that me and my friends could all be there together.

Then in May 2004, they started touring again in support of Fallen and then their final show was in August. I wound up going to that one too, but the whole time I was skeptical that this wasn't really going to be the final show of the tour. Turned out that it was though.

Point is, I can see how people can get miffed about something like this. Mine was on a smaller scale and only had been "talked" about being the final show. If it had been "billed" as the final show of the Fallen Tour, I would have been a bit more pissed off.

Also, with the Barbara Streisand issue, she's and older performer so there is always that chance that she would eventually want to no perform anymore. To one of her diehard fans, missing her possibly last show, would be horrible to them. By billing it as the final show ever, there are bound to be people that wouldn't usually go out to see her, but because it's the final show, they'd want to be there for that event.

Not eveyone has a ton of money to throw around, so spending money on a show, might have been the one thing that person splurged on that entire year. Just would suck to spend all that money to realize that the artist would be coming back.

So to come back and tour again after that, is wrong. Musicians make most of their money off of touring, not record sales. The more tickets that are sold, the more money they make. Granted, not all artists have control over that aspect of their business, but musicians like Pearl Jam have seemed to have gotten control over it. For being around as long as they have, everything (from tickets to merch) is extremely reasonably priced. If they can do it, so can others.

Well, then how else would you say someone from the opposite side of the country go about collecting their money back from aforementioned artist? Ticketmaster won't refund them so they'd have to go to their house and say "hey, whoever publicized your tour lied to us, and since artist make the most money off of touring, I want your percentage of my ticket back" Yeah. Don't think that will work.

mbmanus

You dont get your money back. You realize before you buy the ticket that perhaps maybe this isnt the final concert, you take everything with a grain of salt. If you are upset of how artists promote themselves you dont buy their album or concert tickets.

If you are upset that you paid alot of money for a "final performance" when it wasnt, you get over it.

Tracie

The point is, people get sued for false advertisement all the time. This shouldn't exclude performers (or the people they or the record label hire to promote them.) Final shows = more ticket sales. People will be more willing to go to a final show then if they know that they'll won't be back in the area.

They shouldn't advertise it as a final show, if in fact, there is even the slightest chance it might not be. That's the point that everyone's trying to make here I believe.

mbmanus

I know what they are saying, and they are technically and legally correct, what happened to "buyer beware?" Things like that happen all the time, people should stop to think before they buy anything that says something like "final" no matter if its concert tickets or a product.

When will it stop then? Can a sports team be sued if a player announces his retirement and then decides to come back?

Rika :-)

A buyer may know that, but it won't stop him from wanting to sue a performer. Some people are like, "I'm pissed off and I don't care who's at fault. I just want my money back!" You appeal to common sense, but not everybody knows what the common sense is.

I personally think there's a difference between a performer who believed he was doing the last show, but then the situation changed, and a performer who knew it's not gonna be the last show and just wanted to make money. It's up to the court to decide what a performer's intentions were.

IMHO to come back and tour again right after that, is wrong. If I spent a big amount of money on a ticket to the last Evanescence show and then found out that they extended the tour, I wouldn't be quite happy. But if there was, say, a year of silence after the last show when everybody thought they were not coming back and then they announced they're returning, I wouldn't remember my lost money. Though some people would.

But then, what if a band continues touring because their fans themselves demand it?

Tough question. I think it all depends on a specific case.

mbmanus

You are right. Its all about intent. If they intentionally misled the public, then yes they could be sued, but I have a feeling you would have a hard time proving your case.

Sleepwalkers Dream

I think the fans have every right to sue. If she's flogging herself, telling her fans she'll perform one last time, then go and perform again, I'd be pretty shitty.

Aussies would know about John Farnham's 'Last Time' tour. He re3kned he was going to do ONE LAST TOUR. This was advertised for months on television and in newspapers. The tour was because he was retiring-or so he said. He did his tour, 'retired' for all of a few months, then announced that he was touring with Tom Jones. As fans paid up to $300 for a 'Last Time' ticket, they were none too pleased, and made sure everyone knew about it, too.

If I were them, I'd sue Farnham for bullshitting, saying he was retiring, then going and touring again.