awesome :)

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, bob wrote:

> "The only artist I've ever paid triple figures to see live was Paul
> McCartney. It wasn't actually that great, but I am glad I went."
>
>   I had a dear friend in LA that was a very hot PR woman at one of the major labels. She had an amazing house in Laurel, a Maserati, (which she let me borrow occasionally), and a wicked sense of humour AND she was smart as a whip.
>   One day, I'm over at her house and for whatever reason, we went into her bedroom and there was a framed brass plaque over the bed that read,
>   I Fucked Paul McCartney On This Bed
>   August 1966
>   Dutifully impressed, I asked her, "Was he good?", to which she replied, "Nah...but Fuck man, IT WAS PAUL MCCARTNEY!!!
>   And we laughed and laughed...
>
>   bob
>
>
>
> Benjamin Lukoff <blukoff@alvord.com> wrote:
>   On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Stewart Mason wrote:
>
> > See, at my not-all-THAT-advanced age, I can't imagine a single artist
> > that I would pay triple figures to see live. Literally, not a single
> > one. Of course, the last show I saw at a venue bigger than my high
> > school auditorium was U2 at Red Rocks on the WAR tour, so there you
> > go.
>
> The only artist I've ever paid triple figures to see live was Paul
> McCartney. It wasn't actually that great, but I am glad I went.
>
> When I was working at Amazon I got free tickets to some shows that would
> have been three figures if I'd paid for them: the Police and the Rolling
> Stones. (Dixie Chicks, too, but the seats weren't that great.) Police,
> meh. Stones, on the other hand, was a great show. Now, worth $350?
> Probably not. But I might have paid $100 out of pocket and not gone away
> disappointed.
>
> What really gets me is Neil Young thinking he can get away with charging
> $100...
>
>
>
>
>