Is Coachella Worth the Money?

by SodaHead Music Posted 2012/01/10 20:00:00

Related Topics: Music, Coachella, Coachella Lineup, Coachella 2012, Date, Two Weekends, Radiohead, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Nickelback, Money, Funny, Band, College, 2012, Music Festival, Bands

Read More

519 votes
Read all 145 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	180 votes	35%
	No	339 votes	65%

There are plenty of music festivals you could go to each year -- Lollapalooza, Electric Daisy Carnival, Bonnaroo, the Mile High Music Festival -- but if you're looking for the biggest gathering of critically acclaimed contemporary artists in the world, look no further than Coachella. What started out as an annual two-day event has evolved into two three-day weekends in one year.

But there's always a catch. Coachella also happens to be one of the more expensive events to attend. A weekend pass, which will give attendees access to all of the more than 100 bands playing, will run you $285 -- if you can get one. However, organizers have tried to keep prices from going up. Part of that is the addition of a second weekend, which will include most of the same bands, sell out as quickly as the first, and presumably require less set-up and overhead.

Big names in this year's Coachella lineup include Radiohead, The Black Keys, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, At the Drive-In, Bon Iver, Andrew Bird, Florence and the Machine, and DJ Shadow. They're all awesome musicians -- but is Coachella really worth the cost?

+10

Add a comment above

Flamingolady 2012/01/11 16:20:11

No

+4
Have never heard of it, nor any of the bands. Payed $150 once to see Jimmy Buffett, and I felt ripped off, even for Jimmy. Covered seats, a friend's boyfriend got tickets, and had to show off how much HE could spend. We wound up having to pay the big bucks when lawn seating would have been just as good, if not better.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Music

Tiffany 2012/04/18 05:46:59

No

I'd rather spend a bit more going to concerts with one or two bands I really care about. Now, that being said, I would LOVE to see Radiohead. I saw Thom Yorke in Chicago with Atoms for Peace last year and it was awesome.

reply
John 2012/02/21 00:25:41

No

Not to me. But then I'm an old fart and the new music is for the young. I'm to use to acoustic instruments. All of that amplified sound drives me up the wall. But I understand the younger bunch liking. It's just a different time. I was a professional musician for almost 60 years. I was a piano man and when all the amplification started my bass man wanted to amplify his acoustic bass. But I put a zilch on that idea. I never amplified my piano and none of my group were going to do it either. OF COURSE vocals are a different matter.

reply
Demiann 2012/01/24 10:22:24

No

He'll no! I'm living off of less the 200 hundred dollars a month!

reply
stevie.luplow 2012/01/13 21:58:04

No

+1
That kind of money can be well spent on many other things. Yes, it's for 100 bands over a 3 day weekend, but how many will you REALLY see?

reply
gidianedwards97 2012/01/13 06:48:21

Yes

at twenty dollars a pop.

reply
Anna E 2012/01/12 17:13:30

Yes

The average cost for a concert pass is about $52. See 6 performers and you're doing better than the average.

reply
heeheemee 2012/01/12 16:58:24 (edited)

Yes

+1
It would be if I wanted to see all those bands. The problem is that I really only want to see two, maybe three of them. Last year's line-up was awesome, with a lot of help of broadcasting it from youtube, which is probably why the sudden hype for this festival. That being said, I've been to Indio once; I have no desire to go back there.

reply
Pilot337 to heeheemee 2012/01/15 03:23:12 (edited)

I'm near there now; Desert Hot Springs to be exact. Spent the last few days at a rally in Indio, and I think I agree with you. No need to go back.

reply
Vieuphoria 2012/01/12 15:51:10

No

+3
I clicked the wrong one, I meant yes. I love music festivals and as good as their lineup is, I think i'll stick to my UK based ones. The ones with superb lineups, and alcohol isn't banned, and that there isn't police with guns on site. It's a nicer, more community feel... rather than the police state feel of Coachella. Music festivals don't need guns.

reply
oros 2012/01/12 10:58:30

No

No next Question.

reply
Bob DiN 2012/01/12 06:42:37

No

+1
It's a ripoff.

reply
Nadrasta 2012/01/12 05:44:44

No

+1
To some people it might be but not for me. I don't care for any of those artists.

reply
Happy 2012/01/12 03:57:49

No

+1
i don't like the people who are performing so it would obviously be a waste of money to go for me.

reply
Anonymous Coward218 2012/01/12 03:46:29

No

+1
In my experience, Cohella was NOT worth what A person is ripped off for one of those itchy, binding bracelets! That money would have been better spent on a few good concerts. The place ended up crowded and dirty with ridiculous lines for everything from showers to toilets, and food! And we paid for the premium shower upgrade! The only bigger waste of time was going to burning man.

reply
PiePeace123 2012/01/12 03:35:20

No

+1
no we shouldnt be spendiny money becauz or countire is already in debt e need to save or money and not use it

reply
Stace81 to PiePeac... 2012/01/12 17:49:31 (edited)

Maybe people need to get themselves out of debt and not spend money on a concert, however your logic makes no sense. The only way to get our country out of debt is to spend money. I don't mean necessarily at this event in particular, just in general.

reply
ROCKER to PiePeac... 2012/01/13 04:43:32

+1
e need to save or money and not use it??? I will tell you what e needs. ..to learn decent grammar. You are trying to say we shouldn't buy concert tickets because of the economy? That is absolutly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. How long did it take u to come up with that little nugget of brilliance? WE are not the ones who put the country in debt. .big government is..you know what. .nevermind im going to go SPENDINY e some money in my COUNTIRE

reply
hari 2012/01/12 02:54:49

No

+1
my lay off does not permit

reply
Tigger Too 2012/01/12 02:52:30

No

+1
I sure as hell wouldn't pony up 285 bucks to see a bunch of music artists at the lame-ass Coachella festival. Hell, even Lollapalooza and Ozzfest have lost their rock edge. The best place to go for music festivals is Europe. In fact, even Metallica does more tours in Europe than here in the good old USA. One of the best outdoor rock music festivals is Rock am Ring in Germany. One of my favorite groups, Monster Magnet, hails from New Jersey, but they hardly EVER perform concerts in the States. That's a damn shame, too, because they're one of the best live bands on the planet. Please to enjoy...

reply
PiePeac... to Tigger Too 2012/01/12 03:41:07

Ur right becauz all people ant to do is spend there money on crap they dont need like even thought music videos coast money its better to hatchit on youtube then at a damn festivale were u cant evensee singer on the stage

reply
PiePeac... to Tigger Too 2012/01/12 03:43:03

Ur right becauz all people do is spend there money on crap they dont need , even thought music videos coast money its better to Whatch it on youtube then at a damn festivale were u cant even see singer on the stage

reply
PiePeac... to Tigger Too 2012/01/12 03:43:36

Ur right becauz all people do is spend there money on crap they dont need , even thought music videos coast money better to Whatch it on youtube then at damn festivale were u cant even see singer on the stage

reply
John to Tigger Too 2012/02/21 00:36:04

+1
To me that is nothing but annoying NOISE. Whatever happened to the 15 to 20 piece acoustic orchestras? That was music.

reply
Tigger Too to John 2012/02/21 18:44:59

Well, as they always say, there's no accounting for taste! I was trained in classical music (piano), so I have an appreciation for ALL genres of music, as long as it's good. From rap to bluegrass to country and western to jazz to classical to oldies to hard rock to R&B to pop to disco to Motown, and on and on. My mixed CD's actually sound like a person with a gazillion personalities is listening to them. However, my preferred style of music is heavy metal, hard rock and stoner rock. I can go from listening to Chopin to Metallica in the space of a few minutes!

reply
John to Tigger Too 2012/02/23 00:55:47

+1
I made my living as a musician but I still say that some of todays music is nothing but noise. It's always played as LOUD as they can make it. Never any nuance or shadings just one level of sound, LOUD. I also like different kinds of music. But some of that stuff today they call music I just can't take. How can you call rap music? you certainly couldn't play it on the piano. It's talking in rhythm but it's not music. No, I too like classical, jazz and pop. Way way back I was the piano man in a 15 piece hotel orchestra for a while, but that was pure corn. I went on my own with a trio and kept it that way. I don't understand how anyone can go from the classics of Mahler, Saint Saens, Debussy or Beethoven and the great jazz and pop of Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett and Sinatra to Metallica is beyond me.

reply
Tigger Too to John 2012/02/23 12:26:03

I wasn't comparing Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra to Metallica. All I said was that although I like ALL types of music, I prefer heavy metal. Also, rap is considered music, especially by the black community, because it has its roots in African music. Even though most of it consists of the spoken word, there's a rhythm and musicality behind it. Speaking of Gustav Mahler, I was privileged to be a part of the chorus in the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra's performance of his 9th Symphony. Thus, I have a particular affinity and affection for that one, his last symphony. Once again, I'm not comparing one genre of music to any other. I'm merely saying that my musical tastes run the gamut of the spectrum.

reply
Tennessee3501 2012/01/12 02:45:02 (edited)

Yes

Sounds like a good deal! If I can get my doctor to write a note declaring that music is good for my health, is it covered under Obamacare?

reply
BILL 2012/01/12 02:44:08

No

+1
Not to me, but I have no business talking about some on that thinks the tickets are worth the money

reply
JohnElliot 2012/01/12 01:45:35

Yes

+2
I've paid $85.00 for two hours of great music. If you break it down, with all the bands, it's not that costly.

reply
Anonymo... to JohnElliot 2012/01/12 03:51:19

Yes, but at those concerts, the band plays more than one or two sets. They cram Coachella full of bands you've never heard of, and use the big name ones as a draw. Naturally, you can't get even close to the ones you actually WANT to see. The concert is still the best bang for your buck.

reply
Deb Thiessen 2012/01/12 01:28:33

No

+2
Having the privilege of seeing greats like Janis Joplin and Jefferson Airplane on the same ticket for less than $20, and gone to a 3 day weekend festival that featured Alice Cooper, Chicago, Jethro Tull, Taj Mahal, and numerous other groups at the price of less than $100, and so on, and given that I haven't heard of most of the groups that are listed at this festival, I would have to say a resounding NO, it is not worth it. Even if it were free, I wouldn't go.

But tell me that there is a festival with James Taylor, Arlo Guthrie, Judy Collins, The Eagles, Red Hot Chili peppers, Adele, k.d. laing, Cheryl Crowe, etc. etc. then I would consider it a good deal.

With the roster mentioned in the article, not a chance in hell that I would pay that kind of money.

Ah well, I'm getting to the age where I find myself saying "now when I was young, we had Blind Faith, Led Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin, etc........AND I had to walk to school 2 miles in snow blizzards when I was a child...." LOL.

reply
..::loc... to Deb Thi... 2012/01/12 01:40:51

you sound old...there was this called inflation since the last time you went to a concert.

reply
Anonymo... to ..::loc... 2012/01/12 03:57:20

She ain't THAT old. The rate of inflation hovers around 2% per year during years where there actually IS inflation. The cost of music venues has had a rate of inflation OVER 27% per year. Go ahead and try to justify price gouging with inflation again sometime! Plain and simple, venue land holders are greedy. Organizers are greedy, and the actual artists get very little of what is actually raised!

reply
..::loc... to Anonymo... 2012/01/12 12:31:30

my point...its less then $3 a band. The last time I checked that was a good deal since going to a local bar that has music will run you $5-$7.

reply
Deb Thi... to ..::loc... 2012/01/15 16:25:26

..... concerts these days are way too expensive, and that's despite the fact that I am 'old'. AND, the music and musicians these days are not as good either ...... nana nana boo boo...... kidding...... LOL

reply
John to ..::loc... 2012/02/21 00:45:29

If you think Dep Thi sound old I better keep my mouth shut. I really am old.

reply
Anonymo... to Deb Thi... 2012/01/12 04:03:11

It seems that once bands hit the mega big time, they want big money just to show up...more if you want them to actually play! I was just a little kid when U2 filmed on that rooftop in L.A. But I was there! I was there when they set up in Central Park, and the middle of Kmart, ALL of which they did for FREE, but I don't recall the last time they played a free, unorganized concert.

reply
Tin Man 2012/01/12 01:11:31

Yes

The best artist deserve to be rewarded. So I guess you could say, for them, after the concerts, it's bread, butter, and bling. Ha, ha !!!

reply
Bob DiN to Tin Man 2012/01/12 06:44:36

+1
they are not that good!

reply
Tin Man to Bob DiN 2012/01/12 12:16:12

Go figure, sounds like a rip off then. Thanks for the update.

reply