I really want to go see Simon and Garfunkel for a couple reasons.

First, they're great... or were great I should say, I have no idea what they sound like now. Second, it's at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul which I have heard is an amazing place to see a show. I've never seen a show there because they never have anybody I want to see for the price it costs. The cheapest ticket where you'll basically be enjoying the atmosphere and watching S+G on the big screen (maybe getting a nice pic on your camera with zoom in at max to show you were there) is 60 dollars. To actually see the show you'll be paying $250 dollars.

So my question is, who are the people that actually pay this much? Would you pay that much for 2-3 hours of music? The most I'd pay for a show is $50/ticket but I better be in a place where I can see the artist(s). The most I'd pay just to be there is 10 bucks.

The prices of the concert tickets (of the old big names) have certainly exbloded during the last five years. I don't know who buy $ 250 the tickets (firms, rich fans). Nevertheless $ 60 for Simon and Garfunkel ticket doesn't sound too much to me (I just bought Joanna Newsom ticket that cost almost the same). Of course if you can't see the artist near what's the point to go to see the show.

I watch a lot of concerts but mostly on festivals or indie artists in real rock clubs ($ 0-30). I have been only once in a stadion concert (Paul McCartney 2003 or 2004). The biggest show last year (I saw) was gig of Madonna. I bought the cheapest ticket ($ 150) and then I stand in some enormous dockyard with 88 000 people watching big screen. I really don't know what is the point to go those mega concerts. The show was good but that's not the point of a concert (to watch studied dance performance etc.). I saw at least three better gigs in the same week (TV on the Radio, The National and PMMP). And they were better in every way (music, atmosphere, audience, sound, feeling). So I suggest to skip the Simon and Garfunkel concert if you don't get $250 ticket.

I once spent ridiculous amounts of money for concerts, but times have changed.

I spent slightly more than 250$ to see Paul McCartney the first night he played CitiField. This was hugely expensive, but my seats were very good.

How was the show? Amazing. He played more Beatles songs than not, and they were all pretty much excellent. Also, the only way I would ever spend more money to see a concert, is if Jimi Hendrix came back from the grave. For bands I have interest in, I usually spend about 30, but if I really love the band, I'm willing to go up to 60.

I once paid $70 to see Coldplay over the summer. Well worth it in my opinion. (Coldplay rules, don't be hating) All the other concerts I've been to were like $30. Now I have tickets I got for $10 to see Girl Talk live at the end of April. And they're almost front row seats! Score!

How old am I?

In 1981 I went to see the Stones open their world tour at JFK Stadium in Philadelphia. Tickets (all general admission) were an outrageous $25.

And what really bothered many folks at the time was they dared to have a sponsor for the tour (gasp). Loreal, I believe it was.

I spent £30 to see Pixies play Doolittle in its entirety. It was such good value for money, they were absolutely rockin', despite being well into their forties.

$300 (face value) to see Her Madgesty- shocking, I know. She's one of the few acts who deliver, though, and never repeats a show (in terms of staging, set list, etc.) I did not attend her most recent tour, though, for personal reasons and such.

I'd never spend anywhere near that to see anyone else.

It really depends who.

If I found out Bob Dylan had a terminal illness and he was doing one last tour, I would pay hundreds of dollars to see a show.

Otherwise, if it's one of my favorites the limit is probably $50, and if it's just some new band I like around $20.

Of course, if Jimi Hendrix were alive, I can't imagine how much I'd be willing to pay to see him.

For simon and garfunkel? I'd say you could go up tp $70.