I am not sure why I am replying to a sentence formulated like this but you surely understand I said nothing about $400, the top 20% of income levels, or even not being able to afford it?
If you’re going to disagree with me it might be better to disagree with what I said, not a straw man you constructed for the purpose.
I know that this is a common way to argue here on HN but it’s just weird.
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
For clarity: I am not talking about affordability. I am talking about the profoundly anti-culture nature of that specific place and the people who can afford to live in it. As I said in my comment, there are other ways Apple could contribute to live music that didn't involve putting a pet music venue in such a soulless place.
(of a given performance ticket)
It's called being charitable. Trying to understand what their point is and responding to that for the sake of advancing the conversation, rather than grinding it to a halt with pedantic quibbles over inaccuracies or poor phrasing.
I've never been so I can't really comment on the atmosphere of the building.
You made a pretty specific point and prediction about the price of tickets, which I responded to, but now you're not talking about affordability. Because the suggestion that they might not be doing the most soulless oligarchic thing ever in this place doesn't fit your doom narrative.
I think you’re out of touch.
Normal people are experiencing housing stress, energy price shocks, and wondering who the hell buys a $19 strawberry.
I consider top 30-40% income bracket as ordinary people.
I've been fortunate enough to work in some environments where you kinda get the gist of "how people function", and it has completely opened up my eyes. A single person who is experiencing housing stress, can buy $19 strawberry, be upset about gas prices, and also spend $400 on a concert.