stip wrote:the experience of being in the who or the rolling stones (or pearl jam or U2) is, I suspect, fundamentally different from the experience of being in the Melvins.
hlniv wrote:Can you imagine trying to get a ticket to a PJ show on a tour of 3000 seat theaters? Talk about pissed off PJ fans
The venue size isn't as simple as put in the interview. It is related to demand and has been around as long as popular music has. The argument makes more sense when applied to ticket prices than the sizes or quality of the venues.
stip wrote:the experience of being in the who or the rolling stones (or pearl jam or U2) is, I suspect, fundamentally different from the experience of being in the Melvins.
No shit.
Which is why I was not particularly impressed with much of his his advice for/judgements about those bands
The boot where they play binaural in its entirety followed by a moody encore for shits/giggles/creative curiosity would be fun to listen to though.
You're right though, the venue size doesn't reaally matter. It would just be interesting to see what they'd do with something different. They could do interesting stuff in a larger venue. Tbh I'm just hoping they cut out the on cue 'eruptions' and the 'let's party' wine bottle props, and eds climbing frame etc etc.
Springsteen's entire Devils and Dust tour was almost exclusively to 2-6,000 seat venues. He played some larger buildings, on occasion, but with curtains walling off sections of the venue...I think the largest number of tickets made available for any show was 7,100, and I might be overshooting even with that. There were no big increases in ticket prices or scalping, and no resulting hassle-mad fans ranting on the internet. Prince just finished up a run of shows that were in under-2,000 seat spots....tickets were more expensive than his usual, but again, no big trouble was to be had. Pretty sure Radiohead did a small venue run a few years back, and Green Day had one scheduled that got nipped by Billy Joe's whatever problems. Plenty of other artists of varying sizes have played that game in the past. Hell, even U2 plays small multiple small venue shows to warm up before a big jaunt. The Stones did that for the longest time, too.
The point is, there's precedence for the fact that it doesn't become a huge problem on either side of the equation. Really, the only reason for an artist to never do small shows is also the simplest one: they don't want to.
stip wrote:the experience of being in the who or the rolling stones (or pearl jam or U2) is, I suspect, fundamentally different from the experience of being in the Melvins.
No shit.
Which is why I was not particularly impressed with much of his his advice for/judgements about those bands