Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this is "sneaky" - to use the term from the article. Yes, on the one hand a band could maximize by playing in a larger venue, but maybe doing so diminishes the experience for more people. Smaller venues, greater precision, and budgeting, and a better experience for the audience seems like a win.

Not quite sure this is an issue that needs an article in Bloomberg

View on HN

Maybe it’s the old man in me but I’d venture to say most things in Bloomberg don’t need to be in Bloomberg.

I’d love it if a news site said occasionally, “there’s nothing really news worthy today. Yesterday’s important stuff will do.”

Also I’m mad I can’t get tickets to see angine de poitrine in Philly.

I see you don't subscribe to weekend papers. Mild, minor culture articles are perfectly normal and welcome for media outlets to carry for the people who pay to subscribe for their journalism.

And from what I’ve experienced: bigger shows aren’t cheaper! Smaller for the win.

I’ve avoided arena shows for decades because they’re usually super-expensive and a less satisfying experience. Back in the 90s when I made a comment in the Discipline Global Mobile website about deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it, Robert Fripp himself reposted it in his online diary approvingly. I think I’m willing to go a bit higher than that on both these days (I’ll see a show in a large theater which I’m guessing is around 1–2000 seats and inflation and higher income has raised my threshold on what I’ll spend on tickets), but generally I find smaller venues to be the most satisfying to see live music. Plus, this is going to be more obscure or early-career acts so you get to be hipper than thou when you see them.

When I was a teenager in the 90's I managed to score tickets to what was probably one of Pink Floyd's last tours. If I recall correctly, a ticket cost $40, which was pretty steep for a kid with only a paper route. Still, I was very excited--it was my first concert without my parents--but the experience was terrible.

The show was in a stadium. The sound was terrible. Everyone around me was smoking pot. I was so far away that the musicians were barely visible. The only consolation was that Pink Floyd had a great lights show and a big movie screen behind them showing flying pigs and things like that.

I went to one more stadium show after that--The Smashing Pumpkins and Garbage--and it was somehow worse. The sound was deafening but also unintelligible.

There are many musicians I would love to see, but the big show experience is awful. Fortunately, I have since seen many, many shows in smaller venues. I fondly remember watching Low play in a candlelit (!!) venue with audience members sitting/laying (!!!) on the floor. Way, way better, and definitely hipper than thou.

Feel exactly the same way. I start going to shows in the late 90s - once in high school. All small venues.

I started going to more shows in college (mostly jam) and then even more as an adult with just a smidge more money.

Two shows stick out as particularly bad:

1. Dave Matthews Band - Fenway Park. There is no way to correct all of the oddities (and charm) of the place. The sound was terrible. I enjoyed the show anyways, but it was the worst sound quality I had seen for $90.

2. Phish - Fenway Park. Sound terrible too. From what I saw, the Phish show is folks listening to the music and folks doing whatever-else to the music. I enjoyed being with friends and people watching but nothing else. Luckily, scalped tickets were cheaper once the show started.

In contrast, went to many shows at Cambridge House of Blues, Boston's Paradise Rock Club, and many other similarly sized venues. Best sound, best experiences.

Lucky now to live near the Capitol Theatre in Port Chester NY - a true gem among all the other venues around.

The one great stadium experience I had was seeing Billy Joel on his River of Dreams tour. I had seats behind the stage about six rows back. Billy Joel did about half the show with his piano lifted up in place of the drums and Liberty Devitto moved to where the piano had been, so suddenly, most of the people had the behind the stage seats and I was in row six. But other stadium/outdoor amphiteatre shows I’ve been to (Genesis, Peter Gabriel, The Who) have been kind of underwhelming affairs.

> deciding I didn’t want to see a show in a venue biger than 500 seats or spend more than $50 for it

I've reached a similar conclusion. I've broken my rule a few times, but just about all of them just reinforced my belief in my rule.

Here I tend to aim for venues where the tickets are $25-35. I'll order a couple and invite someone. I've had some of my best concert experiences this way, surpassing the large concerts I've been to by orders of magnitude.

I also find that in most cases, the sound is much better at smaller venues. That is, there are good spots and bad spots, but you can easily move around to a good spot and then it's really good. The large 2000+ venues I've been to have never had good sound, just decent at best.

The best shows I've been to the last 10 years have been at Reggie's in Chicago. Cheap, not too crowded, and lesser known but really talented bands. Reggie's hasn't changed over the years much - in the best kind of way.

There’s always risks with putting on a show - and the financial risks of underselling may be on the band.

It really depends. If there’s a promoter involved, they will give the band a guaranteed paycheck and collect the door for themselves. This is a big part of why merch sales are so important for touring groups. This is where they make most of their profits from the tour.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com