ARENAS - Only asking but, are they worth the cash and more importantly....

.....are the performers getting a bit greedy?</p>

Call me old fashioned, but at one time a band or a performer embarking on a British Tour usually meant around a 30 date concert tour, covering around 40 days, traveling all around the UK. Thirty decent provincial concert halls and theatres, all seating around 2 - 2 1/2 thousand people. All sell outs and truly exhausting.</p>

Nowadays there's a growing bunch of performers who seem to think that it is sufficient to do a total of around 8 performances in front of 8 arenas, all seating about 8 or 9 thousand people.</p>

Broadly the end result is the same. Roughly around 60 - 70,000 people will turn out to see their idols, favourites, call them what you will. But that is where the similarity ends.</p>

I think we have all had the ARENA experience at some time or other. Sky high prices, and despite getting on the 'phone and booking early, on most occasions the seats you end up with are very disappointing. Some tickets should come with their own binoculars, and even they wouldn't be sufficient to see over raised platforms between you and the stage.</p>

Back in '92 I accompanied the wife to see her favourite performer at an arena. The tickets were obtained early and we were looking forward to a decent evening. We found when we got there that were sat on the next to the back row in the well, around 180 rows or so from the front. A tremendous disappointment. There was a raised block in front of us containing the sound technicians area and the performer seemed miles away. The people sat behind us all disappeared, probably went home, and we ended up sitting with our bums on the seat back and feet on the chair seats. By the end of the show we had lost interest and couldn't wait for it to finish. Outrageous!</p>

Just before the Millennium we went to see the same performer again at another Arena and had much better seats - but to get those we had to buy them as part of an overnight stay from a coach company, at a very high cost. Again, outrageous.</p>

Took my lad to see Bob Dylan in 2002, only to find that we were sat in the Gods at roughly seven o'clock on an imaginary dial, whilst Dylan played on the floor at the 12 o clock mark. Again, virtually impossible to see him properly.</p>

Arenas are unjustifiably expensive, and to be fair most people come away not really feeling that they have properly seen the artist they went to see.</p>

Compare that with those performers who still prefer the 2000 auditorium 30 date tour, be it Sheffield City Hall, Croydon Winter Gardens or Manchester Lowrie Theatre.</p>

There are still great artists and performers who choose this route. They bugger themselves up doing 30 odd dates, they will earn less because costs of transport will mount up, performance of their backing musicians, overheads at each venue and lots of other factors, including an overnight hotel stop every night of the tour.</p>

But two things are certain. </p>

The first is that they will still have performed roughly to the same number of people as the arena crowd, and secondly, but most important....the vast majority of the people who paid to see them will come away feeling that they really got close to their idol, favourites, call them what you will - and for a couple of hours were really interactive with the action on stage.</p>

I think arenas are an over expensive and disappointing waste of cash. It's both a clinical and expensive way to see a performer, and invariably a disappointment.</p>

God knows what they must think when they look across hundreds of yards of heads and see the people at the back. Do they wonder if they can truly see them? Do they care? or do they just take the money and run?</p>

Those who still perform in a proper theatre are, in my opinion, the ones who are more likely to care about the paying fans.</p>

 

Totally agree

Never really liked INXS much but back in the early 90's (at their peak) they did a small venue tour in the UK (the played the Octagon in Sheffield). The could have sold out Arenas but they chose to play the small venue so the real fans (those that would line up in the cold - my then girlfriend did this) would see them and so they could get back to the small, real shows. She said it was one of the best gigs she had been to. As I said - I didn't like them much but I found new respect for them for doing this

 

they are crap

gigs should never be played at a venue with proper seating. pubs yes- rows of seats? never

 

I agree - much preferred venues like Manchester Apollo and Sheffield City Hall, but even they can be too big - some of the best gigs I've been to have been at places like the Marquee or at Uni's.

At least some of the newer arenas are better than places like Leeds Queens Hall where it was like being in an aircraft hanger.

Worse are outdoor stadiums gigs - like U2 in June! It's not even getting dark til 10pm so not only are they just specs on the horizon but you don't even have the full benefit of the light show. They only did a handful of stadium shows here yet they've done 3 tours of the US in arenas (which are bigger than ours) - they toured over there earlier in the year, usually doing 2 or 3 nights at an arena, and then did another tour in Autumn....I saw them on the last of 5 nights in New York - a better setting than the outdoor stadium, but given the number of nights they've done then how could they have translated that to smaller venues?

One good thing about the arena shows is you usually do get an amazing spectacle. I didn't feel too divorced from the action when I saw Muse at MEN....and in some ways I liked being in the seating at the side cause watching the crowd in front of the stage was almost as entertaining.