Why rock acts play big stadiums?

I recently saw Adele in a 92,000-96,000 stadium in Sydney with my wife and while I'm not a big fan, the sound quality was superb. The crowd was well behaved and she handled the big stadium easily. The parking sucked though!

It was one of the highlights of my marriage. The other was a 5,000 seat gig for the Pixies. :)
 
With a band like The Stones for one, there might be a another reason they still tour other then for money or to sell a new offering.
They like it!
Looking out over the throngs of adoring fans, the festival or circus like atmosphere. They are performers after all.

Perfectly able and willing to do small or large shows because it is just what they do! One of the reasons they started out in the first place maybe?



Barney
 
It really is the money and probably the thrill of it too. Imagine playing to 15,000 to 20,000 people on a good night, the place would be full of good energy.

There are a lot of these bands playing smaller venues when they get older. Just look at YES. The used to sell out stadiums when they were at the top of their game. Now they are playing the small theaters.

The size of the venue has no relevance to the sound quality. I've heard great to horribly in all different size venues.

Last but not least. Most of the small venues seem to be very overcrowded and can be hard to move around in without spilling your $20.00 cup of beer all over the floor. :oops:

I guess you really have to be into the band enough to enjoy the music and forget about all the BS and $$$ of attending a show regardless of venue size. :beerchug:

Selling out a 20K+ seat arena full of screaming fans is good for stroking your ego (I'm sure).

Yes, a lot of "older" bands are scaling back to smaller venues. Some out of necessity--waning popularity, missing original members, and just too old to "rock the house" in a stadium any more--that takes a lot of energy. Others just choose the more "intimate" venues to provide a better experience for their true fans--and those fans are getting older too, and don't want to deal with "zoo" atmosphere of a show at a huge venue.

I also agree that the size of the venue has nothing to do with the sound quality--that is up to the sound guys and how well they deal with the venue acoustics. On the same tour, I saw Metallica at a small venue, and it was horrible--then I saw them a month or so later at RFK stadium and the sound was awesome.
 
I heard back in the day rock bands went on tour to boost record sales, and now bands go on tour to eek out a meager living. Hence music is cheap / free and concerts cost a pretty penny. So if you can fill a 20,000 seat arena at an average of $100.00 per ticket, that's not exactly chump change.

Indeed--"back in the day" bands toured to promote album sales and increase radio play. Now they all have websites, YouTube videos, and TV appearances to do that, and radio is on life support, so airplay is not that big of a deal. They get more exposure from a PodCast.

The math doesn't quite add up as you describe--touring a series of small venues can be more profitable than touring stadiums. It takes a lot more money to pay rent on a large venue, staff it with security and roadies, rent or tour with truckloads of equipment, and pay for enough promotions to actually sell-out the venue. And I have seen enough stadium shows to know when the band is pissed or just bored, because they didn't sell out the venue, and the promoters had to literally give away half of the seats just so it didn't look like a total failure.

Small venues are easier to sell-out, Touring and promotional costs are much lower, and I'd personally be willing to pay a higher price for a ticket for a more intimate experience at a small venue, than sitting in the cheap seats on the upper deck level of a stadium full of assholes.
 
Yeah it happens from time to time...

My most memorable pairing of artist & venue was seeing Tool - The Flaming Lips & Failure back in '94 @ the Riverside theater in MKE.
That was pretty epic to say the least,and the sound was great where we were (front row ~ center in the balcony/they removed the seats on the floor & that was all GA).

Also seen a lotta shows in MKE @ the Eagles ballroom,which is a pretty nice mid-sized place to see a show.
One of the best of those was Alice In Chains - TAD & Sweetwater back in '93.

Down in ATX there were some pretty nice small to midsized venues to see shows at too.

AMH is nice enough,though they could'nt do shows with any big pyrotechnics or such. Stubbs is pretty cool too.
The Backyard is also kinda cool also,really too many places down there thru the years to list them all.

I guess what I'm getting at is venue size often correlates to the size of the city your in (as well as the popularity of the artist in question).
IE: If you live in a bigger city (and the artist you're seeing has a large following) it only stands to reason that the venue size is going to be bigger as a result.

The flip side is some artists totally bypass small/midsized markets as they cant properly accomodate the crowd said artist would likely draw.
But from time to time great shows will happen in the oddest venues one can imagine.

Heck one time I saw Pat Travers play for free behind a music store down in ATX (Lightning Music on 183 IIRC),that was waaayyy cool,LOL. :rockon:

FWIW

Bret P.
 
Selling out a 20K+ seat arena full of screaming fans is good for stroking your ego (I'm sure).

Yes, a lot of "older" bands are scaling back to smaller venues. Some out of necessity--waning popularity, missing original members, and just too old to "rock the house" in a stadium any more--that takes a lot of energy. Others just choose the more "intimate" venues to provide a better experience for their true fans--and those fans are getting older too, and don't want to deal with "zoo" atmosphere of a show at a huge venue.

I also agree that the size of the venue has nothing to do with the sound quality--that is up to the sound guys and how well they deal with the venue acoustics. On the same tour, I saw Metallica at a small venue, and it was horrible--then I saw them a month or so later at RFK stadium and the sound was awesome.


Good points.

The Allman Brothers Band found new life and a new generation of fans by doing their annual 2 week stands at the Beacon Theater every March. It was the perfect formula for them. Old rockers playing multiple gigs in an elegant theater right in Manhattan. Every set was different so old and new fans would buy tickets to multiple shows and tour NYC by day. They only had to set up and take down their equipment once and they got to sleep in the same bed every night rather than jump on a bus.

And the payday was nothing to sneer at.
 
I gave up on big concerts a few years ago. have seen hundreds in my lifetime. I don't enjoy the environment and the crowds and noise level is unbearable to me. Pretty much opposite of 30 years ago. But it's not that I am old, I just now appreciate the music more and want a more intimate experience.

A few years ago my friends and I bought tickets to the local Van Halen show with Dave just for kicks (Dave sucks). KWS band was the opener. I would have been fine with leaving shortly into VH first set if needed. The tickest were only $25 and KWS is worth that. So we go set up and tailgate the parking lot with all the other 50ish year old farts LOL. Wouldn't you know it, Dave doesn't show due to being "sick". They canceled the show while we were in the parking lot! The only reason I was mad is we paid to park in the stadium lot and no refund!

Anyway, the biggest shows I go to now are under 10,000. Usually about 5,000. Most often under 1,000 though. My favorite venue is Ramshead Onstage in Annapolis , MD.

I try to catch the "new" bands (if you can call 10-15 years new) at small venue and bars now. There is some really great music and experiences at that level. I sometimes like to go see artists that were big names back in the day and aren't as popular now but play great music.

Also some of the "big names" do prefer playing the smaller places but demand and $$ wins so they do it. But they sometime do smaller shows that they don't really advertise for obvious reasons. Sometimes they do a "small venue" tour between other things. They also usually play more of what they want to play instead of they typical radio hits or whatever. Sometime a different type of music. I enjoy seeing them out of their "comfort zone" and also the excitement they get and transfer to the fans. They aren't on auto pilot.

A couple years ago we went to see Peter Frampton's new acoustic tour. It was his 2nd ever acoustic show. It was a venue of about 5,000. We were 2nd row center. It was a great experience!! Like sitting in his living room with him. He was raw, a little nervous and Humble (see what i did there?).
 
Last edited:
1.) Gradually declining hearng acuity
2.) Excessive marijuana smoke/mud if outdoors
3.) North of 40 (44 later this Spring...) and simply getting older

During that zone between the agesof 15 and 35 or so, I loved attending concerts, the larger the crowd, the better. Now, approaching my mid-40s, the experience simply doesn't have the same allure as it used to. When you're younger and have that naive sense of invicibility, having your brains and ears blown out at 110+ dB for a few hours amongst a crowd of roaring fans seems quite the life-altering experience. Evenutally, the tinnitus may let up, the ticket goes into a scrapbook, and the t-shirt and poster is placed into the "merch" stash.

The most recent live performance I attended (Summer 2016) was that of a small classical ensemble (two violinists, one bassist, and one cellist) on a stage in front of what appeared to be approximately 200 people at a local cultural center and I must say is was much less taxing on my nervous system, very relaxing, and quite the aural treat. My last rock show was 2015's "Riot Fest" in Union Park on the Near West Side of Chicago. Seeing acts such as Detroit-based Death, System of a Down, Motorhead, Anthrax, et al. was visually awesome but in the end proved to be way too loud, smoky, and muddy for my pre-"old man" sensibilities. Going forward, I'll gladly drop-off/pick-up my 17-year-old daughter from Wiz Khalifa/Fallout Boy/Avenge Sevenfold/Bring Me the Horizon shows but while protecting my remaining hearing from the parking lot.

As a good portion of prior posters have stated, the stadium appearances are most likely driven by a confluence of age, artist popularity, and the desire to obtain as much revenue as possible per appearance. I will unabashedly state that if I had their talent and the ability to draw that many individuals to see me "work" at any given point in time, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
 
Let them do their tour, buy the DVD for a few bucks, then lounge on the couch with high fidelity and a big screen. That's what I've done for years.
 
I suspect that one's attraction to stadium shows is related to one's age. In my youth, I saw many a good group in stadium shows (Dead, Stones, Who, Allmans...), but wouldn't even consider going to such a show nowadays (e.g., U2 is coming to FedEx field this summer. I'd like to see them in a modestly-sized venue, but not in a stadium). The older one gets, the more one likes seated, modestly-sized venues.


Somewhere- probably amongst the flotsam stored in my parents' attic- is an issue of Musician Magazine from 1983, a periodical long out of print.

It contains an interview with a then-young Bono. In it he rants about the death of the punk rock ethic of eliminating the separation between band and audience. He goes on to declare that he will "Never play a large stadium."

Was it youthful idealism? Modesty of his band's still unrealized potential?

Or maybe the advent of things to come with regards to Bono.
 
Let them do their tour, buy the DVD for a few bucks, then lounge on the couch with high fidelity and a big screen. That's what I've done for years.
Ditto. I'm a big fan of Foreigner from "way back" and simply love the excellent DTS sound encoding and excellent camera work from their "Alive and Rockin'" DVD. I get to hear my favorites ranging from "Head Games," "Dirty White Boy," and "Jukebox Hero" without tripping over beer cans, catching elbows, and asking others to repeat what they said for the next two weeks. Other favorites discs include performances by Genesis, Three Doors Down (awesome sound), Prince, and Queen. And to top it off, I get to enjoy the show with my favorite attendee in the whole world: my wife of 20 years. :)
 
Somewhere- probably amongst the flotsam stored in my parents' attic- is an issue of Musician Magazine from 1983, a periodical long out of print.

It contains an interview with a then-young Bono. In it he rants about the death of the punk rock ethic of eliminating the separation between band and audience. He goes on to declare that he will "Never play a large stadium."

Was it youthful idealism? Modesty of his band's still unrealized potential?

Or maybe the advent of things to come with regards to Bono.

Didn't a wise philosopher once sing 'I hope I die before I get old...?" :)
 
Somewhere- probably amongst the flotsam stored in my parents' attic- is an issue of Musician Magazine from 1983, a periodical long out of print.

It contains an interview with a then-young Bono. In it he rants about the death of the punk rock ethic of eliminating the separation between band and audience. He goes on to declare that he will "Never play a large stadium."

Was it youthful idealism? Modesty of his band's still unrealized potential?

Or maybe the advent of things to come with regards to Bono.
Any mention of him saying he wouldn't buy a plane ticket for his forgotten favourite hat?

My guess is that if time travel was a thing, young Bono would kick middle aged Bono's ass.
I actually dig a fair bit of U2, but I don't think I've ever thought or said, "Aw, come on, man!" more than when he opens his mouth compared to anyone else.
 
Not sure how this is relevant if the conversation is followed...

One would pay the price of a typical Broadway show.
No big name rock act is going to commit to an ongoing engagement in a smaller venue when they can make the same amount in a single night in a stadium. Unless, of course, it's for big, big money. So I repeat: how much are you willing to pay?
 
No big name rock act is going to commit to an ongoing engagement in a smaller venue when they can make the same amount in a single night in a stadium. Unless, of course, it's for big, big money. So I repeat: how much are you willing to pay?

Like I said before, this is then out of context.

The question was would any put their art over money, as in one big pay day rather than many smaller ones.... for the musics sake.

I guess you are saying no.
 
Well, Kate Bush played the Hammersmith Apollo for a string of shows in 2014 and given that the shows sold out in 15 minutes (I think) she probably could have been in a bigger venue (a couple of night in Wembley would have been more people than 22 days at the HA.) Given that there are other factors going on with her, I am going to say that she is one who will put art over money for one big pay day, sort of.

I'm curious about the underlying assumption of your question, which is that it is inherently more artistic to do a show in a smaller venue. Intuitively I want to agree with you. But what makes it so?
 
If you look at touring musicians these days, many need to have a sponsor to help pay the bills. Touring is an expensive proposition. Many people don't think of all the money it takes to travel around the country. The days of big stadium venues are left to big name acts mainly. Also, just think of all the musicians out there fighting to put fannies in the seats.
 
Back
Top Bottom