Adele was recently booed at by her own audience after announcing she was planning a 2012 Arena Tour, after saying she would never play one. The crowds reaction may be slightly harsh, but are they right? Are they an effective way of performing to the huge amounts of people, or just simply a money-making scheme?
They are undeniably a good way to perform to vast crowds, but it can't be ignored that these huge performances are often accompanied by equally huge ticket prices. Some tickets, for example Michael Buble have sold for £200+! I've been to big arena tours, and small venue gigs, some I've liked, and some I've not. I have come to realise that I'll never see bands I love such as Green Day in a small venue - arena tours are sadly as good as I'll ever get. But for increasingly popular bands such as The Vaccines, it would be a definite shame for them to ditch their small intimate shows for huge commercialised venues.
I think there's a good argument for both huge arenas and small venues. While there's something magical about the atmosphere of small venues, vast crowds provide huge amounts of energy that small venues can't compete with. That said, if someone said that I could choose between seeing Green Day at a small venue, or an arena, I would not hesitate in choosing the small gig.
As for Adele, yes she may have gone back on what she first said, but who can blame her for wanting to make some more money?
No comments:
Post a Comment