|
|
Post by antoine010891 on Mar 1, 2009 21:50:40 GMT
You have 3 types of sound: Stadium rock and that (U2, AC/DC, Oasis, The Who) Small venue rough sound (La's, Beatles, acoustic acts like Fretwell) And the one in between (KOL, Stone Roses) These are just my opinion of course, but that's the way I've always seen it  |
|
|
|
Post by mc18988 on Mar 1, 2009 22:01:43 GMT
At first I thought KOL had made the songs on the new album just for stadium gigs, didn't like the album
BUT after goin watchin them at the MEN and seeing the new stuff live was immense, completely understand why they did it, some of the older stuff doesn't work in massive venues so theyve added songs to play in stadiums
They have also wrote songs for the radio and that and tried to breakthrough, which they have and have deserved recognition for, I don't blame em tbh
As for the beatles, they did both stadiums and small venues didn't they? Im sure ive seen a video of a stadium full of people screaming and crying whilst watchin them
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Mar 1, 2009 23:16:30 GMT
yeah id say beatles belong in stadiums too.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal on Mar 2, 2009 11:24:46 GMT
no such thing as whether something "belongs" in a Stadium. All bands have to start somewhere, Oasis first airing of Rock N Roll Star wasnt at Wembley was it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Mar 2, 2009 12:20:13 GMT
disagree, certain music is better suited to certain types of venues. didnt say u2 automatically played their first gig at wembley.
|
|
|
|
Post by antoine010891 on Mar 2, 2009 16:59:41 GMT
The thing about The Beatles playing at all is bullshit. They stopped playing live because they were sick of screaming girls, they still played occasionally, but it wan't often, and whne they did, it wasn't in stadiums, I don't think.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal on Mar 2, 2009 18:13:28 GMT
if your a massive band, like really big, its impracticle to play small venues, i think if theres demand for tickets, get into a stadium.
Although i prefer smaller gigs and agree that some bands suit playing stadiums more than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by mc18988 on Mar 2, 2009 18:54:46 GMT
bands obviously have to play bigger venues when they get bigger to match demand, certain bands were better in smaller venues some better in stadiums heres a video for ant, beatles at shea stadium i think www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGV5P1ePILclike most bands i think the beatles started small then had to play big venues, impractible due to demand etc not like i was alive then tho!  |
|
|
|
Post by Fergal on Mar 2, 2009 19:01:40 GMT
bands obviously have to play bigger venues when they get bigger to match demand, certain bands were better in smaller venues some better in stadiums heres a video for ant, beatles at shea stadium i think www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGV5P1ePILclike most bands i think the beatles started small then had to play big venues, impractible due to demand etc not like i was alive then tho! You'd have to ask Fastfuse He was old even then. But aye, its all supply and demand, and the more demand there is, the bigger venues band play, the bigger the songs start to sound, the bigger the new songs sound, the more money they can throw at recording, the bigger and (arguably) better it all sounds, bigger bands = bigger venues = bigger budget = bigger sounding songs |
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Mar 2, 2009 19:10:32 GMT
I agree with Cal, I dont really like big gigs much rather go to Wolvermapton Civic or the Birmingham academy to watch a band. I loathe the NIA and NEC in Birmingham, they are souless horrible school gyms! but as bands get bigger it just makes more sense to play a few massive gigs (Artic Monkeys, U2, Oasis, KOL etc). whats the point in playing the apollo 5 nights on the bounce, even if though you get fucked over on the price of beer and end up watching the gig on a screen?  |
|
|
|
Post by antoine010891 on Mar 2, 2009 19:11:22 GMT
Can I try to put this into some sort of perspective. Say that The Smiths and The La's went huge worldwide, can you really imagine This Charming Man or Son Of A Gun being played at Wembley?? I can't, some sound just doesn't suit big places, the videos of The La's at Glastonbury 05' show it, it doesn't sound right. Either that or they were wiiiiiired.......
|
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Mar 2, 2009 19:59:41 GMT
Mathers was off his nut!!!!
The La's should have shone at Glastonbury that year, there songs are big enough for stadiums/festivals and the smiths!!
|
|
|
|
Post by benraul on Mar 2, 2009 20:51:41 GMT
At the end of the day it really doesnt matter. As long as you love the band and their music you will enjoy it no matter the venue. The venue doesnt make the gig. It might put you at a slight inconvenience i.e - smell, size etc but when the gig gets going its all about the tunes. If the act is good, thats all that matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by antoine010891 on Mar 2, 2009 21:08:30 GMT
What I first heard was that Mavers was actually recovering from a bad jaw and that he hadn't taken drugs, (cough cough bullshit). Yet I can't still imagine them in a big venue, the crouds at Glasto were massive for them though so I wouldn't put it completely past them. I just think that I'd rather see them in a small place to get a better taste of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Mar 2, 2009 21:43:55 GMT
yeah im not saying bands SHOULDNT do stadiums or anything of the sort, they should at least make the effort that backs up the upgrade though rather than putting on the same show.
|
|
