PJ and EV Need A New Tour Manager

Captain Nick

Same old East and West Coast cities, while the rest of us get no love.

Murderers.

Captain Nick wrote:

Same old East and West Coast cities, while the rest of us get no love.

I'm pretty sure the band decide where they play.

Captain Nick

Sawyer wrote:

You're in Lincoln dude....other than maybe 311, who the hell comes there.....drive or hop on a plane.

At $4 a gallon Doc, I can't even afford to drive to work.

sward

I guarantee you that part of the reason is the 2000 and 2003 tours where they took a look at the areas that were well attended as opposed to the ones that weren't, and then decided to focus more on the well attended areas. That's smart business planning to me ;-)

Captain Nick

"I go where they tell me" - Ed Vedder (Picture in a Frame)

digster

One thing I wish they would do more often is do a combination of theatre/arena tour. I agree that on the 2000 and 2003 tours there were some areas, for example in the South, that were not as heavily attended. Well then, instead of just skipping places like New Orleans, Houston, Austin, etc. completely why not do a theater show? It's like they feel like they can only do shows now in 15,000 seat arenas and ampitheaters, but it does not have to be like that. They and their crew are perfectly capable of mixing and matching. R.E.M. did it just a few years back; instead of skipping a city altogether, go to the venue that is best for the fanbase you have in that city. It wouldn't mean that many more shows, and considering how much this band seems to prefer the intimacy of these settings as opposed to the sprawling arenas, I'm surprised they don't do it.

Eliot Rosewater

sward wrote:

I guarantee you that part of the reason is the 2000 and 2003 tours where they took a look at the areas that were well attended as opposed to the ones that weren't, and then decided to focus more on the well attended areas. That's smart business planning to me ;-)

Exactly. That's why I don't bitch (much) about them not playing SLC for ten years. I get it....they're doing what makes sense.

Eliot Rosewater

digster wrote:

and considering how much this band seems to prefer the intimacy of these settings as opposed to the sprawling arenas, I'm surprised they don't do it.

I dunno about that...they play a lot of festivals these days....and Ed was clearly taken aback at the presence of nearly 100,000 people at Bonnaroo.

JaneNY

digster wrote:

One thing I wish they would do more often is do a combination of theatre/arena tour. I agree that on the 2000 and 2003 tours there were some areas, for example in the South, that were not as heavily attended. Well then, instead of just skipping places like New Orleans, Houston, Austin, etc. completely why not do a theater show?

And then they'll have to charge more, and people will complain about *that*.

Captain Nick

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Exactly. That's why I don't bitch (much) about them not playing SLC for ten years. I get it....they're doing what makes sense.

I don't know. All the cities I've seen PJ in, Kansas City, St. Louis, Denver and Omaha were all at or near capacity.

RobbieC2008

They only played Lollapalooza and Bonnaroo festivals didnt they? And bonnaroo was only 65,000. They play cities where they know they will sell out tickets for $70 a clip. But I now wonder if they will play in OK City, the new home of the Oklahoma Sonics...that is the WORST sports move I think EVER

on2legs

digster wrote:

One thing I wish they would do more often is do a combination of theatre/arena tour. I agree that on the 2000 and 2003 tours there were some areas, for example in the South, that were not as heavily attended. Well then, instead of just skipping places like New Orleans, Houston, Austin, etc. completely why not do a theater show? It's like they feel like they can only do shows now in 15,000 seat arenas and ampitheaters, but it does not have to be like that. They and their crew are perfectly capable of mixing and matching. R.E.M. did it just a few years back; instead of skipping a city altogether, go to the venue that is best for the fanbase you have in that city. It wouldn't mean that many more shows, and considering how much this band seems to prefer the intimacy of these settings as opposed to the sprawling arenas, I'm surprised they don't do it.

Yeah, but.... they still have the same expenses they would for a big arena show and now they are playing a venue that is much smaller according to your plan. So their expenses stay the same, but they are taking home a lot less money.

TransplantedNewf

Dude. Do you know how many times Pearl Jam has set foot in Newfoundland? Yeah, once.

Like someone else said, hop on a plane. If they don't come to you, quit the complaining and go to them.

Captain Nick

On2Legs wrote:

Yeah, but.... they still have the same expenses they would for a big arena show and now they are playing a venue that is much smaller according to your plan. So their expenses stay the same, but they are taking home a lot less money.

I'd pay considerably more to see them in a more intimate setting.

Hell, next time I get a chance to see them, I am going strait to Ebay or a ticketbroker to get decent seats. I've been dissapointed by 10C seating too many times.

Eliot Rosewater

RobbieC2008 wrote:

They only played Lollapalooza and Bonnaroo festivals didnt they? And bonnaroo was only 65,000. They play cities where they know they will sell out tickets for $70 a clip. But I now wonder if they will play in OK City, the new home of the Oklahoma Sonics...that is the WORST sports move I think EVER

I've heard different numbers on Bonnaroo...but all have been more than 65,000. Either way, that's way more than most places they play.

They played a bunch of festivals in Europe last year didn't they? I think they did.

Yes, OK City isn't gonna last long in the NBA, IMO. Unless that entire town turns into NBA fanatics. I doubt it though...NBA is too many games for people to care about the regular season. OK City is certainly a downgrade in terms of market from Seattle.

Wilds

This is completely speculative on my part, but perhaps the global footprint, time, and cost of traveling to Dallas for example is too high.

When you hit the East or West Coast you have full arenas, often multiple nights, all within a few hundred miles from each other.

If you are jumping all over the midwest and South, the reality of additional travel days, without the luxury of a two or three night say in one spot, plus the cost of Gas, plus the cost to the environment, it just doesn't seem to work for them.

Now with a new album, I wouldn't be shocked to see them hit some of these places, but it will always be sporadic.

They just don't have a large enough fan base to support touring these areas very often.

digster

On2Legs wrote:

Yeah, but.... they still have the same expenses they would for a big arena show and now they are playing a venue that is much smaller according to your plan. So their expenses stay the same, but they are taking home a lot less money.

Why would their expenses be the same? Theaters are smaller obviously, so they require less crew. Even if all of PJ's regular crew makes the trips to those shows (unlikely since they will probably not all be necessary), PJ like every other rock band has to hire local crews to do work as well. Not nearly as many people would be needed, which would mean there would not be as many expenses. Additionally, since the majority of these shows would be in the South and Middle America, you could group alot of them together, which would mean that it would not have to be arena/theater/arena/theater. Also, I don't think they would have to charge much more. Let's take an average theater; United Palace in NY for example (since I don't know examples of theaters in Austin, Houston, etc). Almost 4,000 people can fit in the theater. So instead of doing one show at a half-full arena, they do two shows at a theater such as this one; that'd be almost 8,000 seats. Would there be people going both nights? Sure, but we're talking about the difference between two Pearl Jam shows in your town or none. And therefore, since the approximately same amounts of seats would be available, tickets wouldn't have to skyrocket.

Would it mean that the band might be taking home 1.1 million dollars instead of 1.3 million dollars (making numbers up off the top of my head)? Maybe, I'm no expert in this stuff. It just seems logical, fun and the right thing. It's just that other than one-offs like the Vic and Beacon, the band doesn't seem into playing theater shows, or putting together a theater tour.

LONGRD

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

...

Yes, OK City isn't gonna last long in the NBA, IMO. Unless that entire town turns into NBA fanatics. I doubt it though...NBA is too many games for people to care about the regular season. OK City is certainly a downgrade in terms of market from Seattle.

Yup, I think that stupid move will only backfire...the south region* is college basketball country- pro teams are hardly successful down there.

*other than the recent success of Texas teams of course.

Captain Nick

digster wrote:

Why would their expenses be the same? Theaters are smaller obviously, so they require less crew. Even if all of PJ's regular crew makes the trips to those shows (unlikely since they will probably not all be necessary), PJ like every other rock band has to hire local crews to do work as well. Not nearly as many people would be needed, which would mean there would not be as many expenses. Additionally, since the majority of these shows would be in the South and Middle America, you could group alot of them together, which would mean that it would not have to be arena/theater/arena/theater. Also, I don't think they would have to charge much more. Let's take an average theater; United Palace in NY for example (since I don't know examples of theaters in Austin, Houston, etc). Almost 4,000 people can fit in the theater. So instead of doing one show at a half-full arena, they do two shows at a theater such as this one; that'd be almost 8,000 seats. Would there be people going both nights? Sure, but we're talking about the difference between two Pearl Jam shows in your town or none. And therefore, since the approximately same amounts of seats would be available, tickets wouldn't have to skyrocket.

Would it mean that the band might be taking home 1.1 million dollars instead of 1.3 million dollars (making numbers up off the top of my head)? Maybe, I'm no expert in this stuff. It just seems logical, fun and the right thing. It's just that other than one-offs like the Vic and Beacon, the band doesn't seem into playing theater shows, or putting together a theater tour.

Other than the parts that made my head hurt, this made some sense. Besides, if it is all about money (which I don't believe is the case) whouldn't they make more by actually playing than not. Check and mate.

Captain Nick

LongRd. wrote:

Yup, I think that stupid move will only backfire...the south region* is college basketball country- pro teams are hardly successful down there.

*other than the recent success of Texas teams of course.

Yep, seems silly to me. But then again, basketball is only there to kill time between football seasons.

ajedigecko

Captain Nick wrote:

Yep, seems silly to me. But then again, basketball is only there to kill time between football seasons.

check your pm.

falcon

They're only going to have an extensive, time-consuming tour after they release an album.
I'm ecstatic that they chose to play some shows this summer. We're lucky, guys. Lucky. And spoiled.

pjalive21

sward wrote:

I guarantee you that part of the reason is the 2000 and 2003 tours where they took a look at the areas that were well attended as opposed to the ones that weren't, and then decided to focus more on the well attended areas. That's smart business planning to me ;-)

yes and no

you make money staying in the areas where you are more attended but you alienate a big fan base in the rest of the country that will stop buying your product and listening to your music

also if you oversaturate your product in that more attended area there is a greater chance people will stop showing up as well because of the greater opportunity to see you year in and year out

as far as the arguement of "why dont you just get on a plane or drive to the east of west coast" how about you coasters constantly drive to the midwest or the south over and over again with the economy the way it is and see if you dont gripe, maybe just a little bit

for me personally i have Chicago to lean back on because Ed and the band goes there every so often, other people dont have that luxury so i feel for them

Drop The Leash 10

shut up

Captain Nick

Drop The Leash 10 wrote:

shut up

Wow! It stayed civil for 24 posts. That's much more than I expected.

lukin2006

Captain Nick wrote:

Same old East and West Coast cities, while the rest of us get no love.

Well I had to drive from southern ontario to Boston and Hartford and enjoyed myself, got to see Boston and Connecticut and took a trip to Rhode Island, so I got to see places I've never been before, very enjoyable and the people I met along the way were great.

Captain Nick

lukin2006 wrote:

Well I had to drive from southern ontario to Boston and Hartford and enjoyed myself, got to see Boston and Connecticut and took a trip to Rhode Island, so I got to see places I've never been before, very enjoyable and the people I met along the way were great.

I miss those days where I could just pick up and go to a show 300 miles away. I had some good times when I was younger. Unfortunately we all get older and aquire responsibilities. My wife and I are expecting our first child and I don't think she would think too kindly if I just took off to go to a "Rock and Roll" show. Sorry, but I'm building a life here.

MattyJoe

Well we'll see what happens for the next album tour. This was a short tour so I wouldn't expect them to get really in depth with what cities they go to.

lukin2006

Captain Nick wrote:

I miss those days where I could just pick up and go to a show 300 miles away. I had some good times when I was younger. Unfortunately we all get older and aquire responsibilities. My wife and I are expecting our first child and I don't think she would think too kindly if I just took off to go to a "Rock and Roll" show. Sorry, but I'm building a life here.

I hear you, and understand, I'm just glad they are still touring and I can attend shows, I just don't think they'll do any mega tours anymore, even with a new album I think they'll just play where the populous seems to be, best chance at selling large amounts of tickets and cuts down on touring costs. As fuel prices rise so will the cost of shows, so I'm sure that played a major roll in doing just the East as it probably allowed them to tour and keep prices lower.

sward

digster wrote:

One thing I wish they would do more often is do a combination of theatre/arena tour. I agree that on the 2000 and 2003 tours there were some areas, for example in the South, that were not as heavily attended. Well then, instead of just skipping places like New Orleans, Houston, Austin, etc. completely why not do a theater show? It's like they feel like they can only do shows now in 15,000 seat arenas and ampitheaters, but it does not have to be like that. They and their crew are perfectly capable of mixing and matching. R.E.M. did it just a few years back; instead of skipping a city altogether, go to the venue that is best for the fanbase you have in that city. It wouldn't mean that many more shows, and considering how much this band seems to prefer the intimacy of these settings as opposed to the sprawling arenas, I'm surprised they don't do it.

I do wish, for the south sake,they would pick a spot or two and play them. Just to give those fans a chance to make it without too much of expense (albeit an expense for sure). That said, I think they feel they are doing that with a couple of the spots on this tour. Maybe the next one will be more in depth, or at least a little better represented.

Anyway, I'm in Halifax.....I don't see them unless I travel (save for 1 time), so I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy. hahah