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.