http://beatcrave.com/2009-08-03/does-bigge...an-better-show/

 

 

Does Bigger Concert Stage Mean Better Show?

By Jeffrey Hyatt

 

http://i30.tinypic.com/xoeclf.jpg

 

With Sunday’s cancellation of a country music festival in central Alberta a day after a fierce thunderstorm caused an outdoor stage to collapse and Madonna’s stage collapse in preparation of a concert in Marseilles, France – not too mention the angry Dubliners who took to the streets to protest the noisy, around-the-clock dismantling of U2’s humongous stage set – it hasn’t been the best of summers for elaborate concert productions.

 

Saturday’s stage collapse at the Big Valley Jamboree in Camrose (60 miles southeast of Edmonton), resulted in 1 dead and 75 injured, and was blamed on severe weather. The Madonna tragedy in France, killing two and injuring dozens, is still under investigation. There’s no doubt that a closer look is being given to the safety procedures associated with these over-sized concert stages, usually overflowing with lighting and sound equipment, video screens and all sorts of fancy design architecture built to provide the audience a big spectacle.

 

Accidents happen. Bad weather can be unpredictable. The grandiose concert staging isn’t going anywhere, so it becomes more a matter of safety procedures – for both the people who build these stage behemoths and the fans who attend the shows.

 

Still, is it really necessary to see U2 perform beneath a humongous claw-like stage? It’s impressive, there’s no denying that. It’s a triumph of concert design. But a big stage, a few neatly placed video screens to help fans at the back of the stadium and a solid sound system might work just as well. The Joshua Tree Tour in ’88 was like this. The PopMart Tour in ’97 was not.

 

It’s hard to take the intimacy of a club show and put that in a stadium that holds 60,000. Some love the pyrotechnics and light shows and dancers and whatever else a band or artist can throw at the fans. Others are happy for a stack of amps, clean stage lines and their favorite band going all-out on stage for 2 1/2 hours.

 

I imagine there is this need by bands and their management to add the extra splash of sizzle and flash when they are charging so much for a concert ticket.

 

It also comes down to the type of act. Certain pop stars just wouldn’t look right without 20 back-up dancers, video montages and slick light shows. Whereas a rock band might be right at home on a lonely stage, with only the music to keep the audience’s attention.

 

Hopefully the Madonna incident is an isolated case. The Big Valley Jamboree tragedy might open the floor to new ideas about outdoor festivals and handing severe weather issues. Perhaps new stage designs are necessary to handle the elements better, or stage-to-fan proximity might be addressed as well.

 

It’s not a perfect science when you drop a mammoth stage set in the middle of a field surrounded by thousands of people.

 

While I have seen many shows with plenty of razzle-dazzle, I much prefer the stripped-down approach. It doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate Janet Jackson’s Velvet Rope tour with the dancers and colorful scenery, but there is just something about Elvis Costello walking onto a small stage and jamming from start to finish – not an explosion in sight.

 

I think most music fans can appreciate any concert experience, as long as the music is not overshadowed by the theatrics.

 

What the tragedies in Canada and France have highlighted is that it’s a tough and dangerous job to build and tear down these jumbo stage constructions night after night.

 

Hopefully better stage construction practices will come out of examining these incidents.

 

The stage shows will only get bigger and more complex. That’s not a bad thing, just so long as the artists keep in mind the central narrative to any good concert: the music.

 

Do you prefer a stadium concert with all the fancy stage designs, or an intimate setting with just the band and the music?

What's everyone's thoughts on this? I'm kind of reserving judgement till I see U2.

 

However, I found it really refreshing the other week when Bruce Springsteen appeared on stage with nothing but his guitar and band and belted out hits for 3 hours. No dancers. No slick lighting. No clowns, elephants, fireworks. Nothing.

 

It was just good old fashioned rock music. All raw and from the heart.

 

A guy at my work said to me the next day that that's how concerts should be and that all these acts with the 'fantastic' extravaganza shows just add all the extras to take the audience's mind off their inability to sing. :lol:

 

Now I wouldn't go that far but it did get me thinking. Robbie's dancers for instance really annoyed me. I just kept thinking 'bugger off and leave Robbie on stage just with his band'. But then that's probably the rock chick in me. :lol:

Well U2's 360 show is incredible to say the least, but I still have to say I think I would rather see them doing a stripped back performance like the Elevation Tour shows (Slane & Boston). Although I am not really sure with U2 now I think about it. There is no other band better at doing the over the top massive stage shows. I mean Zoo TV and Popmart were revolutionary, and I suppose 360 is as well. I would love to see them in an arena though, such as the O2 in Dublin. Only 14,000 people with amazing sound would be perfect :wub:

 

With Robbie for example, I would def rather see him revert back to doing stipped back performances. His Slane performance ten years ago still is one of the best concerts I have ever seen - so much better than the over the top Close Encounter show. Although it is alot more difficult for pop stars to get away with not having special effects - and tbh most of them would be awful just getting up without loads of dancers, light shows etc. Robbie is one of the very few who does not need anything other than the band. Bruce has never tried special effects etc, and he was definatly up there with U2 - and in terms of performance he was slightly better I think. I kinda feel U2 put alot more effort into interacting with the crowd and giving an amazing performance when they do a stripped back show. For example on the Monday gig in Dublin, Bono barely moved away from the mike. He didnt even run around for 'Streets' :o

Yeah, you'd be sure to get tix for U2 in a 14,000 venue in Dublin. :lol:

In some cases, I think smaller is better, in regards to concerts, but, with the way people are always clamoring for everything over the top, I just don't see too many big name acts doing it these days.... :unsure: