From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Re: in it for the money
Keywords: Money, Money , Money!
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:27:03 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

Before I start, Todd...it'd be REALLY coll if you wouldn't fuck around with
the headers of articles you post.

GL

In article <1992Jul22.204536.27229@sunspot.noao.edu> brown@sunspot.noao.edu (Todd Brown) writes:
>It seems they play where they recieve the highest return for the
>least hassle, IMHO. If they'd really rather play Red Rocks, ect..
>but are unable to because of the size of the crowds, why then do they
>abandon the area totally as opposed to finding a venue that enables
>them to give fans of that area, region a chance to see them. And
>why then by abandoning area, regions they in effect create the touring
>scene thus creating the glut of fans camping, pissing and trashing
>areas who then become anti-Dead. It seems if they tried playing
>more places all around they could cut down on some of this effect
>and at the same time make more of their fans happy, who are unable
>to travle the world to see a show.
>
>What I'm trying to say is there are places they could play but they
>seem to have settled on a certain group of places, and IMHO this
>can only equate to $$$$$$$$.

Todd, I understand your frustration, but I think there are more reasons, and
sound ones, than sheer dollars.  Many of those reasons are tactical, and
involve population densities of different parts of the country.

Sorry for the basic geography lesson here, but let's face it: the Northeast
is packed with a number of large metropolitan cities that are set REAL
close together.  To get that amount of equipment set up and torn down takes
several hours, and then it's shipped by truck (NOT air freight) to the next
venue, which in the east generally consists of from 2 to 8 hours of transit
time.

Those of us west of the Mississippi live in an area that is very SPARSELY
populated, and the metropolitan areas are many hundreds of miles apart,
separated by considerable geographic bits of diversity (mountains, deserts,
canyons) which make egress between the cities far less easy than on the 
east coast.  To attempt the frequency of tours they do elsewhere would beat 
the roadies to death and, given the fact that many of the 'metro' areas don't 
have a big suburban base to draw on means that many of those shows would 
simply not be economically viable.

The Dead covered a large amount of territory pre-'75.  The stresses caused by
this almost caused a permanent dissolution of the band and left most of them
in somewhat less than a fiscally sound state of affairs.  They learned from
this, tho, and have adjusted their touring accordingly.

We're extremely lucky (those of us in the Bay Area) because we get a lot of
shows because of the proximity of the band members homes, so we get more shows
than any other metro area.

And sure, the Dead are in part businessmen, but they treat their employees
from all accounts like an extended family rather than coolies, and have to
pay them and themselves and try to keep the show going.  I don't begrudge the
band making the money they do at all. 
>>
>But like eagle, I'll stay here in the wilderness, and I'm even higher
>9200ft., :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

And that's the choice you make, and it really is one we all make.  If, in
the balance of things, the wilderness is more important to you, than more
power to you.  My best wishes.

George Lambert

"Somewhere in San Francisco"