The Weekly DiScussion: Is stadium rock back?

are basically one-day festivals though. So the value for money lies right there, in a one-day bill for £50-odd with six or seven similar bands you're more likely to like if you like the headliner.

Also, I won't wistfully look back on Razorlight at Reading last year, but I might feasibly look back on Blur, Pearl Jam, Metallica, Pumpkins or Maiden at Readings in the very recent past, or someone like Kiss or Priest at Download this year.

Oasis played Knebworth twice as well, so there's no distinct dividing line.

Is rocking a stadium the new festivals? Possibly, yeah. But only because there are now eighty-six zillion festivals, most of which vary very very little, and putting on an all-day stadium gig offers the 'fans' of that band a much better experience than waiting around for three days in a field in Berkshire - and is much cheaper.

are always shit.

UNDISPUTABLE FAKT

the only problem is that most bands big enough to do these shows are pretty bland.

maiden + tallica and the like are really where its at, and the demand is clearly there. the maiden twickenham show sold out in a flash and tickets are going for £60 a pop on ebay

had ever gone away, certainly not for the 1 gig per year folk at any rate.

And football mathces.

with a poor education and having far fingers.

Glad we cleared that one up.

...headlined a stadium?

thomascraig you are ridiculous.

but had no problem with the acoustic at Wembley for Muse at all either. I think like the article says, you've got to be right kind of band to be able to pull off a stadium performance, the line between a totally amazing stadium gig and an utterly utterly shit one is pretty fine, but its amazing it really is fantastic. Having said that festivals are still better because they're a bit more than just about the music aren't they. Re-creating a festival atmosphere in a multi-million pound grey bowl just can't be done..

..that is unless the Levellers headlined Wembley..

article has been a bit selective...

glasto this year isnt very helpful and there are certainly a fair few bands that have headlined festivals of recent that perhaps didnt have the clout to pull it off/deserve it.

but there were the chili peppers at reading/leeds last year. may have been an awful performance but definitely a stadium band who have played stadium shows consistantly since californication. Foos, U2 and Muse have all been doing it for the past few years quite regularly too.

Look at Reading this year... Perhaps The Killers are a weak link in back catalogues but Metallica and RATM reforming after 8 years is gonna be massive for a lot of people.

don't be a tool.

How much has this sight banged on about primavera/ Hove/ dour/ truck/ ATP's.....they are exciting because you get to see a range of bands. At UK festivals if you go go to see the main band it can be a disapointment because the 'big festivals' tend to have short set times, meaning bands cant do such a big show. However try an ER festival and you will find that most of them give longer set times, therefore the bands can give a better show, and will often bring more of a set etc.

Its two different experiences, stadium and festival.
For example, Id happily go to a festival to see REM. I tried to get tickets for albert hall and didnt. I didnt even consider going to see them in a stadium. I wouldnt go and see ANY of my heroes in a stadium in fact. The only band ive seen be trully amazing in a big venue like that was massive attack at the Birmingham NEC during mezzanine......and that was only good becaue the bass reverb was bone shuddering

are based on their ability to play stadiums.

I'll let Tom Waits know, shall I.

A trues sign is knowing of an acts popularity is when they know they can sell huge amounts of tickets and choose to do smaller shows, or just do impompu shows ( as i believe beck sometimes does)

I'd rather see Los Campesinos! in a shitty tiny club than the fucking Foo Fighters in a stadium. By far.

Quite a nice article, writing wise. I disagree with it, violently, but it was a good read and a pretty bold move considering DiS's readership

fair enough, it was brilliant and I'm glad I went, but I'm not sure it could ever compare to a half decent festival.

are headlining a festival in a railway shed that's smaller than Rock City. A bit irrelevant in a stadium rock discussion..

...is U2, for me anyway. Everyone else was a band in an air craft hanger, but U2 filled the fucker in every aspect.

This is up there in my top 10 indie comments of the year!

U2, Muse and Springsteen.

REM, Oasis, Chili Peppers, etc. play stadiums because there's enough demand for them to, but it doesn't seem to impact the show.

To each their own and all that, but for me the bigger the venue = the less memorable/special/fun/exciting the gig. I'm kind of appalled by these hugely expensive stadium shows, but I guess that they're just not for me, so you know... whatever.

Still, anyone who pays £40-50 for 70s punk reformations is a fucking cunt. ;)

Oh, you.

at Nottingham Arena for £30ish a few years back, I swore never to go to an arena/stadium show ever, ever again. It's just not worth it.

Festivals I have no problem with.. at Primavera I got to see 90% of the bands I wanted from a pretty good vantage point, and the atmosphere compensates. But at arena/stadium shows, you're invariably surrounded by sociopathic cunts who don't often go to gigs and act like cunts.

I saw Death Cab in Rock City and they underwhelmed me, wheras in a smaller club they are much better. Also not all bands can play arenas credibly. I think I'm happy seeing an older Classic Rock band in that environment cos they know how to project, wheras a lot of newer bands seem a bit lost to me.

I prefer small club gigs or festies really.