this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1604 points (98.5% liked)

Memes

46302 readers
1879 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
1604
Reminder— (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 days ago by SuperCub@sh.itjust.works to c/memes@lemmy.ml
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That doesn't mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them)

Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials... I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires.

Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can't handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract.

Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn't reasonable.