Small Venues vs. Big Venues

[Gorille85]

The other day, Lateralus and I were talking about the differences between a big and a small venue, and I thought it would be interestiong to see what DTF think of the subject!

By small venue, I mean really small, like 50 persons max. In general, you are really close to the band and you get a feeling of intimacy too. But on the other hand; the sound can be pretty bad, the show can be delayed, etc.

By big venue, I'm thinking big arenas, places like that. The venue is full of fans and the sound is incredible, but you're just one fan among all the others there.


Personnaly, after the Unexpect show sunday, I came to the conclusion that I enjoyed more the smaller venues (they played a tiny bar) because it's a more memorable experience all around (talking to the band, the proximity, etc.) So what about you?

[sonatafanica]

Hmm...large crowds have a really cool feel to them, and usually have better facilities for sound.

[Jakartabassplayer]

Big venues:
Have a great atmosphere.
there isnt much cooler than a large crowd going nuts at the same time

Small venues:
Cozy, drinks are cheaper
nice feeling of intimacy.

[7StringedBeast]

I've never been to a good music venue that only has 50 people.  I'd say 500-1000 people theaters are pretty freaking cool.

But there is something to be said about a really well known band with a great back catalog playing epic songs in front of 50,000 people and you are one of them.

[Ben_Jamin]

The majority of concerts i've been to have been in theater size places, no more than 500 people. Thats where all the less known bands play like kamelot, pt, all that remains etc. The only way we get shows in the big places is if it's a festival or real well known bands.

[Nick]

I think your entire thesis is wrong considering I've been at small venues that worked incredibly well and have had great sound, and I've seen shows at large venues that have had absolutely horrible sound.

[Gorille85]

I think your entire thesis is wrong considering I've been at small venues that worked incredibly well and have had great sound, and I've seen shows at large venues that have had absolutely horrible sound.

I wrote that because of my personnal experiences in both, I haven't been to 500 shows in my life. Just consider the number of people/proximity with the band if you want. I just thought that the acoustics were better in genreral in large arenas, that's all. And it's not really a thesis, it's just the pros ans cons of both from, again, my personnal experience.

[ariich]

I think your entire thesis is wrong considering I've been at small venues that worked incredibly well and have had great sound, and I've seen shows at large venues that have had absolutely horrible sound.

Yeah the sound quality has very little to do with the venue size in my experience and more to do with the sound team and equipment.

Anyway, both have their advantages and disadvantages. Small venues are more intimate, big venues are more epic. I wouldn't say either is better, they're just different.

So I picked Kevin Moore.

[Gorille85]

Small venues are more intimate, big venues are more epic.

I guess that's what I wanted to say in the OP...

[Chino]

There are a lot of bands that I am not a huge fan of, but enjoy enough songs that I will see them live. Those bands are the ones I like to see at big venues, usually ones with a lawn. If it is a band I really love to see live, like DT, I prefer to see them in a small venue. I have seen DT at Jones Beach, Radio City, The Meadows (CT large venue, lawn was closed), The Palladium, and The Oakdale (small CT venue). The Oakdale, which is the smallest, is the best place to see them.

[wolfking]

I'd go small venues.  Makes you feel you get more for your money.  Cause I'm in Austalia anyway, most bands that come here play a small venue anyway, (besides Maiden and DT)  I like it better, I think you get a better connection with the band.

[ReaperKK]

I voted small venues, I like them more but there are some big venue shows that are epic.

[MetalManiac666]

Anyway, both have their advantages and disadvantages. Small venues are more intimate, big venues are more epic. I wouldn't say either is better, they're just different.

So I picked Kevin Moore.

This exactly.

[MykeHavoc]

I consider "Small" a club. "Big" is anything theater sized and up. I like to get as close as possible to a performer. The intimate nature of those events are unparalleled.

[Sigz]

Small venues for almost everything. The only exception would be bands that have a major 'epic' visual component, like Tool or Pink Floyd.

[zerogravityfat]

i'd go with mid sized venues. i don't like going to msg because it's way too big and if the drummer and the sound don't match, that's annoying. i don't like small venues because their sound is usually terrible, i'm there to hear the music.

nokia, t5, hammerstein, those are my ideal spots.

[King Postwhore]

I'd go with small.  It's just more intimate.  Though, the 2 best sounding concerts I've ever been to were stadiums.  Pink Floyd and Steely Dan.

[LTE]

I would rather go see a show at a small venue, but I love listening to cds or watching concerts of huge shows (Rush in Rio, etc)

[Volk9]

I would rather go see a show at a small venue, but I love listening to cds or watching concerts of huge shows (Rush in Rio, etc)

For the most part, this

[Birch Boy]

According to your definitions, I much prefer bigger venues. For instance, singing the chorus to "Run To The Hills" with 19,999 other people, belting the intro scream to "Angel Of Death" with 9,999 other people, and getting the chills and singing "Comfortably Numb" with 16,999 other people can't be recreated... those are some of my favorite concert moments ever. Period.

[LTE]

Lol at kevin moore beating small venues.