Naturally, all of us want to see the band perform, and the idea of having more than one opportunity to do so is exciting. On the same token, no one wants to see the band driven to exhaustion, and there are at least a few fans that feel they’re overdoing it. No one wants to have another summer like the last, when Simon was unable to sing, and yet all of us want to be able to have one more chance to see them onstage before the band goes on hiatus for an undetermined length of time. Where is the happy medium?
I suppose I take somewhat of a hard line on the subject because while yes, I think touring can certainly be grueling – I also firmly believe it’s part of their job. It’s what makes money, and it’s what is required. I’m not heartless, but I also think there are very, very few professions where one can truly decide to take a year off in order to write and record an album along with time for vacationing and relaxing. Most other careers pretty much insist on the idea of continuing to travel and sell one product while concurrently developing the next product and getting it ready for market. There’s no such thing as a “hiatus” or “downtime”. It would seem that touring goes along with the job, and nowadays it’s required more than ever in order to make a buck!
Who is to say how much is really too much? Is it the band? Is it management? Is it ticket sales or demand? There used to be a saying in the industry – “leave ’em wanting more!” Curiously, it would appear at least to me that audiences are requiring more and more, and yet as a fan I can say that when the band does finally leave the stage for the last time on this tour and retreats back into their offstage lives and personas – I will absolutely miss seeing them, and of course I’ll still be wanting more. So have they done too much? Is it enough?
-R
Hmm, let's see, how many songs come to mind from dd songbook just reading your blog today? A big one from “astronaut” perhaps? (Want you more)
But lyrics from AYNIN are telling,too. That song, in particular, mentions or rather suggests a hidden messgae to me that the days of VIP sections are gone….and perhaps too that fans be happy with today, that they are still here, that all we need is now, not then and there in the past. And who knows “what's gonna happen tomorrow” a foreboding of Simons voice trauma over the summer.
Let's be honest though. We all have our own opinions, but as fans, we all want more, more and more. Our heads tell us the 4 of them average 51 or 52 yrs old (nick rounds it down). The lifestyle of early years the heavy touring schedule, it takes it's toll. In my mind, I don't know how they do it. I have trouble enough with one day of running around town doing errands let alone countries? Done it once when I was 15! And honey, I'm not 15 any more. Add 30 years to that. It ain't gonna happen. But these men are built for this, as you say. This is their chosen career. They are driven internally. Always have been. Started out that way. Sure, others steer them, but I believe they have learned a lot through the years and could easily say “enough” if they wanted to.
So there I'll end. Ttfn deb
I don't think anyone wants them to not tour or even to necessarily cut the tours short, but if you look at the tour dates, sometimes they have 3 shows in 3 days(Aug. 17, 18, 19) or 4 shows in a week(Aug 8, 9, 11, 12) and that is what's kind of worrying to some people(actually that's 8 shows in 12 days at the start of the US tour).
Some bands that let's just say “aren't kids anymore” only do 3 shows a week to guard against getting worn out and the singers having enough rest for their vocal chords. As you point out the touring makes the money, which is what might be a slight push to them to perhaps do a bit more than might necessarily be healthy, it adds up. “We'll just add another show here, another show there, that's not too much, it'll be more cost effective” and before you know it, maybe it is a little too much. As you also say, they are human, which means they can overdo it without necessarily planning to, just like everyone else. I know I'd feel more comfortable if they did no more than 3 shows in a week, preferably with at least one day in between most of the time. I realize that it can't always work out that way, but it would make me worry less if they weren't doing something like 8 shows in 12 days. 🙂
Even football players(US) usually only play 1 game a week(wusses of the sports world IMO-20 games tops a season, but whatever, compared to hockey players get slammed into walls on a regular basis and fall on hard ice and have to deal with hard sticks while they might play over a hundred games a year if they make a good showing in the playoffs–can you tell I'm not a big football fan LOL).
I understand where you're coming from here…my only point is that the band sets these dates, it's not like it's the fans demanding it of them. I would think that the band would have some sort of decision making ability as to decide when to say when. Maybe not, but I would think so…at least to some degree. I think doing 3 shows a week with a day in between each show is probably a dream schedule, and it would mean having to be on tour for even longer in order to cover any sort of ground. Of course, that's up to the band. I suppose that's my entire point here though – these are grown men. Certainly they know how much they can handle??
I'm not a US football fan at all… 😀 I think that they get paid a ludicrous sum of money to play a very short number of years in the sport – and it bothers me that we place so much value on them, yet not nearly anything on people who teach our children. I don't know, that really bothers me, and I feel much the same about most pro-sports. We're very backwards thinking in this country at times.
-R
I didn't re-read before I posted. **it bothers me that we place so much value on them, yet not nearly enough on people who teach our children.
Sorry for my horrible grammar this morning! 🙂 -R
Totally agree about the salary thing being out of whack……