06-20-2005, 07:35 AM
This is a strange thread.
First, how arrogant would a band have to be to say, "No, we're not opening for anybody, even if they are the second most popular band of all time." THAT would be selfish.
Second, more people are willing to buy Stones tickets than Hip tickets, so the Hip open for the Stones.
You might like the Hip more (I trust 95 per cent of us on this site do), or you might think the Stones suck, but it's a strange argument to say that therefore the Hip opening for the Stones sucks. The Stones get a kick-ass opener, the Hip get to play on a bill with one of their influences, and fans get to see one of the world's biggest acts with one of Canada's biggest acts. Who loses here?
If you wouldn't buy a ticket for it, that's fine. But some of you make it sound like it's an affront to the band's dignity, or to yours. I'm not sure that makes sense. Anyone care to clarify?
Cheers,
John
First, how arrogant would a band have to be to say, "No, we're not opening for anybody, even if they are the second most popular band of all time." THAT would be selfish.
Second, more people are willing to buy Stones tickets than Hip tickets, so the Hip open for the Stones.
You might like the Hip more (I trust 95 per cent of us on this site do), or you might think the Stones suck, but it's a strange argument to say that therefore the Hip opening for the Stones sucks. The Stones get a kick-ass opener, the Hip get to play on a bill with one of their influences, and fans get to see one of the world's biggest acts with one of Canada's biggest acts. Who loses here?
If you wouldn't buy a ticket for it, that's fine. But some of you make it sound like it's an affront to the band's dignity, or to yours. I'm not sure that makes sense. Anyone care to clarify?
Cheers,
John


cratch: