Philosophical Vegan Forum

I never really saw the appeal of going to live shows. Seriously, if I want to listen to songs, I can do that basically whenever I want in five seconds for free.

I already know some dickheads out there are gonna label me as close-minded even if they do read my post since people get extremely defensive when you critically question a thing they enjoy doing, but whatever.

The TL:DR is, concerts are expensive and take time when you could listen to the same songs at home for free, and also going to concerts is bad for the environment.

When I bring this up, I'm told that when you go to the concerts the songs sound better when the band plays them live; I'm a bit skeptical of this given how the songs on live albums sound, though I'm told that's due to the compression.

It isn't like they play new material at these concerts; If you go to a Metallica concert for instance they're 100% going to play Enter Sandman and Master of Puppets for the millionth fucking time, and they more or less go along the same setlist for each of their concerts. It's the same thing with almost every other band I like too; Must be pretty tiring playing the same damn songs over and over and over again. I'd probably lose my mind if I had to play 'Symphony of Destruction' nearly 1500 times now.

Although I think it's a matter of opinion, I'm willing to grant that hearing songs live does indeed sound better; The question is, is it worth spending all of that money (which can be used for something like effective charities but I won't even get into that), traveling to the concert arena, surrounding myself with a bunch of stinky sweaty guys and risk getting into a moshpit (that is, if you're in the standing area), just to hear a dozen or so songs I've already heard a hundred times sound better, when I can listen to the exact same songs, for free, without needing to leave my house, hearing the songs performed as they were intended, even if they don't sound as good? It's a pretty basic cost-benefit analysis to me, and it seems like a pretty open and shut case. Going by live albums and watching performances on YouTube, the songs tend to sound worse when performed live compared to the studio performances, like the vocals sounding different for instance, or different equipment possibly being used (or Lars Ulrich being shit at drumming like he always is).

Then you'll get the comment of 'making memories and friends' and I'm not sold on this either. It's a pretty expensive way to do this, just to go do something that won't benefit me in my day to day life that I'll quickly forget about. And in the age of the internet, you don't have to go out to find people with similar interests. Plus a lot of the people you meet at concerts likely don't live anywhere near you, so you'd have to keep in contact with them on the internet anyway, right?

But you know what? I could imagine myself forgiving all of those issues if it weren't for one thing: The major environmental cost of so many fans going to concerts. This is really the heart of the issue. All of the previous criticisms I admit are just personal gripes (although ones that are arrived that through a practical lens), and despite all that I can accept that people will still wanna go to live shows, but this one is a universal and objective reason as to why we ought to do away concerts like these.

No doubt the bands take a huge amount of resources getting around, but I have an extremely hard time believing that the emissions from that outweigh the millions of fans that go out to see their favorite artists perform live, from the people who drive over a hundred miles across several states or even people who take flights across the country to do so, it all adds up big time. Local events at things like cafes and stuff are exempt from this since people are going to go there anyway, but concerts with stadiums that can fill the tens or even hundreds of thousands? No sir.

If I had to make a sort of compromise I'd probably make it so only those who live within a 15-20 mile radius of where the concert is being performed can attend. (I know that seems a little too small but that's kind of the point) If people wanna insist that the bands that go around touring still result in a higher carbon footprint than all the fans commuting, they'd still have to contend with the fact that the fans going to shows is a huge carbon sink either way, and the fact that bands wouldn't tour so damn much if people didn't shell out hundreds or even thousands of dollars to see their shows.

Of course I don't see touring and concerts going away any time soon since it's a major source of revenue for the bands, but if this post manages to convince one or two people out of going to a concert (which will save a little on carbon emissions) that's a win. Pretty much all of these criticisms also apply to sporting events. That sometimes makes even less sense, since why go to a game and probably not get a decent view (and potentially be in shitty weather) when you can watch the same game with a great view on your TV at home? It just don't make no sense to me no more.

I think in most cases it's musicians going on tour, which means something like 99% of people are local at any given event (so in practice I think the 15-20 mile radius thing is usually true). Going only to local events makes sense. I think attendees from a distance are usually the exception rather than the rule.

Mostly now the issue would be the pandemic and how live music is a bad idea in that light.

Sports have their own problems that extent far beyond live music. They compete with academics, and they're a source of many long term injuries and disabilities in the general population stemming from sporting aspirations as youth. I don't think music is as competitive with STEM for funding in the way collegiate sports teams are, and not that many people suffering music injuries as far as I know (there's some repetitive stress, but nothing near a spinal injury from the foot balls).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:56 pm I think in most cases it's musicians going on tour, which means something like 99% of people are local at any given event (so in practice I think the 15-20 mile radius thing is usually true). Going only to local events makes sense. I think attendees from a distance are usually the exception rather than the rule.

Oh, well in that case it's not so bad then.

I still maintain that it isn't worth the time nor all the carbon emissions though, even if almost all attendees are local. Placing a ban on people who travel a lot I doubt would be controversial. If you're taking public transit then it certainly isn't that bad.

Would you say you're in favour of banning live attendance for events like concerts, even if most of the attendees are local, or would it not be worth it?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:56 pmMostly now the issue would be the pandemic and how live music is a bad idea in that light.

Well COVID is dying down so the argument for that is gonna be a little weak within a few months, but during the pandemic many bands streamed shows live (which would be like watching a basketball game in the comfort of their own home).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:56 pmSports have their own problems that extent far beyond live music. They compete with academics, and they're a source of many long term injuries and disabilities in the general population stemming from sporting aspirations as youth. I don't think music is as competitive with STEM for funding in the way collegiate sports teams are, and not that many people suffering music injuries as far as I know (there's some repetitive stress, but nothing near a spinal injury from the foot balls).

I agree 100% (I know a few people personally that had short-term injuries due to things like this), but as with live shows for bands, they're a huge source of revenue (and reputation) for schools. Do you see any way out of this, or is it in too deep at this point?

AFAIK what causes the spinal injuries from football players in when they ram their heads directly into someone, not the footballs themselves, so telling players to not do that would solve most of the spinal injuries.

This all stems from an even bigger issue with higher education in the US but that's a whole other monster.

15-20 miles seems reasonable maybe 100-200 for a once a year or once a lifetime thing.

one argument for going to the concerts is that this is how to really support the bands since they don´t make enough money to live on from streaming and radio.

it´s really about the memories and the atmosphere. if you have like minded friends who like the same music, I would go. I wouldn´t go on my own.

how many have you ever been to?

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:48 pm one argument for going to the concerts is that this is how to really support the bands since they don´t make enough money to live on from streaming and radio.

I'm more referring to bands that are already ridiculously rich. I'm all in favor of outright buying albums rather than streaming from artists that aren't huge or successful, but for bands that are already established, they don't need any more money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofDpJcuIw8
I do encourage seeing local bands though.

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:48 pmit´s really about the memories and the atmosphere.

Memories that tend to fade away.

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:48 pm if you have like minded friends who like the same music, I would go. I wouldn´t go on my own.

Sadly none.

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:48 pmhow many have you ever been to?

I haven't been to any for the reasons I explained in my post. I WOULD consider going if they weren't such huge money sinks.

Red wrote:Well COVID is dying down so the argument for that is gonna be a little weak within a few months

Or... the world leaders are going to switch the goalposts once again. It was two weeks of quasi-lockdown to flatten the curve and then we would return back to normal. Then it was 4 weeks. Then it was 6 weeks. Then it was until a vaccine is available. Then it was until the most vulnerable ones get vaccinated once. Then it was until the most vulnerable ones get vaccinated twice. And the goal of returning back to normal is always just a few weeks away... but it never happens.
I am glad you are able to stay optimistic throught this all thing, but I just cannot.

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 7:21 am Or... the world leaders are going to switch the goalposts once again. It was two weeks of quasi-lockdown to flatten the curve and then we would return back to normal. Then it was 4 weeks. Then it was 6 weeks. Then it was until a vaccine is available. Then it was until the most vulnerable ones get vaccinated once. Then it was until the most vulnerable ones get vaccinated twice. And the goal of returning back to normal is always just a few weeks away... but it never happens.
I am glad you are able to stay optimistic throught this all thing, but I just cannot.

Teo, are you going to make a habit of derailing threads with your paranoid conspiracy theories whenever COVID is brought up?
Lockdowns are more or less over in parts of the world where vaccination rates are high, it's just a matter of people wearing masks now.

Don't respond BTW, if you really care start a new thread. If you try to derail the thread I will delete your post (CenSorSHiP!!!!!!!111).

Good South Park video