Are you angry about the Maiden tour dates too? Post here.

[Palabra de Dios]

You just answered your own question. Imagine what it must cost Maiden to fly 70 crew to your city, not to mention all the other expenses. Obviously, there must be the potential for Maiden to loose $ in your city, so the promoters in your city aren't going to pony up big $ from their own wallets and risk not getting it all back. And no promoter is going to take on that much work just to break even.

False. If all the shows they do they fly to, it would make no sense to skip a city based on travel expense. It would cost relatively the same to fly into Atlanta as it would to fly into Chicago/LA/NY. I don't see any other expense being so economically grand that to skip an entire region wouldn't make financial sense.

The point is, the show would sell out. No matter the capacity of the arena, and probably no matter the ticket price...if it's pretty evenly matched with the rest of the dates. I would pay 120 bucks for the show, if I could make the show within a reasonably short drive and then drive home that same night.

It's a completely different monster to have to buy the ticket, buy a plane ticket, arrange for a hotel, drive, sleep, go to the show, sleep, and then go home. That's 3 days as opposed to one day and a long night. Fuck that. It's different, and you know it.

And to address DTJeff, I agree with you on the Maiden setlist point in theory, but I have yet to be able to comfortably see Maiden on ANY tour. That's the crux of this topic. Your point is that "Maiden tours enough...you'll hear those songs...eventually." NO I WON'T!

 

[Palabra de Dios]

Yeah. No shit. Especially when it's the same few people who always post them, EVERY single tour. It just becomes obnoxious. It's an useless rant that won't get anywhere, in my opinion. Email the promoters/management/booking agents if it's that irritating.

And regarding the question, no, I'm not angry. I get to see this show 3 times within a few days. I'm excited as hell!!

I address people like you in my first post. Leave the hall.

Also I love you. But fuck you for living where you do. Asshole. But I love you.

 

[General Zod]

THERE ISN'T ANYONE ON THIS FORUM THAT CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE THAT IRON MAIDEN AND DREAM THEATER, TOGETHER, COULDN'T SELL OUT BOTH ATLANTA AND NASHVILLE.

That isn't the question. The question is, is it worth it for them to do so logistically? Perhaps the tour manager is determined to run the tour based on certain profit margins, and routing the tour down there blows those margins. Clearly, there's a reason Maiden isn't playing these markets. And logic suggest it's financial. Keep in mind, just because you can sell X number of tickets, at X dollars, in two different markets, doesn't mean your costs are the same in each of those markets.

Zod

 

[Palabra de Dios]

That isn't the question. The question is, is it worth it for them to do so logistically? Perhaps the tour manager is determined to run the tour based on certain profit margins, and routing the tour down there blows those margins. Clearly, there's a reason Maiden isn't playing these markets. And logic suggest it's financial. Keep in mind, just because you can sell X number of tickets, at X dollars, in two different markets, doesn't mean your costs are the same in each of those markets.

Zod

If it is what you say, then that just plain sucks. I want to know what the difference in cost really is? I mean, is it wholly different in cost to fly into NJ or CA and stay there than it is to do the same in Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, or Charlotte? I don't know...but it just.......sucks.

 

[General Zod]

If it is what you say, then that just plain sucks. I want to know what the difference in cost really is? I mean, is it wholly different in cost to fly into NJ or CA and stay there than it is to do the same in Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, or Charlotte? I don't know...but it just.......sucks.

Obviously, I don't know what the reason is. However, money seems the likely culprit (it is for most things). Although the band flies everywhere, I suspect the equipment moves by truck. If they have to send these trucks off the beaten path, to hit the few big markets in the south, which are separated by great distances, and then get them back on the desirable path, I would think that drives fuel and crew costs up. In addition, if the band is sitting around, waiting for the trucks to catch up, they're not making money. Again, pure speculation. But as a general rule, if you want to know what motivates a business decision, 9 times out of 10 it's money. And that 10th time, it's also money, they just found a way to spin it and convince everyone it wasn't money.

Zod

 

[Palabra de Dios]

But as a general rule, if you want to know what motivates a business decision, 9 times out of 10 it's money. And that 10th time, it's also money, they just found a way to spin it and convince everyone it wasn't money.

Zod

So well said, man. And I agree.

What's so impressive for Maiden is that they've still stayed so viable that they can play arenas on tours still, and not 5-6,000 person clubs like House of Blues or something. I just wish they'd do the whole tour on a caravan of buses and trucks, and just hit 80 dates nationwide...like the old days.

 

[nomisofsiman]

Thank you sir! Well said.

Ditto. And let's be honest, no matter what almost every band you will ever see will NOT play at least a song or two you want to.

 

[nomisofsiman]

Oh, BTW, I personally am not annoyed by such threads.
I know I am very lucky living in Chicago, having the ability to skip going to shows ,knowing that the band will be back within a 12 month period.

Yeah me too. I'm not annoyed by these threads because if I was in the south east, I would be pissed too. This is one of the main reasons I highly doubt I will ever move out of the Chicago area. The not coming to Atlanta thing still makes no sense since I've (obviously) been there and they do have the biggest airport.

 

[General Zod]

What's so impressive for Maiden is that they've still stayed so viable that they can play arenas on tours still, and not 5-6,000 person clubs like House of Blues or something.

It's almost strange. I'm not quite sure why certain bands seem maintain their drawing power, while seemingly equivalent bands don't:

Maiden > Priest
Crue > Ratt
Bon Jovi > Poison


Zod

 

[skyrefuge]

However, money seems the likely culprit (it is for most things). Although the band flies everywhere, I suspect the equipment moves by truck. If they have to send these trucks off the beaten path, to hit the few big markets in the south, which are separated by great distances, and then get them back on the desirable path, I would think that drives fuel and crew costs up.

If you're going to make the distance/cost argument, then you have to explain how the epic trek across Canada (Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto) doesn't contradict the claim that Atlanta's too far and out of the way. And although they sold out all the Canadian dates on their last tour, the numbers weren't more than what they could presumably get in Atlanta.

I agree that it must have *something* to do with money, but the connection isn't obvious, so I also agree with everyone who finds their stiffing of the South to be quite mysterious and frustrating.

Best I can come up with is four canceled dates in 1991, three in Florida plus Atlanta. No idea why they canceled (maybe someone just got sick), but if it was due to poor ticket sales, that could have put a bad taste in their mouths. Though, they still returned at least to Atlanta a couple more times after that. But if those shows also sold poorly, maybe that was enough for them to write it off for the next 15 years.

What's so impressive for Maiden is that they've still stayed so viable that they can play arenas on tours still, and not 5-6,000 person clubs like House of Blues or something.

Well, they didn't really *stay* at that size. They slowly grew, fell off a cliff, and then grew again. Here are the capacities of places they played in Chicago between Fear of the Dark through Dance of Death:

1992: 28,000 (same place they're playing in 2010)
CLIFF
1996: 1,300
1998: 2,300
1999: 4,500
2000: 7,000
2003: 28,000
2005: 28,000 (20,000 sold)

I would love to read a doctoral dissertation that documents the reasons behind the rise, fall, and resurrection of Iron Maiden. And surely it would become required reading for anyone in the entertainment marketing business, or even marketing in general.

For example, a huge part of their resurgence has to be their ability to capture a whole new generation, but how did they pull that off? Did going more "global" help? Would they have been able to make such a resurgence if Bruce Dickinson had been their singer the entire time? (and don't fool yourself, Blaze Bayley wasn't the reason they fell off the cliff.) How much does their non-nostalgia and shift to a new musical style (that they've played for the last 15 years) play a role? Even if a lot of people didn't like them playing AMOLAD, does the fact that they *did* it still help them? Who in 1992 would have guessed that they would have turned "Fear of the Dark" (prototype of their new style) into a classic, a setlist mainstay?

Neil

 

[Frode]

Bottom line is; the south needs more promoters with balls of steel!!!

 

[Tommy3328]

still waiting/hoping for a Boston area date

the AMOLAD tour kicked ass, the only disappointed people I saw that night were a few mulletheads that looked like they came to the show direct from a Wayne's World convention. They hadn't listen to IM since 1988.

 

[edgeofthorns]

Atlanta:

Georgia Dome: 71,000
Philips Arena: 21,000
Lakewood Amphitheater: 19,000
Gwinett Center: 13,000

Thompson Bowling Arena: 20,000

~Brian~

 

[edgeofthorns]

Ha! Sorry...
I do love the South.
We went to Gulf Shores a couple summers ago.....

Driving down to Orlando in a couple weeks, going through Chatanooga....

Jason, it would be cool if we could meet up and have lunch! With that said, if you travel through Knoxville, there's an awesome cd store called the Disc Exchange. They have a healthy selection of metal.

~Brian~

 

[J-Man]

El Paso & Las Cruces

Don Haskins Center - 18,000
Civi Center - 11,200
Coliseum - 10,000

Pan Am Center - 19,500

 

[nomisofsiman]

If you're going to make the distance/cost argument, then you have to explain how the epic trek across Canada (Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto) doesn't contradict the claim that Atlanta's too far and out of the way. And although they sold out all the Canadian dates on their last tour, the numbers weren't more than what they could presumably get in Atlanta.

I agree that it must have *something* to do with money, but the connection isn't obvious, so I also agree with everyone who finds their stiffing of the South to be quite mysterious and frustrating.

Best I can come up with is four canceled dates in 1991, three in Florida plus Atlanta. No idea why they canceled (maybe someone just got sick), but if it was due to poor ticket sales, that could have put a bad taste in their mouths. Though, they still returned at least to Atlanta a couple more times after that. But if those shows also sold poorly, maybe that was enough for them to write it off for the next 15 years.



Well, they didn't really *stay* at that size. They slowly grew, fell off a cliff, and then grew again. Here are the capacities of places they played in Chicago between Fear of the Dark through Dance of Death:

1992: 28,000 (same place they're playing in 2010)
CLIFF
1996: 1,300
1998: 2,300
1999: 4,500
2000: 7,000
2003: 28,000
2005: 28,000 (20,000 sold)

I would love to read a doctoral dissertation that documents the reasons behind the rise, fall, and resurrection of Iron Maiden. And surely it would become required reading for anyone in the entertainment marketing business, or even marketing in general.

For example, a huge part of their resurgence has to be their ability to capture a whole new generation, but how did they pull that off? Did going more "global" help? Would they have been able to make such a resurgence if Bruce Dickinson had been their singer the entire time? (and don't fool yourself, Blaze Bayley wasn't the reason they fell off the cliff.) How much does their non-nostalgia and shift to a new musical style (that they've played for the last 15 years) play a role? Even if a lot of people didn't like them playing AMOLAD, does the fact that they *did* it still help them? Who in 1992 would have guessed that they would have turned "Fear of the Dark" (prototype of their new style) into a classic, a setlist mainstay?

Neil

Interesting about the cancelled dates. I would assume that would have a lot to do with it.

I disagree that not having Dickinson in the mix wasn't the cause of the decline. IT WAS THE REASON! Look at that timeline, it perfectly coincides with his departure. Maybe it wasn't purely Blaze for the reasoning it was a combination of him/the material not being all that great. Plus, the fact that the 90s were not exactly a kind time period for metal.

 

[skyrefuge]

I disagree that not having Dickinson in the mix wasn't the cause of the decline. IT WAS THE REASON! Look at that timeline, it perfectly coincides with his departure.

Except, coincidence does not indicate causation. If I come down with the flu on a sunny day, I can't just say that the sun was the reason because they coincided. You have to eliminate other possible factors to claim causation, and in the case of Iron Maiden, there certainly were other factors present.

Plus, the fact that the 90s were not exactly a kind time period for metal.

Exactly. My scientific analysis puts 11.37% of the dropoff on Blaze and the 'The X Factor', 56.65% on the broader downturn in metal (note that Dickinson's 1997 'Accident of Birth' shows were also in ~1000-capacity clubs), and 31.98% on 'No Prayer For the Dying' and 'Fear of the Dark'.

It's important to note that concert attendance (like album sales) is a lagging indicator, meaning that people tend to make their ticket/album purchase decisions based on the *previous* concert/album from a band, not the current one. Putting down money on a new album or going to a concert is largely a hope that it will live up to the last one, not an actual endorsement of the current concert/album. Conversely, people start avoiding concerts/albums only after they've been burned in the past (and sometimes it takes multiple burns depending of fandom-level).

So, although they were still playing sheds on the 'Fear of the Dark' tour (but not nearly as many, and some probably half-empty), the lack of excitement from previous albums and general fall-off in metal interest was steadily scouring away the hillside beneath their feet. If Bruce had stayed on, perhaps when the footing gave way, he would have been able to arrest their fall slightly higher on the cliff, but it still would have been a hell of a fall.

Also, I think chances are good that we would have gotten an 'X Factor' album even if Bruce had stayed around. The two most popular songs from 'Fear of the Dark' ("Afraid to Shoot Strangers" and "Fear of the Dark") are clear prototypes of the drawn-out, repetitive style that Harris would soon move to in full force.

So then my point is that *had* Bruce been around for that fall, he would have been tainted, and the resurrection would have been much more difficult, if not impossible. Iron Maiden would have become "that band that used to be good, but now no one cares about". Instead, since he jumped out of the car just before it flew off the cliff, his return helps create a historical narrative that's much easier to digest. It allowed the band to "reboot" and effectively wipe 12 years of history (half of which Bruce was actually a part of) from the fans' minds.

Neil

 

[nomisofsiman]

Except, coincidence does not indicate causation. If I come down with the flu on a sunny day, I can't just say that the sun was the reason because they coincided. You have to eliminate other possible factors to claim causation, and in the case of Iron Maiden, there certainly were other factors present.

Exactly. My scientific analysis puts 11.37% of the dropoff on Blaze and the 'The X Factor', 56.65% on the broader downturn in metal (note that Dickinson's 1997 'Accident of Birth' shows were also in ~1000-capacity clubs), and 31.98% on 'No Prayer For the Dying' and 'Fear of the Dark'.

It's important to note that concert attendance (like album sales) is a lagging indicator, meaning that people tend to make their ticket/album purchase decisions based on the *previous* concert/album from a band, not the current one. Putting down money on a new album or going to a concert is largely a hope that it will live up to the last one, not an actual endorsement of the current concert/album. Conversely, people start avoiding concerts/albums only after they've been burned in the past (and sometimes it takes multiple burns depending of fandom-level).

So, although they were still playing sheds on the 'Fear of the Dark' tour (but not nearly as many, and some probably half-empty), the lack of excitement from previous albums and general fall-off in metal interest was steadily scouring away the hillside beneath their feet. If Bruce had stayed on, perhaps when the footing gave way, he would have been able to arrest their fall slightly higher on the cliff, but it still would have been a hell of a fall.

Also, I think chances are good that we would have gotten an 'X Factor' album even if Bruce had stayed around. The two most popular songs from 'Fear of the Dark' ("Afraid to Shoot Strangers" and "Fear of the Dark") are clear prototypes of the drawn-out, repetitive style that Harris would soon move to in full force.

So then my point is that *had* Bruce been around for that fall, he would have been tainted, and the resurrection would have been much more difficult, if not impossible. Iron Maiden would have become "that band that used to be good, but now no one cares about". Instead, since he jumped out of the car just before it flew off the cliff, his return helps create a historical narrative that's much easier to digest. It allowed the band to "reboot" and effectively wipe 12 years of history (half of which Bruce was actually a part of) from the fans' minds.

Neil

First, I never said Dickinson leaving was the sole reason, and I would have to disagree that only 11 percent of the dropout was due to that. I don't know where you're getting these numbers from, but there is no scientific black and white explanation as far as why Maiden's drop off occurred. Dickinson left, bad new album, 90s metal decline, etc. There is no way to prove any of these reasons to be more than the other, just assumptions.

Secondly, you compared Bruce's solo club tours to Maiden's. I don't think that means as much. Not all Maiden fans are going to want to see a solo tour of Maiden's frontman. It just won't happen. Just like solo Halford. People want Maiden and they want Priest, but in their pure form. Every single time a musician breaks from their respective band for the most part (especially if they're the singer) they're less successful than when they were with their band.

 

[Stingray11214]

Folks;

There is a new invention out there....It is called a DVD. If a band does not play your area, pick up their live DVD and watch at your convenience. I missed Maiden when they came here, so I picked up the "Flight 666" DVD to watch at my leisure. Sure, it may not be the same as actually being there. However, it is a lot better than not seeing them live at all.

 

[Palabra de Dios]

Folks;

There is a new invention out there....It is called a DVD. If a band does not play your area, pick up their live DVD and watch at your convenience. I missed Maiden when they came here, so I picked up the "Flight 666" DVD to watch at my leisure. Sure, it may not be the same as actually being there. However, it is a lot better than not seeing them live at all.

.