Bands at festivals VS. Bands on their own tour

[whynotsmile99]

Do you generally prefer seeing bands/musical acts at a festival or on their own tour?

Shorter set times can be a drag but the energy of the festivals make it for me.

Do you think bands generally put on better shows at festivals?

[paulb]

probably a solo show... but both sides could be argued... I prefered seeing Arcade Fire live at Coachella then when I saw them at their solo show...but maybe that was cause it was the 1st time i saw them and was more excited... But for the Beastie Boys...the festival sets are really annoying and not amazing, and solo shows are fuckin perfect with them...

[sbessiso]

in my experience, i've found that bands at festivals are muuuch better than their own tour, this isnt always the case, but most of the time for me, its a mixture of the energy and the fact that a lot of the times theyre playing to a much larger crowd at festivals so they tend to step their shit up

[jazzz]

solo shows if you really love the artist but festivals are much more fun

[MissingPerson]

All in all, I preferred Arcade Fire on their own, but Wake Up with 50,000 other people is something that needs to be experienced at least once in this lifetime.

I think Bloc Party were better at a festival though.

[rage patton]

This is hard. Solo shows you usually get longer sets. However, at festivals you get more bang for your buck. Hmmm...

[boredofcanada]

it depends on the festival really.....id rather see an animal collective show when they are touring, cause i get two hours worth of material, but im willing to give that up at coachella or sasquatch, cause the setting is amazing (so i see and hear).
e

[PrettyRagdoll]

There should be a 'depends' button. Because the festival experience generally enhances the whole thing. But there's nothing like seeing a band or a dj in a small venue or club.

[betao]

Solo show, because usually, you get a crowd that came to see them and only them. At festivals, you get people who are watching a band not because they want to see them, but because they want to see the one that plays next. It can be annoying.

[MissingPerson]

True. I'm looking at you, fucking teenybopper Kooks fans. Grr. There's always a pack of fuckwits having a mudfight in the middle of everyone too. Or at least here there is, damn climate.

Although, the example I used further up, Arcade Fire (Festival) versus Arcade Fire (Solo)... at the festival I saw them play, they didn't have the preacher screens and stuff, so some of the doomy intensity was lost. By all accounts it wasn't one of their stronger festival sets, and they were fucking on for the solo shows, so it's maybe not a flat comparison.

[stinkbutt]

"I have an idea for a poll. What's better cheeseburgers at home or cheeseburgers in a restaurant?"

[Edmontonian]

In general I've found that bands put on a much better show at a festival than on tour.
A festival is a big event for them so they've got to Bring IT! a lot of bands have more energy.
Also, the shorter sets are maybe not ideal to some, but you definitely get a better selection of songs. Ie. they only play the best ones.
Also the coachella heat makes any performance that much better after a winter of freezing cold (I'm from Canada; the heat is one of the highlights for me, though I see how this may not apply for some).

[MissingPerson]

I dunno. Bands like Kings of Leon, who play absolutely every festival on the face of the earth, when they play a festival it feels to me like they don't even know/ care what country they're in. Just another set. They give the impression that they aren't quite as interested in giving everybody the value of their ticket price as they would be if it was only their name on the poster.

[jigsaw]

"I have an idea for a poll. What's better cheeseburgers at home or cheeseburgers in a restaurant?"

Hamburger pussy at home please : )

[mvanwinkle]

It usually seems like bands bring it more at festivals like they have something more to prove. At a bands tour its all fans. at a festival a band has an opportunity to bring in fans.

[canexplain]

i dont know, at the roo they can play super longs sets if they want to .. but then most of you wouldnt want to hear the dead for 3 or 4 hours it still cracks me up when people call 50k a big giant festival ... and i agree with the super small setting comment ... like seeing u2 and only a couple of hundred there, or the police with less then 50 people, ya cant see them anymore in places like that ..x****

[Mariano]

I usually prefer them solo. Pet Shop Boys are the only ones I have enjoyed much more in a festival than their solo show.

[lullabynoir]

solo shows if you really love the artist but festivals are much more fun

i'd have to agree with this.

if it's a band/artist i absolutely love, it's good to see them play a longer set with songs that sometimes get missed due to the shorter set times at festivals (though not always the case). sometimes smaller acts are better when you get to see them in a more intimate setting as well.

however, if it wasn't for festivals, i'd miss out on a lot of bands that i've grown to love.

and it's hard to beat festivals at certain instances, such as a sigur ros sunset performance at coachella.

[slurpee]

It is hard to compare Coachella to other festivals.

I would think majority of bands are going to put on one of the best performances they have ever done at Coachella.

My vote goes to festivals.

[woogie846]

The artist's own actual show has a longer set time and usually better sound quality.

[TheWatcher]

solo shows if you really love the artist but festivals are much more fun

True.

This is hard. Solo shows you usually get longer sets. However, at festivals you get more bang for your buck. Hmmm...

Again true.

There should be a 'depends' button. Because the festival experience generally enhances the whole thing. But there's nothing like seeing a band or a dj in a small venue or club.

Missing option!

For me, small venue or club >> festival >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large venue (unless lucky enough to get pit!).

But, the number of bands and flexibility at Coachella make it worthwhile. Especially for the lower-tier and middle-tier bands, I can get up closer and it's more interesting.

Also, some of the headliners only play in very large venues and I would be paying lost of $ for lame seats. If I'm patient I can get up close even for the headliner, if I felt like it.

Finally, the Do Lab!

[TheWatcher]

The artist's own actual show has a longer set time and usually better sound quality.

Longer set time, yes. But, it varies on the sound quality. Some of the bands have very good sound quality at Coachella and I've been to a few shows where the sound really was completely off.

[Memorial_07]

at a festival you can see more bands, but at a band's own tour they'll get a longer set

both are pretty even for me...except at festivals you have to wait around for 10 hours to watch your favorite band and sit through a bunch of shitty ones

[garrett222]

interpol and sigur ros were 1,000,000 x better at the solo show vs coachella

[garrett222]

BUT. Bjork put on almost an equal show at coachella vs. vegas...and I'd say being up close in the coachella crowd made for a much more intense experience.

[BlackSwan]

Can go either way... most of the time I prefer a solo show though.

[chairmenmeow47]

it really depends on the band and what i'm in the mood for.

the nice thing about festivals is that the artists will sometimes do things they normally wouldn't do. for example, i doubt the flaming lips walk out onto the crowd in a giant hampster ball at every show of their tour. festivals are great for those types of performances, but if i really love the band and want a full night of dancing to their music, i prefer a tour show. festivals are also great for seeing new artists, as i have the freedom to leave and see something else if it sucks.

[Kid B]

Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Arcade Fire, NIN, and RHCP (Yes really) are all 483449545X better at their own show.