Ok, I think the question has drifted a little bit. The original post questioned whether it was necessary to spend $300,000,000.00 to create the proper environment for you to enjoy a piece of music. I'm thinking that with a set THAT extravagant, even I could walk out on stage nude, scream incoherently into the mike, play a couple of factory arps from my Fantom G7 (at earsplitting volume, of course), and quite a few people would leave the concert thinking they had experienced something remarkable. I mean, how much should you have to spend to keep the sight of Tori Spelling from making you want to barf? Why not just start out with Meagan Fox? Shouldn't good music be it's own reward? I know there is supposed to be good and bad music in every genre', but (and call me old fashioned) I have not, as yet, been able to put a qualitative value on Punk Rock, Heavy Metal, Trance, etc. There is no 0 to 10. There's just zero. Therefore to sell it (I'm not necessarily talking about U2 here, before someone gets upset), we have to create this incredibly expensive fantasy experience, of which 1% is the actual music.

I guess I'm just old and out of touch, but it seems to me that that kind of visual extravaganza would actually DETRACT from the music instead of enhancing it. And isn't that what it's supposed to be all about, isn't that why we come, the MUSIC.

chas