live on penn cancelled...

[aramis]

Horrible promotion. I didn't even know about the 97's show until afterwards, and was really annoyed to have missed it. And I was out of town for Fountains of Wayne.
 
 That being said, I wouldn't see the other acts for free (except maybe the 80's stuff).

[hitman]

I would say that the promotion of Live on Penn this year was a bit sluggish at best.  I didn't see anything about the shows outside of their website.  I never saw anything in the newspaper about it.  And I probably wouldn't have known about this year's line-up if it wasn't for having the website bookmarked after going to a show or two last year.  I started checking the website for updates in June.   Comparing the line-up this year and last year, I feel last year's line-up was better.
 
 I think the other thing that was killing it, was that a lot of the shows they had scheduled for this summer, are/were happening days before or after at Power Plant Live in Baltimore.  Here the show is free and held in an open courtyard outside of Bar Baltimore, The Improv, and Have a Nice Day Cafe.  Why pay for the show, parking/metro to go to DC, if you can see same show in Baltimore for free, and not have all of the pain in the ass vendors?  However it is interesting because Tonic was to play PPL on Thursday and then LOP Saturday.  They ended up cancelling both.
 
 You can check the schedule at PowerPlantLive.com.

[hitman]

While the cancellation is disappointing, Live on Penn's promoters are in good company this summer. The multi-band Lollapalooza festival was scratched after substandard ticket sales, and some tours, including Dave Matthews and Ozzfest, have been playing to less-than-full houses. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 
 I've never known a Dave Matthews show that didn't sell out.  Both shows at Nissan and Merriweather were sold out, as well as both shows in Philly.  So I don't know where this guy is getting his info.

[RonniStar]

From local musicianMike Holden, this comment from  The Arlington (VA) Music Scene Website:
 
 

As I understand it, Live On Penn isn't actually run by Z104. It's run by a promoter, who brought in Z104 as a sponsor. They've had a different radio sponsor each year. Last year, WHFS was the sponsor.
 
 I don't think this is such a black and white issue. The Post article, that Rob from The Speaks linked to, provides some other information on why they bagged it early this year. I was actually a little surprised to hear that Live On Penn was happening again this year, because I'd heard the promoter lost a good chunck of money on it last year. I guess they
 decided to cut their losses early this year. Either way, I'm glad they made a go at this.
 
 One thing to keep in mind with D.C. is that there are lots of options on weekends. Not every city has beaches so close or so many things to do on weekends, so there's a lot of competition. I read a recent Washington Post Weekend section
 survey that showed what people do on weekends around here. Many people leave town. Music was a small blip on the radar screen in the survey and the truth is, with a festival like Live On Penn, the sunshine and alcohol are probably just
 as important to people as the music so, unless the line-up really blows them away, there's a good chance they'll choose another outdoor activity or drink somewhere else.
 
 I admire Live On Penn for doing what they did and I hope they try again, but I have to be honest and say that many of the line-ups, from a national perspective, didn't blow me away.
 I've seen most of those bands and there are a few who most people have seen time and time again or who people preferred seeing back when they were a younger band. And many of the acts are doing the same thing now they were doing 10
 years ago. They may have new material, but in many cases it's not much different. There are exceptions to the rule, but many bands still have the same sound. For me, the bands I've followed for long periods of time, and been willing to go see any time they come through town, are the ones who reinvent themselves or who sound a little different record to record. Compare bands like Radiohead, R.E.M., Pearl Jam
 and U2 with bands like Live, Better Than Ezra, Cowboy Mouth, or Sister Hazel. Time has shown that there's a chance that the albums the first group puts out could sound much different than their last and that their live show will incoporate old stuff with new stuff. That second group includes some bands who are very entertaining at times but, as a friend of mine recently said about one band, "they basically just change the cover art on their albums." At this point in their careers, I find that
 second bunch of bands boring, for the most part. Obviously, Live On Penn isn't going to book Pearl Jam or bands from that first batch, but there's got to be some middle ground between
 the batch they're pulling from nationally and the innovative, exciting bands I'll see over and over. I was honestly more excited for most of the local/regional acts and the bands in slots below the headliner, in most cases. I felt like I'd see something new there or something I had not seen as often. In short, most of the Live On Penn headliners were bands that made me say, "I've seen that before...I'm not sure I'll go, except to support the locals or regionals I want to see." I imagine I wasn't the only one doing that.
 
 There are many, many factors as to why the festival didn't work and it can't just be blamed on just the radio station who sponsored it or what type of music is currently hot in the local scene. One thing that jumps out at me is how big the festival started out. It was never something small that grew. They went for broke...and they found it. A festival like that might do better with a smaller number of acts, a smaller stage,
 and a smaller section of streets closed off, to keep security and other costs as low as possible. It could grow from there.
 
 OK...I'm going to continue this in part 2 because it's going to get away from the Live On Penn theme a bit.
 
 These are just ideas I'm throwing out here too....thinking out loud. I find that helps get to an eventual understanding, if one can be reached. During the process though, I may not
 always have the right ideas. Please fire back at me if you want.

[hitman]

Compare bands like Radiohead, R.E.M., Pearl Jam and U2 with bands like Live, Better Than Ezra, Cowboy Mouth, or Sister Hazel. Time has shown that there's a chance that the albums the first group puts out could sound much different than their last and that their live show will incoporate old stuff with new stuff. That second group includes some bands who are very entertaining at times but, as a friend of mine recently said about one band, "they basically just change the cover art on their albums." At this point in their careers, I find that second bunch of bands boring, for the most part.
 
 
 Obviously opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.  But let mine differ a little bit.  I can agree with the point about the first batch of bands.  In most cases they reinvent themselves, and something great comes out of it.  I don't feel this is the case with Radiohead and Pearl Jam though.  In my opinion, what they've put out recently stinks.  Again just my opinion.
 
 I can also agree about Cowboy Mouth and Sister Hazel.  Both bands never really appealed to me at all, however CM intrigued me because there was something there.  SH always sucked to me.
 
 However, I will disagree about Live and BTE, Live especially.  Everyone of their albums is distinctly different, and of course I feel some albums are better than others.  But from their first album to their latest, things have changed on each release, however I feel that the latest album is trying to hard to get what they had originally.  BTE hasn't differed as much, but "How Does Your Garden Grow" was a complete departure from what they did in the past, and I thought was rather good from an experimental point.  And that album just went under the radar.  However, their latest album "Butterfly" I believe it is, stinks.  I just think it is a poppy piece of crap.  
 
 At other times, bands try and make a departure or reinvent themselves on future albums, and end up getting fired upon for it.  People will say they aren't thinking about the fans, or that they are keeping true to their original sound.  So what is a person to do?  You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  However, there is an audience out there for bands that stay the same, whether you think they are producing shit, or not.  Their sound stays the same, for example Jimmy Buffett, Rush, Phish, many many current country acts.  And they are all considered big successes beyond the commercial aspect.
 
 Now I know that all of this is my own opinion, and I'm probably going to get fucking basted for this (since I am a fan of both Live and BTE) but oh well.  People will disagree with my music tastes, as much as I disagree with theirs.  That is what makes the music world go 'round, and why Britney Spears makes tons of money, and people with more talent than her in their fucking pinky make next to nothing.  
 
 Albeit, all of this now seems to have branched into another subject, maybe suitable for another forum, but I don't know.