Is “bigger” better for everyone?

I found it interesting how it seemed that the bigger the venue, the better the performances that would appear (“On the Tear-Down,” News & Features, April 4). I can understand how a band would like to fill a 16,000-seat arena rather than a 15,000-seater — that’s an economic no-brainer.

But what about the poor saps sitting in the nosebleed section? Thankfully, on each occasion I attended a public performance, I purchased tickets down front. Yes, the performances were wonderful! I could see the sweat dripping and the spit flying, and that was only a Metropolitan Opera performance!

But I harkened back to that first concert I went to in the early ’80s. Rush was performing at the Hampton Coliseum, and I was on the opposite end of the arena, way up near the rafters.

Yes, the music was still loud and the pyrotechnics and laser lights impressive, but who were those guys on the stage? The bigger the arena, the farther back those additional 1,000 seats are. Yes, it’s nice when Cirque du Soleil projects some of the onstage action during “Delirium,” but what about the rest of the program? Unless you’re packing a good pair of field glasses, you’re not going to see much. It’s kinda like the flea circus of days gone by. Let’s keep the “intimate” setting of what we have now!

Angelo Minor