Opening ActsSun Dec 7 14:26:42 PST 1997

["Bragg, Blaine" <blaine@sdg.com>]

>WFang re:
>>>?Doug, re:
>
>>  The need for an opening act is simply to kill time!
>
>>> Personally, if I never had to see an
>>>"opening act" again, I'd be happy. I'm narrow minded enough (or is
>>>that just
>>>"focused"?) to know what I like and what I don't like...
>
What about the (admittedly rare) times the opening act is good and may
be "the next big thing".  Sometimes it can, in retrospect, be quite
memorable for example (these are just examples, I am in no way endorsing
the artist ALA Joe Jackson):

1) The LA's (definitely had the flavor of early Who - Can't Explain,
Happy Jack etc. - had to link to the Who somehow!) opened for Elvis
Costello

2) Guns 'n Roses (hey the ticket was free) opened for Aerosmith before
MTV & rehab.

3) Edie Brickel and the New Bohemians opened for ___________ (can't
remember exactly...must have been a great headliner!).

All three examples were cases of shows _before_  they had any
recognition.  I would agree that opening acts are like Russian Roulette,
>except you've got 5 bullets and 1 empty chamber that won't kill you!