Support acts
 

I personally don't think they should.

They are a big enough band now to nail a 3 1/2 hour show and because of the amount of material they've got 2 1/2 hours just doesn't cover enough.

Bruce Springsteen does it and so do a lot of other artists so I don't see why they shouldn't do away with support acts altogether.

Aloha !

Yes. Since their support acts always have been disapointing lately, I think that after their support act they can never disappoint me.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

no...

it means standing up for 9 hours before you even see the main band...

if van halen / skid row / europe yes... if not: NO!

True..................

i´ll add cinderella :D

too right!

sam kinison also LOL

depends who the support act is

No. I am paying to see Bon Jovi. Unless of course it is someone really, really, really good! :D

ok, two reasons for Bon Jovi to have support bands....

a) Like letitrock said, it breaks up the time a bit
b) young bands need the chance to play for an audiance, if you don't have support bands, people will never get the chance to progress...

Ok, so Bon Jovi have made a shambles of point b. They choose bands like Ronan Keeting.... he's playigna 20000 arenal in Manchester, does he really need a break? ALso, the band don't seem to choose the bands themselves, I think they should be trying to give this break to somebody who deserves it, as opposed to just helping the record company's plug bands. It's bands like bon Jovi who are responsable for the crap music out there now, there are young bands, it just takes bands like Bon Jovi to give them the chance to stand in front of peopel and get heard.

I would be perfectly content if there were no support acts--especially since I usually see them in Atlanta where there's a curfew. A support act just eats into the time that Bon Jovi could be on stage.

Becky

I think they should keep them - I enjoy seeing bands who I might not necessarily have heard of or gone to see before (like Lifehouse and Matchbox 20).