Garth Brooks Serenades Shea Stadium for the Last Time
Friday night marked the last show ever in Shea Stadium, the New York Mets' ballpark. Normally, this wouldn't really matter to me, but I thought it was pretty cool that they brought Garth Brooks in as an opening act, even if it was for Paul McCartney and Billy Joel. And why not, this was billed as a HUGE stadium show, and Garth does know a thing or two about that.
Brooks played to the 50,000+ fans in attendance early in the day, followed later by McCartney and Joel. Dressed in a Mets jersey, Brooks performed his hit "Shameless," which was written by Joel. The concert was held 43 years after the Beatles' historic show at Shea in 1965, which drew 55,000 fans and was the first at the stadium. After this year's Baseball season, Shea will be torn down to make room for the new ballpark going in across the street.
©2008 Country Music Television, Inc., a Viacom company. A division of
deb says:
Hi, Garth was great, but the only song he sang was Shameless.
Always Right says:
Look at the size of Garth’s head compared to Joel’s!
peppie longstackin says:
I know who Garth, Billy, and Tony are, but who may i ask, is that lovely lady on the far right?
Dude that’s quite a lady.
christan says:
hey garth brooks im a bbig fan of u and country music alot i am only 13 and i realy wish to become a big singer like u and trisha yearwood i watch u guys on tv alot and hoffly one iwill get to be famouse as u guys are i been workin alot trying to become a singer i go and sing out in front of ppl to get notice then i go and sing in bars and at faamily gatherrings singing is a big dream for me and u help me inspier me to keep working hard at it u and your wife ppl might think yor different because your famouse to me your normal thats what i lijke about u wellwrite me and maybe u can help me follow my dream love your new friend christan love ya garth and trish
Aaron says:
I used to be a big fan of yours Garth but I will never buy another album or merchandise of yours again. I cannot beleive that you put up such a fight to make napster legit and still refuse to let them post your music over money issues. I never used those kinds of programs when they were violating copyright. When I found out they were a legitimate company I signed up and discovered to my dismay that garth was among the minority who still refuse to let their music be used. You’ve lost a fan here and probably numerous others because we now see it wasn’t about artists rights at all…otherwise you would let them do it now that those rights are being honored…I guess they just don’t pay enough!!!
NM says:
Aaron,
Garth doesn’t put his stuff on iTunes or similar programs because he feels they short the songwriters, studio players, engineers, etc. who contribute to his albums. He has people that work very hard on track organization and artists that deal with graphics an artwork on his albums. By simply buying one or two songs, these people aren’t compensated correctly. You really think Garth needs the money? Artists nowadays make most of their money by touring…clearly he’s not guilty of greed. Also, do the math. His latest album had over 30 songs on two discs that sold for less than $17. At 99 cents/song on iTunes, the better deal is a no-brainer. You can purchase his album Sevens for around 6 or 7 dollars at Best Buy. That would cost you $14 on iTunes at 99 cents/song. Customers being able to purchase only one or two songs can also create the temptation for the artist to have two good songs followed by 8 songs of filler and fluff. Garth is at least saying his catalog is good enough to buy in whole. His fight for Napster to become legit was based on the principle of stealing music via P2P sharing. If you’re computer savvy enough to operate Napster or iTunes, then ripping a legally purchased CD should be no problem for you.
Lunawry says:
Wow so he is highly VAIN then? I can easily tell you this, I do NOT like a good number of his songs. On the other hand there ARE a few I do like, and for me it is usually that way. So I have to pay for all the ‘filler and fluff’ that I see as being exactly that, or rather songs I don’t want, just to get one maybe two that I actually do? That seems wrong somehow to me. Now I’m not saying I’m not willing to pay for what I DO want, I am. I’m not willing to pay $10 for a single song, maybe two at the most that I’d want. I’m just not.
Aside from that argument… I don’t just use ‘those site’s’ to buy one or two songs I actually like from any given artist, but also because I have my music that way, it is convenient for me to keep track of it all, listening to it how and where I want to a little easier, as well as maintaining the legality for it all in a single easy place. At then end of the day I’m sorry I won’t go buy his album I’ll just infringe if I want it bad enough rather than inconveniencing myself to go buy an album, rip a single song from it, and have one stupid rogue album floating around my room because it thinks it’s so darn special.
What I’m saying is… Garth Brooks isn’t worth an HOUR of my time to ‘keep it legal’ for a single song… when I could alternatively spend less than five minutes to have what I want how I want it. It would be a shame considering I AM willing to do it the legal way though.
I’m not saying I have any of his music right now, or that I AM going to go out and do that, I don’t care enough to bother. If he is that vain or can’t stand behind each individual song alone, I don’t want ANY of his music at all. Oh and just because the cost of a single song is lower doesn’t strictly mean one makes less from it just because you give a consumer ONLY what they want and not a lot they don’t to make more from them. How many other people are searching for him on those sites, not finding him on there, and NOT running off to buy the album but instead ignoring him? He’s losing money anyway.