Branson shows are definitely current and great entertainment

[TheOleSeagull]

In a post under "Chit Chat" related to appearances of "Chicago" and "Sheryl Crow" in Springfield, MO poster "Branson Bluesman" said:

Originally Posted by Branson Bluesman

Definitely more current acts that you can see in Branson.

An Ole Seagull would suggest that it depends on one's definition of the word "definitely" and "current." He believes that, in terms of entertaining their audiences, it "definitely" doesn't get much or more "current" than the Acrobats of China, Duttons, Clay Cooper's Country Music Express, George Dyer, Hamner and Barber Variety Show, Haygoods, Hughes Brothers, Grand Jubilee, Pierce Arrow, Legends of Kung Fu, Liverpool Legends, NOAH the Musical, Presleys' Country Jubilee, Rankin Brothers, Shoji Tabuchi, Encore" on the Showboat Branson Belle, Texas Tenors, 3 RedNeck Tenors, Twelve Irish Tenors, Hooray for Hollywood, Yakov's Dinner Adventure or anyone of dozens of other shows that Branson presents on a daily basis to entertain the millions of visitors that come to Branson each year.

What do you think?

[bransonframer]

Welcome to this week's ribbon cutting and grand opening of the "Can Of Worms".

[TheOleSeagull]

Originally Posted by bransonframer

Welcome to this week's ribbon cutting and grand opening of the "Can Of Worms".

The Ole Seagull is having a tough time equating a discussion of Branson shows with a "can of worms." Why would it be "a can of worms?"

[bransonframer]

Originally Posted by TheOleSeagull

The Ole Seagull is having a tough time equating a discussion of Branson shows with a "can of worms." Why would it be "a can of worms?"

Just wait for it.... This thread will soon be filled with the one camp that thinks Branson's entertainment choices are stale and it needs bigger, more nationally recognized names to be able to continue as a tourist destination. Then, there will be the other camp that thinks the current list of choices are the best thing since sliced bread and any attempt to bring in a headlining act will fail miserably because the people that come to Branson can easily get that type of entertainment in their own back yard at the local county fair.

So, to reference UsingEnglish.com..."If you open a can of worms, you do something that will cause a lot of problems and is, on balance, probably going to cause more trouble than it's worth." So, my take is this. This dead horse topic has been beaten on and beaten on until it's pointless to even discuss it any more and it's just not worth the trouble. I could just as easily have said... welcome to this week's 'exercise in futility' because no matter what is discussed or ideas get generated out of it, the end result will be the same. Branson will continue with it's current business model as it always has and it will either succeed or fail because of (or in spite of) it.

[Branson Bluesman]

Originally Posted by TheOleSeagull

The Ole Seagull is having a tough time equating a discussion of Branson shows with a "can of worms." Why would it be "a can of worms?"

Because you "don't get it", that's why. Nobody has ever heard of any of the acts you mentioned outside of Branson. And, for the record, nobody has ever said they should be discounted or eliminated. Maybe The Ole Seagull needs to bow out of discussions he doesn't comprehend.

[Suselit]

I'm watching NBC's America's Got Talent just to see if there will be a connection to Branson again this year.
Last Season's Winner Michael Grimm, and Finalists, The Duttons and Jason Pritchett are from Branson.
And now Joseph Hall is, too.
Plus Voices Of Glory, 3 Redneck Tenors, Winner, Terry Fator, and other Contestants have appeared in Branson.
I think that these Entertainers are very current.

[bransonframer]

And for the record... concerning the list compiled by OleSeagull and the wording in the title of this thread.

A Bransonframer would suggest that it depends on your definition of the words "great" and "entertainment".

[TheOleSeagull]

In response to a post The OleSeagull said:

Originally Posted by TheOleSeagull

The Ole Seagull is having a tough time equating a discussion of Branson shows with a "can of worms." Why would it be "a can of worms?"

Branson Bluesman replies:

Originally Posted by Branson Bluesman

Because you "don't get it", that's why.

Now, let an Ole Seagull get this straight, it's a "can of worms" because in your opinion the Ole Seagull doesn't get it. Wow, just have to be impressed by that logic.

Originally Posted by Branson Bluesman

Nobody has ever heard of any of the acts you mentioned outside of Branson.

That's simply not true. Millions of people from "outside of Branson" come to Branson every year to see these and the other fine shows Branson offers. Would it be unreasonable to assume, that one way or another these millions go back where they came from and discuss what they saw in Branson with one or more people? In addition, millions more have seen some of these acts, such as the "Duttons" with their top ten performance on "America's Got Talent" on national TV. Still millions more have seen some of these acts perform all over the country and world in the off season and at other times.

Originally Posted by Branson Bluesman

And, for the record, nobody has ever said they should be discounted or eliminated.

Do those words of anything remotely resembling them appear in the original post?

Originally Posted by Branson Bluesman

Maybe The Ole Seagull needs to bow out of discussions he doesn't comprehend.

Based on the facts, is it totally inappropriate to suggest that Branson Bluesman might want to follow his own advice?

[TheOleSeagull]

Originally Posted by Suselit

I'm watching NBC's America's Got Talent just to see if there will be a connection to Branson again this year.
Last Season's Winner Michael Grimm, and Finalists, The Duttons and Jason Pritchett are from Branson. And now Joseph Hall is, too.
Plus Voices Of Glory, 3 Redneck Tenors, Winner, Terry Fator, and other Contestants have appeared in Branson.I think that these Entertainers are very current.

And it gets even more "current" when you factor in the effort that many Branson shows go through to add new material to their shows to keep them fresh and relevant.

[MelanieHamilton]

Personally, JMHO...this is how I feel about it. Just because a show is "not known outside of Branson", does not mean that it's not a good show, and it certainly doesn't mean it's not current. There are many, many people who come to Branson, just for the shows. They know that these shows are not known outside of Branson and that's a good thing. That keeps them coming to Branson, to see the shows. {Note that I didn't say, "Everyone comes to Branson to see these shows", but a vast majority does.}

IMHO, it's like a good, locally owned restaurant. Maybe nobody outside the town has heard of it, but that doesn't make it any less good. Nobody avoids eating at a good, locally owned restaurant...simply because nobody outside the town has heard of it. Why should entertainment be any different?

Yes, I am among those that would like to see "younger shows" in Branson, but I also feel there are many Branson shows that need to stay exactly as they are. One or two "younger shows" would be great, and would provide variety. But, the ones that people love and continue to patronize, year after year...those need to stay just as they are.

[Branson Bluesman]

Originally Posted by TheOleSeagull

Now, let an Ole Seagull get this straight, it's a "can of worms" because in your opinion the Ole Seagull doesn't get it. Wow, just have to be impressed by that logic.

Whatever...
Not going to argue with you simply for the sake of arguing (which you seem to thrive on).

That's simply not true. Millions of people from "outside of Branson" come to Branson every year to see these and the other fine shows Branson offers. Would it be unreasonable to assume, that one way or another these millions go back where they came from and discuss what they saw in Branson with one or more people? In addition, millions more have seen some of these acts, such as the "Duttons" with their top ten performance on "America's Got Talent" on national TV. Still millions more have seen some of these acts perform all over the country and world in the off season and at other times

Everyone here knows you're a major Dutton fan.
But what myself and others have said, holds true. You won't see current music acts like Sheryl Crow or Chicago in Branson. And...you won't hear about the local Branson acts much outside of Branson. And---I've never said these are not decent shows. Just that more variety needs to be offered in Branson.
But I'm sure you can twist the facts and somehow try to prove me wrong (because you're retired and really have nothing better to do). Why not get back to arguing about the flood water or some ridiculous local political matter nobody cares about? So...in closing...No, you still don't "get it".

[susantx]

As an outsider looking in I have to say you both have a point.My family comes to Branson for a lot of the other wonderful things Branson has to offer.We live in a large city that has a lot of big names every year.I can see 4 Branson shows for what one of those shows charge.I have been taking my grandchildren to Branson for years and they can see a varity of different shows and attractions without breaking the bank.Branson just has a lot to offer that the big cities don't and should be proud of that.

[bransonframer]

Originally Posted by TheOleSeagull

And it gets even more "current" when you factor in the effort that many Branson shows go through to add new material to their shows to keep them fresh and relevant.

If the "America's Got Talent Test" is the criteria, then we should apply one of the favorite arguments of those from the against newer, different talent side of the argument....

Why would anyone want to drive 4 or 5 hours to see some show they could just as easily see on their very own television in their own living room??

Everyone has a different opinion on what is considered "great" and "entertainment". So, I'll reiterate my earlier statement. This argument is nothing more than an 'exercise in futility'.

From the Urban Dictionary...
1. An action that achieves no end or goal.
2. An action to achieve a goal that is unachievable.
3. An action that achieves an end or goal that is in itself pointless

I'd say this discussion falls into #2. It should be considered unachievable to sway someones opinion on what is considered "great entertainment".

[Suselit]

Originally Posted by bransonframer

If the "America's Got Talent Test" is the criteria, then we should apply one of the favorite arguments of those from the against newer, different talent side of the argument....

Why would anyone want to drive 4 or 5 hours to see some show they could just as easily see on their very own television in their own living room??

Everyone has a different opinion on what is considered "great" and "entertainment". So, I'll reiterate my earlier statement. This argument is nothing more than an 'exercise in futility'.



I'd say this discussion falls into #2. It should be considered unachievable to sway someones opinion on what is considered "great entertainment".

American Idol takes the top Contestants on the American Idol Tour after each Season is over.
They are successful in bring people out to see this show just because those new fans have seen the contestants on their own televisions.
http://www.americanidol.com/tour/

[Branson Bluesman]

Originally Posted by bransonframer

This argument is nothing more than an 'exercise in futility'.

Exactly...
OR...

You are beating a dead horse when you insist on talking about something that cannot be changed.
Beating a dead horse is an action that has no purpose, because no matter how hard or how long you beat a dead horse, it is not going to get up and run.
To repeatedly bring up a particular topic with no chance of affecting the outcome is beating a dead horse.