On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM, U&I Design <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry Tom, maybe it's my shortage of sleep or the mass amounts of > coffee I had this morning... but I keep trying to comprehend what your > saying with this and I can't . If its important, can you rephrase > this? Make it simple so my mind thats too tired to keep up with the > racing caffeine can comprehend.
okay guys, try not to hurt yourselves ;) say you have 5 stages from noon-midnight for 3 days every year. that is 180 performance hours each year. now, for the early years, let's say average set lengths were 2 hours. that gives you 90 2 hour performances. assuming each one is by a different performer, that is 90 performers. now lets say for the more recent ones that the average set length decreased just a slight bit to 1.5 hours per set. that now gives you 120 1.5 hour performances. assuming each one is by a different performer, that is 120 performers with only a small change in average set times. and if the total number of detroit artists remained exactly the same each year (for sake of argument, let's go with 30 per year) the percentage of total artists who are from detroit would change from 33.3% in years with 90 artists to 25% in years with 120 artists. this was in response to you saying "You think the overall number of performers increased? They've consistently had 4 stages sometimes 5 throughout the years, same hours too.. simple math would tell you thats not humanly possible..." except that simple math shows that it is indeed very possible to have more performers by just shortening the length of each set. and since the published set information is not really reliable, it may be impossible to actually guage whether or not the set lengths are shorter, but it seems to me over the past 2 years especially there have been a lot more 1 hour sets than there were in years past. tom
