I feel like you're overusing the strawman card to avoid engaging with their argument. I think your take is overall very pessimistic. They likely won't have acts like Oasis in that venue and the pricing will probably be premium but broadly attainable, like their products.
Sorry, but I'm not. It literally was not something I said or was actually representative of my argument, so I don't know how it is something you can say "I don't know why you think…"
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
For clarity: I am not talking about affordability. I am talking about the profoundly anti-culture nature of that specific place and the people who can afford to live in it. As I said in my comment, there are other ways Apple could contribute to live music that didn't involve putting a pet music venue in such a soulless place.
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
It's called being charitable. Trying to understand what their point is and responding to that for the sake of advancing the conversation, rather than grinding it to a halt with pedantic quibbles over inaccuracies or poor phrasing.
I've never been so I can't really comment on the atmosphere of the building.
You made a pretty specific point and prediction about the price of tickets, which I responded to, but now you're not talking about affordability. Because the suggestion that they might not be doing the most soulless oligarchic thing ever in this place doesn't fit your doom narrative.
