Nowadays? Neither x 10!

If in a way-back machine, it would greatly depend on the choice of performer(s) I was given. Certain groups, like Queen or Earth Wind & Fire, IMO are better in a huge venue.

I've never been big on concerts so I'd likely choose to just stay in either way.

Small local concert every time. In our local town there is a club who meet in a room above the library, they often have really quite good performers, mainly classical, some jazz, folk and other types, you pay for it with a donation, or by buying a coffee/tea with a light cheese salad lunch before it starts, (no eating in the concert.) I am often amazed at the quality of the artists they get on their budget, though they pay nothing for the room.

The intimacy of a small room, where you are close enough to see the artists fingers is always magic. I went to a small nightclub fado concert, last time I was in Portugal, wonderful, for exactly the same reason.

The singers I would have paid to see are all dead . Wouldn’t pay a nickel to see any singers of today.

A local group The Fabulous Armadillos cover everyone. At a small venue in St. Cloud MN, their concerts each have a theme, usually one group/artist.

. . . note the lead guitar and the Braille

I immensely enjoy both. But to answer your question, I would probably choose the small, intimate venue. When I lived in NYC I would wander to Greenwich Village to a bar called The Corner, where an elderly blind pianist named Lance Hayward would play to a mostly empty room. I have great memories of those evenings.

These days I'd prolly stay home.

(but otherwise, I agree with you)