Tell Me :
Talk
Maybe I am wrong, but is this a comparison of U2 and Bruce? ...the GA ticket for Bruce in Vienna - 78 Euro, U2 in Berlin - 68 Euro. 68/2 is not 78. No offence Gazza, but those are the facts
I just love when people keep go on an on and on about thigs they didn't see or hear, like this guy on the previous page - jjflash73: "And U2's newest album, got it as a gift and have never listened to it."
I have seen both Bruce and U2 in the last 2 weeks, both from a distance less than 10 meters and both delivered absolutely amazing prformance. I rate Bruce a liiiitle bit higher (the best show I have ever seen), but the U2 show was great too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 16:14 by Happy24.
No.The Stones and Bruce. Although the top price for u2's tickets are about double Bruce's as well. I've already acknowledged that u2 deserve some credit for keeping the lower end of the prices cheap and that other acts including the Stones (and Bruce for that matter) could learn from it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 17:55 by Gazza.
that bit of your post that I highlighted simply isnt accurate. If youre aiming your ticket prices at a section of the public with a large disposable income, then they'll think nothing of paying $450 for a ticket, even if (and anyone who has been to Stones shows in the last few years can verify this) they know hardly any songs. To many attendees, an expensive concert ticket is as much a status symbol as anything else. I'm a 'fanatic' and I'd never pay that kind of money for a ticket as a matter of principle - especially when there's alternate ways of getting cheaper ones.
Your analogy with 1995 is an accurate one, but things have changed in the last decade or so as has the band's target audience. South America may be the Stones most vociferous and enthusiastic audience, but that region simply doesnt generate enough revenue for Stones, Inc. to reward them with the number of concerts that their love for the band deserves. Buenos Aires was one city on the last tour where demand for tickets FAR outstripped supply - they played two shows there and could probably have sold out five, but chose to go back to the US and play arenas there instead (concerts which generated less overheads and where they could charge higher prices). Additionally, instead of playing a few shows in Brazil they played that one mega-show in Rio which was largely bankrolled by the city.
South America is a bit unusual in that its a younger more rock n roll audience. Thats NOT the sort of audience the Stones are aiming for in most of Europe and especially in North America.
One of my greatest regrets was not being able to see the band in a club show during the Licks tour.
At the beginning I refused to subscribe to the fan club, or to purchase the VIP pack. It was a huge amount of money. But once the tour unfolded and all those great reviews, I just wanted to get in. Fly on the spot to get in the queue the day before, hoping to get a ticket, was not an option.
Scalpers and the trade forum on IORR were my last hope.
I arrived to offer 800 euros, but it was not enough. The ticket went away for 900.
Today I feel stupid for not paying that money.
Am I a fanatic? THere are worse around for sure, but if so, who cares.
I remain with my regret.
And 800 euros more. Used for what?
I can't even remember!
C
In the beginning (ie, for the US leg of the tour), you werent allowed to join the fan club and take part in the presales unless you lived in the US or Canada.
I went to New York in September 2002 and Los Angeles a month later for the shows there (at considerable expense!) and saw the arena and stadium shows in both cities. However, because of the fact I didnt live in the US, I couldnt buy tickets for the theatre shows in those cities (Roseland and Wiltern). So much for being a 'fanatic'.
They only opened membership to the rest of the world at the end of 2002 when the European dates were announced. For those shows, you could buy tickets with your membership no matter where you lived (although intriguingly the presales tended to start at random times during the evening which would have been daytime in the US...funny,that). Still, it was great to get in to a theatre show, even if it wasnt exactly a level playing field when it came to acquiring tickets.
I probably would have got to more theatre shows only for rs.com's stupid fanatic-unfriendly rule that you were only allowed one membership per household and that any attempt to register for multiple memberships (and therefore see more than one theatre show) would result in your membership (and tickets) being cancelled. As it turned out, they didnt do this - although most of us found that out too late to get tickets (you could get round the problem by using different credit cards for each membership)
Yes I remember, and that was another reason for not subscribing.
Rather a scalper but NOT the fan club. Scalpers at least have their own ethics.
At least they don't promote their business with hats and DVDs ...
C
of course gazza, my thoughts exactly.
p
a few comments and questions, to wit:
first, were you there? leteyter lives in paris and i know he attended all 4 shows as he said -- can u say the same?
"infield" -- now u are using a term from baseball (largely an American sport or let's say not really played in Europe and the UK), so can you use a different term/description?
you were starting to make a good point but went too far with your last statement.
then again, what do I have to say about any of it as I made the derailing statement, so i can be rational and irrational, all in the same thread or even the same post, makes life fun and interesting. "U cant put me in a box."
Marx spoke of people criticizing themselves as well as others and I do believe it is good practice.
p
My guess would be that the money itself is not the only reason they charge such high prices, but because physically they no longer have the stamina to play multiple shows in a short time frame in each city, so this is also a way of cutting down on the number of shows they no longer can physically do, or not to the same degree anyway.
They know not as many fans will buy the tickets when they charge such high prices and this is intentional not only for money-making/greed reasons, but is a deliberate choice to hold down the number of fans and hence shows.
They know they will not sell as many tickets, hence fewer shows, which brings them down to a schedule that they can handle physically at this point in their lives/careers.
Money and physical issues interact nicely now for them here to produce what they can handle and still pull in a lot of money. I guess that's smart for them, even if it shortchanges the fans.
dont know if the way i just described a possible scenario did any justice or really explained the point i was trying to make very well.
well, there is always the edit feature, maybe later.
p
Well, Timbernardis, I was there too (you too ? no...), so take a look at this picture :
The stage itself, the central circle is really smaller than for the Stones.
And yes, "there were a lot of people around the stage, behind the stage, even far behind the stage and also filled seats behind the stage."
That's how to fill a stadium with 93,000 people (with an overcrowded field (or pitch), I have to recognized it).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-21 10:41 by Massimo68.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: July 20, 2009 14:43
I saw Bono & the Edge being interviewed on Jonathan Ross on Friday night.
They said one of the reasons they chose the Claw layout was that it allowed for more space and therefore seats in the stadium for the fans.
Bono was particularly proud and made a point of saying that the cheapest tix start from 30 euros, which is pretty amazing these days, we have to agree.
Perhaps Mick & Keef could take a note out of their books... Personally, I'd love it if they handed out low-cost or freebie front-area tix to college kids to get some newer fans and excitement into the shows (from the audience, not from the band, that is).
Just an idea but perhaps they prefer the easy corporate mega-dollars. Probably so!
They said one of the reasons they chose the Claw layout was that it allowed for more space and therefore seats in the stadium for the fans.
Bono was particularly proud and made a point of saying that the cheapest tix start from 30 euros, which is pretty amazing these days, we have to agree.
Perhaps Mick & Keef could take a note out of their books... Personally, I'd love it if they handed out low-cost or freebie front-area tix to college kids to get some newer fans and excitement into the shows (from the audience, not from the band, that is).
Just an idea but perhaps they prefer the easy corporate mega-dollars. Probably so!
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 20, 2009 15:36
These bands tend to bounce ideas off each other. If the Stones are going to fill stadiums again (and they had to resort to some serious 'tarping' in 2006 and 2007 to make several venues look more full than they were) they're really going to have to try something similar. Corporate fans are NOT loyal audiences.
Before the late 2006 US leg, I do remember Cohl announcing that there would be some kind of student discounts, but it all seemed very half assed and didnt appear to be well publicised. They were also doing a few "4 x $99 tickets for the price of 2" stunts before that leg ended to shift some unsold seats at the last minute. The whole thing sounded very desperate and cynical.
Unless the ONLY thing they care about is money, its a win-win scenario. Sell cheap tickets (I think U2's system is that there are something like 10,000 tickets at the cheapest rate), get the venues full AND attract that young audience that theyve lost in the last decade for the simple reason that theyve chosen to price them out of the market. The same 'new' audience might even discover that back catalogue that is selling so poorly - and they need to keep their music alive with younger audiences because it'll be largely overlooked in generations to come otherwise.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 15:37 by Gazza.
Before the late 2006 US leg, I do remember Cohl announcing that there would be some kind of student discounts, but it all seemed very half assed and didnt appear to be well publicised. They were also doing a few "4 x $99 tickets for the price of 2" stunts before that leg ended to shift some unsold seats at the last minute. The whole thing sounded very desperate and cynical.
Unless the ONLY thing they care about is money, its a win-win scenario. Sell cheap tickets (I think U2's system is that there are something like 10,000 tickets at the cheapest rate), get the venues full AND attract that young audience that theyve lost in the last decade for the simple reason that theyve chosen to price them out of the market. The same 'new' audience might even discover that back catalogue that is selling so poorly - and they need to keep their music alive with younger audiences because it'll be largely overlooked in generations to come otherwise.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 15:37 by Gazza.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: July 20, 2009 16:05
Quote
GazzaQuote
birdie
The ticket sales are impressive but I will take a 3 hr. show in front of 20,000-40,000 with no gimmicks or ridiculous stage any day of the week.
And with about half the ticket price and random playlists for good measure...
Maybe I am wrong, but is this a comparison of U2 and Bruce? ...the GA ticket for Bruce in Vienna - 78 Euro, U2 in Berlin - 68 Euro. 68/2 is not 78. No offence Gazza, but those are the facts
I just love when people keep go on an on and on about thigs they didn't see or hear, like this guy on the previous page - jjflash73: "And U2's newest album, got it as a gift and have never listened to it."
I have seen both Bruce and U2 in the last 2 weeks, both from a distance less than 10 meters and both delivered absolutely amazing prformance. I rate Bruce a liiiitle bit higher (the best show I have ever seen), but the U2 show was great too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 16:14 by Happy24.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: July 20, 2009 16:12
The tickets were expensives in the last tour. They were expensive for all people. I think 75 euros (cheaper ticket) very expesive. Many people don´t buy expensive tickets. If You aren´t a fanatic you don´t buy expensive tickets.
I remember stones brazilian concerts in 1995. The Stones tickets were sell by 18 reais (9 dolars) for the Maracanã concerts and 25 reais (12 dolars) for the Pacaembu concerts. The band sold 310.000 tickets for five concerts.
I remember stones brazilian concerts in 1995. The Stones tickets were sell by 18 reais (9 dolars) for the Maracanã concerts and 25 reais (12 dolars) for the Pacaembu concerts. The band sold 310.000 tickets for five concerts.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 20, 2009 17:35
A lot of shows on the Bang tour had a lot of empty seats. They've played too much in the same places. Chicago, for one. So what if 8 billion people live there. That doesn't mean play there 10 times on one tour in 3 years or whatever.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 20, 2009 17:41
Quote
Happy24Quote
GazzaQuote
birdie
The ticket sales are impressive but I will take a 3 hr. show in front of 20,000-40,000 with no gimmicks or ridiculous stage any day of the week.
And with about half the ticket price and random playlists for good measure...
Maybe I am wrong, but is this a comparison of U2 and Bruce? ...the GA ticket for Bruce in Vienna - 78 Euro, U2 in Berlin - 68 Euro. 68/2 is not 78. No offence Gazza, but those are the facts
No.The Stones and Bruce. Although the top price for u2's tickets are about double Bruce's as well. I've already acknowledged that u2 deserve some credit for keeping the lower end of the prices cheap and that other acts including the Stones (and Bruce for that matter) could learn from it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 17:55 by Gazza.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 20, 2009 17:53
Quote
carlostones10
The tickets were expensives in the last tour. They were expensive for all people. I think 75 euros (cheaper ticket) very expesive. Many people don´t buy expensive tickets. If You aren´t a fanatic you don´t buy expensive tickets.
I remember stones brazilian concerts in 1995. The Stones tickets were sell by 18 reais (9 dolars) for the Maracanã concerts and 25 reais (12 dolars) for the Pacaembu concerts. The band sold 310.000 tickets for five concerts.
that bit of your post that I highlighted simply isnt accurate. If youre aiming your ticket prices at a section of the public with a large disposable income, then they'll think nothing of paying $450 for a ticket, even if (and anyone who has been to Stones shows in the last few years can verify this) they know hardly any songs. To many attendees, an expensive concert ticket is as much a status symbol as anything else. I'm a 'fanatic' and I'd never pay that kind of money for a ticket as a matter of principle - especially when there's alternate ways of getting cheaper ones.
Your analogy with 1995 is an accurate one, but things have changed in the last decade or so as has the band's target audience. South America may be the Stones most vociferous and enthusiastic audience, but that region simply doesnt generate enough revenue for Stones, Inc. to reward them with the number of concerts that their love for the band deserves. Buenos Aires was one city on the last tour where demand for tickets FAR outstripped supply - they played two shows there and could probably have sold out five, but chose to go back to the US and play arenas there instead (concerts which generated less overheads and where they could charge higher prices). Additionally, instead of playing a few shows in Brazil they played that one mega-show in Rio which was largely bankrolled by the city.
South America is a bit unusual in that its a younger more rock n roll audience. Thats NOT the sort of audience the Stones are aiming for in most of Europe and especially in North America.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 20, 2009 17:59
What does buying expensive tickets have to do with being a fanatic? Or with being a fan? Do you prove something by spending more money? I spent 25 and 50 bucks on Voodoo. I thought the 50$ seats were overpriced. The 25$ seats were more like it. I can go watch airplanes take off for free at the airport, why should I pay a lot for the same view of the Stones?
That's the most idiotic thing ever, being a fanatic means spending a ton of money on tickets. Well good then - if I ever get to go see a Stones show and you are at it then I will have a chance at getting a decent cheap seat because the carolostone fanatic will have spent a ton of money to be up close so he can get tears in his beer over Mick singing Angie.
That's the most idiotic thing ever, being a fanatic means spending a ton of money on tickets. Well good then - if I ever get to go see a Stones show and you are at it then I will have a chance at getting a decent cheap seat because the carolostone fanatic will have spent a ton of money to be up close so he can get tears in his beer over Mick singing Angie.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:08
I saw Buenos Aires concerts and Brazilians concerts. Buenos Aires is a singular place. The Stones are really populars there. The stones fans are called "Rolingas".
We don´t have many hard core stones fans in Brazil. The people see the concerts because is a big show, big stage and because the Stones are a classic band, etc. The usual here is the people think Stones nice but don´t love the band. In Buenos Aires are many hard core fans and the people love the boys. It´s the usual situation.
Of course we have hard core fans in Brazil. I am a fanatic but I don´t know many other fanatics here.
We don´t have many hard core stones fans in Brazil. The people see the concerts because is a big show, big stage and because the Stones are a classic band, etc. The usual here is the people think Stones nice but don´t love the band. In Buenos Aires are many hard core fans and the people love the boys. It´s the usual situation.
Of course we have hard core fans in Brazil. I am a fanatic but I don´t know many other fanatics here.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:12
I know a few, carlo - and I do recall many of them being a bit pissed off that Copacabana was going to be the only show in Brazil. Especially for the fans in Sao Paulo who were hoping they'd play there!
They were great shows though. I'd love to go and see the Stones perform in South America.
They were great shows though. I'd love to go and see the Stones perform in South America.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:21
To judge fans according to how much are they willing to pay for a ticket both is and isn't relevant. It always depends on how much money it is for the person who pays it. 50 Euro is a lot of money a lot of people, while for other people 500 Euro is pretty much nothing.
I mean - I went to Berlin to see U2. I payed 68 Euro for the GA ticket. No big deal. Still, it is quite a lot for me, in my country you usually get FOS tickets for about 50 Euro for "big" acts. Then I had to pay 30 Euro for shipping the ticket! Shame on eventim. The only possibility they offer you is DHL. No registered post, no will call. If you want a ticket for a show in Germany and you live abroad, you have to pay 30 Euro to DHL. Shame on eventim, this is a strange thing indeed. But let's go on. Then of course I had to pay for the train to get to Berlin and for 2 nights in a hostel. If I count this all togehter, I get something like 200 Euro for the concert (getting quite a reasonably priced ticket). Which is waaaay too much for me. But what was my option when they don't come to our country and I really wanted to see them? Still I don't think I am fanatic.
Anyway, at the end I don't regret a single cent I spent, as I wrote I ended up less than 10 from the stage and had a great time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 18:25 by Happy24.
I mean - I went to Berlin to see U2. I payed 68 Euro for the GA ticket. No big deal. Still, it is quite a lot for me, in my country you usually get FOS tickets for about 50 Euro for "big" acts. Then I had to pay 30 Euro for shipping the ticket! Shame on eventim. The only possibility they offer you is DHL. No registered post, no will call. If you want a ticket for a show in Germany and you live abroad, you have to pay 30 Euro to DHL. Shame on eventim, this is a strange thing indeed. But let's go on. Then of course I had to pay for the train to get to Berlin and for 2 nights in a hostel. If I count this all togehter, I get something like 200 Euro for the concert (getting quite a reasonably priced ticket). Which is waaaay too much for me. But what was my option when they don't come to our country and I really wanted to see them? Still I don't think I am fanatic.
Anyway, at the end I don't regret a single cent I spent, as I wrote I ended up less than 10 from the stage and had a great time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 18:25 by Happy24.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:22
Quote
skipstone
What does buying expensive tickets have to do with being a fanatic? Or with being a fan? Do you prove something by spending more money? I spent 25 and 50 bucks on Voodoo. I thought the 50$ seats were overpriced. The 25$ seats were more like it. I can go watch airplanes take off for free at the airport, why should I pay a lot for the same view of the Stones?
That's the most idiotic thing ever, being a fanatic means spending a ton of money on tickets. Well good then - if I ever get to go see a Stones show and you are at it then I will have a chance at getting a decent cheap seat because the carolostone fanatic will have spent a ton of money to be up close so he can get tears in his beer over Mick singing Angie.
One of my greatest regrets was not being able to see the band in a club show during the Licks tour.
At the beginning I refused to subscribe to the fan club, or to purchase the VIP pack. It was a huge amount of money. But once the tour unfolded and all those great reviews, I just wanted to get in. Fly on the spot to get in the queue the day before, hoping to get a ticket, was not an option.
Scalpers and the trade forum on IORR were my last hope.
I arrived to offer 800 euros, but it was not enough. The ticket went away for 900.
Today I feel stupid for not paying that money.
Am I a fanatic? THere are worse around for sure, but if so, who cares.
I remain with my regret.
And 800 euros more. Used for what?
I can't even remember!
C
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:34
Quote
liddas
[
One of my greatest regrets was not being able to see the band in a club show during the Licks tour.
At the beginning I refused to subscribe to the fan club, or to purchase the VIP pack. It was a huge amount of money. But once the tour unfolded and all those great reviews, I just wanted to get in. Fly on the spot to get in the queue the day before, hoping to get a ticket, was not an option.
In the beginning (ie, for the US leg of the tour), you werent allowed to join the fan club and take part in the presales unless you lived in the US or Canada.
I went to New York in September 2002 and Los Angeles a month later for the shows there (at considerable expense!) and saw the arena and stadium shows in both cities. However, because of the fact I didnt live in the US, I couldnt buy tickets for the theatre shows in those cities (Roseland and Wiltern). So much for being a 'fanatic'.
They only opened membership to the rest of the world at the end of 2002 when the European dates were announced. For those shows, you could buy tickets with your membership no matter where you lived (although intriguingly the presales tended to start at random times during the evening which would have been daytime in the US...funny,that). Still, it was great to get in to a theatre show, even if it wasnt exactly a level playing field when it came to acquiring tickets.
I probably would have got to more theatre shows only for rs.com's stupid fanatic-unfriendly rule that you were only allowed one membership per household and that any attempt to register for multiple memberships (and therefore see more than one theatre show) would result in your membership (and tickets) being cancelled. As it turned out, they didnt do this - although most of us found that out too late to get tickets (you could get round the problem by using different credit cards for each membership)
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:44
I usualy prefer see the boys in Buenos Aires but I wait see the Stones in Brazil and Argentina in the next tour. It´s cheaper for me see the band in South America than US or Europe. But I will see the boys. In Brazil, Argentina, US or Europe. The important is see more some gigs. I meet you in the next tour, Gazza. :-)
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: July 20, 2009 18:49
Quote
Gazza
In the beginning (ie, for the US leg of the tour), you werent allowed to join the fan club and take part in the presales unless you lived in the US or Canada.
I went to New York in September 2002 and Los Angeles a month later for the shows there (at considerable expense!) and saw the arena and stadium shows in both cities. However, because of the fact I didnt live in the US, I couldnt buy tickets for the theatre shows in those cities (Roseland and Wiltern). So much for being a 'fanatic'.
They only opened membership to the rest of the world at the end of 2002 when the European dates were announced. For those shows, you could buy tickets with your membership no matter where you lived (although intriguingly the presales tended to start at random times during the evening which would have been daytime in the US...funny,that). Still, it was great to get in to a theatre show, even if it wasnt exactly a level playing field when it came to acquiring tickets.
I probably would have got to more theatre shows only for rs.com's stupid fanatic-unfriendly rule that you were only allowed one membership per household and that any attempt to register for multiple memberships (and therefore see more than one theatre show) would result in your membership (and tickets) being cancelled. As it turned out, they didnt do this - although most of us found that out too late to get tickets (you could get round the problem by using different credit cards for each membership)
Yes I remember, and that was another reason for not subscribing.
Rather a scalper but NOT the fan club. Scalpers at least have their own ethics.
At least they don't promote their business with hats and DVDs ...
C
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: July 20, 2009 22:02
Isn't it strange that U2 offer 30 € seats, have an average purchase ticket price lower than the Stones, but in the scores offered the average sold price arrived at is higher than with The Stones ? Bizarre.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 21, 2009 01:20
It is? The average ticket price on the last Stones tour was $167.
It varied in Europe from one country to the next, and even rocketed between the 2006 leg and the one in 2007.
It varied in Europe from one country to the next, and even rocketed between the 2006 leg and the one in 2007.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
llargueras
()
Date: July 21, 2009 02:48
Yeah, all these figures concerning people and sales are impressive, but talking about the songs, which I consider the most important in a band, U2 are repeating night after night 20 songs of the total 23 are playing. Do you remember what happened with the Stones in the last tour: always the same songs and only two, three or maximum four new songs in the following show. U2 fans should feel similar I felt when the Stones were on the road two years ago. ACDC the same. Bands now focus their profits in the largest audiences, highest sales,... and real fans,....rubbish
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 21, 2009 02:50
Ah but see they are playing NEW songs from the NEW record night after night. THAT is the difference. Go stick that in you bigger bang.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
llargueras
()
Date: July 21, 2009 03:12
You are right. Seven songs, yes seven, one third of the set list are songs from NO LINE.... I truly appreciate this, not only for U2 but for any band; but to tell you the truth if I should chose, I'd prefer the Springsteen way to plan and focus his setlist.
Average of 27 or 28 songs per show.
12 songs appeared fixed in each of the shows: Badlands, Outlaw Pete, Working On A Dream, Seeds, Johnny 99, Waiting On A Sunny Day, The Promised Land, Lonesome Day, The Rising, Born To Run, American Land and Dancin' In The Dark.
And the rest to cover the total 27 or 28 songs, he's using if I'm not wrong between 80 and 90 different songs, including covers as London Calling in London Hyde Park show or Who'll stop the rain in different shows.
Bruce fans following several shows are much more happier due to this "surprise effect".
Average of 27 or 28 songs per show.
12 songs appeared fixed in each of the shows: Badlands, Outlaw Pete, Working On A Dream, Seeds, Johnny 99, Waiting On A Sunny Day, The Promised Land, Lonesome Day, The Rising, Born To Run, American Land and Dancin' In The Dark.
And the rest to cover the total 27 or 28 songs, he's using if I'm not wrong between 80 and 90 different songs, including covers as London Calling in London Hyde Park show or Who'll stop the rain in different shows.
Bruce fans following several shows are much more happier due to this "surprise effect".
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 21, 2009 04:04
I guess it depends how many shows you choose to see per tour.
Personally, if I was going to see U2, one show per tour would be enough so the relatively static setlists wouldnt be that big an issue. The added bonus in THEIR method though is that because they play so many new songs, it means its a relatively different show from the previous tour.
Thats a major shortcoming of the Stones. Yes, its a great show with terrific songs - but as the same 10-12 songs get played at almost every arena/stadium show on every tour, its becoming more and more a case of the same thing each time, especially when they're playing so few songs from their current album and with the setlists getting shorter (18-19 songs for much of the last tour). On Licks, they played 1 new song all tour - on ABB it was getting to the stage where it was down to 1 or 2 per show towards the latter part of it. Effectively, its a nostalgia/greatest hits show and nothing more. A Stones greatest hits show could still be kept interesting simply by varying the choice of hits - they have more than pretty much anyone else. For every Brown Sugar, JJ Flash, HT Women - all of which get played every night - they could alternate with,say, Out of Time (NEVER played in their entire career), Little Red Rooster, Have You Seen Your Mother etc - all well known songs that dont get performed much.
Bruce could play more of his new album on his current tour (especially in a setlist of 27-29 songs) but after he did that to begin with, he seems to have figured (in my opinion) that the big arrangements on some of the new songs dont come over as well in a live setting, especially in a stadium. So, theres a fair amount of crossover between the Magic tour and the current tour which started just 7 months after the last one ended. That said, I saw 6 shows on the Magic tour and saw four in the last couple of weeks, and heard almost 20 songs that I didnt hear once on the last tour and a few that, even in 29 shows since 1981, I'd never seen him perform before. Not bad.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-21 14:14 by Gazza.
Personally, if I was going to see U2, one show per tour would be enough so the relatively static setlists wouldnt be that big an issue. The added bonus in THEIR method though is that because they play so many new songs, it means its a relatively different show from the previous tour.
Thats a major shortcoming of the Stones. Yes, its a great show with terrific songs - but as the same 10-12 songs get played at almost every arena/stadium show on every tour, its becoming more and more a case of the same thing each time, especially when they're playing so few songs from their current album and with the setlists getting shorter (18-19 songs for much of the last tour). On Licks, they played 1 new song all tour - on ABB it was getting to the stage where it was down to 1 or 2 per show towards the latter part of it. Effectively, its a nostalgia/greatest hits show and nothing more. A Stones greatest hits show could still be kept interesting simply by varying the choice of hits - they have more than pretty much anyone else. For every Brown Sugar, JJ Flash, HT Women - all of which get played every night - they could alternate with,say, Out of Time (NEVER played in their entire career), Little Red Rooster, Have You Seen Your Mother etc - all well known songs that dont get performed much.
Bruce could play more of his new album on his current tour (especially in a setlist of 27-29 songs) but after he did that to begin with, he seems to have figured (in my opinion) that the big arrangements on some of the new songs dont come over as well in a live setting, especially in a stadium. So, theres a fair amount of crossover between the Magic tour and the current tour which started just 7 months after the last one ended. That said, I saw 6 shows on the Magic tour and saw four in the last couple of weeks, and heard almost 20 songs that I didnt hear once on the last tour and a few that, even in 29 shows since 1981, I'd never seen him perform before. Not bad.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-21 14:14 by Gazza.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
jjflash73
()
Date: July 21, 2009 04:56
So if what I am reading is correct, U2 ticket prices starting at 30 euros, I submit to all of you that the Stones would sell out everywhere...............
PS- I have no problem with the war horses being played......give me a few gems each tour and I am happy. I just want to see the Stones on stage.
There the band for me.
PS- I have no problem with the war horses being played......give me a few gems each tour and I am happy. I just want to see the Stones on stage.
There the band for me.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: July 21, 2009 07:11
Quote
GazzaQuote
timbernardis
i hate u2 and i hope something happens to derail their tour
the start of their last tour was postponed by a couple of months because The Edge's daughter was receiving treatment for leukemia.
Maybe you'd get a kick if something like that happened again or even if the child died?
of course gazza, my thoughts exactly.
p
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: July 21, 2009 07:22
Quote
stoneswashed77
"half the pitch was taken by the Claw"
that´s wrong. the stage itself is a lot smaller than stones stage and not as wide. there were a lot of people around the stage, behind the stage, even far behind the stage and also filled seats behind the stage. where when the stones play half the stadium is filled with the stage. also the infield was really full.
the show was great. not only because of the stage and lights, but the peformance was really good. really good sound, something that hasn´t happened lately with stones concerts. also snow patrol was allowed to have a very good sound, which is very cool from u2 if you ask me. mixture of new and old songs almost perfect. also i haven´t seen so many young people at a concert for a long time. a few weeks ago i saw depeche mode and it was like grandma meets grandpa. this is still a current band. and as much as i hate to say it. i doubt the stones will ever get anywhere near that again.
which is alright with me, but i am sure they will hate it and probably makes them not tour again.
if you ask me, i think u2 deserves their success. it is a good band. i don´t understand all the hate here. they definately have some very good songs,also very good new songs, and it would be alright to admit that even though you may like the stones better.
the stones haven´t done one good, relevant new song in 30 years.
that´s their fault!
a few comments and questions, to wit:
first, were you there? leteyter lives in paris and i know he attended all 4 shows as he said -- can u say the same?
"infield" -- now u are using a term from baseball (largely an American sport or let's say not really played in Europe and the UK), so can you use a different term/description?
you were starting to make a good point but went too far with your last statement.
then again, what do I have to say about any of it as I made the derailing statement, so i can be rational and irrational, all in the same thread or even the same post, makes life fun and interesting. "U cant put me in a box."
Marx spoke of people criticizing themselves as well as others and I do believe it is good practice.
p
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: July 21, 2009 07:52
Quote
Gazza
The 5 nights in Amsterdam was actually in 1998, not 1995. 250,000 tickets sold in a couple of hours. And then they returned to play a field show in The Hague a couple of months later in front of some 80,000 people.
The Stones were (and still are) huge. However, the days of multiple night runs in the same venue are a thing of the past at the prices they charge now. In 1998, tickets were about £35-40.
My guess would be that the money itself is not the only reason they charge such high prices, but because physically they no longer have the stamina to play multiple shows in a short time frame in each city, so this is also a way of cutting down on the number of shows they no longer can physically do, or not to the same degree anyway.
They know not as many fans will buy the tickets when they charge such high prices and this is intentional not only for money-making/greed reasons, but is a deliberate choice to hold down the number of fans and hence shows.
They know they will not sell as many tickets, hence fewer shows, which brings them down to a schedule that they can handle physically at this point in their lives/careers.
Money and physical issues interact nicely now for them here to produce what they can handle and still pull in a lot of money. I guess that's smart for them, even if it shortchanges the fans.
dont know if the way i just described a possible scenario did any justice or really explained the point i was trying to make very well.
well, there is always the edit feature, maybe later.
p
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: July 21, 2009 07:54
>the stones haven´t done one good, relevant new song in 30 years.
Remind me why you're here.
Remind me why you're here.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
silverstones69
()
Date: July 21, 2009 09:52
Quote
timbernardis
My guess would be that the money itself is not the only reason they charge such high prices, but because physically they no longer have the stamina to play multiple shows in a short time frame in each city, so this is also a way of cutting down on the number of shows they no longer can physically do, or not to the same degree anyway.
They know not as many fans will buy the tickets when they charge such high prices and this is intentional not only for money-making/greed reasons, but is a deliberate choice to hold down the number of fans and hence shows.
They know they will not sell as many tickets, hence fewer shows, which brings them down to a schedule that they can handle physically at this point in their lives/careers.
Money and physical issues interact nicely now for them here to produce what they can handle and still pull in a lot of money. I guess that's smart for them, even if it shortchanges the fans.
dont know if the way i just described a possible scenario did any justice or really explained the point i was trying to make very well.
TIMBERNARDIS -
That is a perfectly spot on summation in my opinion.
Do people really expect them to do a tour where the prices are down & they have to camp in New York for 2 weeks while playing 6 or 8 shows? And then do the same in LA & other cities with 2 or 3 shows etc etc.
They crunch the numbers & work out likely that 1 show / 2 shows tops in one area is enough & a tiered pricing structure works for the juggernaught to make money & keep the number of shows down.
It's purely logical & common sense for the age they are at.
YES - GREED may be a large factor, no dispute there, but they know what they will make & they don't want to do 120 shows in the USA when they can knock it down to maybe 55 by being "GREEDY". Yes it sucks for some of us it seems, but they can do whatever they want to, period.
Let's quote Keith to make this clear & simple - "WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO, LIVE IN A TOWN FOR A YEAR & PLAY A GARAGE?". Forget it.
Good luck to them in their future tour plans & I just hope they do one tour again for all of us & I could not care less what they charge, I will get a new credit card & devote a couple of thousand bucks to them. Big deal, $100 / $250 / $450 / $700, whatever..., I will catch 1 show or 2 if possible or all 55 if I win Powerball.
If you cannot make it yourself, or refuse to, or are broke, we each have our own reasons, but Timbers comment is pretty spot on, let's face that fact at least.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Massimo68
()
Date: July 21, 2009 10:38
Quote
timbernardisQuote
stoneswashed77
"half the pitch was taken by the Claw"
that´s wrong. the stage itself is a lot smaller than stones stage and not as wide. there were a lot of people around the stage, behind the stage, even far behind the stage and also filled seats behind the stage. where when the stones play half the stadium is filled with the stage. also the infield was really full.
a few comments and questions, to wit:
first, were you there? leteyter lives in paris and i know he attended all 4 shows as he said -- can u say the same?
"infield" -- now u are using a term from baseball (largely an American sport or let's say not really played in Europe and the UK), so can you use a different term/description?
you were starting to make a good point but went too far with your last statement.
then again, what do I have to say about any of it as I made the derailing statement, so i can be rational and irrational, all in the same thread or even the same post, makes life fun and interesting. "U cant put me in a box."
Marx spoke of people criticizing themselves as well as others and I do believe it is good practice.
p
Well, Timbernardis, I was there too (you too ? no...), so take a look at this picture :
The stage itself, the central circle is really smaller than for the Stones.
And yes, "there were a lot of people around the stage, behind the stage, even far behind the stage and also filled seats behind the stage."
That's how to fill a stadium with 93,000 people (with an overcrowded field (or pitch), I have to recognized it).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-21 10:41 by Massimo68.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
Harm
()
Date: July 21, 2009 11:01
Great picture Massimo. Great stage.
Mark Fisher must have the most exiting job in the world.
Mark Fisher must have the most exiting job in the world.
Re: OT: Impressive U2 tour boxscores
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: July 21, 2009 12:36
one more thought on the topic "new songs" 2 or 3 friends of mine didn´t go to see u2 in berlin because they don´t like the new record. u2 is known for playing many new songs. my friends would have gone if they would have played older songs.
on the other hand i know of 10 more people who went to see them and were very excited about it. i am talking about people aged between 20 and 30.
so for u2 i think in the end it pays off to play many new songs.
it lies all in being relevant with new music. since i saw u2 i also no longer buy the "the stones are just too old to attract new, younger fans". have a look at bono, shit, he is close to keith in looks, and when keith was bonos age he was a beauty.
i still think the stones haven´t done one relevant song in 30 years.
they should spend more time writing and recording! maybe the problem is they
don´t really have to fight for their success anymore. every new tour will at least sell alright.
on the other hand i know of 10 more people who went to see them and were very excited about it. i am talking about people aged between 20 and 30.
so for u2 i think in the end it pays off to play many new songs.
it lies all in being relevant with new music. since i saw u2 i also no longer buy the "the stones are just too old to attract new, younger fans". have a look at bono, shit, he is close to keith in looks, and when keith was bonos age he was a beauty.
i still think the stones haven´t done one relevant song in 30 years.
they should spend more time writing and recording! maybe the problem is they
don´t really have to fight for their success anymore. every new tour will at least sell alright.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
69firebird , bluemick , kickit , micha063 , novica , thetiger , Topi , usetobesampeg , werner67976 , wineaux
Guests:
1873
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10