I wish I'd gone to see ZOO TV. Saw the PopMart tour. It was a great show. Better than Voodoo Lounge. Which I liked.

I guess under the right circumstances I'd see them again. It's not something I'd put a priority on, though.

Quote
GasLightStreet
I wish I'd gone to see ZOO TV. Saw the PopMart tour. It was a great show. Better than Voodoo Lounge. Which I liked.

I thought the Pop Mart tour suffered a bit by comparison to ZOO TV, it was like they couldn't one up themselves. You'd have loved ZOO TV.

Achtung Baby and the tour was their high point for me. Still like them and will go to at least one concert. But like many others I'm a little tired of Bono. Mostly for his/their incessant need to be relevant. I think the music suffers because of this, and I can't stand Bono's hip hop hair styles. Though I guess it shouldn't matter. Anyhow, there are some good songs on the new album in between all the "relevant" stuff I can't swallow.

Not a big fan of U2, they have a few good tunes and a couple great ones but the majority of them don't really move me. I was also pretty horrified to find the free U2 record on my iTunes account but...

I don't really understand why people give Bono such a hard time about what he does when he's not making music. I mean if he wants to end world hunger, save African nations or stamp out AIDS why would we care? They seem like pretty important problems to me, generally more than I would want to tackle...so let someone like Bono who has a lot of free time and disposable income give it his best shot.

Now if he started spending his concert performance time preaching to me about what I should do, then I would have a problem with it.

But if his performance as a philanthropist and promoter of world causes is at least as good as other folks trying to do the same....I think we should give him a break.. Basically I don't have any expectations of rock stars except that they make good music. peace

Quote
Naturalust
I mean if he wants to end world hunger, save African nations or stamp out AIDS why would we care?

Sure but you don't solve the world's problems by shaking hands with criminals like Bush Jr Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac. You fight against these types as they're part of the problem not the solution.

Bono just wants to look good on the picture : "hey look everybody, that's me at the White House".

Quote
dcba

Quote
Naturalust
I mean if he wants to end world hunger, save African nations or stamp out AIDS why would we care?

Sure but you don't solve the world's problems by shaking hands with criminals like Bush Jr Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac. You fight against these types as they're part of the problem not the solution.

Bono just wants to look good on the picture : "hey look everybody, that's me at the White House".

I must respectfully disagree. Although I agree that shaking hands with those leaders is meaningless, getting their ears and trying to influence them in positive ways could have positive results. Their ability to solve (and create) problems is arguably better than anybody else in the world given the proper motivation and information. I'd rather have them talking to Bono than each other!

I'd like to believe than Bono's motivations were a bit loftier than a bit of PR or self importance...he seems to walk the walk a bit better than that. And how's he going to fight against them, run for office?

And on one level, it's like dealing with record companies for most bands in the 70's, they were generally immoral, money grubbing thieves and criminals but without them we would not have had a lot of great music.

And on another level....I can't believe I'm defending Bono.

peace

The standing tickets in Europe (I checked Köln, there were all prices yesterday, but standing and RED disappeared today) are about 70 Euro (a bit less actually). The seating is from about 40 to 200 Euro. You can get RED charity tickets for about 250 I think. From what I heard, the standing tickets will be no paper tickets, one gets the entry with the credit card that payed for the ticket(s). They are not transferable. Good strategy and fairly reasonable prices IMO. I will try to get some standing on Monday, but even without the scalpers in the game, I guess it will be really tough.

I guess I'm not alone in my newfound lack of interest in U2.

Is it true with you also that at the heart of it is simply a lack of songs? The artistic fall-off since "All That You Can't Leave Behind" is staggering.

Rolling Stone magazine's naming "Songs of Innocence" as one of the best albums of 2014 is laughable and entirely political. Calculated solely to guarantee future interviews and tour access, not based on any measure of the actual album.

As someone who cottoned powerfully to "Boy" and "The Unforgettable Fire" and several others, it kills me to say this, but U2 are spent.

Why do they continue? Are they looking to secure their great-grandchildren's futures? I wish they'd take a page from the book of R.E.M. and retire before they forfeit their remaining credibility.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Naturalust
I mean if he wants to end world hunger, save African nations or stamp out AIDS why would we care?

Sure but you don't solve the world's problems by shaking hands with criminals like Bush Jr Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac. You fight against these types as they're part of the problem not the solution.

Bono just wants to look good on the picture : "hey look everybody, that's me at the White House".

He is a photo-op champ.His actions (or lack of) betray much of what he says he stands for. A huge ego and a fraud.

I can't stand Bono.

Mathijs

There's only one U2 tune that I constantly come back to - When Love come to Town. No need to guess why that is.

I cant stand Bono either, but it seems that's the fate of a huge popstar. Love him or hate him. It's the MEH reaction thta is the real death of a popstar.
Someone mentioned the staggering drop in song quality since ATYCLB; I totally agree. Bono can really bother me, yet I would still leave pretty fulfilled from a raving U2 live show.
Until those last 2-3 albums - full of midtempo, self-important nonsense. Especially the one before this last one.

Well, getting ready for a couple of shows..I like most songs but they don't really move me..Just fun to go to a rock concert though, don't think I will have something better to do that day.

Very interesting to read peoples views on Bono. Some of them I totally agree with and others not so much. Personally I've always thought he was trying to be like John Lennon is some type of way, just modernized with a similar if not same agenda. In this way I like him for trying to help or save the world. On the other hand I don't like to hear him sing out several hallelujah's during songs I normally love (in concert). Not that I'm against God, quite the opposite actually, but I don't need to hear about it either, not at a Rock And Roll show. The Stones obviously wouldn't do this, though I doubt they're against religion. Very smart of them to keep these things private. Back to U2 music, I hope the next album is more rocking since it's titled Experienced. I keep my fingers crossed.

Some good points; I do agree ther artistic fall-off since 2000 has been pronounced; yet funnily, some of their highest ever sellers are the more bland last 3 albums. Definitely calculated after the experimental 90s to go the conservative route, and it has paid off, maybe not artistically, but certainly financially.

Earnest is a tag U2 would admit themselves easily to be labelled with, and their quest for 'relevance' is mentioned a lot over the past 10 years. I still think each album since had great songs among them, but also a lot of bland filler.

The 90s albums were far more interesting; Achtung Baby I still feel is their high point, a terrific album; Zooropa, Passengers and Pop all were at the very least interesting, and at their best, U2 at their artistic pinnacle. The tours were amazing, Zoo TV and Popmart.

Bono can be annoying, a lot of people feel it's the almost pious way he speaks when detailing either his charity efforts, or, the artistic, spiritual merits of U2's albums. Okay, he can be a bit pious, but I honestly think it's not simply PR, he really believes in the causes he campaigns for, and uses his celebrity to at least gain access to the powerful who are needed to be onside to get things done.

U2's albums always have been spiritual, very religious imagery in every '2 album up to present day, and that is an element of their music that keeps me coming back; when it's good, it's great. 'Boy','Joshua Tree', 'Achtung Baby', 'Zooropa', even 'Passengers' - excellent albums all in my opinion.

The new album was much better than I thought it would be, and initially I played it more than I have a new '2 album in aeons. It's dropped off a bit, but I think it's their best since 'Pop' in 1997.

I look forward to seeing them indoors in Dublin next October/November.

Lead singers are pompous in different ways. There are a lot of Stones fans and non-Stones fans who don't/didn't like Mick anno 1975 too much.

Whatever rocks your boat, I'd say. IMO, Bono was cool in the early 80s, but his relevance washed away with the increasing superstardom...

The era of the big stadium tours seems to be definitely over! This is arenas too.

During the 90s and 00s, the Stones, U2 and other big acts took their mammoth Mark Fisher stages across the globe. Just seeing these stages for me was worth going and paying for. I would go see U2 in a stadium, but probably not in an arena.

Now times have apparantly changed (or the acts did some recalculating) and arena tours are more profitable in terms of relative higher income and lower costs.
In 2007, the Stones will have noticed that there's more income in half a stadium for 150/ticket than a sold out one for 60/ticket.

For the incidental outdoor/stadium concert, the Stones had a much cheaper stage designed for the current tour, which at some locations they didn't even manage to build up completely. And they could use a lot of festival stages of course, which imho is a main reason for doing festivals, apart from the 'legacy'. Of course they had to get confident enough for doing other peoples' stages musically, which luckily they did.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Lead singers are pompous in different ways. There are a lot of Stones fans and non-Stones fans who don't/didn't like Mick anno 1975 too much.

Whatever rocks your boat, I'd say. IMO, Bono was cool in the early 80s, but his relevance washed away with the increasing superstardom...

Just like MJ became rather 'uncool' in the mid eighties....he got his 'cool' back pretty quickly though.

I have got tickets for the first show in Amsterdam

Quote
dcba
Two arena shows per city... sounds good!
(though I don't care at all about U2).

They would certainly do 4 in Paris, 10 and 11 November officially announced, 15 already booked and very strong possibility for the 14th.

Quote
Limbostone
The era of the big stadium tours seems to be definitely over! This is arenas too.

During the 90s and 00s, the Stones, U2 and other big acts took their mammoth Mark Fisher stages across the globe. Just seeing these stages for me was worth going and paying for. I would go see U2 in a stadium, but probably not in an arena.

Now times have apparantly changed (or the acts did some recalculating) and arena tours are more profitable in terms of relative higher income and lower costs.
In 2007, the Stones will have noticed that there's more income in half a stadium for 150/ticket than a sold out one for 60/ticket.

For the incidental outdoor/stadium concert, the Stones had a much cheaper stage designed for the current tour, which at some locations they didn't even manage to build up completely. And they could use a lot of festival stages of course, which imho is a main reason for doing festivals, apart from the 'legacy'. Of course they had to get confident enough for doing other peoples' stages musically, which luckily they did.

Good post! This was also the observation I made. I am not particularly interested musically in U2, but since they are about the only act in the world in the league of the Stones, it is interesting to follow their doings, that is, what is going on in the business. Their tour doesn't much differ from the pattern the Stones especially did the American leg of the tour.

- Doxa

OK, second most famous Gibson Explorer user is on Tour again soon...

2 1 2 0

U2 are like Madonna. They just refuse all entreaties to go away.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Limbostone
The era of the big stadium tours seems to be definitely over! This is arenas too.

During the 90s and 00s, the Stones, U2 and other big acts took their mammoth Mark Fisher stages across the globe. Just seeing these stages for me was worth going and paying for. I would go see U2 in a stadium, but probably not in an arena.

Now times have apparantly changed (or the acts did some recalculating) and arena tours are more profitable in terms of relative higher income and lower costs.
In 2007, the Stones will have noticed that there's more income in half a stadium for 150/ticket than a sold out one for 60/ticket.

For the incidental outdoor/stadium concert, the Stones had a much cheaper stage designed for the current tour, which at some locations they didn't even manage to build up completely. And they could use a lot of festival stages of course, which imho is a main reason for doing festivals, apart from the 'legacy'. Of course they had to get confident enough for doing other peoples' stages musically, which luckily they did.

Good post! This was also the observation I made. I am not particularly interested musically in U2, but since they are about the only act in the world in the league of the Stones, it is interesting to follow their doings, that is, what is going on in the business. Their tour doesn't much differ from the pattern the Stones especially did the American leg of the tour.

- Doxa

So why did The Stones do the European stadium tour this summer? I know, some festival stages, but it was a stadium tour anyway. I can't see how anyone can call it an "incidental outdoor/stadium concert," other than to support conclusions that are simply not true.

And that this current U2 tour is in arenas? They have been saying that they would do an arena tour at least for 10 years now. Instead the Vertigo in 2004-06 was in arenas in the US, but otherwise a stadium tour. The 360 in 2009-11 was all stadiums, and they were not exactly loosing money. And U2 will very likely do a stadium tour in 2016. And the ticket prices? They are pretty much the same now in arenas as they were in 2009-11 for stadium shows. 70 Euro for a standing ticket is not a bad price nowadays and it is exactly the same as it was 4-5 years ago for the 360 stadium show.

And also...Springsteen and McCartney sell out stadiums without any problem. Even Roger Waters was selling out stadiums with his The Wall, which I think belongs more to the "arena act" cathegory. Depeche Mode sell out stadiums in Europe. And there are surely more acts that I could name.

I can agree with you, that the stadium tours as such are past their prime, but they are not over by any means. Regardless of what anyone thinks about U2, they can still sell out stadiums within minutes and I am sure they will again. And there are still more acts who are capable of doing so, eventhough they are of course all getting older and the young bands can never get that legendary status that fills stadiums. Okay, Coldplay sell out staduims and from what I have seen on youtube, even One Direction plays stadiums, which is absolutely beyond my understanding, but it is not the only thing in the World that I don't understand



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-04 18:33 by Happy24.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Limbostone
The era of the big stadium tours seems to be definitely over! This is arenas too.

During the 90s and 00s, the Stones, U2 and other big acts took their mammoth Mark Fisher stages across the globe. Just seeing these stages for me was worth going and paying for. I would go see U2 in a stadium, but probably not in an arena.

Now times have apparantly changed (or the acts did some recalculating) and arena tours are more profitable in terms of relative higher income and lower costs.
In 2007, the Stones will have noticed that there's more income in half a stadium for 150/ticket than a sold out one for 60/ticket.

For the incidental outdoor/stadium concert, the Stones had a much cheaper stage designed for the current tour, which at some locations they didn't even manage to build up completely. And they could use a lot of festival stages of course, which imho is a main reason for doing festivals, apart from the 'legacy'. Of course they had to get confident enough for doing other peoples' stages musically, which luckily they did.

Good post! This was also the observation I made. I am not particularly interested musically in U2, but since they are about the only act in the world in the league of the Stones, it is interesting to follow their doings, that is, what is going on in the business. Their tour doesn't much differ from the pattern the Stones especially did the American leg of the tour.

- Doxa

AC/DC and the E-Street Band are also still legitimate stadium acts.

I can't think of any others...MAYBE Bon Jovi when they play Giants Stadium in New Jersey, but that's a regional thing.

But basically, U2 has about 10-15 years of youth on those other bands. AC/DC, Springsteen and the Stones won't be playing stadiums in 10 years, guaranteed.

It's kind of a bummer...although I prefer arenas, it still feels like the end of an era, and it's pathetic that newer acts haven't risen up to take the place of the greats.

Quote
rbk
U2 are like Madonna. They just refuse all entreaties to go away.

Right.

Even though their last tour, which was only 4-5 years ago, is officially the highest-grossing tour of all time.

But yeah, clearly you're right. NO ONE likes or wants to see U2. Great logic, there.

Quote
Limbostone
The era of the big stadium tours seems to be definitely over! This is arenas too.

During the 90s and 00s, the Stones, U2 and other big acts took their mammoth Mark Fisher stages across the globe. Just seeing these stages for me was worth going and paying for. I would go see U2 in a stadium, but probably not in an arena.

Now times have apparantly changed (or the acts did some recalculating) and arena tours are more profitable in terms of relative higher income and lower costs.
In 2007, the Stones will have noticed that there's more income in half a stadium for 150/ticket than a sold out one for 60/ticket.

For the incidental outdoor/stadium concert, the Stones had a much cheaper stage designed for the current tour, which at some locations they didn't even manage to build up completely. And they could use a lot of festival stages of course, which imho is a main reason for doing festivals, apart from the 'legacy'. Of course they had to get confident enough for doing other peoples' stages musically, which luckily they did.

I think the reason is different. As far as I understand U2 is going to play 2 different sets in each city hence two arena shows. I would be difficult to sell out 2 stadium shows everywhere (which means at least 80 thousand tickets) so 2 arena shows (ca. 15000-20000 tickets each) is much better solution. There are plenty stadium acts: Springsteen, Stones, AC/DC, Metallica to name a few, and there are still newer bands that are slowly transisting from arenas to stadiums: Muse, Coldplay, 30 Seconds To Mars so I don't think that stadium market is gone yet.

Quote
Happy24



So why did The Stones do the European stadium tour this summer?

Well, it is interesting that the pattern which seemingly applied for American market was not continued in Europe. European leg was pretty much 'traditional' stadium tour with (almost dramatically) lower ticket prices and bigger crowds. I don't know why.

It could be that the experience they had from America wasn't so pleasing one as they had wished for. They had some problems in selling out the shows, and probably AEG was not too happy with the results either. It is also rumoured that the European arena tour later in the year (2013) did not happen since they couldn't find a promoter. Then who knows if Jagger simply wasn't too into performing to rather lame crowds (some reports seem to claim that expensive seats seemed to dictate rather much the nature of the audience) and was more thrilled with his festival crowd experiences in England. (We also remember the hassle Mick's will to have T3 ticket holders in the front of stage in Hyde Park caused). Probably he just likes bigger, more enthusiastic crowds? Another thing to consider is that there is not so big arenas in Europe as there are in America.

My picture still is that the new concept they tried in America wasn't simply so successful as they hoped for and therby they took back the old and safe one (to get that, say, 5 million bucks per gig).

Anyway, who knows if U2 took the lesson from Stones' America tour and don't try so much barbrastreisendize the ticket prices. They sound high, but still rather moderate compared to Stones' prices (if memory serves).

- Doxa

This is the best U2 from recent days :

[m.youtube.com]