Predictions for the next tour's stage?

[xy]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

[Tumbling Dice]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

Lovetown looked pretty special.  If they play smaller venues, then they don't need the visuals as much as when they play gigantic football stadiums because more people can actually see the band perform.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

Did you attend a show?  The Fly and UTEOTW were ROCKED!

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

I think the album was very good, the new songs from NLOTH translated very well to the live stage and the stage was impressive from an engineering pov, but it didn't really do much in terms of artistry or aesthetics.

They did play more 'hits' from previous albums on 360 than they did on earlier tours.

[Sugarcube]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

The question is... Do you need a big expensive stage set to be a great live band. The answer is no. Springsteen has never had a big expensive stage set but continues to be a massive draw in stadiums everywhere.

U2 need to think great songs again, not silly stage sets. I've seen U2 with nothing, just lights and a backdrop. They were amazing because of their passion and nothing else.

NLOTH is widely recognised as a dud album. There are some astonishingly bad songs on it. 360 was an ugly stage set with no concept behind it other than being big

[Tumbling Dice]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

The question is... Do you need a big expensive stage set to be a great live band. The answer is no. Springsteen has never had a big expensive stage set but continues to be a massive draw in stadiums everywhere.

Springsteen is nowhere near the draw that U2 are, let alone in stadiums.  And if an artist is going to play stadiums then I think they are obligated to make the experience as impressive for the large crowds as possible, in terms of the stage presentation as well as the music.

U2 need to think great songs again, not silly stage sets. I've seen U2 with nothing, just lights and a backdrop. They were amazing because of their passion and nothing else.

They can still do this again if they wanted to and in arenas.

NLOTH is widely recognised as a dud album.

Evidence?

[Sugarcube]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

The question is... Do you need a big expensive stage set to be a great live band. The answer is no. Springsteen has never had a big expensive stage set but continues to be a massive draw in stadiums everywhere.

Springsteen is nowhere near the draw that U2 are, let alone in stadiums.  And if an artist is going to play stadiums then I think they are obligated to make the experience as impressive for the large crowds as possible, in terms of the stage presentation as well as the music.

U2 need to think great songs again, not silly stage sets. I've seen U2 with nothing, just lights and a backdrop. They were amazing because of their passion and nothing else.

They can still do this again if they wanted to and in arenas.

NLOTH is widely recognised as a dud album.

Evidence?

Re Sprinsgteen - he is at least comparable to U2 in terms of popularity. Either way he plays enormous gigs without any of the silly visual trappings U2 have adopted to try and make their recent output seem more interesting

Re arenas - I agree

Re NLOTH - because it's crap. It has no substance and is badly produced. The only good thing about it is it's cover but even that was a rip off from someone else. If there is a worse song than unknown Caller in the U2 cannon I am yet to find it. Oh wait, GOYB, Stand Up Comedy, White as Snow and Crazy Tonight

[Tumbling Dice]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

The question is... Do you need a big expensive stage set to be a great live band. The answer is no. Springsteen has never had a big expensive stage set but continues to be a massive draw in stadiums everywhere.

Springsteen is nowhere near the draw that U2 are, let alone in stadiums.  And if an artist is going to play stadiums then I think they are obligated to make the experience as impressive for the large crowds as possible, in terms of the stage presentation as well as the music.

U2 need to think great songs again, not silly stage sets. I've seen U2 with nothing, just lights and a backdrop. They were amazing because of their passion and nothing else.

They can still do this again if they wanted to and in arenas.

NLOTH is widely recognised as a dud album.

Evidence?

Re Sprinsgteen - he is at least comparable to U2 in terms of popularity. Either way he plays enormous gigs without any of the silly visual trappings U2 have adopted to try and make their recent output seem more interesting

Depends what you mean by popular.  And U2 would play the same music with the same arrangements if they were playing arenas, like they did on Elevation, so they don't utilize visual trappings to make their recent music seem more interesting.

Re NLOTH - because it's crap. It has no substance and is badly produced. The only good thing about it is it's cover but even that was a rip off from someone else. If there is a worse song than unknown Caller in the U2 cannon I am yet to find it. Oh wait, GOYB, Stand Up Comedy, White as Snow and Crazy Tonight

That's just your opinion.  I was hoping you'd come up with some evidence for your claim that NLOTH is "widely recognized as a dud album."

 

[Sugarcube]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

The question is... Do you need a big expensive stage set to be a great live band. The answer is no. Springsteen has never had a big expensive stage set but continues to be a massive draw in stadiums everywhere.

Springsteen is nowhere near the draw that U2 are, let alone in stadiums.  And if an artist is going to play stadiums then I think they are obligated to make the experience as impressive for the large crowds as possible, in terms of the stage presentation as well as the music.

U2 need to think great songs again, not silly stage sets. I've seen U2 with nothing, just lights and a backdrop. They were amazing because of their passion and nothing else.

They can still do this again if they wanted to and in arenas.

NLOTH is widely recognised as a dud album.

Evidence?

Re Sprinsgteen - he is at least comparable to U2 in terms of popularity. Either way he plays enormous gigs without any of the silly visual trappings U2 have adopted to try and make their recent output seem more interesting

Depends what you mean by popular.  And U2 would play the same music with the same arrangements if they were playing arenas, like they did on Elevation, so they don't utilize visual trappings to make their recent music seem more interesting.

Re NLOTH - because it's crap. It has no substance and is badly produced. The only good thing about it is it's cover but even that was a rip off from someone else. If there is a worse song than unknown Caller in the U2 cannon I am yet to find it. Oh wait, GOYB, Stand Up Comedy, White as Snow and Crazy Tonight

That's just your opinion.  I was hoping you'd come up with some evidence for your claim that NLOTH is "widely recognized as a dud album."

Re popular - Example. U2 play a stadium. Sprinsgteen plays a stadium. Both can put on a cracking show without any silly stages. They are both stadium acts except one of them doesn't have to resort to ridiculous stage sets to back up their failing career

Re NLOTH - have you heard this turgid over wrought, over produced embarrassment of a record? 

[xy]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

Lovetown looked pretty special.  If they play smaller venues, then they don't need the visuals as much as when they play gigantic football stadiums because more people can actually see the band perform.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

Did you attend a show?  The Fly and UTEOTW were ROCKED!

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

I think the album was very good, the new songs from NLOTH translated very well to the live stage and the stage was impressive from an engineering pov, but it didn't really do much in terms of artistry or aesthetics.

They did play more 'hits' from previous albums on 360 than they did on earlier tours.

Why is Lovetown any indication ? Their shortest tour, plus they skipped USA. And they started mixing it up with stadiums on JT - Zoo TV after two legs moved to stadiums, 360 and Popmart all stadiums, Vertigo stadiums except USA. Elevation was the only complete arena tour. Post Zoo TV, the trend is in favour of stadiums; though I expect arenas after 360. They still had a smaller screen even on Elevation.

Attended ? My first show was with 360. But I did hear bootlegs, and UTEOTW rocks every time, and Vertigo/360 versions of The Fly make the Elevation version look like a rehearsal.

They did not play more hits, but that is an old debate.

U2 doesn't approach live shows like Springsteen does, to put it mildly. No comparison at all.

edit: and since when do U2 fans of all people resent massive stadium shows with groundbreaking visuals/stunning stage design ?

[Sugarcube]

U2 tour won't exist without some sort of flashy gimmicks* IMO. Great visuals are expected since they did it on Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360.

As for being expensive...A few screens can't be more expensive than what they have pulled off in the past. And maybe instead of focusing at least 50% of screen time on the band footage, they could be making custom-made visuals for each song. Live, during the show, improvised visuals especially if they will really dig up the rarities, as was the trend in this decade. Obviously they won't go BIG again right after 360, just go after the newest visual treats available.

*which don't really take away from the music. And they won't do more stripped down than Elevation.

Not True, Elevation had barely any visual props and rocked way harder than either Vertigo or 360. In fact, apart from ZOOTV and Popmart all their previous tours had very little in the way of visual and gimmicks

Emphasis on previous tours. Zoo TV, Popmart, Vertigo and 360 all had strong visuals. 4 guys on stage without visuals ? No way.

Lovetown looked pretty special.  If they play smaller venues, then they don't need the visuals as much as when they play gigantic football stadiums because more people can actually see the band perform.

It's debatable that Elevation "rocked harder", to say the least.

Did you attend a show?  The Fly and UTEOTW were ROCKED!

NLOTH only had a rubbish single. Stage set and album vere both very good. And 360 became a nostalgia act tour, it played no more hits than previous tours (in fact even less).

I think the album was very good, the new songs from NLOTH translated very well to the live stage and the stage was impressive from an engineering pov, but it didn't really do much in terms of artistry or aesthetics.

They did play more 'hits' from previous albums on 360 than they did on earlier tours.

Why is Lovetown any indication ? Their shortest tour, plus they skipped USA. And they started mixing it up with stadiums on JT - Zoo TV after two legs moved to stadiums, 360 and Popmart all stadiums, Vertigo stadiums except USA. Elevation was the only complete arena tour. Post Zoo TV, the trend is in favour of stadiums; though I expect arenas after 360. They still had a smaller screen even on Elevation.

Attended ? My first show was with 360. But I did hear bootlegs, and UTEOTW rocks every time, and Vertigo/360 versions of The Fly make the Elevation version look like a rehearsal.

They did not play more hits, but that is an old debate.

U2 doesn't approach live shows like Springsteen does, to put it mildly. No comparison at all.

A good song is a good song - doesn't matter how you dress it up

[xy]

So visuals won't matter either way. Exactly.

[Tumbling Dice]

Re popular - Example. U2 play a stadium. Sprinsgteen plays a stadium. Both can put on a cracking show without any silly stages. They are both stadium acts except one of them doesn't have to resort to ridiculous stage sets to back up their failing career

Both probably do put on a cracking show, whether they play in stadiums or arenas.  One have fancy stage sets designed to help justify playing a concert to 60,000 people, the other just plays on a dinky little end-stage.  Neither has to play stadiums, though both do.

But U2 sold 4 Million copies of their latest album; how many will Springsteen sell?  U2 sell out stadiums all around the world on one tour; can Springsteen?  If yes, then why doesn't he play an all stadium tour around the world, like U2 have done, because he played/is playing all stadium shows in Europe on his last three tours now?

Re NLOTH - have you heard this turgid over wrought, over produced embarrassment of a record? 

Yes, and it's presently my 6th favourite U2 album.  But that is just my personal opinion.

[Tumbling Dice]

Why is Lovetown any indication ?

Sugarcube was referring to tours earlier than Zoo TV & PopMart.  It was 4 guys on stage without any visuals and they put on some great shows.  Why can't they do it again?

Their shortest tour, plus they skipped USA. And they started mixing it up with stadiums on JT

What's that got to do with anything and they didn't use fancy stages for the stadium legs of the JT tour.
 

They still had a smaller screen even on Elevation.

They were bog standard overhanging screens, the kind that you'll find anywhere.

Vertigo/360 versions of The Fly make the Elevation version look like a rehearsal.

 

They were all different and great in their own way, but none ROCKED more than Elevation.

They did not play more hits, but that is an old debate.

You're right, it is an old debate and they did play more hits on 360.

[xy]

Because that's the price of moving to stadiums ? Because visuals are a big part of their show starting with Zoo TV ? Just two reasons. And it might be less costly on the lead singer to play less shows in stadiums over more shows in arenas.

I'm saying pre-Zoo TV tours don't mean anything for predicting the future.

Maybe standard screens, but screens none the less.

No. And this from someone who likes Elevation version of Zoo TV.

Not really. In fact 5 major live songs got played less, one of them being ommited completely. But they did resort to being a nostalgia act on the last two legs.

[Tumbling Dice]

Because that's the price of moving to stadiums ? Because visuals are a big part of their show starting with Zoo TV ?

I'm not aware I disagreed with you, but I'm not advocating U2 play stadiums.

And it might be less costly on the lead singer to play less shows in stadiums over more shows in arenas.

They'd play approximately the same number of shows on an arena tour as they would an all stadium tour, like they did on Elevation. And a lack of big screen visuals didn't prevent them from putting on great shows at Slane in Dublin in 2001.

I'm saying pre-Zoo TV tours don't mean anything for predicting the future.

Neither do post Zoo TV shows up to and including 360.  They didn't predict Elevation, for example.

Not really. In fact 5 major live songs got played less, one of them being ommited completely. But they did resort to being a nostalgia act on the last two legs.

Yes really.  Five major live songs may have gotten played less, but they still played more 'hits' on 360 than previous tours.  It's a fact.

[Sugarcube]

Re popular - Example. U2 play a stadium. Sprinsgteen plays a stadium. Both can put on a cracking show without any silly stages. They are both stadium acts except one of them doesn't have to resort to ridiculous stage sets to back up their failing career

Both probably do put on a cracking show, whether they play in stadiums or arenas.  One have fancy stage sets designed to help justify playing a concert to 60,000 people, the other just plays on a dinky little end-stage.  Neither has to play stadiums, though both do.

But U2 sold 4 Million copies of their latest album; how many will Springsteen sell?  U2 sell out stadiums all around the world on one tour; can Springsteen?  If yes, then why doesn't he play an all stadium tour around the world, like U2 have done, because he played/is playing all stadium shows in Europe on his last three tours now?

Re NLOTH - have you heard this turgid over wrought, over produced embarrassment of a record? 

Yes, and it's presently my 6th favourite U2 album.  But that is just my personal opinion.

.

I would say U2 and Sprinsgteen are pretty much neck and neck in terms of the size and popularity of the shows they put on. This is the case in Europe and America anyway.

Record sales are no measure of anything as we all know. However if U2 sold 4 million copies of NLOTH, Magic by Springsteen did this many: 'By January 2009, Magic had sold one million copies in the U.S.[19] and 4,795,660 copies in the world.'

I don't know how many copies Wrecking Ball will sell as its only just out.

Either way, one band has come to rely on big stage sets to prop up ailing creativity. Because Springsteen can still produce the goods musically, he can still remain popular as a live draw without huge stage sets. Perhaps one day he'll run out of creativity and tour with something as ugly and ridiculous as the claw. Equally, maybe U2 can start producing decent music again and won't feel the need to play under something as ugly and ridiculous as the claw next time round. Good music needs no props