Get on Your Boots may have ruined U2

[Tumbling Dice]

That is fine if they choose to offer a more intimate experience for fans, but, like it or not, it is still conjecture as to whether or not they could have a stadium tour all over America and do well with it.  Rush did a few stadium shows early in the 80s, and did well with them, but they also preferred doing arenas over stadiums, so they never went the stadium tour route.  Whether or not they could have really done a successful one or not is also a matter of debate.  Same with Coldplay (although Coldplay definitely has more mass appeal than Rush ever did, simply because girls flock to Coldplay's pop sensibilities, while they shy away from Rush's hard rock virtuoso).  But we can agree to disagree.

Ok - so you say Rush did a stadium tour of the US and did very well. You go on to say Colplay have more mass appeal than Rush. The logical extension of this being Colplay could launch a full scale stadium tour of the US if they chose to. For Coldplay it's all about choice. And Coldplay choose to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate live experience. It seems to me everyone agrees with the logic but won't admit it.

No, I said Rush did a few stadium shows, not a full-blown tour.  I cannot remember the exact year, but it was sometime in the early 80s (81 or 82, I think). 

And it is a much different time now than it was back then.  Ticket prices back then were almost nothing, while they are sky high nowadays, especially for bands with immense popularity.  The fact that U2 was able to do as well with the 360 tour as they did with the economy the way it is, the prices, and NLOTH being somewhat of a flop when it came to singles and hits, was pretty amazing.  Coldplay doesn't have the longevity or name recognition (as compared to u2) to pull that off nowadays, at least not to the degree that U2 did.

The two groups of people who always do well in hard times are entertainers and gangsters.  That's why U2 and Paul McGuinness did very well out of 360.

[Sugarcube]

That is fine if they choose to offer a more intimate experience for fans, but, like it or not, it is still conjecture as to whether or not they could have a stadium tour all over America and do well with it.  Rush did a few stadium shows early in the 80s, and did well with them, but they also preferred doing arenas over stadiums, so they never went the stadium tour route.  Whether or not they could have really done a successful one or not is also a matter of debate.  Same with Coldplay (although Coldplay definitely has more mass appeal than Rush ever did, simply because girls flock to Coldplay's pop sensibilities, while they shy away from Rush's hard rock virtuoso).  But we can agree to disagree.

Ok - so you say Rush did a stadium tour of the US and did very well. You go on to say Colplay have more mass appeal than Rush. The logical extension of this being Colplay could launch a full scale stadium tour of the US if they chose to. For Coldplay it's all about choice. And Coldplay choose to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate live experience. It seems to me everyone agrees with the logic but won't admit it.

No, I said Rush did a few stadium shows, not a full-blown tour.  I cannot remember the exact year, but it was sometime in the early 80s (81 or 82, I think). 

And it is a much different time now than it was back then.  Ticket prices back then were almost nothing, while they are sky high nowadays, especially for bands with immense popularity.  The fact that U2 was able to do as well with the 360 tour as they did with the economy the way it is, the prices, and NLOTH being somewhat of a flop when it came to singles and hits, was pretty amazing.  Coldplay doesn't have the longevity or name recognition (as compared to u2) to pull that off nowadays, at least not to the degree that U2 did.

Yes - then you openly admitted Coldplay are much more popular than Rush were. I wish people would make up their minds. The simple fact is Coldplay (as you say) could play a successful stadium tour. For Coldplay it's all about choice and inviting their audience to a passionate and intimate live experience.

As for wether Coldplay have more longevity than U2, I would argue the jury is out. Both bands will be remembered for different reasons. Coldplay will be remembered for offering a compelling love experience. U2 will be remembered for making some great music and having the most annoying lead singer in history. Even bono admits he's annoying.

[TheSceneoftheAccident]

How is it a fact if they haven't done it yet?

You're splitting hairs - for Coldplay it's all about choice. Coldplay like to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate experience when they choose to. You're mistaking 'can't' for 'don't want to'.

Why is their current tour focusing on stadiums in the UK then?

[tigerfan41]

How is it a fact if they haven't done it yet?

You're splitting hairs - for Coldplay it's all about choice. Coldplay like to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate experience when they choose to. You're mistaking 'can't' for 'don't want to'.

Why is their current tour focusing on stadiums in the UK then?

Clearly because they don't care about their UK fans......you know, the ones who actually supported the band first? 

[TheSceneoftheAccident]

How is it a fact if they haven't done it yet?

You're splitting hairs - for Coldplay it's all about choice. Coldplay like to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate experience when they choose to. You're mistaking 'can't' for 'don't want to'.

Why is their current tour focusing on stadiums in the UK then?

Clearly because they don't care about their UK fans......you know, the ones who actually supported the band first? 

Also their home country and where they're most successful.

[singnomore]

How is it a fact if they haven't done it yet?

You're splitting hairs - for Coldplay it's all about choice. Coldplay like to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate experience when they choose to. You're mistaking 'can't' for 'don't want to'.

Why is their current tour focusing on stadiums in the UK then?

Clearly because they don't care about their UK fans......you know, the ones who actually supported the band first? 

Also their home country and where they're most successful.

They did play a few indoor arena shows - in fact overall the UK is getting less than 10 dates in total? Maybe as TD says we are mugs or maybe people just like the opportunity of getting to hear a band they like live and have to go with stadiums?

[Sugarcube]

How is it a fact if they haven't done it yet?

You're splitting hairs - for Coldplay it's all about choice. Coldplay like to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate experience when they choose to. You're mistaking 'can't' for 'don't want to'.

Why is their current tour focusing on stadiums in the UK then?

Clearly because they don't care about their UK fans......you know, the ones who actually supported the band first? 

Because in the UK it's all about choice. They play a selection of stadiums and arenas - not because they can't sell out stadiums but because they like to give their fans choice. For Coldplay it's all about choice. They apply this caring principle to all territories including Europe and the US. A bit like U2 did for ZOOTV - but better.

[tigerfan41]

I don't understand why we keep going back to this same argument over and over again. Sugarcube, aside from your own assumption that Coldplay "chooses" to play arena gigs above stadium gigs in the U.S., what exactly is your proof that they care more? To me, a band that cares about their fans doesn't charge them $100+ per ticket for crappy floor seats where you're far away from the stage. A band that cares about their fans doesn't make an album that is a blatant attempt to get number 1 hits through producing crap that sounds just like all of the pop songs on radio, as Mylo is. A band that cares about their fans would "choose" (as you say) to play an even more intimate venue than an arena, say a amphitheater.

The bottom line is this: Coldplay is like most other artists: they're in it to make money. There's nothing wrong with that, but it makes the argument that Coldplay "cares" more a bit tough to make. Especially with those ticket prices and the floor seats, because as we know with floor seats, it's not how much you like the band that dictates how close you are to the stage, it's your wallet. Have fun paying upwards of $500 on Stubhub for front row tickets to Coldplay. I'll have fun standing in line for a few hours to get front row at Foo Fighters, or standing in line half the day to get front row for U2 next time around.....and only paying $100 or LESS for that. The Chili Peppers are doing the same thing with floor seats, and it pisses me off just as much as Coldplay because I cannot afford or justify spending $100-$200 on Stubhub just for one floor concert ticket, because I'll be damned if I spend $80 for a ticket way up in the rafters.

If Coldplay were truly about "choice", how come they don't do arena gigs everywhere? They could easily play 2-3 night arena gigs in the U.K. to accommodate their fans....and yet they "choose" not to. Explain that one to me, please.

As for U2, point me to an album that was a clear attempt at grabbing radio hits like Mylo is? NLOTH wasn't. HTDAAB wasn't, either. ATYCLB could potentially be argued as being too radio friendly, but the songs on that album sound nothing like the songs on the radio at that time--they got airplay because they were good songs. And I don't think any of the older U2 stuff would qualify, either. The point is, truly great bands are able to get hits on the radio without sacrificing the quality of the music. They don't have to put out an album full of stuff that fits right in with pop radio. Guys like the Black Keys, Foster the People, even GOYTE are proof of that. Be different and put out a great song, and it'll be well-received by the public. I just hope U2 doesn't make Coldplay's mistake by releasing a CD like Mylo next time around.

[TheSceneoftheAccident]

How is it a fact if they haven't done it yet?

You're splitting hairs - for Coldplay it's all about choice. Coldplay like to offer their fans a more intimate and passionate experience when they choose to. You're mistaking 'can't' for 'don't want to'.

Why is their current tour focusing on stadiums in the UK then?

Clearly because they don't care about their UK fans......you know, the ones who actually supported the band first? 

Also their home country and where they're most successful.

They did play a few indoor arena shows - in fact overall the UK is getting less than 10 dates in total? Maybe as TD says we are mugs or maybe people just like the opportunity of getting to hear a band they like live and have to go with stadiums?

We got three arena dates back in December (each at around 15,000 capacity) and we're getting seven stadium dates this summer, with each stadium having at least 50,000 capacity I'd say. So while it's not a lot of dates, the numbers add up and I think we've gotten a very good number of dates considering the high attendance number. It's enough chance to see them I reckon.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but at the end of the day tigerfan41 is right. Coldplay are in it for the money. As are U2 in fact. I prefer Coldplay to U2 when it comes to shows, purely on the basis that they actually seem to show the UK and Ireland some dedication to the fans in those countries, unlike U2. But I stand by that Coldplay could play about 3-5 stadium dates in the US and sell very well as far as tickets go. I just don't think they could launch a full-on stadium tour like 360 or PopMart. Yet.

[Lebowski]

Yes - then you openly admitted Coldplay are much more popular than Rush were. 

So?  Just because a band is more popular than a band that did a few stadium shows 30 years ago doesn't automatically mean they could do a full-blown stadium tour.  You are going from A to Z just like that, without realizing that you have to from A to B to C etc. 

Plus, times have changed and money is tight; it is very difficult to draw large crowds everywhere and get them to pay.  And Coldplay has a lot of casual fans, who aren't always willing to fork over big bucks to see them (which a stadium tour will certainly be).  I know a few people who like them quite a bit, and the last time they were in my town, they all had the same attitude, which was, "I like them but not enough to pay that much to see them."  That was my attitude as well. 

As for wether Coldplay have more longevity than U2, I would argue the jury is out. Both bands will be remembered for different reasons. Coldplay will be remembered for offering a compelling love experience. U2 will be remembered for making some great music and having the most annoying lead singer in history. Even bono admits he's annoying.

No, the jury is not out.  U2 have been around for 32 years as a recording artist; Coldplay have been around for 14.  How is that even comparable from a longevity standpoint?

And LOL at you saying Coldplay will be remembered for offering a compelling love experience.  Are you Chris Martin?

  But I stand by that Coldplay could play about 3-5 stadium dates in the US and sell very well as far as tickets go. I just don't think they could launch a full-on stadium tour like 360 or PopMart. Yet.

Bingo. 

[Sugarcube]

I don't understand why we keep going back to this same argument over and over again. Sugarcube, aside from your own assumption that Coldplay "chooses" to play arena gigs above stadium gigs in the U.S., what exactly is your proof that they care more? To me, a band that cares about their fans doesn't charge them $100+ per ticket for crappy floor seats where you're far away from the stage. A band that cares about their fans doesn't make an album that is a blatant attempt to get number 1 hits through producing crap that sounds just like all of the pop songs on radio, as Mylo is. A band that cares about their fans would "choose" (as you say) to play an even more intimate venue than an arena, say a amphitheater.

The bottom line is this: Coldplay is like most other artists: they're in it to make money. There's nothing wrong with that, but it makes the argument that Coldplay "cares" more a bit tough to make. Especially with those ticket prices and the floor seats, because as we know with floor seats, it's not how much you like the band that dictates how close you are to the stage, it's your wallet. Have fun paying upwards of $500 on Stubhub for front row tickets to Coldplay. I'll have fun standing in line for a few hours to get front row at Foo Fighters, or standing in line half the day to get front row for U2 next time around.....and only paying $100 or LESS for that. The Chili Peppers are doing the same thing with floor seats, and it pisses me off just as much as Coldplay because I cannot afford or justify spending $100-$200 on Stubhub just for one floor concert ticket, because I'll be damned if I spend $80 for a ticket way up in the rafters.

If Coldplay were truly about "choice", how come they don't do arena gigs everywhere? They could easily play 2-3 night arena gigs in the U.K. to accommodate their fans....and yet they "choose" not to. Explain that one to me, please.

As for U2, point me to an album that was a clear attempt at grabbing radio hits like Mylo is? NLOTH wasn't. HTDAAB wasn't, either. ATYCLB could potentially be argued as being too radio friendly, but the songs on that album sound nothing like the songs on the radio at that time--they got airplay because they were good songs. And I don't think any of the older U2 stuff would qualify, either. The point is, truly great bands are able to get hits on the radio without sacrificing the quality of the music. They don't have to put out an album full of stuff that fits right in with pop radio. Guys like the Black Keys, Foster the People, even GOYTE are proof of that. Be different and put out a great song, and it'll be well-received by the public. I just hope U2 doesn't make Coldplay's mistake by releasing a CD like Mylo next time around.

First of all, your contention that Mylo was full of radio freindly singles and U2's latest releases haven't mostly been garbage. There is no point debating this as it's all subjective. The fact that you think NLOTH is good and I think it's a load of shite is also totally subjective. I also think the bands last 3 records are patchy at best. I'd rather hear a band filling up a record with potential singles than one as tired and desperate as U2 have become recently. But this is all simply opinion and yours in worth no more or less than mine. Fair enough.

Next - tickets. We've been through this. U2 sold a load of tickets cheaply on 360 on the stadium floor as they were playing in the round. The 'pile em high, sell em cheap' approach. It's a basic business model. There were many seats that were massively expensive on 360. U2 didn't do the highest grossing tour in history by being charitable with ticket prices. Dollar for dollar, seat for seat, I would imagine U2 charged as much if not more for their tickets. Your stubhub example is ridiculous - it's no different from seat wave. Fans ripping each other off. What does that have to do with how much a band charges at face value?

As for selling out stadiums in the America - we've already established Coldplay can sell out key cities in the US. For Coldplay it's all about choice. Let's say Coldplay play a stadium tour of Europe, major festivals and key cities in the US. I would say that constitutes a stadium tour and you've pretty much agreed with me - therefore Coldplay can mount a stadium tour. In some countries Coldplay like to play arenas (when they know they could sell out stadiums) as a special treat for their fans because they care about them more. A more passionate, intimate love experience if you will. It's highly unlikely U2 could sell out stadiums in smaller US cities either.

So, we're agreed - Coldplay can mount a stadium tour no problem - they may not sell out, say, 3 nights in the same stadium but it is a stadium tour non the less.

You just can't accept Chris Martin is a dreamboat and bonbon isn't.

[Sugarcube]

Yes - then you openly admitted Coldplay are much more popular than Rush were. 

So?  Just because a band is more popular than a band that did a few stadium shows 30 years ago doesn't automatically mean they could do a full-blown stadium tour.  You are going from A to Z just like that, without realizing that you have to from A to B to C etc. 

Plus, times have changed and money is tight; it is very difficult to draw large crowds everywhere and get them to pay.  And Coldplay has a lot of casual fans, who aren't always willing to fork over big bucks to see them (which a stadium tour will certainly be).  I know a few people who like them quite a bit, and the last time they were in my town, they all had the same attitude, which was, "I like them but not enough to pay that much to see them."  That was my attitude as well. 

As for wether Coldplay have more longevity than U2, I would argue the jury is out. Both bands will be remembered for different reasons. Coldplay will be remembered for offering a compelling love experience. U2 will be remembered for making some great music and having the most annoying lead singer in history. Even bono admits he's annoying.

No, the jury is not out.  U2 have been around for 32 years as a recording artist; Coldplay have been around for 14.  How is that even comparable from a longevity standpoint?

And LOL at you saying Coldplay will be remembered for offering a compelling love experience.  Are you Chris Martin?

  But I stand by that Coldplay could play about 3-5 stadium dates in the US and sell very well as far as tickets go. I just don't think they could launch a full-on stadium tour like 360 or PopMart. Yet.

Bingo.

Re stadium tours - how confusing, tigerfan seems to think stadiums are less expensive, not more. But you're not tigerfan. Tickets prices are relative to where the band are playing, the seats they're selling, the size of their rig etc. In my experience arena tickets are much more expensive. Coldplay tickets spread across the entire venue, aren't any more or less expensive than U2 tickets.

Next, longevity - neither of us know. You think U2 will be remembered better in 20 years time and I think both bands will be remembered. Just because Coldplay haven't been around as long at this moment in time, it doesn't mean they will have less longevity when both bands have long since split.

Next - the love experience - why is that funny?

Finally, the stadium tour. So, you concede Coldplay can put on a stadium tour. Just because it might not be as big as U2's stadium tour it doesn't mean they couldn't put on a stadium tour spanning different continents. Wether they choose to do so is another matter. For Coldplay it's all about choice. This isn't about wether Coldplay can put on a bigger stadium tour than U2 - its about wether they can put on a stadium tour at all. Finally we're all agreed!

[mattressjedi]

I think it's appropriate that a thread about GOYB has been totally taken over by talk of Coldplay.

[Lebowski]

Next, longevity - neither of us know. You think U2 will be remembered better in 20 years time and I think both bands will be remembered. Just because Coldplay haven't been around as long at this moment in time, it doesn't mean they will have less longevity when both bands have long since split.

That is absurd.  Two bands both being remembered does not mean their longevity is equal.  Longevity is measured in years.  You are confusing longevity with staying power and aging well.

But get back to me when Coldplay has been around for 32 years, and as for how they will be remembered, Coldplay is already a joke, a punchline, etc. in certain circles.  I doubt anyone would make the "Do you know how I know you're gay? Because you listen to Coldplay" joke about U2 the way they did in 40-Year Old Virgin.  Even right now, in their prime, most of their fans view them as being a nice band, not world beaters who are making music that will be remembered for decades.  To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.  If you want to think it anyway, that is fine, but I guarantee you are one of very few.  I'll bet if you asked 100 people on the street to name 5 Coldplay songs, you'd be lucky to find 5 who could do it.

Next - the love experience - why is that funny?

Do I really need to explain why that is funny?

Finally, the stadium tour. So, you concede Coldplay can put on a stadium tour. Just because it might not be as big as U2's stadium tour it doesn't mean they couldn't put on a stadium tour spanning different continents. Wether they choose to do so is another matter. For Coldplay it's all about choice. This isn't about wether Coldplay can put on a bigger stadium tour than U2 - its about wether they can put on a stadium tour at all. Finally we're all agreed!

Using your lower standard, just about any popular band can do a stadium well, since how well it does is apparently insignificant, so if it makes you happy to know that Coldplay is one of many bands who could possibly do a stadium tour, enjoy.
 

[TheSceneoftheAccident]

I'm still taken aback by some of Sugarcube's posts. If Coldplay CHOOSE to play arenas in the US then why are they CHOOSING to play stadiums in the UK?