IF U2 releases another sub-standard album will you see them live

[Sugarcube]

I agree - a Greatest Hits Tour is fine (and positive) if that's what you're meant to be doing. Take That did a superb Greatest Hits Tour.

A Greatest Hits Tour becomes negative when you have a new record out but are embarrassed about it and resort to golden oldies to pump up the crowd.

[Mercurial]

I'll always try to see them, but I hope the venue/tour is smaller. The tickets are expensive.

[boom boom]

I will always see them live.  Only hope there is more variety in the setlist.  I also don't think NLOTH is sub-standard.

[BringCitrus]

Since I'm worried they don't have much more tour left in them, I'd definitely see them while I still had the chance. Hope I'm wrong though and they continue on for a great long while.

[satellitedog01]

Never seen them. So yeah I would see them regardless of the album. I won't be there for the new stuff though, unless it's up to the U2 standard, which the last three albums haven't been.

I think this is a pretty self defeating idea, as they always play the new songs more vigourously, just like they did last tour and all the tours before. It's just a rule, they give their all to new songs. The big '80s classics have usually disappointed since Popmart, with the exception of Streets and Follow, and Bullet, up to and excluding Vertigo.
As for the substandard album thing, while I don't think NLOTH is a good U2 album, it's certainly a lot better then the tour following it turned out to be. I was excited by the record, at least for a month (in contrast to Bomb, which I found mediocre instantly) and couldn't wait to hear the more interesting stuff live. With the realization that my then fave Crazy was not going to be played at the shows in favour of the lame Mofo substitute remix version, that had little musicality to it I already felt shot down, and then they teased other favourites of mine in rehearsal, they ended up omitting. After contemplating for a while, listening to friends' reviews and broadcast gigs, I chose not to go to see 360° as it felt like a U2 show put together by some Disney marketing suit, with a feeling of half-steam performances coming through most recordings, and an unsatisfactory setlist, which was a new and wearysome experience (especially after the powerful Letterman stint and similar TV performances). Then came Bono's surgery, and the new shows were nothing short of warmed over nostalgia fests.
I've seen them live on Elevation (awesome first show) and Vertigo, and though Vertigo wasn't too exciting (due to bad standing places in both stadiums due to screw ups getting to the gigs), it felt like a 100% rock-show, with actual excitement and warmth. I didn't feel the urgency of a U2 gig with 360° at all, plus the stage design alienated me to some extent.

Will I go to their next tour if I don't like the new stuff? Depends on what makes the rest of the setlist, and if they perform better than on 360°. Also I probably wouldn't want to see them in a stadium.

[mattressjedi]

Its a negative when they have a new album out. A greatest hits tour is to raise money, thats all its about. I hope U2 retire before they become a greatest hits band. I can't wait to see Bono on Dancing with the Stars or Celebrity Apprentice.

Yep. It's cashing in. And one thing U2 has always liked doing(even if they dont entirely succeed) is play new material. Theyve always been a "in the now" or forward band.
I would think they would realize that would be the end and would (hopefully) call it a day before they tarnish their legacy(at least I hope they would).

If all they're going to do is emulate the Stones from here on out, then I think that's sad.

[tigerfan41]

I don't think they'll stoop to the level of being on Dancing with the Stars or any other TV show like that, but if they did, that would be a big shame. It'd tarnish their legacy even more. Didn't they appear on Idol at one time? I do remember U2 songs being used twice on the show at least, but I'm not 100% certain they were ever a guest on the show. I don't think appearing on a talent show like that would hurt them, but going on any other reality show....yeah, that's going to hurt their credibility.

Something I was thinking about after the show I went to last summer was that, from an artistic standpoint, it would make sense for U2 to do more of a "back to basics" type tour next time around. Skip the extras and just do a very plain, it's-all-about-the-music show. Or even something more lowkey like an acoustic-only tour of smaller venues (sort of like what Springsteen did several years back). Financially, such a tour wouldn't be lucrative--but if done right, it could go a long way towards earning U2 more respect from the public and also any disenchanted fans.

[mattressjedi]

I don't think they'll stoop to the level of being on Dancing with the Stars or any other TV show like that, but if they did, that would be a big shame. It'd tarnish their legacy even more. Didn't they appear on Idol at one time? I do remember U2 songs being used twice on the show at least, but I'm not 100% certain they were ever a guest on the show. I don't think appearing on a talent show like that would hurt them, but going on any other reality show....yeah, that's going to hurt their credibility.

Something I was thinking about after the show I went to last summer was that, from an artistic standpoint, it would make sense for U2 to do more of a "back to basics" type tour next time around. Skip the extras and just do a very plain, it's-all-about-the-music show. Or even something more lowkey like an acoustic-only tour of smaller venues (sort of like what Springsteen did several years back). Financially, such a tour wouldn't be lucrative--but if done right, it could go a long way towards earning U2 more respect from the public and also any disenchanted fans.

You mean when Springsteen did the Ghost of Tom Joad tour?  That would be too small for them IMHO. I could see selected dates for that but not an entire tour.

In fact, I would love to see an Access All Areas-type tour where they play theatres, arenas, and stadiums at the same city on multiple nights.

Then they can retire.

[tigerfan41]

That might have been it. I just remember a few years back (before I even listened to Springsteen's music) someone talking about him playing a smaller venues tour. Like theaters instead of arenas. It might have been when he did that Seeger CD? I'm not sure.

And the idea of an access all areas-type tour is great. It's something I was also thinking of. It'd be awesome if they did one night at a theater, then the next at an arena. In the bigger cities, they could replace the arena with a stadium, although after 360, I definitely don't doubt their ability to do stadiums in every city.

But yeah, I love the idea of them doing smaller venues. It'd be harder to get tickets to, though.

[Sugarcube]

U2 will never do a theatre tour. It'll be stadiums or arenas. Anything smaller will mean they don't make enough $$$$$$. Plus they seem dysfunctionally obsessed with being the biggest band in the world with the biggest grossing tours. Modesty isn't a key feature of the U2 brand

[ian ryan]

I don't think they've released a sub-standard album since October, maybe Rattle and Hum. So yep, I'll be there.

[Izzy]

Its a negative when they have a new album out. A greatest hits tour is to raise money, thats all its about. I hope U2 retire before they become a greatest hits band. I can't wait to see Bono on Dancing with the Stars or Celebrity Apprentice.

Yep. It's cashing in. And one thing U2 has always liked doing(even if they dont entirely succeed) is play new material. Theyve always been a "in the now" or forward band.
I would think they would realize that would be the end and would (hopefully) call it a day before they tarnish their legacy(at least I hope they would).

If all they're going to do is emulate the Stones from here on out, then I think that's sad.

How many songs off the new album did they play on the last leg of 360?

[Tumbling Dice]

I think there's nothing wrong with a so-called "greatest hits" tour... when the greatest hits in question are generally phenomenal as they are with U2. I dont think a greatest hits tour is necessarily a negative.

If they're going to perfect the back catalogue tour, then like the Stones, they are going to have to plunder their entire catalogue and be more adventurous in the songs they play i.e  MORE RARITIES!  And even on a GH tour they can still play some new songs, much like they did on 360.

[Tumbling Dice]

U2 will never do a theatre tour. It'll be stadiums or arenas. Anything smaller will mean they don't make enough $$$$$$. Plus they seem dysfunctionally obsessed with being the biggest band in the world with the biggest grossing tours. Modesty isn't a key feature of the U2 brand

They could play some theatre shows just for the hell of it, like the Stones do. 

They could always film a theatre show for future DVD release, which would bring in some money.

[Tumbling Dice]

Its a negative when they have a new album out. A greatest hits tour is to raise money, thats all its about. I hope U2 retire before they become a greatest hits band. I can't wait to see Bono on Dancing with the Stars or Celebrity Apprentice.

All tours are to make money on, since the major proportion of most big artists' income comes from playing live shows.  GH tours aren't necessarily negative, if the tours subsidise making new music - which is the most important thing to me.

And I think Bono would be pretty good on Celebrity Apprentice, or Celebrity Juice for that matter.