My biggest fear about the Joshua Tree 2017 tour is...

[PopMart_1997]

My greatest fear is that they won't play the album in sequence order. That they will violate the album that people love just for a sort of manufactured "build-up to 'Streets'", "flow", or "core", whatever The Edge was talking about in Rolling Stone. I mean, the running order is perfect as it is, why mess with it? The build-up to "Streets" has been done to death.

But doesn't that ruin the element of surprise if they just play the songs in the same order as the album?  Isn't it more exciting if you don't know what they're going to play next?

Element of surprise? This is a heritage act, promoting a 30 year old classic album for the second time round. It won't be much of a surprise tour.. makes sense to sequence in the same album order..that way it feels like they are actually attempting something different..

They should have taken eno and lanois on tour with them, enabling them to play fuller album versions, truer to studio versions. That would have made this tour feel like a one of off and something more memorable.

Instead, we will have acoustic versions and even worse, the edge playing overly minimalist digital delay effect guitar under a tired bono vocal, with no bass or drums.

That would be my biggest fear... but it's hardly going to ruin the show.

U2 a "heritage act"? Certainly not, not when they keep releasing albums. Unlike The Rolling Stones.

[Johnny Feathers]

U2 a "heritage act"? Certainly not, not when they keep releasing albums. Unlike The Rolling Stones.

At what point do you think the Rolling Stones stopped releasing albums?

The difference between U2 and the Rolling Stones is minimal.

[Johnny Feathers]

My only fear is just that it won't live up to expectations--either through weak performances, or re-worked songs (acoustic, etc.) that don't properly convey the songs that I've known for nearly 30 years, or even distracting/unnecessary visual effects or other parts of the show.  Their powers are diminishing, but I'm hoping they still have the goods for this tour.

What do you think has diminished about them? The last 2 tours where spot on performance wise IMHO. I think they still rock it just as much as the old days.

Bono's voice, and overall energy.  I+E had some pretty good performances--I was less impressed with 360.  But those JT songs will necessitate tuning them down significantly from the original album.  I'm just hoping the spirit still comes through, and that they don't settle for slower, acoustic versions.

[ShankAsu]

I fear that the tour won't be about the Joshua Tree as it advertises but becomes just a greatest hits show with all of the standards we are already used to hearing.

[mariamontreal]

Hey ,t's U2 they will be great . Enjoy the moments no matter what those songs will sound great played live.

[PopMart_1997]

U2 a "heritage act"? Certainly not, not when they keep releasing albums. Unlike The Rolling Stones.

At what point do you think the Rolling Stones stopped releasing albums?

The difference between U2 and the Rolling Stones is minimal.

8 years between Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang (3 tours), and 11 years between A Bigger Bang and Blue & Lonesome (6 tours). I'd say the difference is wider.

[InTheSlipStream]

I love the alternate versions of the songs and how they are changed up live vs the album.    No matter how they slice it and dice it, it will be fantastic.  They are masters of creating phenomenal shows. 

I really really do hope they film it and release for DVD.  I watch all their concerts fairly regularly. 

There won't likely be a POP re-issue with all that they have on their plates this year...but I would love it.  Pop is such a fantastic album, very underrated.  Lyrically and musically solid, IMO. 

Can't wait for the Toronto show! 

[tigerfan41]

U2 a "heritage act"? Certainly not, not when they keep releasing albums. Unlike The Rolling Stones.

At what point do you think the Rolling Stones stopped releasing albums?

The difference between U2 and the Rolling Stones is minimal.

8 years between Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang (3 tours), and 11 years between A Bigger Bang and Blue & Lonesome (6 tours). I'd say the difference is wider.

That and when they do tour, it seems like a huge money grab. Tickets are incredibly expensive. At least U2 still typically tour in support of a new album (even if they do throw in a lot of the classics); I think most Stones fans have given up on getting good new music at this point (or really any time the last 15 years). U2 still seem to want to be relevant in the music world (by way of new music and tours) while the Stones expect to remain relevant no matter how long they take between albums or tours. And I suppose being one of the best rock bands of all time, they deserve that level of respect/relevance.

There's a huge difference between U2 and the Stones at this point.

[Saint1322]

IMO, the big differences between U2 and The Stones ... The Stones stopped trying to get their new music over, and they have started touring without new releases. U2 have done this exactly once. Also, the Stones might play 2-3 new songs if they are touring behind a new album, while U2 make the new songs the center of the set.