Author Topic: What the future holds for U2  (Read 2914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Saint22

  • Guest
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2018, 12:33:55 PM »
I am going to say this one more time:

There is a difference between unsold platinum-priced seats being lowered to the regular rate, and unsold ticket prices in regular sections being lowered.

Every major show I have attended in the last two years has had platinum seats that are either a part of a VIP package or are just really good seats go unsold. Those seats are then lowered to the standard price. There's nothing unusual about that practice.

Call me when U2 are cutting the prices on unsold, regular-priced tickets, like everyone from GNR to Katy Perry to Lorde has done in the last year.

U2 are not slashing prices. Please, familiarize yourself with the terminology of this stuff.

Secondly, when these shows went onsale - heck, until ONE WEEK AGO -- people had no idea what U2 were or weren't going to play, other than the handful of us who followed the rehearsals, and even then we didn't know for sure. Tickets sales for this tour haven't had time to adjust to any political messages, megaphones, costumes, similarities to I+E or songs that are or are not being played.

These tickets are expensive (other than the floor) U2 were just out in 2015 and 2017 and the fan base is getting old. There's nothing unexpected about sales being a little soft this time around. Bruce Sprinsteen tickets were on groupon two years ago. Chill.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2018, 12:36:57 PM by Saint22 »

Offline laoghaire

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,044
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2018, 02:42:27 PM »
I'm gonna chill.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 704
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2018, 03:49:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Call me when U2 are cutting the prices on unsold, regular-priced tickets, like everyone from GNR to Katy Perry to Lorde has done in the last year.

U2 are not slashing prices. Please, familiarize yourself with the terminology of this stuff.



Actually this is happening with U2 now. I think this is the first tour that I have seen regular priced tickets be cut in price in order to sell them. I have seen the following reductions for regular priced tickets for several shows. I have seen side and rear stage tickets priced at $106 be slashed to the $41 price level. I have seen tickets charged at $325 be reduced to the $171 level. I have seen the $171 ticket price be reduced to the $106 level. But that really do wait to do a lot of these reductions. A lot of these reductions happen in the week before the show. There are some though that they never seem to slash even with only 45 minutes to show time. There were about 250 tickets left for San Jose 2 45 minutes before show time. There were still several $325 tickets just a few rows off the floor that were staying at that price. I don't know if they sold these in the remaining 45 minutes or not. They close the boxoffice, at least on the internet, at 8:00 PM sharp, the appointed time when the shows are supposed to start.

    Also, the cut in prices happens a lot more with tickets that are in the upper levels or rear stage. You see a lot less movement with those few sections that border the floor on either side.

    I don't think of it as a big deal though. Demand has been down for U2 tickets since the Innocence and Experience tour in 2015. That's down from the PEAK levels they were at on the Vertigo Tour and 360 tour. Again, not a big deal. Its still outstanding business and their still one of the hottest touring artist in the industry. U2 has had a long career and over any long career, lots of artist will experience peaks in valleys in the level of demand for them. U2 demand was down during Popmart in the late 1990s. It rose again in the 00s to their highest levels ever. Now they are sort of in a valley again, but its still better than 99% of the other artist out there.

The only artist that can compete with U2 in the concert business worldwide are Coldplay and maybe the Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones are sort of semi-retired sometimes only doing a dozen or so shows a year.

Below them but rising and getting close are the following:

Ed Sheeran
Adele
Taylor Swift
Beyonce

Guns N Roses is at the moment having a hugely successful nostalgia tour thanks to the reunion of Slash with Axl after 23 years apart playing live. But a tour like that is typically a one off event and the success they have had with this tour is unlikely to be repeated in the future.

Offline 73October

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,262
  • Joy is an act of defiance
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2018, 11:49:19 AM »
I thought Adele had stopped playing live (for now at least. She cancelled her last 2 London shows last summer).

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 704
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2018, 05:15:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought Adele had stopped playing live (for now at least. She cancelled her last 2 London shows last summer).

That's correct. But if she were to tour, the demand levels would be very high and likely place her in the top five worldwide. Not sure what she will do in the future. Maybe smaller tours that are easier on the soul and the vocal chords.

Offline Dali

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,718
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2018, 12:56:24 AM »
I get the feeling U2 are currently in their "James Bond phase" where their product doesn't have to be exceptional anymore to sell stuff by the truckloads and being professional is enough for it to do well.

A lot will depend on if they will decide to make an album next that rewards repeated listens and close listening. Unfortunately, I don't get that from their current record. That one is pleasant but they have been playing it way too safe when it comes to how the songs are arranged and mixed.

But just like a new James Bond movie, they can get away without taking any artistic risks with the musical portion of their new album because we love them, don't we?

The lyrical department is completely different to the musical for that matter. Their lyrics will always be thought-provoking, even if it's "what was he thinking when he wrote that" at times. It's great that they don't gloss their lyrics over with anything and that they represent fairly well where they are at in their lives and as a band who is now in a very different position than when they were coming up. There's an honesty to that which is admirable, and that's what helps overlooking the glossy production. However, if they decide to continue down this road and not "grit up" their musical arrangements by unglossifying their productions, it will be a question of how long "Bono being Bono" will be enough of a draw.

If they feel there is something in there that needs fixing, they could just quickly churn out an indie album on the side and reconnect with their virtuosity through this. And following that, their next big production will sound a lot fresher than their latest. But is their label going to allow them that if they even ask for it? Somehow, I don't think so because major labels are so afraid that other product that gets bought would diminish their own product's sales. In the late 90s, lots of major label acts had the permission to release independent albums on the side that were not deemed as commercial as their major label product. But fans love them and still do. In some cases, the indie album's success overshadowed the major releases and then, like in Howie B's case, the major label became envious. But U2 could easily prevent this from happening in keeping the distribution deal for an indie album within the Universal Records family of labels. And maybe, when the album is finished, the major label will decide to release it themselves like what happened with Beck's "Mutations" album back in the day.

Then again, there certainly will be people in the label who say "why take a risk with a concept like this?" when U2 don't need to be put back on the map as they are busy touring all over the map.

This is just a suggestion of something which longtime fans who are in for the music would appreciate a lot. Do I feel like they would actually try it? I don't think so. They will probably keep playing it safe and will want to avoid being considered of a certain age and sounding like it in the critical reviews to that possible indie album.

Either way, I hope reading this made for a nice few minutes of fan fiction.

Offline Mark001

  • Stranger in a Strange Land
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2018, 06:55:35 PM »
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

Saint22

  • Guest
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2018, 01:13:45 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

TJT 2017 was a quick cash grab because the E+I Tour was delayed, along with the album. They had already planned to be out last year, and it is entirely possible they had a commitment to LN. What started out as an idea to just play a few shows turned into a full tour.

This band doesn't know what they are doing tomorrow, much less in three years. There's no conspiracy or master plan here.

I think you are completely wrong, but I admire your guts in throwing your theory out there for the world to see.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 01:38:56 PM by Saint22 »

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 704
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2018, 01:49:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

The band once said in the 90s that they would not tour endlessly, but that was over 20 years ago. They all love what their doing. They are just as good as they were live 25 years ago. This is not like playing professional football. Music is something you can do for your entire life. I predict they will still be playing shows and releasing music 20 years from now. They idea that one has to stop doing what they are doing because they are approaching age 60 is just ignorant ageism. When it comes to music, 60 is the new 30 essentially. Neil McCormick just recently said the band love what they are doing too much to ever stop. I mean really, stop and do what exactly? As long as they are healthy, not gonna happen.

Offline 73October

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,262
  • Joy is an act of defiance
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2018, 12:00:37 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

The band once said in the 90s that they would not tour endlessly, but that was over 20 years ago. They all love what their doing. They are just as good as they were live 25 years ago. This is not like playing professional football. Music is something you can do for your entire life. I predict they will still be playing shows and releasing music 20 years from now. They idea that one has to stop doing what they are doing because they are approaching age 60 is just ignorant ageism. When it comes to music, 60 is the new 30 essentially. Neil McCormick just recently said the band love what they are doing too much to ever stop. I mean really, stop and do what exactly? As long as they are healthy, not gonna happen.

It doesn't mean that they will continue to play stadiums and arenas for the next 10-15 years.  I predict a steady downshift over time, when it feels right for them.  It seems that there is some experimentation going on.  Last year they played a festival as part of the tour and this year will feature a casino/entertainment resort.  That's all reclaimed ground for U2 in the main as they've not played a festival or a 'club' for years (since 1983 perhaps). This doesn't mean the beginning of the end necessarily.  Just that they have looked at breaking out of their mega stadium/arena tour mould.  They were at the forefront of this kind of touring pattern.  Now many acts are up to it (Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift etc).  U2 are looking for new audiences and that doesn't always mean trying to attract the younger Ed Sheeran fans. They are the biggest 'non festival' act out there.  Stones, Coldplay, Foo Fighters etc have done a number of festivals.  But not U2.  That was the difference.  They wanted to play to their own audience.  So festivals and clubs could be part of the method of finding a new audience.  They might be in a trough now as some people have likely deserted in recent times.  But they look like they are enjoying playing live and I can't see it stopping just yet.  Although they will likely record and release new material in an album form to accompany at least some of the tours - even though it appears to be harder and harder for them to come up with what they feel is a great new recording, when it's translated live, much of the material sounds just great.  So there will be more album releases I think (I'm sure I heard hints of this last December when Adam was doing the rounds of UK radio stations as part of the SOE promo tour).

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 704
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2018, 03:33:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

The band once said in the 90s that they would not tour endlessly, but that was over 20 years ago. They all love what their doing. They are just as good as they were live 25 years ago. This is not like playing professional football. Music is something you can do for your entire life. I predict they will still be playing shows and releasing music 20 years from now. They idea that one has to stop doing what they are doing because they are approaching age 60 is just ignorant ageism. When it comes to music, 60 is the new 30 essentially. Neil McCormick just recently said the band love what they are doing too much to ever stop. I mean really, stop and do what exactly? As long as they are healthy, not gonna happen.

It doesn't mean that they will continue to play stadiums and arenas for the next 10-15 years.  I predict a steady downshift over time, when it feels right for them.  It seems that there is some experimentation going on.  Last year they played a festival as part of the tour and this year will feature a casino/entertainment resort.  That's all reclaimed ground for U2 in the main as they've not played a festival or a 'club' for years (since 1983 perhaps). This doesn't mean the beginning of the end necessarily.  Just that they have looked at breaking out of their mega stadium/arena tour mould.  They were at the forefront of this kind of touring pattern.  Now many acts are up to it (Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift etc).  U2 are looking for new audiences and that doesn't always mean trying to attract the younger Ed Sheeran fans. They are the biggest 'non festival' act out there.  Stones, Coldplay, Foo Fighters etc have done a number of festivals.  But not U2.  That was the difference.  They wanted to play to their own audience.  So festivals and clubs could be part of the method of finding a new audience.  They might be in a trough now as some people have likely deserted in recent times.  But they look like they are enjoying playing live and I can't see it stopping just yet.  Although they will likely record and release new material in an album form to accompany at least some of the tours - even though it appears to be harder and harder for them to come up with what they feel is a great new recording, when it's translated live, much of the material sounds just great.  So there will be more album releases I think (I'm sure I heard hints of this last December when Adam was doing the rounds of UK radio stations as part of the SOE promo tour).

          If the fanbase continues to get smaller, which at the moment it is, then you will see less stadium shows in the future. Without an injection of new fans via a popular single, its likely the fanbase will gradually grow smaller over time. The only impact I think though will be more arena shows over stadiums. The problem with festival shows is that you can't do exactly what you want in terms of how long you play and the type of sound system and stage you have. Most artist that play festivals do so, because its the only way they can play to large numbers of people outdoors. Its not really something Stadium artist need or bother with aside from the token one or two festival shows on a tour. The Casino in CT is essentially a normal arena and used by virtually everyone in the industry that plays arenas. Its a bit small, but it is in a smaller market to begin with. Its really no different than playing arenas in Las Vegas or Atlantic City which everyone including U2 has always done.

         All the members of Fleetwood Mac are in their 70s now and they are still touring the same way they did 40 years ago. B.B. King still did 100 shows a year, the year before he passed away at age 89, just 4 months shy of his 90th birthday. U2 are not old and the talk of them stopping because of age is grossly premature.

Offline 73October

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,262
  • Joy is an act of defiance
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2018, 02:16:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

The band once said in the 90s that they would not tour endlessly, but that was over 20 years ago. They all love what their doing. They are just as good as they were live 25 years ago. This is not like playing professional football. Music is something you can do for your entire life. I predict they will still be playing shows and releasing music 20 years from now. They idea that one has to stop doing what they are doing because they are approaching age 60 is just ignorant ageism. When it comes to music, 60 is the new 30 essentially. Neil McCormick just recently said the band love what they are doing too much to ever stop. I mean really, stop and do what exactly? As long as they are healthy, not gonna happen.

It doesn't mean that they will continue to play stadiums and arenas for the next 10-15 years.  I predict a steady downshift over time, when it feels right for them.  It seems that there is some experimentation going on.  Last year they played a festival as part of the tour and this year will feature a casino/entertainment resort.  That's all reclaimed ground for U2 in the main as they've not played a festival or a 'club' for years (since 1983 perhaps). This doesn't mean the beginning of the end necessarily.  Just that they have looked at breaking out of their mega stadium/arena tour mould.  They were at the forefront of this kind of touring pattern.  Now many acts are up to it (Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift etc).  U2 are looking for new audiences and that doesn't always mean trying to attract the younger Ed Sheeran fans. They are the biggest 'non festival' act out there.  Stones, Coldplay, Foo Fighters etc have done a number of festivals.  But not U2.  That was the difference.  They wanted to play to their own audience.  So festivals and clubs could be part of the method of finding a new audience.  They might be in a trough now as some people have likely deserted in recent times.  But they look like they are enjoying playing live and I can't see it stopping just yet.  Although they will likely record and release new material in an album form to accompany at least some of the tours - even though it appears to be harder and harder for them to come up with what they feel is a great new recording, when it's translated live, much of the material sounds just great.  So there will be more album releases I think (I'm sure I heard hints of this last December when Adam was doing the rounds of UK radio stations as part of the SOE promo tour).

          If the fanbase continues to get smaller, which at the moment it is, then you will see less stadium shows in the future. Without an injection of new fans via a popular single, its likely the fanbase will gradually grow smaller over time. The only impact I think though will be more arena shows over stadiums. The problem with festival shows is that you can't do exactly what you want in terms of how long you play and the type of sound system and stage you have. Most artist that play festivals do so, because its the only way they can play to large numbers of people outdoors. Its not really something Stadium artist need or bother with aside from the token one or two festival shows on a tour. The Casino in CT is essentially a normal arena and used by virtually everyone in the industry that plays arenas. Its a bit small, but it is in a smaller market to begin with. Its really no different than playing arenas in Las Vegas or Atlantic City which everyone including U2 has always done.

         All the members of Fleetwood Mac are in their 70s now and they are still touring the same way they did 40 years ago. B.B. King still did 100 shows a year, the year before he passed away at age 89, just 4 months shy of his 90th birthday. U2 are not old and the talk of them stopping because of age is grossly premature.

I can but dream of an arenas U2 tour in the UK, visiting some of the smaller arenas we have over here. 

This is what Noel Gallagher has just done, and he has better recordings sales than U2, and possibly (probably?) is more popular per se over here; ie: British act that doesn't do a big preach every show.  If (and it is very much an 'if') NG was found taking advantage of his tax situation I bet that the majority of people over here wouldn't really care.

A UK arena tour in a few years may be a small possibility?

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 704
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2018, 03:34:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm suprised that no one has figured this out yet, or maybe they have and are just being quiet. Look at the sequined of the set list for the ei tour, this tour folks is the beginning of the end for U2 it's the prelude to the farewell tour. The Joshua Tree 2017 tour was not just something that they all of a sudden decided to do, it was an expierament for something much bigger, no one noticed that the majority of the lighting was not attached to the stage but seperate and away from the stage? And that the mixing booth was the size of 2 story house? And do you really think they would not tour the world with Joshua Tree 2017? It is one of their biggest albums! No folks , and no one noticed the nearly empty stage a stage that had holes and areas where other things could be attached but never were! You all got fooled because something bigger is coming. U2 are at the end of their current live Nation contract and as you have seen over the past few years they have been touring more freequently, mostly during the spring and summer months, which is a trademark live Nation thing. The band has already said that they are not going to tour endlessly like the stones. They are going to wrap things up soon before they are much into their 60's. ei won't be touring the world as they have made some believe instead your going to see something big, something very special and it's going to be the bands final go around and they will do it in the spring summer over the next 3 years.

The band once said in the 90s that they would not tour endlessly, but that was over 20 years ago. They all love what their doing. They are just as good as they were live 25 years ago. This is not like playing professional football. Music is something you can do for your entire life. I predict they will still be playing shows and releasing music 20 years from now. They idea that one has to stop doing what they are doing because they are approaching age 60 is just ignorant ageism. When it comes to music, 60 is the new 30 essentially. Neil McCormick just recently said the band love what they are doing too much to ever stop. I mean really, stop and do what exactly? As long as they are healthy, not gonna happen.

It doesn't mean that they will continue to play stadiums and arenas for the next 10-15 years.  I predict a steady downshift over time, when it feels right for them.  It seems that there is some experimentation going on.  Last year they played a festival as part of the tour and this year will feature a casino/entertainment resort.  That's all reclaimed ground for U2 in the main as they've not played a festival or a 'club' for years (since 1983 perhaps). This doesn't mean the beginning of the end necessarily.  Just that they have looked at breaking out of their mega stadium/arena tour mould.  They were at the forefront of this kind of touring pattern.  Now many acts are up to it (Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift etc).  U2 are looking for new audiences and that doesn't always mean trying to attract the younger Ed Sheeran fans. They are the biggest 'non festival' act out there.  Stones, Coldplay, Foo Fighters etc have done a number of festivals.  But not U2.  That was the difference.  They wanted to play to their own audience.  So festivals and clubs could be part of the method of finding a new audience.  They might be in a trough now as some people have likely deserted in recent times.  But they look like they are enjoying playing live and I can't see it stopping just yet.  Although they will likely record and release new material in an album form to accompany at least some of the tours - even though it appears to be harder and harder for them to come up with what they feel is a great new recording, when it's translated live, much of the material sounds just great.  So there will be more album releases I think (I'm sure I heard hints of this last December when Adam was doing the rounds of UK radio stations as part of the SOE promo tour).

          If the fanbase continues to get smaller, which at the moment it is, then you will see less stadium shows in the future. Without an injection of new fans via a popular single, its likely the fanbase will gradually grow smaller over time. The only impact I think though will be more arena shows over stadiums. The problem with festival shows is that you can't do exactly what you want in terms of how long you play and the type of sound system and stage you have. Most artist that play festivals do so, because its the only way they can play to large numbers of people outdoors. Its not really something Stadium artist need or bother with aside from the token one or two festival shows on a tour. The Casino in CT is essentially a normal arena and used by virtually everyone in the industry that plays arenas. Its a bit small, but it is in a smaller market to begin with. Its really no different than playing arenas in Las Vegas or Atlantic City which everyone including U2 has always done.

         All the members of Fleetwood Mac are in their 70s now and they are still touring the same way they did 40 years ago. B.B. King still did 100 shows a year, the year before he passed away at age 89, just 4 months shy of his 90th birthday. U2 are not old and the talk of them stopping because of age is grossly premature.

I can but dream of an arenas U2 tour in the UK, visiting some of the smaller arenas we have over here. 

This is what Noel Gallagher has just done, and he has better recordings sales than U2, and possibly (probably?) is more popular per se over here; ie: British act that doesn't do a big preach every show.  If (and it is very much an 'if') NG was found taking advantage of his tax situation I bet that the majority of people over here wouldn't really care.

A UK arena tour in a few years may be a small possibility?

I actually think U2's entire career album and single sales may be ahead of Oasis in the United Kingdom. U2 are way ahead worldwide. In any event, U2 already has done several tours of Arenas in the United Kingdom and will do more in the future. They are playing arenas in the United Kingdom this year in fact!

Offline McSwilly

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: What the future holds for U2
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2018, 04:52:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am going to say this one more time:

There is a difference between unsold platinum-priced seats being lowered to the regular rate, and unsold ticket prices in regular sections being lowered.

Every major show I have attended in the last two years has had platinum seats that are either a part of a VIP package or are just really good seats go unsold. Those seats are then lowered to the standard price. There's nothing unusual about that practice.

Call me when U2 are cutting the prices on unsold, regular-priced tickets, like everyone from GNR to Katy Perry to Lorde has done in the last year.

U2 are not slashing prices. Please, familiarize yourself with the terminology of this stuff.

Secondly, when these shows went onsale - heck, until ONE WEEK AGO -- people had no idea what U2 were or weren't going to play, other than the handful of us who followed the rehearsals, and even then we didn't know for sure. Tickets sales for this tour haven't had time to adjust to any political messages, megaphones, costumes, similarities to I+E or songs that are or are not being played.

These tickets are expensive (other than the floor) U2 were just out in 2015 and 2017 and the fan base is getting old. There's nothing unexpected about sales being a little soft this time around. Bruce Sprinsteen tickets were on groupon two years ago. Chill.
I won't call you, but they ARE slashing prices on REGULAR seats.