No To Stadiums.

[satellitedog01]

I had some very bad luck with my 2 Vertigo shows (effin bad at the Munich one), after my very good luck at an Elevation date(which started out as a disaster), and promised myself not to go to a stadium gig anymore. Actually, I love  theater sized gigs the most.
Intimate, but the sound is usually good.
1000-4000 capacity is great both on sound and energy.

As there aren't any other stadium acts I love, it's not a big deal.

[liewerizon]

If given the choice, I prefer arenas to stadium shows. I like the intimate setting that smaller venues like arenas offer, not to mention that they sound better indoor (for me anyway). I would NOT refuse to see U2 just because they only do stadium shows though. Seeing them from anywhere in the stadium is better than NOT seeing them at all.

There are only a handful of bands that can put on great stadium shows, Bono and the lads are one of them.

I wonder, for those that had seen ZooTV, were they better indoor or outdoor?

[briscoetheque]

They haven't played arenas in Australia for 21 years.

I'd kill for an arena show.

[Domenico of Lovetown]

They haven't played arenas in Australia for 21 years.

I'd kill for an arena show.

I'd kill for the memory of an indoor Lovetown show.  Didn't they play something like six or seven in a row in Melbourne back in 1989?

[virgin_prune]

Strangely, I saw U2 at The Astoria in London on the warm up to Elevation. It holds around 2,000 people - I can honestly say they weren't that good.

Arenas are much better for U2. I was inside the heart for Elevation at MSG and it was great!

Football stadiums are generally pretty naff for any band.

[mariamontreal]

I too prefer arenas, much more intimacy and  even those who don't have great seats it's still intimate .I saw Bon Jovi 20-03-10 at the Bell Center as I have many other times ,I was on th efloor 8 rows from the stage , he was right in front of me . Smiled and looked at me was very close( knock down gorgeous) . I just prefer arenas than stadiums , even for the show in Montreal , I got RZ tickets , and VIP seats 1st night, but even that's goinfg to be a fight for my place and look how expensive ,1000.00 two nights one ticket, me , myself and I .Compare to a floor ticket best seat in the house at 135.00 big difference . But I will go to any length for U2. Just love them .... 

[Tumbling Dice]

They haven't played arenas in Australia for 21 years.

I'd kill for an arena show.

I do believe you would.

[JTBaby]

Arenas are better. Being able to have the entire crowd see the band, what a concept !

[Tumbling Dice]

Arenas are better. Being able to have the entire crowd see the band, what a concept !

I know, some people still don't get it.

[WelshGirl]

I do generally prefer arenas, but I certainly wouldn't pass up the chance to see a band or singer I loved just because they were playing stadiums.

And I have been in arenas where if you're sitting at the back (Wembley arena for example) the band look rather like ants and you spend a lot of time watching on the screens. I suppose the issue with stadiums is that you have many more people with that view.

That said, sitting in the top tier to the side of the claw at two 360 shows, with a view of a fairly small looking U2, I had a great time and loved every minute of it. It didn't matter that I wasn't close to the band, it was the music and the general atmosphere which did it for me. Yes, the intimacy of an arena would have made it even better, but I definitely wasn't disappointed with the stadium experience.

[hj]

If given the choice, I prefer arenas to stadium shows. I like the intimate setting that smaller venues like arenas offer, not to mention that they sound better indoor (for me anyway). I would NOT refuse to see U2 just because they only do stadium shows though. Seeing them from anywhere in the stadium is better than NOT seeing them at all.

There are only a handful of bands that can put on great stadium shows, Bono and the lads are one of them.

I wonder, for those that had seen ZooTV, were they better indoor or outdoor?

When I saw ZooTV it was inside a giant arena in Vancouver (my first show, I compare everything to it) and I know when I saw them next it was outside at Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton in 97 for Popmart I thought, "oh they lose a little outside"  It wasn't as intimate as I considered Vancouver to have been.  I remember thinking that for sure.

Since then I have seen only arena shows until last fall when I went to Vegas.  I would say yes, I prefer arena's.  But I would never consider not going to a stadium but I will go out of my way to get to the smallest stadium if I can.

[The Exile]

I wish they had played ten European shows and ten north America shows in small theaters seating around 1000 people each, and the tickets were made available to fans only (such as the people who participate in forums like this). Then, after 20 shows in 20 weeks, they should have gone back to the studio and released an album that was also intended for fans like us, not the masses.

U2 needs to become a cult band again. It's gonna happen either way, I just hope it is THEY who choose it, rather than it simply happening to them.

[Tumbling Dice]

I saw the Stones at Don Valley stadium in Sheffield in 2006 and I thought that it was an intimate show with a crowd of about 30,000.  I think that was because the venue was a smallish athletics stadium and I had a great seat.  I considered seeing U2 there when the show was announced and was one key away from buying 2 tickets on Ticketmaster at one stage but decided against it.  I still have mixed emotions about that, especially when I was listening to the radio broadcast.   However I wouldn't relish standing in a cavernous football stadium like Wembley watching a musical concert.

I just hope that the next tour is an all arena tour and then I'll spend some money seeing up to 5 shows and I just know that I'll love it.

[Tumbling Dice]

I wish they had played ten European shows and ten north America shows in small theaters seating around 1000 people each, and the tickets were made available to fans only (such as the people who participate in forums like this). Then, after 20 shows in 20 weeks, they should have gone back to the studio and released an album that was also intended for fans like us, not the masses.

U2 needs to become a cult band again. It's gonna happen either way, I just hope it is THEY who choose it, rather than it simply happening to them.

How about a mixed tour playing stadiums and arena's with two set designs like the Stones have done on their most recent tours and then the fans will have a choice.

 

[satellitedog01]

U2 needs to become a cult band again. It's gonna happen either way, I just hope it is THEY who choose it, rather than it simply happening to them.

That is probably the wisest formulation of their current state I've ever read. Cool.