Author Topic: Which would you prefer a huge production or a scaled back tour?  (Read 3993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,286
Re: Which would you prefer a huge production or a scaled back tour?
« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2011, 02:26:32 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
It seems the most logical thing in the world to me for U2 to play a mixed tour of stadiums and arenas, with a few theatre shows thrown in.

Just like the Stones did on their 'Licks' tour, with different types of set-list for each type of venue.

Then everybody's happy.



This isn't really realistic.

Why not?




3 different setlists, and most importantly, 3 different stage setups.

U2 doesn't work that way. It's one setlist, and one setup all the way. Their stage crew complained when they mixed arenas and stadiums on the last JT leg.

Doubt few of them are still with them ! That was 24 years ago.


Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Which would you prefer a huge production or a scaled back tour?
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2011, 02:29:33 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
It seems the most logical thing in the world to me for U2 to play a mixed tour of stadiums and arenas, with a few theatre shows thrown in.

Just like the Stones did on their 'Licks' tour, with different types of set-list for each type of venue.

Then everybody's happy.



This isn't really realistic.

Why not?




3 different setlists, and most importantly, 3 different stage setups.

U2 doesn't work that way. It's one setlist, and one setup all the way. Their stage crew complained when they mixed arenas and stadiums on the last JT leg.

U2 have shown their willingness to shake up their set-lists and they played arenas and stadiums on Zoo TV and Vertigo as well as the JT tour.

If the Stones can do, then there's no reason why U2 can't, either.

The professional stage crew will do what they're paid to do.



Zoo TV setlists were very rigid until Zooropa was released.

Vertigo got some shakeups towards the end, due to the two U218 singles, lack of Elevation tour in Australia (and thus increase in ATYCLB songs at the end of the tour) and the popularity of Rattle and Hum in Australia (a little more of that album played in that part of the world). And much like NLOTH now, HTDAAB was 2 years old as an album. Few U2 tours last that long.

Yes, but for the most time, the crew deals with one type of setup. It's either arenas or stadiums. I can't even begin to imagine the trouble of getting tickets if they really go for theathre sized shows...

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Which would you prefer a huge production or a scaled back tour?
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2011, 02:34:41 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And I somehow doubt "everyone wants to see U2 in a stadium".


You don't say.


It's an interesting statement since most internet forum posters prefer arenas...

Shame U2 don't listen to them.



Elevation was all arenas. Vertigo was all arenas in US.

Eventually, with 360, they were bound for another stadium run.

Why were they bound for another stadium run for any other reason than money?

Elevation showed that U2 didn't mind playing a tour where ticket demand wasn't satisfied.



It depends on the kind of production Willie Williams and Mark Fisher develop, after the album begins to take the final shapes.

As far as I know, 360 is the one example where they had the stage idea before the album was truly focused.

There were semi-official plans for Australia and Europe (stadiums in 2002) during Elevation tour...and after two humble tours in the 00's, it was about time for something bigger with 360. Just like now it's surely time for something smaller in arenas. It's not all about the $$$.

edit: the one plus for stadiums for the band is can be potentially less tiring - 1 stadium can have 60 000 people in attendance while they'd have to play 3 arenas of 20 000 people.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 02:39:04 PM by xy »