Author Topic: Have U2 become all about the money?  (Read 11999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #120 on: June 30, 2015, 08:28:33 AM »
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
My two cents:

Like it or not, the market seems to largely support the high ticket prices. The only alternative is simply not to go. Someone else will likely buy those tickets.

That said, I speak from experience: high ticket prices and big name concerts bring out the worst "fans" you could want. While I had to take a deep breath to pay $300 to see them, many of the people around me couldn't have cared less about the prices, or the show. People talking throughout the whole show, arriving drunk, being belligerent, starting fights, being kicked out for smoking, arriving late and leaving early....these are people who are only there because it's the "thing to do", or are there because of corporate gifting. All of that behavior happened in my section, within a few rows.

Sadly, it's not a trend I see changing soon. As I said to my gf during one of the many distractions around us, "don't worry, I'm sure the Blu-Ray will be great." Of course, if I want to get in with the true fans, I need to get GA (which I've never been able to do in the past), wait in long lines, and be prepared to have no seat. I settled for my one show this tour, and that was it. All I can say is, when I saw Zoo TV, I paid, at the most, $32, and had 2nd row seats. The higher costs these days have no reflection on how good of a show it is by comparison, I can tell you that.

I agree totally. I get to see quite a few bands and some of the best shows I've seen over the past couple of years have cost around 15 or less (Exit Calm cost 8 for a great show albiet in a tiny venue).

For the 1st time since Zooropa '93 I have decided that enough is enough with the ticket prices. It's not a case of what I can afford, but with having children it becomes more and more difficult to justify the cost of watching a show with a set list that hasn't changed that much in the past decade.

There are $30 dollar tickets and $65 dollar tickets available for the shows. You don't have to buy the expensive tickets. The $65 dollar tickets get you on the floor closest to the band. There are also $65 dollar tickets in the stands as well.

Money is not the sole issue in making my point, its the expectation that we get to pay a premium for a show that we have seen many times over in terms of content. The wrapping paper may be different but its the music what stays the same apart from the promo material for the new album at the time.

To remain of fan of any artist over the long run, you really have to be in love with their new material. I think U2's post 2000 material is the best part of the bands history. What I'm looking forward to are the new songs, not the old. The old songs are great, and they are played for U2's broad fan base out there. I've seen U2 over 20 times so naturally what I look forward to now the most are the new songs although I still get excited for the old.

Take a look at almost any big popular artist with a few exceptions, and you will see similar type setlist in terms of old songs and new songs. During the 1990s, there were all kinds of old songs that NEVER got played like Gloria, Electric Co, Out Of Control, 11' O'clock Tick Tock etc. Post 2000, these an many other old songs not played since the 1980s have come back into the setlist. The Vertigo Tour had An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart. I don't think anyone ever predicted U2 would play those two songs ever again live.

iehomecoming

  • Guest
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #121 on: June 30, 2015, 08:46:49 AM »
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,027
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #122 on: June 30, 2015, 08:47:23 AM »
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
My two cents:

Like it or not, the market seems to largely support the high ticket prices. The only alternative is simply not to go. Someone else will likely buy those tickets.

That said, I speak from experience: high ticket prices and big name concerts bring out the worst "fans" you could want. While I had to take a deep breath to pay $300 to see them, many of the people around me couldn't have cared less about the prices, or the show. People talking throughout the whole show, arriving drunk, being belligerent, starting fights, being kicked out for smoking, arriving late and leaving early....these are people who are only there because it's the "thing to do", or are there because of corporate gifting. All of that behavior happened in my section, within a few rows.

Sadly, it's not a trend I see changing soon. As I said to my gf during one of the many distractions around us, "don't worry, I'm sure the Blu-Ray will be great." Of course, if I want to get in with the true fans, I need to get GA (which I've never been able to do in the past), wait in long lines, and be prepared to have no seat. I settled for my one show this tour, and that was it. All I can say is, when I saw Zoo TV, I paid, at the most, $32, and had 2nd row seats. The higher costs these days have no reflection on how good of a show it is by comparison, I can tell you that.

You know you could have paid $300 dollars to a ticket reseller and gotten GA. I've been able to get GA to every U2 tour since Elevation, the only problem was getting inside the inner circle on the Vertigo Tour.

So it's my fault for not gaming the system. Fair enough. Hell, I bought into U2's fan club for the privilege of buying 300-level tickets for Vertigo. I wanted GA, and that's what I got. Ah well.

That happened to me too on the Vertigo tour. Demand was out of site, and it was the first time U2 had used the new fan club system. I was able to get GA though on the 2nd leg through a friend.  GA was generally easy to get through the fan club in 360 because there were so many more available tickets, an average of 10,000-15,000 Stadium vs 2,000 for the arena shows. Arenas are harder to get GA, but paid up fan club member since 2005 should be able to get GA has they go in first during the pre-sale phase of buying tickets. So things are much better for fan club members, provided you stayed with the fan club over the years and never left.

Well, I certainly wasn't willing to keep paying for the kind of service I got in Vertigo.  Dropped it like a hot potato.  It pretty much swore me off fan clubs in general.  I'd much rather just pay the money for what I want, than pay annually for the possible chance to get something I might want.  Otherwise, subscribing to a band mostly just benefits them (as it did in 2004).  I'm less inclined these days to care about GA anyway, so.

I do wonder how much any of the fan club-only gifts might have cost had they been sold normally.  I'm sure I'd have bought some of them, but that's on me.

Offline Blueyedboy

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,059
  • Embrace the challenge
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #123 on: June 30, 2015, 10:03:14 AM »
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
My two cents:

Like it or not, the market seems to largely support the high ticket prices. The only alternative is simply not to go. Someone else will likely buy those tickets.

That said, I speak from experience: high ticket prices and big name concerts bring out the worst "fans" you could want. While I had to take a deep breath to pay $300 to see them, many of the people around me couldn't have cared less about the prices, or the show. People talking throughout the whole show, arriving drunk, being belligerent, starting fights, being kicked out for smoking, arriving late and leaving early....these are people who are only there because it's the "thing to do", or are there because of corporate gifting. All of that behavior happened in my section, within a few rows.

Sadly, it's not a trend I see changing soon. As I said to my gf during one of the many distractions around us, "don't worry, I'm sure the Blu-Ray will be great." Of course, if I want to get in with the true fans, I need to get GA (which I've never been able to do in the past), wait in long lines, and be prepared to have no seat. I settled for my one show this tour, and that was it. All I can say is, when I saw Zoo TV, I paid, at the most, $32, and had 2nd row seats. The higher costs these days have no reflection on how good of a show it is by comparison, I can tell you that.

I agree totally. I get to see quite a few bands and some of the best shows I've seen over the past couple of years have cost around 15 or less (Exit Calm cost 8 for a great show albiet in a tiny venue).

For the 1st time since Zooropa '93 I have decided that enough is enough with the ticket prices. It's not a case of what I can afford, but with having children it becomes more and more difficult to justify the cost of watching a show with a set list that hasn't changed that much in the past decade.

There are $30 dollar tickets and $65 dollar tickets available for the shows. You don't have to buy the expensive tickets. The $65 dollar tickets get you on the floor closest to the band. There are also $65 dollar tickets in the stands as well.

Money is not the sole issue in making my point, its the expectation that we get to pay a premium for a show that we have seen many times over in terms of content. The wrapping paper may be different but its the music what stays the same apart from the promo material for the new album at the time.

To remain of fan of any artist over the long run, you really have to be in love with their new material. I think U2's post 2000 material is the best part of the bands history. What I'm looking forward to are the new songs, not the old. The old songs are great, and they are played for U2's broad fan base out there. I've seen U2 over 20 times so naturally what I look forward to now the most are the new songs although I still get excited for the old.

Take a look at almost any big popular artist with a few exceptions, and you will see similar type setlist in terms of old songs and new songs. During the 1990s, there were all kinds of old songs that NEVER got played like Gloria, Electric Co, Out Of Control, 11' O'clock Tick Tock etc. Post 2000, these an many other old songs not played since the 1980s have come back into the setlist. The Vertigo Tour had An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart. I don't think anyone ever predicted U2 would play those two songs ever again live.

I completely disagree with this statement.  I am still a fan of U2 despite the ever diminishing returns from their studio output.  I can honestly say that I have not loved a new U2 album since POP but here I am still spouting crap on their forums. What you like/love or dislike about the band is totally objective of course but it certainly does not dictate if you are a fan or not.

There are no doubt numerous examples of where U2 mixed up the set list for one nigh here or there but I can guarantee that if you challenged any veteran live show attendee to guess any 20 of 30 songs that will be played over a period of two or three shows then they would do it no problem.  I personally have decided not to pay over the odds for that type of set list especially when I only rate the new material as average to good.

There is a huge chasm in what is market value and what is value for money and i for one have made my decision based on the latter. No skin of anyone's nose I'm sure. 

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #124 on: June 30, 2015, 11:01:45 AM »
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
My two cents:

Like it or not, the market seems to largely support the high ticket prices. The only alternative is simply not to go. Someone else will likely buy those tickets.

That said, I speak from experience: high ticket prices and big name concerts bring out the worst "fans" you could want. While I had to take a deep breath to pay $300 to see them, many of the people around me couldn't have cared less about the prices, or the show. People talking throughout the whole show, arriving drunk, being belligerent, starting fights, being kicked out for smoking, arriving late and leaving early....these are people who are only there because it's the "thing to do", or are there because of corporate gifting. All of that behavior happened in my section, within a few rows.

Sadly, it's not a trend I see changing soon. As I said to my gf during one of the many distractions around us, "don't worry, I'm sure the Blu-Ray will be great." Of course, if I want to get in with the true fans, I need to get GA (which I've never been able to do in the past), wait in long lines, and be prepared to have no seat. I settled for my one show this tour, and that was it. All I can say is, when I saw Zoo TV, I paid, at the most, $32, and had 2nd row seats. The higher costs these days have no reflection on how good of a show it is by comparison, I can tell you that.

I agree totally. I get to see quite a few bands and some of the best shows I've seen over the past couple of years have cost around 15 or less (Exit Calm cost 8 for a great show albiet in a tiny venue).

For the 1st time since Zooropa '93 I have decided that enough is enough with the ticket prices. It's not a case of what I can afford, but with having children it becomes more and more difficult to justify the cost of watching a show with a set list that hasn't changed that much in the past decade.

There are $30 dollar tickets and $65 dollar tickets available for the shows. You don't have to buy the expensive tickets. The $65 dollar tickets get you on the floor closest to the band. There are also $65 dollar tickets in the stands as well.

Money is not the sole issue in making my point, its the expectation that we get to pay a premium for a show that we have seen many times over in terms of content. The wrapping paper may be different but its the music what stays the same apart from the promo material for the new album at the time.

To remain of fan of any artist over the long run, you really have to be in love with their new material. I think U2's post 2000 material is the best part of the bands history. What I'm looking forward to are the new songs, not the old. The old songs are great, and they are played for U2's broad fan base out there. I've seen U2 over 20 times so naturally what I look forward to now the most are the new songs although I still get excited for the old.

Take a look at almost any big popular artist with a few exceptions, and you will see similar type setlist in terms of old songs and new songs. During the 1990s, there were all kinds of old songs that NEVER got played like Gloria, Electric Co, Out Of Control, 11' O'clock Tick Tock etc. Post 2000, these an many other old songs not played since the 1980s have come back into the setlist. The Vertigo Tour had An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart. I don't think anyone ever predicted U2 would play those two songs ever again live.

I completely disagree with this statement.  I am still a fan of U2 despite the ever diminishing returns from their studio output.  I can honestly say that I have not loved a new U2 album since POP but here I am still spouting crap on their forums. What you like/love or dislike about the band is totally objective of course but it certainly does not dictate if you are a fan or not.

There are no doubt numerous examples of where U2 mixed up the set list for one nigh here or there but I can guarantee that if you challenged any veteran live show attendee to guess any 20 of 30 songs that will be played over a period of two or three shows then they would do it no problem.  I personally have decided not to pay over the odds for that type of set list especially when I only rate the new material as average to good.

There is a huge chasm in what is market value and what is value for money and i for one have made my decision based on the latter. No skin of anyone's nose I'm sure.

My definition of a fan is one that still pays money for bands products, albums, tickets, merchandise etc. There are lots of people that like old U2 stuff, but they are no longer fans, at least in an active sense. Lots of people come onto the message boards to slag the band and other things off. As Bono says, its why Bathroom walls are so clean these days. I don't think that its really a sign of fandom though under my definition.

Unfortunately, I think there are many longterm fans that are leaving the band in terms of purchasing tickets and albums. They have grown tired or are no longer interested for whatever the reason. The fanbase is also older in their 40s and many have families that demand more of their attention and money. This loss of fans over time is probably natural, the challenge to the band is to replace them with younger fans. U2 were winning this battle in the 00s. But now all that seems to have collapsed at least in the United States.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #125 on: June 30, 2015, 11:04:44 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Offline lorijane

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,248
  • We picked the right band
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #126 on: June 30, 2015, 11:41:35 AM »
They have A LOT more money than us. (Well, I guess I don't know about all of you, but still probably accurate.) But that aside, do any of us work for free? What about the small city of workers who make the tour happen? They all need paid. Do I wish tickets were cheaper? Sure, but I think especially GAs are priced reasonably. It's a business, not a charity.

I think a couple summers ago Kid Rock did a tour where tickets were cheap (maybe $20?) and beers were like $3. Still wouldn't go.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,027
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #127 on: June 30, 2015, 11:44:31 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

My own take: I've been a fan and concert goer since Zoo TV.  Vertigo was probably the last U2 album/tour I really felt passionate about.  Part of this might be their declining powers--in particular, I found NLOTH to be the worst thing they'd ever done.  Part of this might just be me getting older, a little jaded, a little less impressed with stadium and arena concert flash.  I saw 360 early in the tour, and while I was happy to see it, it was my least favorite show of theirs.  It left me disinclined to see them on the return leg, which was a first for me.  I+E is an improvement--I like the new material more--but there is a weird distance I feel that makes it impossible to enjoy it the same way I used to.  The high ticket costs and diminishing returns mean I likely won't see another show on the return leg for this, either.

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #128 on: June 30, 2015, 12:14:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Your first sentence is important. The final two are not.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #129 on: June 30, 2015, 12:29:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Your first sentence is important. The final two are not.

I was very happy to see U2 win the Grammy awards and screamed and roared at the TV when they won as if watching a favorite sporting event where my team made a score!

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #130 on: June 30, 2015, 12:31:58 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 loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Your first sentence is important. The final two are not.

I was very happy to see U2 win the Grammy awards and screamed and roared at the TV when they won as if watching a favorite sporting event where my team made a score!

That's cool, I guess. For my part, good music doesn't get better when it wins prizes, and bad music doesn't get worse when it loses them.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #131 on: June 30, 2015, 12:38:47 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
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

My own take: I've been a fan and concert goer since Zoo TV.  Vertigo was probably the last U2 album/tour I really felt passionate about.  Part of this might be their declining powers--in particular, I found NLOTH to be the worst thing they'd ever done.  Part of this might just be me getting older, a little jaded, a little less impressed with stadium and arena concert flash.  I saw 360 early in the tour, and while I was happy to see it, it was my least favorite show of theirs.  It left me disinclined to see them on the return leg, which was a first for me.  I+E is an improvement--I like the new material more--but there is a weird distance I feel that makes it impossible to enjoy it the same way I used to.  The high ticket costs and diminishing returns mean I likely won't see another show on the return leg for this, either.

I've yet to see the tour in person, but I have watched several shows live through the internet with the use of "periscope". The band have only come to 7 cities in the United States at this point. A lot of U2 fans have yet to see them this tour in even the U.S.A. because they have yet to play within a couple hours driving distance of where they live let alone their own city.

I'll probably see the show as many times as money and time will allow when the opportunity presents itself and they travel to the rest of the country. Unusually my other friends who used to be die hard U2 fans have not really been enthusiastic about seeing them this time. Most have not even listened to the new album yet. I guess everyone has their reasons. I don't think that many of them are really into going to concerts at all any more. They are becoming more home bodies staying at home or nearby with the wife or girlfriend. Less interested in travel and going out. I supposed that is usual for many 40 somethings. I still feel like I'm 22 though, being single and unmarried with no children.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #132 on: June 30, 2015, 12:41:10 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 loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Your first sentence is important. The final two are not.

I was very happy to see U2 win the Grammy awards and screamed and roared at the TV when they won as if watching a favorite sporting event where my team made a score!

That's cool, I guess. For my part, good music doesn't get better when it wins prizes, and bad music doesn't get worse when it loses them.

I love the band and like seeing them succeed and be celebrated as well as just getting to see them on T.V. live. It is similar to the feeling I get at a concert. Its fun and exciting!

Offline Mr. Red

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #133 on: June 30, 2015, 06:55:33 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
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

My own take: I've been a fan and concert goer since Zoo TV.  Vertigo was probably the last U2 album/tour I really felt passionate about.  Part of this might be their declining powers--in particular, I found NLOTH to be the worst thing they'd ever done.  Part of this might just be me getting older, a little jaded, a little less impressed with stadium and arena concert flash.  I saw 360 early in the tour, and while I was happy to see it, it was my least favorite show of theirs.  It left me disinclined to see them on the return leg, which was a first for me.  I+E is an improvement--I like the new material more--but there is a weird distance I feel that makes it impossible to enjoy it the same way I used to.  The high ticket costs and diminishing returns mean I likely won't see another show on the return leg for this, either.

I with you on this. I have been to every tour several times since UF tour (40+ shows). I have also felt a "weird" distance from the band which started just shortly after the post 2000 output. To each his own of course but being a fan since almost inception, the post 2000 records never fully resonated with me the way the others have and hence, the shows haven't fully either. I mentioned if before on this forum that the pre 2000 work, you just had no idea what they were up to and then the record dropped and so did my jaw. They were innovative, fresh, cutting edge, and so ahead of their time. This is not to say that I have not liked/loved some of the songs post 2000 but for me, it just became to paint by the numbers and hence, the connection was somewhat lost. I also went to to first leg of 360 and it was just so bad compared to what I was used to from previous tours. The tunes just did not come across well and the magic vanished. Shockingly for the first time ever, I did not attend a second, third, etc. show for that tour. The band basically acknowledged this by turning the show into a heritage act to save the latter part of the tour. Maybe if I had not that much to compare it to, I may have liked 360 better but no dice. I'm glad some people liked that tour but for me, it never cut it. I think SOI is their best (good to approaching very good) output in 2000. I'm hoping MSG will once again bring the magic fully back for me!!

Offline dwaltman

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,282
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #134 on: June 30, 2015, 08:34:54 PM »
As professional as