Author Topic: 76 shows in 5 years...  (Read 4525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2016, 11:41:20 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
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

I still can't think of a better album that was partly recorded while on tour than R.E.M's New Adventures in HiFi.


Offline il_capo

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,623
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2016, 12:13:55 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
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
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 agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

I still can't think of a better album that was partly recorded while on tour than R.E.M's New Adventures in HiFi.

What about Sticky Fingers by the Stones?  In fact the Stones classic early singles were recorded in the USA whilst the band were touring - e.g. "It's All Over Now".  I like New Adventures but... it's not up there with R.E.M.'s 80s output, or early 90s output for me. 

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2016, 12:20:39 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
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
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 agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

I still can't think of a better album that was partly recorded while on tour than R.E.M's New Adventures in HiFi.

What about Sticky Fingers by the Stones?  In fact the Stones classic early singles were recorded in the USA whilst the band were touring - e.g. "It's All Over Now".  I like New Adventures but... it's not up there with R.E.M.'s 80s output, or early 90s output for me.

Technically speaking, all the songs from Sticky Fingers were recorded after the tour had officially ended.


Offline il_capo

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,623
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2016, 12:59:05 PM »
Are you sure about Sticky Fingers?  I thought much of it was recorded in a mobile recording studio whilst on tour.  Wiki again:

"Although sessions for Sticky Fingers began in earnest in March 1970, The Rolling Stones had been recording at Muscle Shoals Sound Studio in Alabama in December 1969. "Sister Morphine", cut during Let It Bleed's sessions earlier in March of that year, had been held over from this release. Much of the recording for Sticky Fingers was made with The Rolling Stones' mobile studio unit in Stargroves during the summer and autumn of 1970."

The band were on tour in December 1969, and the summer and autumn of 1970.

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2016, 01:06:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you sure about Sticky Fingers?  I thought much of it was recorded in a mobile recording studio whilst on tour.  Wiki again:

"Although sessions for Sticky Fingers began in earnest in March 1970, The Rolling Stones had been recording at Muscle Shoals Sound Studio in Alabama in December 1969. "Sister Morphine", cut during Let It Bleed's sessions earlier in March of that year, had been held over from this release. Much of the recording for Sticky Fingers was made with The Rolling Stones' mobile studio unit in Stargroves during the summer and autumn of 1970."

The band were on tour in December 1969, and the summer and autumn of 1970.

Yes, the Stones officially end their U.S. tour by headlining a festival in West Palm Beach, Florida on November 30, 1969.  They went into Muscle Shoals on December 1 and recorded Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and You Gotta Move over the next few days.

 

Offline The Hair of Martin Gore

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 226
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2016, 01:14:23 PM »
shows, 2011- November 21, 2016.  Includes promo appearances. From setlist.fm

U2 - 136
Depeche Mode - 106
The Cure - 129 (without an album to promote)
Metallica - 145
Rush - 146
Primal Scream - 179 (two albums to promote)
Bon Jovi - 189
« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 01:18:04 PM by The Hair of Martin Gore »

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2016, 01:23:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
shows, 2011- November 21, 2016.  Includes promo appearances. From setlist.fm

U2 - 136
Depeche Mode - 106
The Cure - 129 (without an album to promote)
Metallica - 145
Rush - 146
Primal Scream - 179 (two albums to promote)
Bon Jovi - 189

So basically U2 did 76 shows in the past five years.




WookieeWarrior10

  • Guest
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2016, 11:08:08 PM »
All it says is that U2's time is winding down and that there isn't much drive left in any of them to go out touring for another year or two. I don't blame them. That's just what having millions of dollars will do to you.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #53 on: November 22, 2016, 01:12:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All it says is that U2's time is winding down and that there isn't much drive left in any of them to go out touring for another year or two. I don't blame them. That's just what having millions of dollars will do to you.

This isn't necessarily the case, though. We're talking about a 5 year period that came off the most successful tour in music history to date, one that grossed $736 million, had 110 shows (in 1.5 years), and 7.2 million attendance overall. Compare that to the Stones who did 144 shows from 2005-2007 and only had attendance of 4.6 million (nearly 3 million LESS than U2 despite doing 34 more shows). Vertigo tour did 131 shows in 1.5 years, Elevation did 113 shows in 9 months. Then they did 76 shows in 7 months last year (roughly 11 per month). (just looked all this up on Wiki to make sure I got the numbers correct)

My point is, this 2011-2015 76 concerts data is flawed in that it includes a 4 year break period and a very limited tour that they are planning to add more legs to. I would be more interested to see how many shows they do from 2015-2020. I am guessing it'll be far more than this 5 year period we're talking about.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
shows, 2011- November 21, 2016.  Includes promo appearances. From setlist.fm

U2 - 136
Depeche Mode - 106
The Cure - 129 (without an album to promote)
Metallica - 145
Rush - 146
Primal Scream - 179 (two albums to promote)
Bon Jovi - 189


This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.

The other aspect of this is that, at least for the last several tours, U2 have had a somewhat elaborate stage setup. 360 in particular was crazy in that the setup of the stage often took several days. That limits the amount of dates a band can realistically play in week to around 2-3, depending on how many times they play the same venue. Compare that to a band with a smaller stage setup like the Foo Fighters. On their last tour, they were playing a date every other day with some occasions where they played 4 or 5 out of 7 days. Ditto for Metallica in 2014 who often did 4-5 dates a week.

So playing 76 dates on a relatively short tour is not shocking at all and is about what U2 have been doing for the last 15 years.

True that the guys are slowing down, but I don't think it's at all at a point where they're totally winding down. They're still relatively young (compared to, say, the Stones or the Who, both of whom have toured in recent years or are touring now) so if I had to guess, they've still got a good 10-15 years left unless they choose not to tour anymore. In which case, it'd suck but would be understandable.

Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2016, 10:28:33 AM »

This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.



tiger - this quote right here is the very essence of why people are so frustrated at times with this band.  you are supporting the basis for the criticism, not negating it....

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2016, 10:45:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.



tiger - this quote right here is the very essence of why people are so frustrated at times with this band.  you are supporting the basis for the criticism, not negating it....

Does it matter what Bono or the other members of the band get up to when they're not working, whether it be political activism or gardening?


Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2016, 12:05:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.



tiger - this quote right here is the very essence of why people are so frustrated at times with this band.  you are supporting the basis for the criticism, not negating it....

Acknowledging it I would say and contrasting that with other bands. Not trying to negate it at all, but trying to explain why 76 shows in 5 years (given the flawed data of 4.5 of those being a break time) really doesn't surprise or concern me.

I'm a relatively newcomer to the fan base--only liked these guys since 2004, only really liked them since 2006. I've only had the chance to see them twice so far because the I&E tour dates were so inconvenient (none in my state and the ones 4 hours away happened to fall on a holiday weekend that I always spend with family). Being one of my favorite bands, if anyone's disappointed in the lack of tour dates, it's me. I know their time is finite and I'd like to take in as many concerts as I can while they're still putting on good shows.

Still, I'm a realist and realize that I can't really compare them to other bands and their touring habits. Not when the lead singer is more of a humanitarian than anything else these days (nothing wrong with that). Not when the whole band is so wealthy that they literally don't need to make music or tour ever again.

Is it frustrating? Of course, but looking at the big picture I get why things are the way they are. My biggest beef with U2 at this point is not Bono focusing on other things (because that's his right), but that when they DO make new music, they are seemingly obsessed with getting another hit rather than just making music as they used to. If they were a band like, say, Bon Jovi and truly needed another hit to "stay" relevant, I'd understand them taking so long to craft music that becomes a hit.

U2 is a band that was at its best when they just made music without thinking of getting the next hit. This is a band that was at its best when they tried new styles and got creative.

They're still relevant to an extent--maybe the youngest kids don't know them, but practically everyone else does. They're going to go down in history as one of the best bands. They're legends--definitely not on the level of the Stones or Beatles. They don't need to degrade their music all in the name of getting a pop radio hit in 2017 (and it won't happen because they're past the age of being a hit on pop radio).

Actually, there's one other thing I find annoying about U2: promising a new album by a specific time and not delivering it. And I honestly think it ties into the above. They second guess the music and whether or not it'll be a hit, and rather than releasing it, they just keep polishing it to a point where it's not great and it's also not a hit. Either deliver the album or just don't promise it by a specific date.

But anyway, I understand the frustration of the fans and also why U2 aren't touring as much. I'd say at this point, rather than getting frustrated at something we can't change, it's better to treat whatever U2 does as more of a bonus than a guaranteed thing. Listen to some younger bands, go to their shows, enjoy their music, don't bank on U2 doing what we all want them to do (which is tour more and make more albums).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Does it matter what Bono or the other members of the band get up to when they're not working, whether it be political activism or gardening?



It doesn't typically, but in this case, we're talking about a guy who probably sees himself as more of a humanitarian than anything else these days--given how much time he spends on these things. We're not talking about Geddy Lee or Jon Bon Jovi or Bruce Springsteen, all of which still see themselves as musicians primarily, even if they are political or have charities. That's the difference.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 12:10:54 PM by tigerfan41 »

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2016, 12:22:24 PM »
To be fair, I never really saw Bono as a musician primarily.

I think the theory is that if Bono spent less time on his pet causes then U2 would do more tours and release more new music.  I don't think they would.  I compare U2 to a band like the Stones more than to someone like Springsteen and by their fifties they were down to album and tour every four years or so too. 

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2016, 07:26:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To be fair, I never really saw Bono as a musician primarily.

I think the theory is that if Bono spent less time on his pet causes then U2 would do more tours and release more new music.  I don't think they would.  I compare U2 to a band like the Stones more than to someone like Springsteen and by their fifties they were down to album and tour every four years or so too.

I never have either, but I also didn't become a fan til the mid-2000s and by then he was already known as the preachy guy talking about starving kids in Africa. If I had become a fan in the 90s, I'm sure I would have viewed him differently.

That's definitely the theory and you are right, it's totally possible that even if Bono weren't a humanitarian, they still would not tour. For Springsteen, he is very rich but tours because it's relief for his depression and because he really enjoys it. For the Stones, they're also rich, but probably tour more for nostalgia than anything else these days.

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2016, 03:06:58 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To be fair, I never really saw Bono as a musician primarily.

I think the theory is that if Bono spent less time on his pet causes then U2 would do more tours and release more new music.  I don't think they would.  I compare U2 to a band like the Stones more than to someone like Springsteen and by their fifties they were down to album and tour every four years or so too.

I never have either, but I also didn't become a fan til the mid-2000s and by then he was already known as the preachy guy talking about starving kids in Africa. If I had become a fan in the 90s, I'm sure I would have viewed him differently.

That's definitely the theory and you are right, it's totally possible that even if Bono weren't a humanitarian, they still would not tour. For Springsteen, he is very rich but tours because it's relief for his depression and because he really enjoys it. For the Stones, they're also rich, but probably tour more for nostalgia than anything else these days.

No, I'm pretty sure they still do it for the money.