@U2 Forum

U2 => General U2 Discussion => Topic started by: hrsan on June 20, 2015, 07:05:45 AM

Title: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: hrsan on June 20, 2015, 07:05:45 AM
Your thoughts?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 20, 2015, 08:09:40 AM
I wouldn't say all about but they are and have been for a very long time very fond of a pound.....

Their fondness for a pound has had a negative effect on their art in my view - that fondness for a pound has also seen them start to make poor decisions like the current show set up where they are charging huge sums of money for a 2 hour show with no support acts and people having to put up with terrible views and seemingly buying tickets with no idea what their seat was offering in terms of view.





Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 20, 2015, 08:35:57 AM
How U2 can justify the exorbitant ticket prices I will never know. I just saw (or will be seeing) three well established acts for under $85. The band has often talked about remaining relevant and trying to connect with younger fans!! What younger fan can afford these ticket prices without borrowing money from parents after just moving back into their parent's basement after graduating college?!!? Let alone, these prices are even unreal for some established adults.  U2 will justify this by passing off some BS that the best seats in the house (GA-according to them) are the cheapest. The reality is, the vast majority of those seats did not go for face value or were sold directly to the public but continue to be monopolized by the after market ticket sites.  I love the band but this is one reason why after 30+ years of following them, something remains missing for me. And such things I just can't seem to overlook or wrap my head around. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: lucas.homem on June 20, 2015, 10:29:07 AM
All about the money? I think they care about their status, popularity, legacy and relevance too. They are still full of desire.

And I do think they care about their music.

However, they seem to love large amounts of money.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Exile on June 20, 2015, 11:25:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How U2 can justify the exorbitant ticket prices I will never know. I just saw (or will be seeing) three well established acts for under $85.

Either I'm the luckiest guy in the world or I just know how to work the internet, but I bought killer, lower level seats for the opening night's show in Vancouver for $75 each, and I bought them several weeks after they went on sale.

In fact, I've never bothered to shell out the cash for their fan club membership, and I haven't missed a tour since Popmart.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: mdmomof7 on June 20, 2015, 11:29:29 AM
By my experience so far, 3 cities, 6 shows in, NO! They are all about the fans. If that makes them money, and surely it does, then bring it on!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 20, 2015, 12:30:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How U2 can justify the exorbitant ticket prices I will never know. I just saw (or will be seeing) three well established acts for under $85.

Either I'm the luckiest guy in the world or I just know how to work the internet, but I bought killer, lower level seats for the opening night's show in Vancouver for $75 each, and I bought them several weeks after they went on sale.

In fact, I've never bothered to shell out the cash for their fan club membership, and I haven't missed a tour since Popmart.

MSG level 100 and level 200 face value over $300 with fees. I have also been to every tour and have also opted out of the fan club after my Propaganda membership seniority was never honored and they left us for dust when they scraped the magazine!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 20, 2015, 12:44:23 PM
U2 are no more about the money than they were back in 1980. Its a business and like any business they are going to charge market value for whatever they are selling. Everyone here sales their house for market value why should U2 be any different?

Artist that charge less money for tickets do so because that is what they are worth in the market. All artist charge market value for tickets they are selling.

Ironically, this allegation is nothing new. There were some fans in 1992 that criticized the band for charging $30 dollars per ticket on ZOO TV.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: hrsan on June 20, 2015, 01:01:16 PM
Aside from ticket prices, there are the prices of merchandise, fan club membership prices, remastered cd packages and what not.   

I too have never paid for a fan club and I still managed to get good seats to the shows I've gone to.  To me, it's just adding $50 to the ticket price.

U2 is a business, they have employees that they have to pay. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: mdmomof7 on June 20, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
I want the Fan Club gifts, so that's another reason I do the membership.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 20, 2015, 02:28:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 are no more about the money than they were back in 1980. Its a business and like any business they are going to charge market value for whatever they are selling. Everyone here sales their house for market value why should U2 be any different?

Artist that charge less money for tickets do so because that is what they are worth in the market. All artist charge market value for tickets they are selling.

Ironically, this allegation is nothing new. There were some fans in 1992 that criticized the band for charging $30 dollars per ticket on ZOO TV.

 As far as the house analogy, a house is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. So, you are correct. If U2 charges excessive ticket prices in the NYC market and and other markets and people will pay, then one would argue they are doing good business. The price to be paid (pun intended) though is the fan base that goes to the show. U2 will never attract the 20 something to their shows because they simply cannot afford to go. So, more "well established" older adults go and snooze through most of the show and/or U2 feel forced to play the greatest hits because if not, the majority will be disinterested. Peal jam, as an example are millionaires as well. All of their shows are a single very very affordable ticket price. Thus, they draw a very eclectic and age varied crowd which is consistently rocking at the shows!! So, if you want a bunch or button ups at your gigs who are there to say they were there, then surely follow U2's/Maddona's business model and watch people take selfies and video the entire concert long. If you want a real rock and roll crowd  full of all age ranges and walks of life who are in the "present tense" who never snooze through shows, follow Pearl Jams business model. By the way, there are countless other acts that follow the Peal Jam model and do plenty well financially. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: JHook on June 20, 2015, 02:39:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 are no more about the money than they were back in 1980. Its a business and like any business they are going to charge market value for whatever they are selling. Everyone here sales their house for market value why should U2 be any different?

Artist that charge less money for tickets do so because that is what they are worth in the market. All artist charge market value for tickets they are selling.

Ironically, this allegation is nothing new. There were some fans in 1992 that criticized the band for charging $30 dollars per ticket on ZOO TV.

 As far as the house analogy, a house is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. So, you are correct. If U2 charges excessive ticket prices in the NYC market and and other markets and people will pay, then one would argue they are doing good business. The price to be paid (pun intended) though is the fan base that goes to the show. U2 will never attract the 20 something to their shows because they simply cannot afford to go. So, more "well established" older adults go and snooze through most of the show and/or U2 feel forced to play the greatest hits because if not, the majority will be disinterested. Peal jam, as an example are millionaires as well. All of their shows are a single very very affordable ticket price. Thus, they draw a very eclectic and age varied crowd which is consistently rocking at the shows!! So, if you want a bunch or button ups at your gigs who are there to say they were there, then surely follow U2's/Maddona's business model and watch people take selfies and video the entire concert long. If you want a real rock and roll crowd  full of all age ranges and walks of life who are in the "present tense" who never snooze through shows, follow Pearl Jams business model. By the way, there are countless other acts that follow the Peal Jam model and do plenty well financially.

Interesting. Have you been to a U2 show lately? I have. I was in Montreal for nights three and four. And I promise you, I was surrounded by people of all ages, and no one was snoozing. Up until Tuesday night I hadn't seen U2 live in years. I've seen a lot of other bands in the interim, but no one, NO ONE, moves and works a crowd like U2 does. I still haven't really come down. Maybe I won't ever.

So, I mean, if the tickets are too expensive for you, that's fair enough. But please don't spread inaccuracies about what's happening in the audience. That's not fair at all. There's plenty of video out there if you want to see what's really happening.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 20, 2015, 02:44:54 PM
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.



Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: JHook on June 20, 2015, 02:48:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

I was very pleased to escape the support acts. To each their own.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 20, 2015, 02:57:30 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
U2 are no more about the money than they were back in 1980. Its a business and like any business they are going to charge market value for whatever they are selling. Everyone here sales their house for market value why should U2 be any different?

Artist that charge less money for tickets do so because that is what they are worth in the market. All artist charge market value for tickets they are selling.

Ironically, this allegation is nothing new. There were some fans in 1992 that criticized the band for charging $30 dollars per ticket on ZOO TV.

 As far as the house analogy, a house is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. So, you are correct. If U2 charges excessive ticket prices in the NYC market and and other markets and people will pay, then one would argue they are doing good business. The price to be paid (pun intended) though is the fan base that goes to the show. U2 will never attract the 20 something to their shows because they simply cannot afford to go. So, more "well established" older adults go and snooze through most of the show and/or U2 feel forced to play the greatest hits because if not, the majority will be disinterested. Peal jam, as an example are millionaires as well. All of their shows are a single very very affordable ticket price. Thus, they draw a very eclectic and age varied crowd which is consistently rocking at the shows!! So, if you want a bunch or button ups at your gigs who are there to say they were there, then surely follow U2's/Maddona's business model and watch people take selfies and video the entire concert long. If you want a real rock and roll crowd  full of all age ranges and walks of life who are in the "present tense" who never snooze through shows, follow Pearl Jams business model. By the way, there are countless other acts that follow the Peal Jam model and do plenty well financially.

Interesting. Have you been to a U2 show lately? I have. I was in Montreal for nights three and four. And I promise you, I was surrounded by people of all ages, and no one was snoozing. Up until Tuesday night I hadn't seen U2 live in years. I've seen a lot of other bands in the interim, but no one, NO ONE, moves and works a crowd like U2 does. I still haven't really come down. Maybe I won't ever.

So, I mean, if the tickets are too expensive for you, that's fair enough. But please don't spread inaccuracies about what's happening in the audience. That's not fair at all. There's plenty of video out there if you want to see what's really happening.

Yes I have been to the new tour. No the tickets aren't too expensive for me personally. Other bands absolutely "move and work" a crowd like U2 does. So, please refrain from telling me that I am spreading inaccuracies when you are able to make such grand statements yourself. And I don't count the token someone in their 40's bringing their 10 year old to a show because it's hip all age ranges. I think you may be missing my point. All of the video out there that you suggest I watch is one reason why some of the shows lack connectedness. I love the band, just don't always love the energy and the crowd that follow them to the shows for the reasons i suggested. Remember, if your on this board I assume your a pretty diehard fan like me. Point is, loads of button ups at the show are not.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 20, 2015, 02:59:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

I was very pleased to escape the support acts. To each their own.

If u2 played a longer set to compensate for the absence of support acts I would be more inclined to say fair enough, but a standard length show seems to be being played....less live music for your buck is never a good thing for me.

To each their own as you say.

I just took a look ob the TM site for tickets to the next show in Chicago just to see the pricing structure.....I went for best available got two in the basket and the price was $589.90!

No wonder they aren't sold out, that is $600 for two people to go to a gig, what is the average weekly wage in America?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: mariamontreal on June 20, 2015, 03:00:20 PM
I still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me. And they deliver 2 solid hours of great music and fun
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 20, 2015, 03:08:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: JHook on June 20, 2015, 03:15:05 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
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

I was very pleased to escape the support acts. To each their own.

If u2 played a longer set to compensate for the absence of support acts I would be more inclined to say fair enough, but a standard length show seems to be being played....less live music for your buck is never a good thing for me.

To each their own as you say.

I just took a look ob the TM site for tickets to the next show in Chicago just to see the pricing structure.....I went for best available got two in the basket and the price was $589.90!

No wonder they aren't sold out, that is $600 for two people to go to a gig, what is the average weekly wage in America?

My GA tickets for Montreal were $84 each. Don't know what to tell you. I got plenty of bang for my buck, as we say on this side of the pond.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 20, 2015, 03:20:57 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
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

I was very pleased to escape the support acts. To each their own.

If u2 played a longer set to compensate for the absence of support acts I would be more inclined to say fair enough, but a standard length show seems to be being played....less live music for your buck is never a good thing for me.

To each their own as you say.

I just took a look ob the TM site for tickets to the next show in Chicago just to see the pricing structure.....I went for best available got two in the basket and the price was $589.90!

No wonder they aren't sold out, that is $600 for two people to go to a gig, what is the average weekly wage in America?

My GA tickets for Montreal were $84 each. Don't know what to tell you. I got plenty of bang for my buck, as we say on this side of the pond.

Now that I say is spectacular and reasonable!! But here in NY, the face value mark up is three times that amount!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 20, 2015, 03:24:44 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
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

I was very pleased to escape the support acts. To each their own.

If u2 played a longer set to compensate for the absence of support acts I would be more inclined to say fair enough, but a standard length show seems to be being played....less live music for your buck is never a good thing for me.

To each their own as you say.

I just took a look ob the TM site for tickets to the next show in Chicago just to see the pricing structure.....I went for best available got two in the basket and the price was $589.90!

No wonder they aren't sold out, that is $600 for two people to go to a gig, what is the average weekly wage in America?

My GA tickets for Montreal were $84 each. Don't know what to tell you. I got plenty of bang for my buck, as we say on this side of the pond.

You don't need to tell me anything.

I'm glad you got a ticket you feel offered value.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: mariamontreal on June 20, 2015, 03:27:42 PM
I agree it is expensive 900.00 for three shows I don't like it either, it was that or not see them. It was a decision I had to make now I have to pay it off. But they are still worth it to me.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 20, 2015, 04:19:38 PM
I was an active U2.com forum member at the time the Vertigo tour ticket sales went live. Putting aside the issues with paid up subscribers, the biggest problem was the scalpers who were able to get there hands on dozens of tickets and sell them at an inflated price due to the demand at the time.

It looks like the bean counters have seen how much these scalpers proffited from this and wanted in on it.

The result remains the same, overly inflated ticket prices that a handful of people are willing to pay through the nose for. Until a stand is made the ticket prices will continue to head upwards and upwards.

The number of unsold high end tickets suggests that U2s ticket selling ceiling has been exceeded this time.

The only one who has consistently lost out is the fan who earns an honest wage.

U2 are not the cause of this trend, merely part of the effect of the Internet scalper. Now the middle man has been cut out were left with the cold hard facts that our favourite musicians/sport teams are a business and we are merely customers.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: imaginary friend on June 21, 2015, 09:43:41 AM
if they were all about the money, they'd go on the road at least every other year regardless of whether they had new music or not.

Also, they'd be carrying around the most bare-bones stage setup - something whose arena component could be taken down in an hour and whose stadium setup could be brought down and shipped out in less than half a day.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: hrsan on June 21, 2015, 10:09:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
if they were all about the money, they'd go on the road at least every other year regardless of whether they had new music or not.

Also, they'd be carrying around the most bare-bones stage setup - something whose arena component could be taken down in an hour and whose stadium setup could be brought down and shipped out in less than half a day.

Not necessarily.  Pearl Jam does that, but keep ticket prices quite reasonable.   
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 21, 2015, 11:14:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 are no more about the money than they were back in 1980. Its a business and like any business they are going to charge market value for whatever they are selling. Everyone here sales their house for market value why should U2 be any different?

Artist that charge less money for tickets do so because that is what they are worth in the market. All artist charge market value for tickets they are selling.

Ironically, this allegation is nothing new. There were some fans in 1992 that criticized the band for charging $30 dollars per ticket on ZOO TV.

 As far as the house analogy, a house is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. So, you are correct. If U2 charges excessive ticket prices in the NYC market and and other markets and people will pay, then one would argue they are doing good business. The price to be paid (pun intended) though is the fan base that goes to the show. U2 will never attract the 20 something to their shows because they simply cannot afford to go. So, more "well established" older adults go and snooze through most of the show and/or U2 feel forced to play the greatest hits because if not, the majority will be disinterested. Peal jam, as an example are millionaires as well. All of their shows are a single very very affordable ticket price. Thus, they draw a very eclectic and age varied crowd which is consistently rocking at the shows!! So, if you want a bunch or button ups at your gigs who are there to say they were there, then surely follow U2's/Maddona's business model and watch people take selfies and video the entire concert long. If you want a real rock and roll crowd  full of all age ranges and walks of life who are in the "present tense" who never snooze through shows, follow Pearl Jams business model. By the way, there are countless other acts that follow the Peal Jam model and do plenty well financially.

Pearl Jam does the exact same thing as U2. They charge what they are worth in the market when it comes to tickets. Pearl Jam charge less because there is less demand to see Pearl Jam. Also, Pearl Jam's audience is not any more diverse than U2's. Slightly younger, but that is about it. Your average U2 fan is about age 45. Your average Pearl Jam fan is about age 40. There are people of all other ages at the shows, but that is generally the average. U2 audience is much larger than Pearl Jam's, especially when you leave North America and go worldwide.

Also, Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber have ticket prices that are higher than Pearl Jam's and much closer to U2's price levels. The fact that their fan base is much younger does not matter. Again, price is set by demand, not the age of the fans.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 21, 2015, 11:20:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!

1. A minority of the tickets for U2 shows are sold at $300 dollars or higher

2. The majority of the tickets to U2 shows are sold at $95, $65, and $30 dollars list price before adding service charges.

3. Some U2 shows that have not soldout have still had $95 and $65 priced tickets available at show time. So there are indeed tickets available at the lower end for people who want to go to the show.

4. U2 is a business just like Pearl Jam is a business. Both bands charge what they are worth in the market. U2 is worth more in the market than Pearl Jam and charge more on average because of that.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 21, 2015, 12:08:20 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 still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!

1. A minority of the tickets for U2 shows are sold at $300 dollars or higher

2. The majority of the tickets to U2 shows are sold at $95, $65, and $30 dollars list price before adding service charges.

3. Some U2 shows that have not soldout have still had $95 and $65 priced tickets available at show time. So there are indeed tickets available at the lower end for people who want to go to the show.

4. U2 is a business just like Pearl Jam is a business. Both bands charge what they are worth in the market. U2 is worth more in the market than Pearl Jam and charge more on average because of that.

Good points, my only challenge is on point 4. I don't see 300 tickets being representative of market value in the current climate. My fear is that the price is an attempt to dictate the market value by pricing out the common U2 fan in favor of a more corperate audience.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 21, 2015, 02:19:21 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 still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!

1. A minority of the tickets for U2 shows are sold at $300 dollars or higher

2. The majority of the tickets to U2 shows are sold at $95, $65, and $30 dollars list price before adding service charges.

3. Some U2 shows that have not soldout have still had $95 and $65 priced tickets available at show time. So there are indeed tickets available at the lower end for people who want to go to the show.

4. U2 is a business just like Pearl Jam is a business. Both bands charge what they are worth in the market. U2 is worth more in the market than Pearl Jam and charge more on average because of that.

Good points, my only challenge is on point 4. I don't see 300 tickets being representative of market value in the current climate. My fear is that the price is an attempt to dictate the market value by pricing out the common U2 fan in favor of a more corperate audience.

There are thousands of normal average U2 fans who actually prefer to purchase $300 dollar tickets. Why? First, these are fans that want a fixed, reserved seat. The best, fixed reserved seats that are the closest proximity to the stage are the $300 dollar tickets. So there are fans that will buy them. Many U2 fans own business's or sit at or near the top of the largest companies in the world. $300 dollars is the market value for a particular type of seat at a U2 concert. If that was not the case, no one would purchase these seats.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 21, 2015, 02:40:57 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 still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!

1. A minority of the tickets for U2 shows are sold at $300 dollars or higher

2. The majority of the tickets to U2 shows are sold at $95, $65, and $30 dollars list price before adding service charges.

3. Some U2 shows that have not soldout have still had $95 and $65 priced tickets available at show time. So there are indeed tickets available at the lower end for people who want to go to the show.

4. U2 is a business just like Pearl Jam is a business. Both bands charge what they are worth in the market. U2 is worth more in the market than Pearl Jam and charge more on average because of that.

Good points, my only challenge is on point 4. I don't see 300 tickets being representative of market value in the current climate. My fear is that the price is an attempt to dictate the market value by pricing out the common U2 fan in favor of a more corperate audience.

There are thousands of normal average U2 fans who actually prefer to purchase $300 dollar tickets. Why? First, these are fans that want a fixed, reserved seat. The best, fixed reserved seats that are the closest proximity to the stage are the $300 dollar tickets. So there are fans that will buy them. Many U2 fans own business's or sit at or near the top of the largest companies in the world. $300 dollars is the market value for a particular type of seat at a U2 concert. If that was not the case, no one would purchase these seats.

I'll have to respectfully disagree, I doubt very much that an average U2 fans preference would be to pay $300 dollars over a $60 ticket (which should also guarantee a reserved seat).
With regards to the comment that many U2 fans sit at the top of the largest companies in the world or own their own businesses, well I'll have to take your word on that but it most certainly doesn't justify pricing the average fan out of the market.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 21, 2015, 05:25:03 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
I still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!

1. A minority of the tickets for U2 shows are sold at $300 dollars or higher

2. The majority of the tickets to U2 shows are sold at $95, $65, and $30 dollars list price before adding service charges.

3. Some U2 shows that have not soldout have still had $95 and $65 priced tickets available at show time. So there are indeed tickets available at the lower end for people who want to go to the show.

4. U2 is a business just like Pearl Jam is a business. Both bands charge what they are worth in the market. U2 is worth more in the market than Pearl Jam and charge more on average because of that.

Good points, my only challenge is on point 4. I don't see 300 tickets being representative of market value in the current climate. My fear is that the price is an attempt to dictate the market value by pricing out the common U2 fan in favor of a more corperate audience.

There are thousands of normal average U2 fans who actually prefer to purchase $300 dollar tickets. Why? First, these are fans that want a fixed, reserved seat. The best, fixed reserved seats that are the closest proximity to the stage are the $300 dollar tickets. So there are fans that will buy them. Many U2 fans own business's or sit at or near the top of the largest companies in the world. $300 dollars is the market value for a particular type of seat at a U2 concert. If that was not the case, no one would purchase these seats.

I'll have to respectfully disagree, I doubt very much that an average U2 fans preference would be to pay $300 dollars over a $60 ticket (which should also guarantee a reserved seat).
With regards to the comment that many U2 fans sit at the top of the largest companies in the world or own their own businesses, well I'll have to take your word on that but it most certainly doesn't justify pricing the average fan out of the market.

No one has been priced out of the market. Once again, the majority of tickets are at the $95, $65, and $30 dollar price. The better the seat, the more demand for and there for the more expensive it is. That's normal market practice. No one complained about paying $275 for tickets on the 360 tour which was in massive football stadiums where the seats are further away from the stage than in a basketball arena. So why complain about $300 dollar seats in a basketball arena on this tour? Plus if you want to get close to the band, just go General admission and you could possibly touch Bono, get within a few feet, or get up on stage, for only $65 dollars a ticket. U2 is actually losing money on those General Admission tickets and those that scalp General Admission tickets are selling them for 6 or 7 times face value. The cheapest General Admission ticket on up to be resold by a scalper on ticketsnow.com for the first Madison Square Garden show is selling for $465 dollars!

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on June 21, 2015, 09:05:34 PM
Of course the bands view on money has changed. On Zoo TV they famously wouldn't increase ticket prices by $5 to ensure a profit. Now the top seats went for over $600 in Vancouver. A pretty clear change for anyone to see.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: mdmomof7 on June 21, 2015, 09:48:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course the bands view on money has changed. On Zoo TV they famously wouldn't increase ticket prices by $5 to ensure a profit. Now the top seats went for over $600 in Vancouver. A pretty clear change for anyone to see.

Those $600 seats come w/ many desirable perks, so it's not just a seat. The top seat, just a seat, are the $312 seats in the prime viewing zones.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Tuolumne on June 21, 2015, 10:34:11 PM
There are a lot of easier ways to make a lot of money than what U2 are doing on this tour. Especially since they all already have what I presume to be a sufficient amount of millions each already. Stock market, business investments, etc.   
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: summerrain on June 21, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course the bands view on money has changed. On Zoo TV they famously wouldn't increase ticket prices by $5 to ensure a profit. Now the top seats went for over $600 in Vancouver. A pretty clear change for anyone to see.

Yep, and then they realized that they almost went bankrupt and they didn't want to go through that again
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 22, 2015, 03:23:20 AM
No different from they ever were.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: PatateTony35 on June 22, 2015, 08:21:49 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
I still haven't come down from the three shows in Montreal either, and yes the ages ranged from very young and older and everything in between. My opinion if you love something so much you will pay for it. I am by no means rich.the contrary, but for me the money was worth every penny to me because I love this band so much it is worth it to me.

I'm thrilled that your still on a high from the show. But why is it that U2 can't be more fair with the ticket prices? Loving something and "paying" more money for it really have no correlation at all. Because their are plenty of people out there who may love the band but can't go to shows without shelling out $300 a ticket, and  they simply can't !! That's a shame when it really does't have to be that way!

1. A minority of the tickets for U2 shows are sold at $300 dollars or higher

2. The majority of the tickets to U2 shows are sold at $95, $65, and $30 dollars list price before adding service charges.

3. Some U2 shows that have not soldout have still had $95 and $65 priced tickets available at show time. So there are indeed tickets available at the lower end for people who want to go to the show.

4. U2 is a business just like Pearl Jam is a business. Both bands charge what they are worth in the market. U2 is worth more in the market than Pearl Jam and charge more on average because of that.

Good points, my only challenge is on point 4. I don't see 300 tickets being representative of market value in the current climate. My fear is that the price is an attempt to dictate the market value by pricing out the common U2 fan in favor of a more corperate audience.

There are thousands of normal average U2 fans who actually prefer to purchase $300 dollar tickets. Why? First, these are fans that want a fixed, reserved seat. The best, fixed reserved seats that are the closest proximity to the stage are the $300 dollar tickets. So there are fans that will buy them. Many U2 fans own business's or sit at or near the top of the largest companies in the world. $300 dollars is the market value for a particular type of seat at a U2 concert. If that was not the case, no one would purchase these seats.

I'll have to respectfully disagree, I doubt very much that an average U2 fans preference would be to pay $300 dollars over a $60 ticket (which should also guarantee a reserved seat).
With regards to the comment that many U2 fans sit at the top of the largest companies in the world or own their own businesses, well I'll have to take your word on that but it most certainly doesn't justify pricing the average fan out of the market.

No one has been priced out of the market. Once again, the majority of tickets are at the $95, $65, and $30 dollar price. The better the seat, the more demand for and there for the more expensive it is. That's normal market practice. No one complained about paying $275 for tickets on the 360 tour which was in massive football stadiums where the seats are further away from the stage than in a basketball arena. So why complain about $300 dollar seats in a basketball arena on this tour? Plus if you want to get close to the band, just go General admission and you could possibly touch Bono, get within a few feet, or get up on stage, for only $65 dollars a ticket. U2 is actually losing money on those General Admission tickets and those that scalp General Admission tickets are selling them for 6 or 7 times face value. The cheapest General Admission ticket on up to be resold by a scalper on ticketsnow.com for the first Madison Square Garden show is selling for $465 dollars!

Somehow I bought a GA for Mtl 1 for 20$ under the face value the night of the show. Maybe Bono called for God that evening.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: BalconyTV on June 22, 2015, 08:25:29 AM
Some basics folks...

2/3 months ago... there were plenty of tickets going around. I posted that you could get tickets for as low as 40 bucks on Stubhub.

At that time there was a hullabaloo about U2 not being able to sell out shows.

But as the tour kicked in and the reviews have came in, the tickets have sold more. And the only ones left are very expensive.

Supply and demand.

If you got in early, you could have got a more than reasonable ticket.

You can't complain a couple of weeks pre concert.

I wanted to go see Noel Gallagher in New York a couple of weeks back. Tickets were sold out and extremely expensive on Stubhub.

Pearl Jam may have a mixed crowd, but its got nothing to do with price structure. Because like any concert, once the tix start selling out, the prices just go up. I can't see how its different for Pearl Jam.

I would say - 1/ Pearl Jam don't sell out... and/or 2/ Pearl Jam are just cooler for the kids at the mo than U2. Which I think is reasonable.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 22, 2015, 08:49:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course the bands view on money has changed. On Zoo TV they famously wouldn't increase ticket prices by $5 to ensure a profit. Now the top seats went for over $600 in Vancouver. A pretty clear change for anyone to see.

I've never heard that before at all. Do you have a link from an official source for that? Based on the cost of the ZOO TV tour, figures from Carter Alan's book and figures reported by USA TODAY, the band did indeed make a profit when cost are compared to the gross, despite claims to the contrary by band and management. There were all kinds of various ways U2 was making a profit in 1992, from album sales, various merchandise in addition to ticket sales. I can't find any point in U2's history where the band were not interested in making a profit or maximizing their profits. In fact, the only exception would be now with how they price General Admission tickets.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 22, 2015, 10:27:23 AM
The NY, Chicago, etc. markets never had the price structure that was referenced in a previous post ($95, $60, or whatever). They were grossly overpriced from the beginning, face value. And I'm not referring to the after market here. As far as all the Pearl Jam references, there are so many inaccuracies with these posts I don't even know where to begin. Pearl Jam always and consistently charge the usual "going rate" for their shows. Not some ridiculous and abusive tiering system of $300 for "better seats" with the likes of Lady Gaga and Maddona!! And to think that ticket prices do not affect the people who go to shows is simply putting your head in the sand. Again, I cannot speak to the other markets as far as U2 is concerned where tickets are under $100. To also think that Pearl Jam would not sell out their shows, especially over seas is also silly. They have a tremendous following worldwide. So the supply and demand argument is dead when it comes to Pearl Jam. They set their price, and that is it!! They never ever take advantage of bigger markets to suck in more profits form their fans. The price is the price.  I won't even get into how Pearl Jam has kept it real for all these years and hands down, treat their fans top notch, through and through. Ticket prices, live bootleg downloads of all their shows, top notch fanclub with presale tickets, etc.  Having been an original fan club member of Propaganda magazine, no one knows better than I do how U2 completely disregarded us when they went with the internet fan club!! But that's a post for a whole other day!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 22, 2015, 10:32:06 AM
I kinda agree with Paul McGuinness: it's impolite to talk about money.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: BalconyTV on June 22, 2015, 11:24:54 AM
Mr. Red... you're probably right on various points regarding Pearl Jam. And to be clear, I am not knocking Pearl Jam... or anything like that. And with that, it is unquestionable that U2 could do things better...

HOWEVER

Pearl Jams 2014 Lightning Bolt tour had 20 dates and was attended by 264,000 people.

Thats 13,200 people on average per concert.

The tour grossed 18,700,000... (that puts the average ticket price at 70 bucks (not exactly a save the world price)

The average attendance of each U2 concert so far has been 35,000 per night (don't ask me how they do that, but thats whats been published). I presume with GA, and full arena seats.

So the fact is, the demand to see U2 is just much larger, anyway you look at it. U2 can afford to price tier. U2 can price 13,200 seats reasonably... and stagger upwards from there.

Other artists don't have that demand, and thus ticket prices have to be lower.

The fact is, many artists just don't sell out these days. I was at an Arcade Fire gig recently... lots of empty seats. Muse, half empty... etc etc. These are the bands of the day. They have to charge 60 bucks... because if they didn't... the venues would have even more empty seats.

If Pearl Jam could sell 35,000 tickets a night, I'm sure they would. But as they can't the tickets are priced appropriately.

I think you are a touch romantic about things. I don't believe Pearl Jam are on a charitable conquest as noble as they are.

As a side point, the average ticket price for U2360 was 100 bucks.

This was all a bit rambly... but I think some kinda point is coming out.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 22, 2015, 11:48:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. Red... you're probably right on various points regarding Pearl Jam. And to be clear, I am not knocking Pearl Jam... or anything like that. And with that, it is unquestionable that U2 could do things better...

HOWEVER

Pearl Jams 2014 Lightning Bolt tour had 20 dates and was attended by 264,000 people.

That's 13,200 people on average per concert.

The tour grossed 18,700,000... (that puts the average ticket price at 70 bucks (not exactly a save the world price)

The average attendance of each U2 concert so far has been 35,000 per night (don't ask me how they do that, but that's whats been published). I presume with GA, and full arena seats.

So the fact is, the demand to see U2 is just much larger, anyway you look at it. U2 can afford to price tier. U2 can price 13,200 seats reasonably... and stagger upwards from there.

Other artists don't have that demand, and thus ticket prices have to be lower.

The fact is, many artists just don't sell out these days. I was at an Arcade Fire gig recently... lots of empty seats. Muse, half empty... etc etc. These are the bands of the day. They have to charge 60 bucks... because if they didn't... the venues would have even more empty seats.

If Pearl Jam could sell 35,000 tickets a night, I'm sure they would. But as they can't the tickets are priced appropriately.

I think you are a touch romantic about things. I don't believe Pearl Jam are on a charitable conquest as noble as they are.

As a side point, the average ticket price for U2360 was 100 bucks.

This was all a bit rambly... but I think some kinda point is coming out.

Some good points, and yes I guess I can be a bit romantic about things. I totally get the whole supply and demand aspects you described. Something just doesn't sit well with me with regards to U2's whole corporate thing. To a degree, it zaps my enthusiasm for the band just enough where it's sometimes difficult to swallow. Again, I have followed the band my entire life and have seen them all around the world. But of late, the things they can do better just bothers me too much and thus, I continue to gravitate towards a band like Pearl Jam as an example in the second half of my life.  Thanks for the therapy session Ha!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: SlyDanner on June 22, 2015, 11:56:17 AM
Seems like this thread has evolved to focus just on the ticket prices again, but the OP question I think is a larger one.  'All about the money' has wider implications, for example the Apple release, the type of music the band are making, desire to be on the radio, risk taking (or aversion), etc etc.

I actually don't have too many problems with U2 as a business, including tour pricing.  What does irk me is the overly commercial stunts like the iTunes giveaway, and the incessant delays on every release as the band tries to get the formula exactly right for a big hits mega-album, which hasn't really worked since 2004. 

In the end, the business side should be in the background, not the foreground.  IMO.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Exile on June 22, 2015, 12:14:28 PM
Call me an over-simplifier, but I think that anyone who already has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and is still trying to make more, is greedy by definition (whether they're a rock singer or a CEO).
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 22, 2015, 12:15:22 PM
No way have they been averaging 35,000 a night in arenas.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 22, 2015, 12:21:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Seems like this thread has evolved to focus just on the ticket prices again, but the OP question I think is a larger one.  'All about the money' has wider implications, for example the Apple release, the type of music the band are making, desire to be on the radio, risk taking (or aversion), etc etc.

I actually don't have too many problems with U2 as a business, including tour pricing.  What does irk me is the overly commercial stunts like the iTunes giveaway, and the incessant delays on every release as the band tries to get the formula exactly right for a big hits mega-album, which hasn't really worked since 2004. 

In the end, the business side should be in the background, not the foreground.  IMO.

Certainly. All the reasons you mentioned are why the band just doesn't resonate as much as they once did for me! Because the business is in the foreground, sadly it has negatively affected the music the most.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 22, 2015, 12:25:06 PM
Their desire to be huge to reach everyman was in many ways what made them so great, but they did it on their terms with music that was actually out of step with the mainstream but that became huge.

Since 2000 they have been chasing it but chasing it with music that is as middle of the road and blatantly aimed at the mainstream as there is....I never thought u2 would become a pop rock band but they are.

Their art has suffered most in the chase of the dollar and relevance.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 22, 2015, 12:26:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No way have they been averaging 35,000 a night in arenas.

Exactly. And even if they were getting 35,000 per show isn't it even more reason to charge less for tickets?? Of course it isn't because U2 is a wall street corporation and the more profit the better!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 22, 2015, 12:45:03 PM
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Innocent Smith on June 22, 2015, 12:49:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course the bands view on money has changed. On Zoo TV they famously wouldn't increase ticket prices by $5 to ensure a profit. Now the top seats went for over $600 in Vancouver. A pretty clear change for anyone to see.

Those $600 seats come w/ many desirable perks, so it's not just a seat. The top seat, just a seat, are the $312 seats in the prime viewing zones.

That's true. However, the "prime viewing" zones have widened to the point that the term is almost meaningless. I paid $300 to view from the side. Did not know it at the time I bought. I am now hoping that the view will be in line with the center of the main stage vs being a bit behind the group.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: hrsan on June 22, 2015, 12:56:41 PM
For the record, I don't think U2 is all about the money.  A show like 360 costs a lot to produce and to tour and I'm amazed that it is the highest grossing tour to date given the enormity of it.   A show like I&E is less to produce and playing multiple nights in select cities, prices are going to be subjected to the laws of supply and demand.   Then we get into the area of the merchandising, the "remastered" albums with bonus material, the fan club fee in order to buy tickets early, selling their music to Apple and let them do what they will with it, then making the business decision to relocate in order to reduce their tax bill.  If my 14 year-old-self saw honest and earnest Bono doing this, he may have gotten a bit disillusioned.  But older (and hopefully wiser) me sees that U2 is a business and always has been and is fine with it. 

I believe the promoter has a lot of say in which obstructed view seats go on sale.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 22, 2015, 02:42:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Call me an over-simplifier, but I think that anyone who already has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and is still trying to make more, is greedy by definition (whether they're a rock singer or a CEO).

I just think it's in people's nature to work for their daily bread whether they be mega-rich or not.  Of course some people don't have any work in them. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: codeguy on June 22, 2015, 02:45:57 PM
U2 has always been smart about money but it has never been their primary motivator. Their primary motivation is relevance, always has been. U2 concert tickets are average compared to the industry......
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 22, 2015, 02:50:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 has always been smart about money but it has never been their primary motivator. Their primary motivation is relevance, always has been. U2 concert tickets are average compared to the industry......

I don't even know what relevance actually means, if anything, so it's interesting that you say it's the band's 'primary motivation' in doing anything.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 22, 2015, 02:59:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

It's a diabolical liberty.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Exile on June 22, 2015, 03:43:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 has always been smart about money but it has never been their primary motivator. Their primary motivation is relevance, always has been. U2 concert tickets are average compared to the industry......

So already having hundreds of mllions of dollars, and still trying to maximize profit by charging more than many of their fans can afford, is due to their quest for relevance?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 22, 2015, 03:59:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 has always been smart about money but it has never been their primary motivator. Their primary motivation is relevance, always has been. U2 concert tickets are average compared to the industry......

So already having hundreds of mllions of dollars, and still trying to maximize profit by charging more than many of their fans can afford, is due to their quest for relevance?

But don't forget they *might* be donating all that money to good causes. 

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on June 22, 2015, 08:53:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course the bands view on money has changed. On Zoo TV they famously wouldn't increase ticket prices by $5 to ensure a profit. Now the top seats went for over $600 in Vancouver. A pretty clear change for anyone to see.

I've never heard that before at all. Do you have a link from an official source for that? Based on the cost of the ZOO TV tour, figures from Carter Alan's book and figures reported by USA TODAY, the band did indeed make a profit when cost are compared to the gross, despite claims to the contrary by band and management. There were all kinds of various ways U2 was making a profit in 1992, from album sales, various merchandise in addition to ticket sales. I can't find any point in U2's history where the band were not interested in making a profit or maximizing their profits. In fact, the only exception would be now with how they price General Admission tickets.
It was from Paul McGuinness in U2 by U2
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on June 22, 2015, 08:55:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No way have they been averaging 35,000 a night in arenas.

Not even close. There's no arena in North America that holds even close to 35,000. The average attendance so far is probably around 17,000
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Innocent Smith on June 22, 2015, 11:36:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No way have they been averaging 35,000 a night in arenas.

Not even close. There's no arena in North America that holds even close to 35,000. The average attendance so far is probably around 17,000

You think that little? The United Center can hold a little over 23,000 at capacity for basketball including standing room. When we take into account the GA and Red Zones, I think U2 will easily be playing before 26,000 each night in this upcoming week. Maybe even a little more.

But perhaps it is one of the larger buildings. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: BalconyTV on June 23, 2015, 12:08:31 AM
Folks, I'm just going off what Billboard etc are saying the attendances were. Don't kill the messenger.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: BalconyTV on June 23, 2015, 12:14:25 AM
Everyone should remember that a few years ago, U2 did a 360 deal with LiveNation. I'm not even sure U2 get the earnings from the tours if memory serves me right. But who knows.

There are other vested interests.

And remember this... they don't even have to be touring. At their age... the question might be asked... how could you be bothered.

So love em or hate em... enjoy them while they are still around... which is briefly every 5 years.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 23, 2015, 01:03:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Folks, I'm just going off what Billboard etc are saying the attendances were. Don't kill the messenger.

I think those attendances are for two nights.

Going off wiki they are circa 35,000 for their two night stays and circa 83,000 for the 5 night jobs.

Average crowd of this tour is circa 18,000
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 09:02:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The NY, Chicago, etc. markets never had the price structure that was referenced in a previous post ($95, $60, or whatever). They were grossly overpriced from the beginning, face value. And I'm not referring to the after market here. As far as all the Pearl Jam references, there are so many inaccuracies with these posts I don't even know where to begin. Pearl Jam always and consistently charge the usual "going rate" for their shows. Not some ridiculous and abusive tiering system of $300 for "better seats" with the likes of Lady Gaga and Maddona!! And to think that ticket prices do not affect the people who go to shows is simply putting your head in the sand. Again, I cannot speak to the other markets as far as U2 is concerned where tickets are under $100. To also think that Pearl Jam would not sell out their shows, especially over seas is also silly. They have a tremendous following worldwide. So the supply and demand argument is dead when it comes to Pearl Jam. They set their price, and that is it!! They never ever take advantage of bigger markets to suck in more profits form their fans. The price is the price.  I won't even get into how Pearl Jam has kept it real for all these years and hands down, treat their fans top notch, through and through. Ticket prices, live bootleg downloads of all their shows, top notch fanclub with presale tickets, etc.  Having been an original fan club member of Propaganda magazine, no one knows better than I do how U2 completely disregarded us when they went with the internet fan club!! But that's a post for a whole other day!!

Both New York City and Chicago have the majority of their tickets priced at $95, $70, and $30 for Madison Square Garden, and $95, $65, and $30 for the United Center in Chicago. These are the list prices BEFORE service charges are added in. There are still ticket available at these price levels for the shows in Chicago!

You can go to ticketmaster and look at the maps to see all this for each show.

As for Pearl Jam they while they do not charge a tiered price level, they charge was would be the AVERAGE PRICE FOR A TICKET given their market value. So the best seat in the house pays $70 dollars same as the worst seat in the house. In doing that the best seat is under priced while the worst seat is over priced. In the end, those cancel each other out and the band is charging their fair market value overall, just like U2.

Pearl Jam has a much smaller fan base than U2. Pearl Jam did try charging below market value for tickets back in the early 1990s but gave up. They surrendered to ticketmaster and have been using ticketmaster and charging market value ever since then.

Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift have very young fans, but charge nearly the same amount on average as U2. So again, this is not about the age of fans, its simple supply and demand.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 09:08:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. Red... you're probably right on various points regarding Pearl Jam. And to be clear, I am not knocking Pearl Jam... or anything like that. And with that, it is unquestionable that U2 could do things better...

HOWEVER

Pearl Jams 2014 Lightning Bolt tour had 20 dates and was attended by 264,000 people.

Thats 13,200 people on average per concert.

The tour grossed 18,700,000... (that puts the average ticket price at 70 bucks (not exactly a save the world price)

The average attendance of each U2 concert so far has been 35,000 per night (don't ask me how they do that, but thats whats been published). I presume with GA, and full arena seats.

So the fact is, the demand to see U2 is just much larger, anyway you look at it. U2 can afford to price tier. U2 can price 13,200 seats reasonably... and stagger upwards from there.

Other artists don't have that demand, and thus ticket prices have to be lower.

The fact is, many artists just don't sell out these days. I was at an Arcade Fire gig recently... lots of empty seats. Muse, half empty... etc etc. These are the bands of the day. They have to charge 60 bucks... because if they didn't... the venues would have even more empty seats.

If Pearl Jam could sell 35,000 tickets a night, I'm sure they would. But as they can't the tickets are priced appropriately.

I think you are a touch romantic about things. I don't believe Pearl Jam are on a charitable conquest as noble as they are.

As a side point, the average ticket price for U2360 was 100 bucks.

This was all a bit rambly... but I think some kinda point is coming out.

Actually the average for U2 so far is 17,270 per night on this tour. I think you may be mistaking 35,000, the combined capacity for two nights as the capacity for one show. Its not! None of the basketball arenas they play on this tour can fit more than 20,000 people for an event. Most max capacities, fire code law, are below that for a basketball arena.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 09:13:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Call me an over-simplifier, but I think that anyone who already has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and is still trying to make more, is greedy by definition (whether they're a rock singer or a CEO).

If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers will dive in and make the money. Someone is going to be making huge sums of money because the demand to see U2 is that high. Its either going to be U2, ticketmaster, or scalpers. Of those three, I'd prefer the money go to U2.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 09:17:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 23, 2015, 11:28:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 23, 2015, 11:39:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The NY, Chicago, etc. markets never had the price structure that was referenced in a previous post ($95, $60, or whatever). They were grossly overpriced from the beginning, face value. And I'm not referring to the after market here. As far as all the Pearl Jam references, there are so many inaccuracies with these posts I don't even know where to begin. Pearl Jam always and consistently charge the usual "going rate" for their shows. Not some ridiculous and abusive tiering system of $300 for "better seats" with the likes of Lady Gaga and Maddona!! And to think that ticket prices do not affect the people who go to shows is simply putting your head in the sand. Again, I cannot speak to the other markets as far as U2 is concerned where tickets are under $100. To also think that Pearl Jam would not sell out their shows, especially over seas is also silly. They have a tremendous following worldwide. So the supply and demand argument is dead when it comes to Pearl Jam. They set their price, and that is it!! They never ever take advantage of bigger markets to suck in more profits form their fans. The price is the price.  I won't even get into how Pearl Jam has kept it real for all these years and hands down, treat their fans top notch, through and through. Ticket prices, live bootleg downloads of all their shows, top notch fanclub with presale tickets, etc.  Having been an original fan club member of Propaganda magazine, no one knows better than I do how U2 completely disregarded us when they went with the internet fan club!! But that's a post for a whole other day!!

Both New York City and Chicago have the majority of their tickets priced at $95, $70, and $30 for Madison Square Garden, and $95, $65, and $30 for the United Center in Chicago. These are the list prices BEFORE service charges are added in. There are still ticket available at these price levels for the shows in Chicago!

You can go to ticketmaster and look at the maps to see all this for each show.

As for Pearl Jam they while they do not charge a tiered price level, they charge was would be the AVERAGE PRICE FOR A TICKET given their market value. So the best seat in the house pays $70 dollars same as the worst seat in the house. In doing that the best seat is under priced while the worst seat is over priced. In the end, those cancel each other out and the band is charging their fair market value overall, just like U2.

Pearl Jam has a much smaller fan base than U2. Pearl Jam did try charging below market value for tickets back in the early 1990s but gave up. They surrendered to ticketmaster and have been using ticketmaster and charging market value ever since then.

Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift have very young fans, but charge nearly the same amount on average as U2. So again, this is not about the age of fans, its simple supply and demand.

This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

Again, the Pearl jam references are also inaccurate. They didn't try to charge below market value for anything in the 90's. They attempted to bypass ticketmaster and their ridiculous service charge fees and also bypass the corporate sponsored shows in an attempt to take care of their fans and keep ticket prices reasonable. It was the Nobelist of efforts but they quickly found out that they couldn't fight the monopoly and had to cave on that issue. So, instead, they now charge same price for all tickets and we as fans are all better off for it.  If you recall, they also testified in congress about the issue which in and of itself says it all!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 23, 2015, 01:07:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

So we're meant to be thankful that is U2 who are making an excessive profit at our expense rather than the scalpers? That's like asking the cops to rob our houses just to cut out the middle man!

Second point, it's the buyer who dictates the purchase price, not the seller. If the house didn't sell then it is priced wrong, the same goes for tickets.



Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 01:27:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Call me an over-simplifier, but I think that anyone who already has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and is still trying to make more, is greedy by definition (whether they're a rock singer or a CEO).

If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers will dive in and make the money. Someone is going to be making huge sums of money because the demand to see U2 is that high. Its either going to be U2, ticketmaster, or scalpers. Of those three, I'd prefer the money go to U2.

Seems like an argument for taking much stronger action against scalpers and the secondary market in general - but I suspect that bands may have vested interests there.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 01:42:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

It always cracks me up when defenders of U2's ticket pricing cite the relatively small handful of cheap tickets in GA as evidence of than band caring about affordability, when in fact the large majority of ticket prices for each show are quite expensive.  I guess it's all part of the band's strategy and PR spin.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 03:29:03 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 03:37:54 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
The NY, Chicago, etc. markets never had the price structure that was referenced in a previous post ($95, $60, or whatever). They were grossly overpriced from the beginning, face value. And I'm not referring to the after market here. As far as all the Pearl Jam references, there are so many inaccuracies with these posts I don't even know where to begin. Pearl Jam always and consistently charge the usual "going rate" for their shows. Not some ridiculous and abusive tiering system of $300 for "better seats" with the likes of Lady Gaga and Maddona!! And to think that ticket prices do not affect the people who go to shows is simply putting your head in the sand. Again, I cannot speak to the other markets as far as U2 is concerned where tickets are under $100. To also think that Pearl Jam would not sell out their shows, especially over seas is also silly. They have a tremendous following worldwide. So the supply and demand argument is dead when it comes to Pearl Jam. They set their price, and that is it!! They never ever take advantage of bigger markets to suck in more profits form their fans. The price is the price.  I won't even get into how Pearl Jam has kept it real for all these years and hands down, treat their fans top notch, through and through. Ticket prices, live bootleg downloads of all their shows, top notch fanclub with presale tickets, etc.  Having been an original fan club member of Propaganda magazine, no one knows better than I do how U2 completely disregarded us when they went with the internet fan club!! But that's a post for a whole other day!!

Both New York City and Chicago have the majority of their tickets priced at $95, $70, and $30 for Madison Square Garden, and $95, $65, and $30 for the United Center in Chicago. These are the list prices BEFORE service charges are added in. There are still ticket available at these price levels for the shows in Chicago!

You can go to ticketmaster and look at the maps to see all this for each show.

As for Pearl Jam they while they do not charge a tiered price level, they charge was would be the AVERAGE PRICE FOR A TICKET given their market value. So the best seat in the house pays $70 dollars same as the worst seat in the house. In doing that the best seat is under priced while the worst seat is over priced. In the end, those cancel each other out and the band is charging their fair market value overall, just like U2.

Pearl Jam has a much smaller fan base than U2. Pearl Jam did try charging below market value for tickets back in the early 1990s but gave up. They surrendered to ticketmaster and have been using ticketmaster and charging market value ever since then.

Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift have very young fans, but charge nearly the same amount on average as U2. So again, this is not about the age of fans, its simple supply and demand.

This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

Again, the Pearl jam references are also inaccurate. They didn't try to charge below market value for anything in the 90's. They attempted to bypass ticketmaster and their ridiculous service charge fees and also bypass the corporate sponsored shows in an attempt to take care of their fans and keep ticket prices reasonable. It was the Nobelist of efforts but they quickly found out that they couldn't fight the monopoly and had to cave on that issue. So, instead, they now charge same price for all tickets and we as fans are all better off for it.  If you recall, they also testified in congress about the issue which in and of itself says it all!

Well, at least you now acknowledge that there are tickets at the $95, $65, and $30 dollar price. Before you said that there were no such tickets in Chicago and New York. Based on the past concert grosses so far released for the tour, the AVERAGE TICKET PRICE is $116.21. That alone proves that the majority of tickets are priced the lower tiered prices. If most were priced at $275 or above, the average ticket price would be a lot higher than $116.21. $116.21 is only $15 dollars more than the average ticket price on the last tour.

Pearl Jam were charging below market value for their tickets in the early 90s which is why Ticketmaster increased the service charge fees. Ticketmaster even stated that if the artist is not willing to make what they are worth, then we will make what they are worth!

In the end, Pearl Jam failed in its goals and has joined all other artist that charge market value for their tickets. The single ticket price for all seats is what almost all artist used to do prior to 1994. 1994 is the year when Tiered pricing for tickets made its big debut and succeeded.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 03:41:10 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 23, 2015, 03:43:49 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

I have to be honest and say I'm not close enough to what goes on but why on earth would ticketmaster charge a 50 service fee, their job is to sell tickets and I have bought tickets for shows to see bands from them that were less than 50 and paid a minimal booking fee.

Unless I am missing something of course then fair enough, as I say I'm not that close to what happens.

As for the touts they have always been there and will sell tickets for what people will pay, but often they get burned and end up giving them away I've picked up tickets to see U2 for twenty quid outside a venue right on show time from touts.....face value way above. I am sure they fleeced mugs earlier in the day for hundreds but if they still have them left they'll sell them for whatever they can get come showtime.

Online has changed the dynamics I suppose with the legalised touting in effect.

Still cant convince me that they should be charging more than 50 nicker.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 03:44:59 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

So we're meant to be thankful that is U2 who are making an excessive profit at our expense rather than the scalpers? That's like asking the cops to rob our houses just to cut out the middle man!

Second point, it's the buyer who dictates the purchase price, not the seller. If the house didn't sell then it is priced wrong, the same goes for tickets.

You don't have to buy U2 tickets. If you think U2 tickets are overpriced why would you buy them? U2 make the money they make because of the CHOICE of millions of individuals to purchase tickets, albums and merchandise. The MARKET not the buyer or seller decides what a product or service is worth.

99% of U2 tickets have been sold which shows they priced the tickets correctly.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 03:47:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

It always cracks me up when defenders of U2's ticket pricing cite the relatively small handful of cheap tickets in GA as evidence of than band caring about affordability, when in fact the large majority of ticket prices for each show are quite expensive.  I guess it's all part of the band's strategy and PR spin.

The Average Ticket price for the first 11 shows of this tour based on the boxscore results is only $116.21. That shows that the majority of the tickets were priced at the lower tier prices instead of the $275 and up prices.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 03:51:05 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 03:55:49 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
This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

It always cracks me up when defenders of U2's ticket pricing cite the relatively small handful of cheap tickets in GA as evidence of than band caring about affordability, when in fact the large majority of ticket prices for each show are quite expensive.  I guess it's all part of the band's strategy and PR spin.

The Average Ticket price for the first 11 shows of this tour based on the boxscore results is only $116.21. That shows that the majority of the tickets were priced at the lower tier prices instead of the $275 and up prices.

I have a feeling that U2 like having us Brits over without a pillow.  I'm in the upper tier, so high up in fact that the new fangled speakers could almost be my personal headphones, and they charged me - with a straight face - 90 ($140+) excluding booking fees.



Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 03:58:46 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!

But if there are no block sales at all and only people who purchased the, say, max 4 tickets per person per show from one official seller can actually get through the admission gates, how do the scalpers go about selling tickets?

 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 04:00:24 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

I have to be honest and say I'm not close enough to what goes on but why on earth would ticketmaster charge a 50 service fee, their job is to sell tickets and I have bought tickets for shows to see bands from them that were less than 50 and paid a minimal booking fee.

Unless I am missing something of course then fair enough, as I say I'm not that close to what happens.

As for the touts they have always been there and will sell tickets for what people will pay, but often they get burned and end up giving them away I've picked up tickets to see U2 for twenty quid outside a venue right on show time from touts.....face value way above. I am sure they fleeced mugs earlier in the day for hundreds but if they still have them left they'll sell them for whatever they can get come showtime.

Online has changed the dynamics I suppose with the legalised touting in effect.

Still cant convince me that they should be charging more than 50 nicker.

Ticketmaster's goal is to sell as many tickets as possible at their TRUE MARKET VALUE. If the artist underprices the ticket, ticketmaster will make a lot of that up in the service fee and it will not hurt ticket sales because the overall price is still at or slightly below market value. If ticket master does not do this, then scalpers will make a killing.

U2 always charges market value which limits the number of scalpers who buy tickets and attempt to resell them for a profit. If U2 went back to Joshua Tree era ticket price of $20 dollars, Tens of Thousands of people would be diving in to the market to make money. Buy a 20 dollar ticket and then you can resell it for a $100 easy! Its a scalpers dream or any business mans dream to be making a 400% profit off your investment.

The MARKET and only the market decides what the price should be. My idea or your idea about what is supposedly "fair" is irrelevant. Try it with anything else and see if you can get that service or product for less than half of its true market value.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 04:02:36 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
This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

It always cracks me up when defenders of U2's ticket pricing cite the relatively small handful of cheap tickets in GA as evidence of than band caring about affordability, when in fact the large majority of ticket prices for each show are quite expensive.  I guess it's all part of the band's strategy and PR spin.

The Average Ticket price for the first 11 shows of this tour based on the boxscore results is only $116.21. That shows that the majority of the tickets were priced at the lower tier prices instead of the $275 and up prices.

I have a feeling that U2 like having us Brits over without a pillow.  I'm in the upper tier, so high up in fact that the new fangled speakers could almost be my personal headphones, and they charged me - with a straight face - 90 ($140+) excluding booking fees.

Perhaps the average price is higher for the UK shows. Only the first 11 US shows have been reported so far. Remember, you are seeing them in a relatively tiny 20,000 seat arena. Imagine where you could be sitting in a 90,000 seat stadium if they had chosen to play Wembley?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 23, 2015, 04:05:54 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
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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!

But if there are no block sales at all and only people who purchased the, say, max 4 tickets per person per show from one official seller can actually get through the admission gates, how do the scalpers go about selling tickets?

Multiple buyers, multiple credit cards, plus the number of scalpers naturally increases when the price is well below market value. Yes, each individual scalper may be somewhat limited in the money they can make, but they could still make several hundred dollars EACH easily. You could have several thousand scalpers buying up the tickets and reselling them to the real fans at their true market value.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 04:06:12 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
This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

It always cracks me up when defenders of U2's ticket pricing cite the relatively small handful of cheap tickets in GA as evidence of than band caring about affordability, when in fact the large majority of ticket prices for each show are quite expensive.  I guess it's all part of the band's strategy and PR spin.

The Average Ticket price for the first 11 shows of this tour based on the boxscore results is only $116.21. That shows that the majority of the tickets were priced at the lower tier prices instead of the $275 and up prices.

I have a feeling that U2 like having us Brits over without a pillow.  I'm in the upper tier, so high up in fact that the new fangled speakers could almost be my personal headphones, and they charged me - with a straight face - 90 ($140+) excluding booking fees.

Perhaps the average price is higher for the UK shows. Only the first 11 US shows have been reported so far. Remember, you are seeing them in a relatively tiny 20,000 seat arena. Imagine where you could be sitting in a 90,000 seat stadium if they had chosen to play Wembley?

To be fair, I don't mind paying a premium to see them in an arena.  But the truth is that ticket prices in stadiums six years ago were just as pricey as the current tour.  This profit maximising ticket strategy has been going on for a long while now in the U2 camp. 

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 04:08:00 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!

But if there are no block sales at all and only people who purchased the, say, max 4 tickets per person per show from one official seller can actually get through the admission gates, how do the scalpers go about selling tickets?

Multiple buyers, multiple credit cards, plus the number of scalpers naturally increases when the price is well below market value. Yes, each individual scalper may be somewhat limited in the money they can make, but they could still make several hundred dollars EACH easily. You could have several thousand scalpers buying up the tickets and reselling them to the real fans at their true market value.

Are the scalpers going to give each buyer of their tickets the credit card that was used to purchase the tickets originally?

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 23, 2015, 04:19:10 PM
Wolf, you make interesting points and support then with a strong well put argument....

I'm not totally sure about how right you are, but you are more clued up on the subject than me so i am out the debate....

I'll not personally pay any more than 50 going forward though, it just isn't worth it to me and I do think U2 (like a lot of artists) are greedy.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: bonorules on June 23, 2015, 04:21:05 PM
For the record, Ticketmaster does not set the price of the tickets.  The artist and show's promoter set the prices.  The fees TM charges are all set per the contracts they have with each arena.  Those fees are usually based on what the local market can handle and some are higher than others depending on if the arena gets a portion of the fee.  Even if they felt an artist really underpriced their event, TM would never tack on additional fees to 'make up' the difference.  They can only charge the fees approved in the contract with the arena.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: LemonadeSupernova on June 23, 2015, 04:25:57 PM
Yeah, it's no good blaming TM for the high prices of U2 tickets.

FWIW, I'm content with what I paid for my ticket and I'm fairly content with my view of the show up in the gods.  Still, the tickets could very easily be a lot cheaper to make it more easily affordable for yer average U2 fan.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: SlyDanner on June 23, 2015, 06:17:14 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
This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

It always cracks me up when defenders of U2's ticket pricing cite the relatively small handful of cheap tickets in GA as evidence of than band caring about affordability, when in fact the large majority of ticket prices for each show are quite expensive.  I guess it's all part of the band's strategy and PR spin.

The Average Ticket price for the first 11 shows of this tour based on the boxscore results is only $116.21. That shows that the majority of the tickets were priced at the lower tier prices instead of the $275 and up prices.

I have a feeling that U2 like having us Brits over without a pillow.  I'm in the upper tier, so high up in fact that the new fangled speakers could almost be my personal headphones, and they charged me - with a straight face - 90 ($140+) excluding booking fees.

did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to buy it - with a straight face?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on June 23, 2015, 09:20:57 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
The NY, Chicago, etc. markets never had the price structure that was referenced in a previous post ($95, $60, or whatever). They were grossly overpriced from the beginning, face value. And I'm not referring to the after market here. As far as all the Pearl Jam references, there are so many inaccuracies with these posts I don't even know where to begin. Pearl Jam always and consistently charge the usual "going rate" for their shows. Not some ridiculous and abusive tiering system of $300 for "better seats" with the likes of Lady Gaga and Maddona!! And to think that ticket prices do not affect the people who go to shows is simply putting your head in the sand. Again, I cannot speak to the other markets as far as U2 is concerned where tickets are under $100. To also think that Pearl Jam would not sell out their shows, especially over seas is also silly. They have a tremendous following worldwide. So the supply and demand argument is dead when it comes to Pearl Jam. They set their price, and that is it!! They never ever take advantage of bigger markets to suck in more profits form their fans. The price is the price.  I won't even get into how Pearl Jam has kept it real for all these years and hands down, treat their fans top notch, through and through. Ticket prices, live bootleg downloads of all their shows, top notch fanclub with presale tickets, etc.  Having been an original fan club member of Propaganda magazine, no one knows better than I do how U2 completely disregarded us when they went with the internet fan club!! But that's a post for a whole other day!!

Both New York City and Chicago have the majority of their tickets priced at $95, $70, and $30 for Madison Square Garden, and $95, $65, and $30 for the United Center in Chicago. These are the list prices BEFORE service charges are added in. There are still ticket available at these price levels for the shows in Chicago!

You can go to ticketmaster and look at the maps to see all this for each show.

As for Pearl Jam they while they do not charge a tiered price level, they charge was would be the AVERAGE PRICE FOR A TICKET given their market value. So the best seat in the house pays $70 dollars same as the worst seat in the house. In doing that the best seat is under priced while the worst seat is over priced. In the end, those cancel each other out and the band is charging their fair market value overall, just like U2.

Pearl Jam has a much smaller fan base than U2. Pearl Jam did try charging below market value for tickets back in the early 1990s but gave up. They surrendered to ticketmaster and have been using ticketmaster and charging market value ever since then.

Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift have very young fans, but charge nearly the same amount on average as U2. So again, this is not about the age of fans, its simple supply and demand.

This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

Again, the Pearl jam references are also inaccurate. They didn't try to charge below market value for anything in the 90's. They attempted to bypass ticketmaster and their ridiculous service charge fees and also bypass the corporate sponsored shows in an attempt to take care of their fans and keep ticket prices reasonable. It was the Nobelist of efforts but they quickly found out that they couldn't fight the monopoly and had to cave on that issue. So, instead, they now charge same price for all tickets and we as fans are all better off for it.  If you recall, they also testified in congress about the issue which in and of itself says it all!

Well, at least you now acknowledge that there are tickets at the $95, $65, and $30 dollar price. Before you said that there were no such tickets in Chicago and New York. Based on the past concert grosses so far released for the tour, the AVERAGE TICKET PRICE is $116.21. That alone proves that the majority of tickets are priced the lower tiered prices. If most were priced at $275 or above, the average ticket price would be a lot higher than $116.21. $116.21 is only $15 dollars more than the average ticket price on the last tour.

Pearl Jam were charging below market value for their tickets in the early 90s which is why Ticketmaster increased the service charge fees. Ticketmaster even stated that if the artist is not willing to make what they are worth, then we will make what they are worth!

In the end, Pearl Jam failed in its goals and has joined all other artist that charge market value for their tickets. The single ticket price for all seats is what almost all artist used to do prior to 1994. 1994 is the year when Tiered pricing for tickets made its big debut and succeeded.

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort. I will say it again, that is not the ticket price tiering for my local show at MSG. You can site all the stats you like but it does not apply to the larger markets. Additionally, you are very crafty at throwing inaccuracies out there with regards to the Pearl Jam 90's debate. If is completely untrue and false that they were charging less than market value for tickets and ticketbastard wanted to make up the difference. As I stated in my previous post, they tried to bypass what they considered illegal excessive serve charges and run a tour without the support of ticketbastard  and corporate support. Pearl Jam "failed" (to use your term very loosely), at their efforts simply because congress  supported the big money corporations as usual. Really at the end of the day, we are talking apples and oranges with regards to how Pearl Jam and U2 treat their fans. Pearl jam have always kept it real since their inception, U2 have not. Period
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: SlyDanner on June 24, 2015, 12:32:33 AM
Since this thread has essentially devolved to a ticket price debate, please see this other thread and the part of the conversation about LiveNation, towards the end.  Very insightful. 

http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,27450.0.html
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: UnknownCaller98 on June 24, 2015, 03:10:14 PM
Charging 90 for restricted, behind the stage views without telling the buyer? Then yes, they must be desperate for cash.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mary C on June 24, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
U2? Desperate for cash? When they own their own publishing and copyright outright (something NOBODY else in the music biz has ever gotten, to my knowledge--total ownership of every note they ever wrote, including any RingTones Edge might compose?)  And they have a deal  that keeps this in place until "75 yrs after the death of the last band member"? Do they even have to tour at all at this stage? Puh-LEAZE.

I wonder though how "market value" is determined with artists. If it's radio/visibility/downloads or however the heck the industry determined how "valuable/"hot" an artist is, in olden times (say before 2010) that was easy. Market value for tours traditionally might follow from that, from currenthits/age/popularity. In the Old World, it was easy: lots of hit albums/singles=popularity=lots of concert tix sold=high market value. But in this new world where artists are expected to break big selling millions of albums right out of the box, and some of them don't even have established fanbases yet, YET the emphasis is focusing more and more on touring in the industry now that the album is dying concept and audience loyalty is going the way of the dinosaur...HOW does someone determine market value?

Call me hopelessly old-fashioned, but there is no way artists like The Biebster or Muse or someone like Ed Sheeran should be charging ticket price at the same level as an act with a large, established fanbase for years. I was talking to a lady last week who took her daughter  to see Sheeran and they paid $85+ fees for nosebleeds. That was the same ticket tiering as U2, basically. She didn't know what the high end was, but I can guess. The only difference with U2 being the number of high-ends.

But back to my point. Since albums are basically dead and yet LN/The industry expects that they can fill arenas and stadiums (or at least sell out festivals, for God's sake) with acts that sell themselves basically with streamed singles, fill them night after night for hours per show, how do they determine an artist's market value? There used to be a tried and true formula for breaking artists and this ensured that audience loyalty would exist and thus a tiered pricing structure would be feasible, thus the concept of "market value" might look like this, based on how artists were tiered in the industry:

1)Club acts, just in the beginning stages of finding an audience, little visibility on radio, or college radio buzz.--Obviously, cheap as dirt.

2)  Up and coming artist, just starting up the ladder, no real hits yet but lots of buzz under the radar, by this time graduated to 2000-seat theaters in cities and small towns, still cheap but not dirt cheap. The beginnings of a national following.
This stage lasts through 2nd or 3rd album maybe.

3) Up and coming artist in the 2nd stages, maybe cracked the lower or mid levels of Billboard charts, popular videos, in terms of albums, some radio play but not every hour. prob on their 3rd album, or 4th. At this stage the act has been around maybe 3-5 yrs since club days. If they're big enough, the beginnings of a European or even global following. (this was where U2 were pre-Live Aid.)  Playing small arenas, and European large ones.

4)  Established act, been around for 3-5 yrs +, is on 4th album or longer, breaks through with #1 or Top 5 Albums and singles. Are popular enough now to graduate to regular and large arenas, the benchmark is selling out MSG. Has a global following and is now selling out stadiums and arenas in many countries based on new hits.

5)Established act at its peak. Age-wise, from 25-40 *traditionally*. If popular enough, has a large and lasting visibility as established on radio/downloads/hits in general. At this stage they can make a show as long as they like, and have any opening act, they have a sizeable original catalogue. If one of the Greats, is a truly global phenomenon and a huge and dedicated core fanbase, with fluctuations around the edges but compared to the core, this is minimal. This is the "**** the pop kids, we don't need 'em" stage.

6)Late-stage established act. Still producing hits, but starting to age and audience, even the youngest core, is starting to skew older (older in the Biz meaning older than college kid.) This is the age where hugely popular releases might be labeled as "comebacks."

7)Early-stage Legacy Act. maybe a modest hit or two  and still visible, still relavant maybe by dint of their overall legend and musical inspiration to younger generations and acts, and with their huge audience intact, attracting new fans of all ages around the huge core of the established fanbase. No longer with the hottest Twitter Feed but still quoted if something spicy comes up...No longer tastemakers but still hugely overall influencal in general.

8) Late-stage Legacy Act--this is where you are a musical museum piece, where nobody under 60 would go to your shows except as viewing a historical curiosity, you are fully from a distant era. Your audience may be huge but it's YOUR old crowd, and you exist if you still do  in another plane.

(People debate whether U2 are stage 6, 7 or even 8!-- but I think we won't know that until the end of the stadium (?) tour next year. Where do you think Pearl Jam are? They had a global following but in terms of raw numbers never as big as U2. Interesting, they're like U2 in many ways. I say this as another PJ fan, in the Ten Club too.)

Now, that's a neat chart whereby a promoter can work out a graduated pricing formula. But the state of the music biz today has upended this formula. You have artists who are tailored for the blandest common denometer, the musical equivalent of Marvel franchise films, break big with one social-media heralded single and sell millions, and then are pushed into arenas and even stadiums with hardly enough material to fill an hours' worth of showtime with even covers of old songs from other acts. (That's assuming they can play instruments and sing without AutoTune and you know, do stuff other than choreographed dance moves COUGH no names). Then promoters find out that these acts don't last long and/or their audiences are fickle. So they find a talented act like Muse or Arcade Fire who want to follow the traditional "slow burn" method and are rising too, or have been around a few years but have had modest success, and all of a sudden they're commanding Rolling Stones-type prices, for their audiences who are still young like them and aren't in the age group or tax bracket that can afford the shows.

The model is broken in the first place, and the concert industry is trying to compensate, and thus how markey value for an artist is determined is beyond me. Logic dictates that the most expensive acts should be the ones that are around the longest and have a core fanbase residing in tax brackets than can afford premium pricing, but what do I know?

So these days, is your "market value" determined by being a current act with value to kids AT THE MOMENT, or may you be more valuable OVERALL because you have proved for several years that you are a good investment (ie have a dedicated and large core fanbase) in a volatile musical market and business can invest in you because you have consistent overall sales regardless of visibility in the "traditional" market. It comes down to what matters in the industry: continued rapid turnover of acts with brief but huge fanbases vs taking risks and building up a portfolio of slowly developed artists who have proven staying power. What do you want the music biz to consist of.

Is this even possible in the Social Media Age? Can we again find a happy medium?

Now as to prices--how much do you think U2's support of the concert as huge spectacle might be partially responsible. Huge stadium spectacles have always been around but I think that after ZooTV/Zooropa/Popmart something in the industry changed. Have U2's continued success at this overblown model,  in the face of rapid and jarring changes in the biz coinciding with the rise of Live Nation and industry mergers made some of this inevitable? If they had not taken the same path as regards to the nature of their shows would it be the same? CouldU2 have gone back to smaller scale? Should they have? I think they could have. They chose not to, thus the cost of operating their shows continued to skyrocket, and made deals like the ones they took more lucrative. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Jackal on June 24, 2015, 05:50:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Charging 90 for restricted, behind the stage views without telling the buyer? Then yes, they must be desperate for cash.

If they're not desperate for cash than they're greedy for it.  It's one or the other.  Where I come from they'd be known as 'Grabbers'.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 25, 2015, 05:03:18 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!

But if there are no block sales at all and only people who purchased the, say, max 4 tickets per person per show from one official seller can actually get through the admission gates, how do the scalpers go about selling tickets?

Multiple buyers, multiple credit cards, plus the number of scalpers naturally increases when the price is well below market value. Yes, each individual scalper may be somewhat limited in the money they can make, but they could still make several hundred dollars EACH easily. You could have several thousand scalpers buying up the tickets and reselling them to the real fans at their true market value.

Are the scalpers going to give each buyer of their tickets the credit card that was used to purchase the tickets originally?

They just give them the hard ticket or the E-ticket to print out.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 25, 2015, 05:06:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For the record, Ticketmaster does not set the price of the tickets.  The artist and show's promoter set the prices.  The fees TM charges are all set per the contracts they have with each arena.  Those fees are usually based on what the local market can handle and some are higher than others depending on if the arena gets a portion of the fee.  Even if they felt an artist really underpriced their event, TM would never tack on additional fees to 'make up' the difference.  They can only charge the fees approved in the contract with the arena.

Well, Pearl Jam and the CEO of Ticketmaster in the 90s would tell you its a bit different. The CEO of ticketmaster would never be able to say then, that if your not willing to make what your worth, then I will. When Pearl Jam toured for Yield in 1998 after surrendering to ticketmaster, TM fees were sometimes as much as 50% of the ticket price.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 25, 2015, 05:12:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, it's no good blaming TM for the high prices of U2 tickets.

FWIW, I'm content with what I paid for my ticket and I'm fairly content with my view of the show up in the gods.  Still, the tickets could very easily be a lot cheaper to make it more easily affordable for yer average U2 fan.

Underpriced tickets simply do one thing, feed scalpers. Underpriced tickets invite scalpers into the buying process. When the band charges what they are worth in the market, this lowers the number of scalpers that try to get in on the business.

Again, there are ticket prices of all ranges for all types of fans incomes. $275, $95, $65, and $30 are the standard list prices before fees are added in. Plus, given that fans can access just about any piece of music they want through the internet for FREE, they should have even more money for the few concerts they go to.

Would you sell your house for less than its worth, to make it affordable for lower income people?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 25, 2015, 05:17:39 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
The NY, Chicago, etc. markets never had the price structure that was referenced in a previous post ($95, $60, or whatever). They were grossly overpriced from the beginning, face value. And I'm not referring to the after market here. As far as all the Pearl Jam references, there are so many inaccuracies with these posts I don't even know where to begin. Pearl Jam always and consistently charge the usual "going rate" for their shows. Not some ridiculous and abusive tiering system of $300 for "better seats" with the likes of Lady Gaga and Maddona!! And to think that ticket prices do not affect the people who go to shows is simply putting your head in the sand. Again, I cannot speak to the other markets as far as U2 is concerned where tickets are under $100. To also think that Pearl Jam would not sell out their shows, especially over seas is also silly. They have a tremendous following worldwide. So the supply and demand argument is dead when it comes to Pearl Jam. They set their price, and that is it!! They never ever take advantage of bigger markets to suck in more profits form their fans. The price is the price.  I won't even get into how Pearl Jam has kept it real for all these years and hands down, treat their fans top notch, through and through. Ticket prices, live bootleg downloads of all their shows, top notch fanclub with presale tickets, etc.  Having been an original fan club member of Propaganda magazine, no one knows better than I do how U2 completely disregarded us when they went with the internet fan club!! But that's a post for a whole other day!!

Both New York City and Chicago have the majority of their tickets priced at $95, $70, and $30 for Madison Square Garden, and $95, $65, and $30 for the United Center in Chicago. These are the list prices BEFORE service charges are added in. There are still ticket available at these price levels for the shows in Chicago!

You can go to ticketmaster and look at the maps to see all this for each show.

As for Pearl Jam they while they do not charge a tiered price level, they charge was would be the AVERAGE PRICE FOR A TICKET given their market value. So the best seat in the house pays $70 dollars same as the worst seat in the house. In doing that the best seat is under priced while the worst seat is over priced. In the end, those cancel each other out and the band is charging their fair market value overall, just like U2.

Pearl Jam has a much smaller fan base than U2. Pearl Jam did try charging below market value for tickets back in the early 1990s but gave up. They surrendered to ticketmaster and have been using ticketmaster and charging market value ever since then.

Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift have very young fans, but charge nearly the same amount on average as U2. So again, this is not about the age of fans, its simple supply and demand.

This is not accurate. The majority of the MSG and Chicago tickets were/are north of $200. Even if you look now, the Chicago tickets for level 300 is $95 without fees!!!

Again, the Pearl jam references are also inaccurate. They didn't try to charge below market value for anything in the 90's. They attempted to bypass ticketmaster and their ridiculous service charge fees and also bypass the corporate sponsored shows in an attempt to take care of their fans and keep ticket prices reasonable. It was the Nobelist of efforts but they quickly found out that they couldn't fight the monopoly and had to cave on that issue. So, instead, they now charge same price for all tickets and we as fans are all better off for it.  If you recall, they also testified in congress about the issue which in and of itself says it all!

Well, at least you now acknowledge that there are tickets at the $95, $65, and $30 dollar price. Before you said that there were no such tickets in Chicago and New York. Based on the past concert grosses so far released for the tour, the AVERAGE TICKET PRICE is $116.21. That alone proves that the majority of tickets are priced the lower tiered prices. If most were priced at $275 or above, the average ticket price would be a lot higher than $116.21. $116.21 is only $15 dollars more than the average ticket price on the last tour.

Pearl Jam were charging below market value for their tickets in the early 90s which is why Ticketmaster increased the service charge fees. Ticketmaster even stated that if the artist is not willing to make what they are worth, then we will make what they are worth!

In the end, Pearl Jam failed in its goals and has joined all other artist that charge market value for their tickets. The single ticket price for all seats is what almost all artist used to do prior to 1994. 1994 is the year when Tiered pricing for tickets made its big debut and succeeded.

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort. I will say it again, that is not the ticket price tiering for my local show at MSG. You can site all the stats you like but it does not apply to the larger markets. Additionally, you are very crafty at throwing inaccuracies out there with regards to the Pearl Jam 90's debate. If is completely untrue and false that they were charging less than market value for tickets and ticketbastard wanted to make up the difference. As I stated in my previous post, they tried to bypass what they considered illegal excessive serve charges and run a tour without the support of ticketbastard  and corporate support. Pearl Jam "failed" (to use your term very loosely), at their efforts simply because congress  supported the big money corporations as usual. Really at the end of the day, we are talking apples and oranges with regards to how Pearl Jam and U2 treat their fans. Pearl jam have always kept it real since their inception, U2 have not. Period

So what is the pricing at the MSG show you are going to. I mean for the normal tickets, not the VIP stuff and things like that. To my knowledge it is $280, $95, $70, and $30 before services fees are added in. If that is incorrect, tell us the figures you have?

            The figures for other venues outside of New York have been $275, $95, $65, and $30 before services fees are added in. But, if these figures are wrong, tell us what the figures are?!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 25, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2? Desperate for cash? When they own their own publishing and copyright outright (something NOBODY else in the music biz has ever gotten, to my knowledge--total ownership of every note they ever wrote, including any RingTones Edge might compose?)  And they have a deal  that keeps this in place until "75 yrs after the death of the last band member"? Do they even have to tour at all at this stage? Puh-LEAZE.

I wonder though how "market value" is determined with artists. If it's radio/visibility/downloads or however the heck the industry determined how "valuable/"hot" an artist is, in olden times (say before 2010) that was easy. Market value for tours traditionally might follow from that, from currenthits/age/popularity. In the Old World, it was easy: lots of hit albums/singles=popularity=lots of concert tix sold=high market value. But in this new world where artists are expected to break big selling millions of albums right out of the box, and some of them don't even have established fanbases yet, YET the emphasis is focusing more and more on touring in the industry now that the album is dying concept and audience loyalty is going the way of the dinosaur...HOW does someone determine market value?

Call me hopelessly old-fashioned, but there is no way artists like The Biebster or Muse or someone like Ed Sheeran should be charging ticket price at the same level as an act with a large, established fanbase for years. I was talking to a lady last week who took her daughter  to see Sheeran and they paid $85+ fees for nosebleeds. That was the same ticket tiering as U2, basically. She didn't know what the high end was, but I can guess. The only difference with U2 being the number of high-ends.

But back to my point. Since albums are basically dead and yet LN/The industry expects that they can fill arenas and stadiums (or at least sell out festivals, for God's sake) with acts that sell themselves basically with streamed singles, fill them night after night for hours per show, how do they determine an artist's market value? There used to be a tried and true formula for breaking artists and this ensured that audience loyalty would exist and thus a tiered pricing structure would be feasible, thus the concept of "market value" might look like this, based on how artists were tiered in the industry:

1)Club acts, just in the beginning stages of finding an audience, little visibility on radio, or college radio buzz.--Obviously, cheap as dirt.

2)  Up and coming artist, just starting up the ladder, no real hits yet but lots of buzz under the radar, by this time graduated to 2000-seat theaters in cities and small towns, still cheap but not dirt cheap. The beginnings of a national following.
This stage lasts through 2nd or 3rd album maybe.

3) Up and coming artist in the 2nd stages, maybe cracked the lower or mid levels of Billboard charts, popular videos, in terms of albums, some radio play but not every hour. prob on their 3rd album, or 4th. At this stage the act has been around maybe 3-5 yrs since club days. If they're big enough, the beginnings of a European or even global following. (this was where U2 were pre-Live Aid.)  Playing small arenas, and European large ones.

4)  Established act, been around for 3-5 yrs +, is on 4th album or longer, breaks through with #1 or Top 5 Albums and singles. Are popular enough now to graduate to regular and large arenas, the benchmark is selling out MSG. Has a global following and is now selling out stadiums and arenas in many countries based on new hits.

5)Established act at its peak. Age-wise, from 25-40 *traditionally*. If popular enough, has a large and lasting visibility as established on radio/downloads/hits in general. At this stage they can make a show as long as they like, and have any opening act, they have a sizeable original catalogue. If one of the Greats, is a truly global phenomenon and a huge and dedicated core fanbase, with fluctuations around the edges but compared to the core, this is minimal. This is the "**** the pop kids, we don't need 'em" stage.

6)Late-stage established act. Still producing hits, but starting to age and audience, even the youngest core, is starting to skew older (older in the Biz meaning older than college kid.) This is the age where hugely popular releases might be labeled as "comebacks."

7)Early-stage Legacy Act. maybe a modest hit or two  and still visible, still relavant maybe by dint of their overall legend and musical inspiration to younger generations and acts, and with their huge audience intact, attracting new fans of all ages around the huge core of the established fanbase. No longer with the hottest Twitter Feed but still quoted if something spicy comes up...No longer tastemakers but still hugely overall influencal in general.

8) Late-stage Legacy Act--this is where you are a musical museum piece, where nobody under 60 would go to your shows except as viewing a historical curiosity, you are fully from a distant era. Your audience may be huge but it's YOUR old crowd, and you exist if you still do  in another plane.

(People debate whether U2 are stage 6, 7 or even 8!-- but I think we won't know that until the end of the stadium (?) tour next year. Where do you think Pearl Jam are? They had a global following but in terms of raw numbers never as big as U2. Interesting, they're like U2 in many ways. I say this as another PJ fan, in the Ten Club too.)

Now, that's a neat chart whereby a promoter can work out a graduated pricing formula. But the state of the music biz today has upended this formula. You have artists who are tailored for the blandest common denometer, the musical equivalent of Marvel franchise films, break big with one social-media heralded single and sell millions, and then are pushed into arenas and even stadiums with hardly enough material to fill an hours' worth of showtime with even covers of old songs from other acts. (That's assuming they can play instruments and sing without AutoTune and you know, do stuff other than choreographed dance moves COUGH no names). Then promoters find out that these acts don't last long and/or their audiences are fickle. So they find a talented act like Muse or Arcade Fire who want to follow the traditional "slow burn" method and are rising too, or have been around a few years but have had modest success, and all of a sudden they're commanding Rolling Stones-type prices, for their audiences who are still young like them and aren't in the age group or tax bracket that can afford the shows.

The model is broken in the first place, and the concert industry is trying to compensate, and thus how markey value for an artist is determined is beyond me. Logic dictates that the most expensive acts should be the ones that are around the longest and have a core fanbase residing in tax brackets than can afford premium pricing, but what do I know?

So these days, is your "market value" determined by being a current act with value to kids AT THE MOMENT, or may you be more valuable OVERALL because you have proved for several years that you are a good investment (ie have a dedicated and large core fanbase) in a volatile musical market and business can invest in you because you have consistent overall sales regardless of visibility in the "traditional" market. It comes down to what matters in the industry: continued rapid turnover of acts with brief but huge fanbases vs taking risks and building up a portfolio of slowly developed artists who have proven staying power. What do you want the music biz to consist of.

Is this even possible in the Social Media Age? Can we again find a happy medium?

Now as to prices--how much do you think U2's support of the concert as huge spectacle might be partially responsible. Huge stadium spectacles have always been around but I think that after ZooTV/Zooropa/Popmart something in the industry changed. Have U2's continued success at this overblown model,  in the face of rapid and jarring changes in the biz coinciding with the rise of Live Nation and industry mergers made some of this inevitable? If they had not taken the same path as regards to the nature of their shows would it be the same? CouldU2 have gone back to smaller scale? Should they have? I think they could have. They chose not to, thus the cost of operating their shows continued to skyrocket, and made deals like the ones they took more lucrative.

Here are the average prices for some artist touring in North America from 2014 compiled by pollstar which ranked the top 200 North American tours for 2014:

One Direction: $84.06
Katy Perry: $104.39 (more than the average U2 charged on their last tour)
Justin Timberlake: $115.43 (about equal to the average price U2 is charging on the innocence and experience tour)
Motley Crue: $55.65
Miley Cyrus: $69.43

        So no, it is not about age, or experience or anything like that. It is about simple DEMAND in the market. A young act can charge much more than a veteran act if the demand is there. Its business and it is as simple as that. The average ticket price to see Katy Perry is nearly double that for Motley Crue even though Motley Crue is doing their final tour.
Title: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on June 28, 2015, 09:05:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 28, 2015, 02:32:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on June 28, 2015, 02:56:01 PM
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.
Here is the opening night of the elevation Tour..

Elevation Tour

Main Set
Elevation
Beautiful Day
Until The End Of The World
New Year's Day
Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
Gone
Discotheque, Staring At The Sun (snippet)
New York
I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday, Get Up Stand Up (snippet)
Sweetest Thing
In A Little While
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Bad
Where The Streets Have No Name
Mysterious Ways
The Fly
Encore
Bullet The Blue Sky
With Or Without You
One
Walk On

Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.


Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Jackal on June 28, 2015, 03:06:50 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!

But if there are no block sales at all and only people who purchased the, say, max 4 tickets per person per show from one official seller can actually get through the admission gates, how do the scalpers go about selling tickets?

Multiple buyers, multiple credit cards, plus the number of scalpers naturally increases when the price is well below market value. Yes, each individual scalper may be somewhat limited in the money they can make, but they could still make several hundred dollars EACH easily. You could have several thousand scalpers buying up the tickets and reselling them to the real fans at their true market value.

Are the scalpers going to give each buyer of their tickets the credit card that was used to purchase the tickets originally?

They just give them the hard ticket or the E-ticket to print out.

But the primary buyer (scalper) will have used a different cc to buy the official ticket than the secondary buyer will present along with their ticket at the admission gate.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Jackal on June 28, 2015, 03:09:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here is the opening night of the elevation Tour..

Elevation Tour

Main Set
Elevation
Beautiful Day
Until The End Of The World
New Year's Day
Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
Gone
Discotheque, Staring At The Sun (snippet)
New York
I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday, Get Up Stand Up (snippet)
Sweetest Thing
In A Little While
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Bad
Where The Streets Have No Name
Mysterious Ways
The Fly
Encore
Bullet The Blue Sky
With Or Without You
One
Walk On

Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.

This Elevation set has a better encore than SoI but the rest of the SoI show looks more exciting on paper.

 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on June 28, 2015, 03:47:54 PM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.

Indeed. For those of us who've seen them over the past 20+ years, we can almost play the game of "guess which two songs from UF you'll probably hear tonight" (or three from AB, or three to four from JT, or two from War, etc.), and be right about 90% of the time.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Jackal on June 28, 2015, 03:54:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.

Indeed. For those of us who've seen them over the past 20+ years, we can almost play the game of "guess which two songs from UF you'll probably hear tonight" (or three from AB, or three to four from JT, or two from War, etc.), and be right about 90% of the time.


The mark of a band on autopilot when playing their oldies.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Exile on June 28, 2015, 05:08:13 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
Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.

Indeed. For those of us who've seen them over the past 20+ years, we can almost play the game of "guess which two songs from UF you'll probably hear tonight" (or three from AB, or three to four from JT, or two from War, etc.), and be right about 90% of the time.


The mark of a band on autopilot when playing their oldies.

If 1/3 of the set is from the new album, then I am quite pleased given how long U2 has been doing this. My only quibble is that the other 2/3 of the set which are hits should be drawn from their entire catalog in a more balanced way (which is not the case now). Also, throw in a couple deep cuts like you did on 360 (like TUF and UV).
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on June 28, 2015, 05:12:55 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
Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.

Indeed. For those of us who've seen them over the past 20+ years, we can almost play the game of "guess which two songs from UF you'll probably hear tonight" (or three from AB, or three to four from JT, or two from War, etc.), and be right about 90% of the time.


The mark of a band on autopilot when playing their oldies.

If 1/3 of the set is from the new album, then I am quite pleased given how long U2 has been doing this. My only quibble is that the other 2/3 of the set which are hits should be drawn from their entire catalog in a more balanced way (which is not the case now). Also, throw in a couple deep cuts like you did on 360 (like TUF and UV).

To be fair, I fully understand the band isn't going to stuff a set list full of rarities just to pease those of us who've seen them every tour since Zoo TV....there's simply no market in doing that, and millions of attendees would be upset at not hearing the hits. But I do think one or two tracks could be played for the die-hards, a la UV and TUF on 360.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Jackal on June 28, 2015, 05:22:59 PM
Let's be quite frank, what are the essential Greatest Hits that have to be played for the casual fans?

Streets
WOWY or One
Pride
SBS
ISHFWILF
BD (to represent the modern era)

And really that's it.  So in a 23 song setlist in which they play seven new songs (not obligatory btw) and the six above mentioned songs that leaves ten other songs from their back catalogue that they can freely pick and choose.  It doesn't have to be The Fly, MW, Bullet, NYD, UTEOTW, I Will Bloody Follow, Elevation, Bad, Vertigo, COBL.  The casual fans won't really miss them to be honest.

Like I said it's just a sign that the band are on autopilot when it comes to playing their oldies, as if to say because we play plenty of new songs we are allowed to be lazy with our oldies.  Basically what The Exile said.

 

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Jackal on June 28, 2015, 05:35:37 PM
A Day Without Me
Tomorrow
Drowning Man
Indian Summer Sky
Wire
Exit
Hawkmoon
God Pt II
Acrobat
Wild Horses
Dirty Day
Please
Mofo

Come on they are ALL doable.

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: rlabs19 on June 28, 2015, 06:34:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A Day Without Me
Tomorrow
Drowning Man
Indian Summer Sky
Wire
Exit
Hawkmoon
God Pt II
Acrobat
Wild Horses
Dirty Day
Please
Mofo

Come on they are ALL doable.

Especially the bolded. Please even fits the theme of the show perfectly.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 29, 2015, 01:52:34 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
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.
Here is the opening night of the elevation Tour..

Elevation Tour

Main Set
Elevation
Beautiful Day
Until The End Of The World
New Year's Day
Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
Gone
Discotheque, Staring At The Sun (snippet)
New York
I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday, Get Up Stand Up (snippet)
Sweetest Thing
In A Little While
The Ground Beneath Her Feet
Bad
Where The Streets Have No Name
Mysterious Ways
The Fly
Encore
Bullet The Blue Sky
With Or Without You
One
Walk On

Now if you factor in that SOI is a new album they are playing and that is taking up around a quarter of the setlist, there is a fair bit of repetition on the rest of the set from that night 14 years ago and what is being played now.

That's just depressing. It's the sort of static set list that they can only get away with due to the length of time between tours.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 30, 2015, 12:50:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 30, 2015, 12:53:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 30, 2015, 12:59:10 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
Let's say the average crowd for this tour is 18,000.

They could charge 50 for every ticket in the arena and gross 900,000 per show.

Add in merchandise and that figure grows to a million easily don't know if they are on a share of the bar take or not.. ... and surely that is enough money made even allowing for their costs.....

But a U2 ticket is worth more in the market than $50 dollars, more than double that in fact. If U2 do not charge what they are worth, then scalpers and ticketmaster will! Every business around the world, large or small charges market value for their product or services. Home owners always charge market value when they sell their house.

I disagree, two hours of music isn't worth any more than 50, important difference here is pounds not dollars....so whatever 50 pounds is in dollars is the figure I am talking about...

U2 can price their gigs as they please of course, but as very, very wealthy men with a loyal fan base who have given them the great life Bono likes to refer to I reckon 50 would be a fair and reasonable price point.

I certainly wouldn't pay more personally.

U2 could price tickets at 50 pounds like you say, but then ticketmaster would come in with a 50 pound service fee or scalpers would dive in and charge whatever the market rate is supposed to be. Either way, the fans will be paying the market price, and people other than U2 will be taking half of the money. IF the artist does not charge what they are worth, ticketmaster and scalpers will then earn the rest. The fans will still be paying market price.

E-tickets bought from official site with CC to be presented at admission.  None-transferable.

No block sales to secondary market agents at all, including for so-called VIP packages.

Now what's the scalpers next move?  Seriously, educate me.  Of course the artists themselves are in cahoots with the secondary up-sellers. Why? $$$$

The majority of tickets sold can be resold in various ways. Again, the majority of the tickets sold at these shows are at the $95, $65, and $30 prices. An the the number of normally priced $275 tickets outnumber the VIP packages and other stuff. These form the majority of the tickets available and they can all be purchased on ticketsnow.com a ticket reseller site. Check it out!

But if there are no block sales at all and only people who purchased the, say, max 4 tickets per person per show from one official seller can actually get through the admission gates, how do the scalpers go about selling tickets?

Multiple buyers, multiple credit cards, plus the number of scalpers naturally increases when the price is well below market value. Yes, each individual scalper may be somewhat limited in the money they can make, but they could still make several hundred dollars EACH easily. You could have several thousand scalpers buying up the tickets and reselling them to the real fans at their true market value.

Are the scalpers going to give each buyer of their tickets the credit card that was used to purchase the tickets originally?

They just give them the hard ticket or the E-ticket to print out.

But the primary buyer (scalper) will have used a different cc to buy the official ticket than the secondary buyer will present along with their ticket at the admission gate.

I've never been to a concert where I had to present a credit card. Hard tickets and E-tickets are resold for concerts every day.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on June 30, 2015, 03:19:26 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
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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on June 30, 2015, 06:31:07 AM

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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 30, 2015, 08:20:46 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
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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: iehomecoming 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy 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. 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: lorijane 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Exile 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf 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!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: The Exile 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf 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.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf 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!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red 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!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: dwaltman on June 30, 2015, 08:34:54 PM
As professional as
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on June 30, 2015, 11:32:24 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
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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: ultravioletlight on June 30, 2015, 11:40:10 PM
I think this thread is ridiculous. It's about supply and demand. If people are buying tickets for $300, then they should charge $300. What's the problem?

When U2 performs for the last time ever (likely in Dublin), those tickets will be astronomically high. Up into the thousands. Should we be upset at that? No, because thats what people will pay.

And guess what, we'll be the ones flying into Dublin and paying up to get in.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 06:39:24 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited. NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that. You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live. This is fine, but just not for me. In the future, if you want to be more insightful, maybe you should take posts in their full context and it may provoke more thought on your part and not just become a defense by using numbers, statistics, etc. That is not what's important and does not fully define success. That is what a forum is for. I think you have some decent things to say but it comes across as always being defensive and supporting the band unconditionally. I feel its great to love the band and but also talk about things that may have disappointed us, or whatever. This is just my opinion. Much like my opinion on the 360 greatest hits tour.   
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: iehomecoming on July 01, 2015, 08:04:06 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.

Each to their own then I guess eh ?

Htdaab winning Grammies doesn't mean a thing. It's about ones own personal taste.

The fact that it won more Grammies than AB and jt says more about the Grammies than the album's.

360 was an awful silly distracting stage fesign, iny opinion of course, regardless of what numbers say.

As the old saying goes, "small minds think in numbers"

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 08:06:13 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 08:16:20 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
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.

Each to their own then I guess eh ?

Htdaab winning Grammies doesn't mean a thing. It's about ones own personal taste.

The fact that it won more Grammies than AB and jt says more about the Grammies than the album's.

360 was an awful silly distracting stage fesign, iny opinion of course, regardless of what numbers say.

As the old saying goes, "small minds think in numbers"

The numbers add something other than my own personal opinion. It shows that a large number of people felt the same way I do. You can find a U2 fan somewhere that has slagged off any tour the band has ever done. But that's their lone opinion.

     My friends and I agreed 360 was the best thing the band ever did. For the 2,000 people who got into the inner ring, they got to experience the band walk around them and over them for two hours. A very unique concert experience allowing thousands of fans to have front row experience if only for a few seconds.

The Grammy awards are voted on by the academy which consist of musicians, song writers, song producers and other people involved in the production of recorded music. Winning the awards is not meaningless and is a reflection of the taste and opinions of the academy. U2 were thrilled to win and I was thrilled to seem them win.

Trash the academy and the Grammy's all you want, but U2 were thrilled to win these awards and I'm happy that they did.

If I thought so less of the bands material and live performances for the past 15 years, I would not be really interested in going on a message board and talking about that fact. I like to talk about things I enjoy and like, not things I find substandard or poor.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: iehomecoming on July 01, 2015, 08:36:14 AM
"The numbers add something other than my own personal opinion. It shows that a large number of people felt the same way I do. "

People feeling the same way YOU DO has no impact on how I feel.

I was at a 360 show, I didn't feel the same way about it you do.

Plus it's all relative, 360 was U2's worst tour (in my opinion), doesn't mean it was the worst tour by any band.

"You can find a U2 fan somewhere that has slagged off any tour the band has ever done. But that's their lone opinion."

My opinion is the ONLY one that matters to me. When I go see a show, it's how much I enjoyed that matters to me, not what others thought.


"My friends and I agreed 360 was the best thing the band ever did. "

My friends and I never go eat Sushi because I don't care for it.

"For the 2,000 people who got into the inner ring, they got to experience the band walk around them and over them for two hours. A very unique concert experience allowing thousands of fans to have front row experience if only for a few seconds."

And ???  You don't get "personal taste" and "opinion" I think.

"The Grammy awards are voted on by the academy which consist of musicians, song writers, song producers and other people involved in the production of recorded music. Winning the awards is not meaningless and is a reflection of the taste and opinions of the academy. U2 were thrilled to win and I was thrilled to seem them win."

The Grammies are meaningless to my enjoyment of U2s music Or anyone else's music. I think HTDAAB is their worst album yet it won more awards than JT and AB.

AB was beaten by an album of Clapton acoustic songs, is that Clapton album better than AB ? Yes to some, no for me. Regarldess of what "the academy" says.


"If I thought so less of the bands material and live performances for the past 15 years, I would not be really interested in going on a message board and talking about that fact."

Relativity. Opinion. Personal Taste.

Have you seen a SOI show yet ? What did you think RELATIVE to others ? To form an opinion you really have to "bethere"

Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 01, 2015, 08:37:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To form an opinion you really have to "bethere"



Ding ding ding ding ding!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 08:58:59 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 09:32:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To form an opinion you really have to "bethere"



Ding ding ding ding ding!

haha, as I'm reading Wolf's posts i'm sitting thinking "wait, i've heard this all before"
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 09:39:30 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
To form an opinion you really have to "bethere"



Ding ding ding ding ding!

haha, as I'm reading Wolf's posts i'm sitting thinking "wait, i've heard this all before"

So Cruel, could you please validate and confirm the statement "wait, i've heard this all before" with some Wikipedia facts. Just the facts please, I'm not interested in your feelings or well thought out opinions. I only want you to defend that statement!! All of my friends use the statement "i've heard this all before" so, I feel validated now!!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 09:43:13 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

                Well, if the songs were such a failure live, why did they wait until the last 25 shows of the tour to drop all these songs? Again, your basing your entire opinion of the 360 tour on what they did on the last leg. Not really accurate in my opinion.

                Plus if all it took was to have U2's name on the ticket and U2's name on the album for the album to sell well, POP and Popmart would have been massive successes. That album and tour sold relatively poorly compared to 360 and NLOTH.

              Yes, I do feel the band has been fresh and innovative since 2000. Overall they have in my opinion written their best songs post 2000 than before. The band are smarter, more intelligent, and knows what works better live for them in terms of energy and pacing of the show. I think they did a magnificent job with the new songs. I thought the songs that sounded the best live on 360 were the ones from NLOTH. They sounded better than what was on record and that is always a sign of a well performed song.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 09:45:12 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
To form an opinion you really have to "bethere"



Ding ding ding ding ding!

haha, as I'm reading Wolf's posts i'm sitting thinking "wait, i've heard this all before"

So Cruel, could you please validate and confirm the statement "wait, i've heard this all before" with some Wikipedia facts. Just the facts please, I'm not interested in your feelings or well thought out opinions. I only want you to defend that statement!! All of my friends use the statement "i've heard this all before" so, I feel validated now!!

Look, I'm free to post my opinion and if it includes stuff you don't like, remember, you don't have to read it. But don't tell me or anyone else what their allowed to post.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 10:03:59 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

Take a listen to One from Tacoma Zoo TV and then One from Vancouver SOI. It's not even close. Bono just goes off in the last part of the song and takes it to another place in Tacoma '92. This is the U2 I absolutely love and what made them my favorite band ever.

One - Tacoma 1992 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeIl-nkr9WY
One - Vancouver 2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgQtTvA_uA

Here's With or Without You (with Bono guitar solo!) from Paris '92. Brilliant! Taking the song to higher ground with the extended solo and Love Will Tear Us Apart coda. Then take a listen to Rose Bowl 360. Bono half talks the verses 'cause he can't sing the song well anymore.

With Or Without You - Paris '92 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl4BrtfF6uw
With Or Without You - LA '09 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtsEY7AVMg
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:07:59 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

                Well, if the songs were such a failure live, why did they wait until the last 25 shows of the tour to drop all these songs? Again, your basing your entire opinion of the 360 tour on what they did on the last leg. Not really accurate in my opinion.

                Plus if all it took was to have U2's name on the ticket and U2's name on the album for the album to sell well, POP and Popmart would have been massive successes. That album and tour sold relatively poorly compared to 360 and NLOTH.

              Yes, I do feel the band has been fresh and innovative since 2000. Overall they have in my opinion written their best songs post 2000 than before. The band are smarter, more intelligent, and knows what works better live for them in terms of energy and pacing of the show. I think they did a magnificent job with the new songs. I thought the songs that sounded the best live on 360 were the ones from NLOTH. They sounded better than what was on record and that is always a sign of a well performed song.

Excellent start. Now we are getting somewhere. And I'm not being facetious! For once, I heard a less defensive posture. Growth! And when you think about the unthinkable, you actually disagree with the band which again is growth. You thought the songs that sounded best live on 360 were from NLOTH. The band did not. They dropped most of them and don't back the record now. Who would have ever thought.............
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:11:59 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 01, 2015, 10:17:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 10:22:40 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

I pretty much described in my post why I think they aren't as good live now. They don't take their great songs to higher place like they used to. I even gave a few examples. Listen to Mysterious Ways from the last 2 tours. It's a bare bones version, it's nice and sounds fine, but is it like the 92 or 97 version with the Edge going off at the end? Not even close. Just listen to One from Tacoma 92 or With or Without You from Paris 92 that I posted a bit ago. That is what I miss from U2 in the last decade or so.

The version of Gloria they did in Chicago was pretty good, and i'm glad they added it to the set. Great song.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:24:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:30:47 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
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?

I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 10:30:51 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
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?
He sings the song fine, but is it better then '81? No way.

And that's 1 song! Look over the last 10 years. There's not to many people who are gonna say Bono's voice is as good now as it was in his prime. Even Bono himself said in an interview a few years back he can't take off and make the songs "soar" like he used to. He has to protect his voice.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:32:09 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
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 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.
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!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

I pretty much described in my post why I think they aren't as good live now. They don't take their great songs to higher place like they used to. I even gave a few examples. Listen to Mysterious Ways from the last 2 tours. It's a bare bones version, it's nice and sounds fine, but is it like the 92 or 97 version with the Edge going off at the end? Not even close. Just listen to One from Tacoma 92 or With or Without You from Paris 92 that I posted a bit ago. That is what I miss from U2 in the last decade or so.

The version of Gloria they did in Chicago was pretty good, and i'm glad they added it to the set. Great song.

Well, maybe the band thinks the bare bones version is better. I'm sure the Edge could still play a note for note version of whatever ZOO TV Mysterious Ways or Popmart version you like. He chooses not to. The Edge plays different things but he prefers minimalism more than anything and has since day 1. This minimalism is a U2 guitar trademark and what makes them so special.

In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:34:35 AM
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:35:16 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
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?
He sings the song fine, but is it better then '81? No way.

And that's 1 song! Look over the last 10 years. There's not to many people who are gonna say Bono's voice is as good now as it was in his prime. Even Bono himself said in an interview a few years back he can't take off and make the songs "soar" like he used to. He has to protect his voice.

He sings the song great. The 1981 vocal performance by Bono is slightly substandard. Lots of mistakes by Edge. Larry is not as energetic. Only Adam does a better or equal job in his performance from 1981. Despite the tendancy to overworship the past, many people can see that the 2015 performance is better and have voted accordingly.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:36:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 10:38:15 AM
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:39:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why.

I simply mentioned it was important to keep in mind when FORMULATING an opinion. I thought we were making progress here Wolf. No regression my friend......stay the course....no sarcasm...it's unbecoming my fan of the 2000's friend
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:40:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

If I thought it was a NIGHT and DAY difference, I would not be interested in going. Something tells me you really don't believe that the difference is that extreme.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 10:41:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

So you're using 1 song as an example? And by the way, the vote right now is equal, so there's no overwhelming response that 2015 is better or any "proof".  Same old arguments BeThere kept going on about.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:43:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 10:44:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

If I thought it was a NIGHT and DAY difference, I would not be interested in going. Something tells me you really don't believe that the difference is that extreme.

For me it is. Once again, please take a listen to:

One - Tacoma - 92 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeIl-nkr9WY
One - Vancouver - 15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgQtTvA_uA

Can anyone in their right mind say 2015 is even close to 1992?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: mdmomof7 on July 01, 2015, 10:45:37 AM
I thought we weren't going to prove any more stances?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:45:57 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

So you're using 1 song as an example? And by the way, the vote right now is equal, so there's no overwhelming response that 2015 is better or any "proof".  Same old arguments BeThere kept going on about.

There tends to be a traditional bias toward the older U2 performances and material. So the fact that there is a tie is striking and shows that its not just "me" who sees this. If age really had anything to do with it there would be no way 55 year old Bono could even compete with the 21 year old. Given that many think that 55 year old Bono beats the 21 year old shows the age thing is a farse.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:47:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought we weren't going to prove any more stances?

Well, you can't really prove anything of a subjective nature, but I think I have offered up some opinions that are good food for thought.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 10:48:36 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming

Or maybe you could look at it as just an opinion?
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:50:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought we weren't going to prove any more stances?

Well, you can't really prove anything of a subjective nature, but I think I have offered up some opinions that are good food for thought.

Food for thought?? Huh? All you do is defend your stance and try to disprove or disparage others instead of accepting them. Closed minded
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:52:53 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.



Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming

Or maybe you could look at it as just an opinion?

Bro, when you use words like "false" and "farce" regarding others opinions, that's awfulllllly tough to do man!! And it kills a healthy dialogue!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 01, 2015, 10:53:21 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming

If you're newish around here, this is obviously the return of an old friend to the board.  It's typical.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 10:55:59 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming

If you're newish around here, this is obviously the return of an old friend to the board.  It's typical.

Ah, go it. Thanks. No reformation here. Shame. Really thought I could help him
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: an tha on July 01, 2015, 10:57:11 AM
Welcome back, bethere!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 11:01:07 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.



Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming

Or maybe you could look at it as just an opinion?

Bro, when you use words like "false" and "farce" regarding others opinions, that's awfulllllly tough to do man!! And it kills a healthy dialogue!

Hey, I'm only being as emphatic as those that say that "old" U2 is nothing compared to "young" U2.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Blueyedboy on July 01, 2015, 11:07:46 AM
Are we really going to ignore "Glastonberry"? Forum members, you disappoint me!
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Mr. Red on July 01, 2015, 11:09:29 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
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.



Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming

Or maybe you could look at it as just an opinion?

Bro, when you use words like "false" and "farce" regarding others opinions, that's awfulllllly tough to do man!! And it kills a healthy dialogue!

Hey, I'm only being as emphatic as those that say that "old" U2 is nothing compared to "young" U2.

Yes, I love your passion but let's work on your approach man!! You have good things to say, just don't turn people off in the process!! After all, we are here for our mutual love for the band. It's not us against you...old against young U2......I have listened to them most of my childhood and all of my adult life!! 
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 11:13:28 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
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

If I thought it was a NIGHT and DAY difference, I would not be interested in going. Something tells me you really don't believe that the difference is that extreme.

For me it is. Once again, please take a listen to:

One - Tacoma - 92 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeIl-nkr9WY
One - Vancouver - 15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgQtTvA_uA

Can anyone in their right mind say 2015 is even close to 1992?

They are different types of performances of the same song. In the 2015, the band plays a little slower and Bono is trying to get the crowd to sing along, but other than that the differences are minor until the end of the song. A night and day difference in quality it is not. There are people that would prefer the style of the 2015 version and don't need the ending of the 1992 version.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: So Cruel on July 01, 2015, 04:38:54 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
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

If I thought it was a NIGHT and DAY difference, I would not be interested in going. Something tells me you really don't believe that the difference is that extreme.

For me it is. Once again, please take a listen to:

One - Tacoma - 92 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeIl-nkr9WY
One - Vancouver - 15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgQtTvA_uA

Can anyone in their right mind say 2015 is even close to 1992?

They are different types of performances of the same song. In the 2015, the band plays a little slower and Bono is trying to get the crowd to sing along, but other than that the differences are minor until the end of the song. A night and day difference in quality it is not. There are people that would prefer the style of the 2015 version and don't need the ending of the 1992 version.

At this point it is pretty clear you will love absolutely every single thing that they do. U2 can do no wrong at all and every year is better then the last.

I love the band but have an objective opinion. There are ups and downs now, strikes and gutters, not everything is on a straight line up.

Be well, Be There
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: RedBullOverdose on July 01, 2015, 05:50:59 PM
I think they're just trying to put on the best show they can right now and make the best music they can right now.  and to be fair SoI is one of their better albums
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wolf on July 01, 2015, 06:05:52 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
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

If I thought it was a NIGHT and DAY difference, I would not be interested in going. Something tells me you really don't believe that the difference is that extreme.

For me it is. Once again, please take a listen to:

One - Tacoma - 92 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeIl-nkr9WY
One - Vancouver - 15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgQtTvA_uA

Can anyone in their right mind say 2015 is even close to 1992?

They are different types of performances of the same song. In the 2015, the band plays a little slower and Bono is trying to get the crowd to sing along, but other than that the differences are minor until the end of the song. A night and day difference in quality it is not. There are people that would prefer the style of the 2015 version and don't need the ending of the 1992 version.

At this point it is pretty clear you will love absolutely every single thing that they do. U2 can do no wrong at all and every year is better then the last.

I love the band but have an objective opinion. There are ups and downs now, strikes and gutters, not everything is on a straight line up.

Be well, Be There

Not true, I thought Numb was a awful first single. The rest of Zooropa has grown on me over the years. POP is one of my lower ranked albums. The band were only half done in my opinion when they released it in that form. The 90s with the exception of Achtung Baby and ZOO TV were a down time for the band.

I do think the band is getting better and love their live performances. That's my opinion by the way. Any opinion is subjective, NOT objective. You can only be objective about things that are FACT. Beyond that, its subjective.

Yes I love the band. I suppose there are other bands I could slag off and say they or no longer this or that. But why? I'd rather spend time talking about something I enjoy and love rather than being critical of something I think is substandard.

But as Bono says, there are some people that love to talk sh** about anything and thanks to the internet, bathroom walls have never been cleaner.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Tuolumne on July 01, 2015, 06:16:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think they're just trying to put on the best show they can right now and make the best music they can right now.  and to be fair SoI is one of their better albums

Yes.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: codeguy on July 02, 2015, 10:49:19 AM
All about the money? Eh, no! Definitely not. if they were all about the money, they would never have taken four years away from touring to record an album only to give it away for free.

Yes, I know - U2 got paid - but not a lot, I'm sure....The $100 Million rumors are patently absurd, a more likely figure is $10-20 Million....which represents, for the three years they worked on the album, about the same amount as two nights on the 360 tour....
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Lebowski on July 03, 2015, 10:38:56 PM
They are not all about the money, but they sure do love money.  U2 has become big business, and they are in business now to not only make music, but to make big money.  Can't fault for them for that, because yay for capitalism, but it is a bummer to see them charging so much for tickets now.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: wildgirl on July 04, 2015, 06:53:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think they're just trying to put on the best show they can right now and make the best music they can right now.  and to be fair SoI is one of their better albums

Yeah, I think that about sums it up.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Eno on July 04, 2015, 11:15:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe it's just me but no band (u2 or anybody) should be charging the thick end of 200 (maybe more I am not sure) for a 2 hour, 24 song show - and even have the neck to offer no support act/s.

It's quite simply an absolute liberty in my book.

I have no problem with paying to not see support act.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: Swimming Sorrows on July 07, 2015, 12:24:39 PM
I never expect to see the energy at a show like when they were 20+ years younger. I was impressed at how committed they were at the show I attended vs. 360.

My first show was PopMart so I don't have the history some of you do to compare.
Title: Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
Post by: emalvick on July 07, 2015, 04:38:01 PM
I don't even know how to really answer the question, but with a hypothetical back. Wouldn't you be interested in the money if you were in their shoes?  I mean, musicians do need to make a living.  That's not to say that U2 are scraping by, but more as just a general statement. A band like U2 making money sets an example and target for other musicians to get at and reach for. For every band like U2 there are 10's, 100's, maybe 1000's that would love to even reach half the status of U2.

As far as money clouding things or diminishing their passion, maybe, but not fully.  Money allows them to put out the crazy shows they put out there. It allowed them to create ZooTV, PopMart, 360, I+E, etc.  While U2 may not be the perfect live performers, they are as good as most rock bands can be. For all the elaborate sets, they don't hide behind the show.  Of course Bono's voice isn't what it used to be, but from my first Popmart show to now, I think it's better in many ways.

The final thing is that, I have a tough time thinking of many bands that have been around as long as U2 that were able to stay anywhere near the level they have over time.