Next Tour -- Claw / Physical Stage Stuff Only

[BWU2Buffs]

I saw another more general next tour thread. Set lists etc.

I'm more interested in thoughts focused on the claw and the physical stage.

From the Ground Up (good book IMO) suggests they are thinking "more intimate" and possibly "scaled back". Duh.

But I wonder if fans would like and the band would consider using the Claw again.

Sure, maybe dress it up a bit different, but all in all I would not mind seeing U2 perform stadiums with that beast again.

I don't really care if it's not that different from 360 -- it rocked, it worked in stadiums and assuming they still have it, using it again might help the overall economics and thus ticket prices... thought that could be a stretch.

So, would you go back to a new stadium show / tour knowing that the Claw came back?

This also makes me wonder if the band / LiveNation ever does formalized market research on such topics.

Interested in your thoughts. Thx

 

[The Panther]

I'm not interested in attending stadium shows, period. I went to one once in England in 2000, and it was not a fun experience. I'll never see a U2 stadium show.

As far as The abomination Claw goes, it was an embarrassment that sullied the good name of U2.

Less is, indeed, more.

 

[cobl04]

I'm not interested in attending stadium shows, period. I went to one once in England in 2000, and it was not a fun experience. I'll never see a U2 stadium show.

As far as The abomination Claw goes, it was an embarrassment that sullied the good name of U2.

Less is, indeed, more.

 

[Diemen]

As far as The abomination Claw goes, it was an embarrassment that sullied the good name of U2.

Less is, indeed, more.

Clearly you should know, having seen it in act- oh... wait.

 

[Axver]

I wasn't a big fan of 360 - in fact, on balance it's probably my least favourite U2 tour - but that was more due to the song selection than anything else. I felt the Claw was under-utilised. I wouldn't want to see them exactly replicate it, but it's an idea that had potential and could have been used much better. Some further development and some more complementary song choices and I'd be a tad more amenable to another stadium tour.

Fact of the matter is that I'm going to find any U2 tour to be playing venues I find horribly large, be they arenas or stadiums, so I'm more interested in the song selection. The quality of song selection is what's going to make or break it for me, rather than the setting or staging. I wouldn't care if they re-used the Claw or if they played on milk crates as long as the setlists are top-notch.

 

[lemonfly]

I saw another more general next tour thread. Set lists etc.

I'm more interested in thoughts focused on the claw and the physical stage.

From the Ground Up (good book IMO) suggests they are thinking "more intimate" and possibly "scaled back". Duh.

But I wonder if fans would like and the band would consider using the Claw again.

Sure, maybe dress it up a bit different, but all in all I would not mind seeing U2 perform stadiums with that beast again.

I don't really care if it's not that different from 360 -- it rocked, it worked in stadiums and assuming they still have it, using it again might help the overall economics and thus ticket prices... thought that could be a stretch.

So, would you go back to a new stadium show / tour knowing that the Claw came back?

This also makes me wonder if the band / LiveNation ever does formalized market research on such topics.

Interested in your thoughts. Thx

I saw two PopMart shows and three 360 shows, and I have to say on both tours they looked a little overwhelmed by the stage...like they were upstaged (ha!) by the technological monstrosity they had created (as Darth Vader might say). The best U2 shows I've witnessed were the intimate Elevation ones. That was the only time I witnessed the mythical transcendent force of a U2 show. So Teh Claw can go and keep Teh Arch company in that warehouse in Europe for all I care. I'd like a totally stripped down tour minus screens so big we are staring up into Bono's nostril hairs.

 

[Rachel D.]

360 is the only U2 tour I've ever been to and it was all a good experience. I really liked the Claw and thought it was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen, but U2 usually don't repeat themselves with tour gadgets, and I don't think I'd want them to in this case. It's time to try something else now, as much as I loved the Claw, and I'd like to see them in an arena in a smaller setting. They were trying to sell it or rent it out a while back, so hopefully someone can make use of it. The Claw is such an innovative structure that it would be a shame for it to go to waste.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

Thank you for your feedback -- another thought for me may be relevant.

Arenas require many more shows for likely even lower total attendance than 360.

So, if they go arenas, just finding tickets and ticket prices will be even more challenging.

Plus, I wonder if Bono's voice can hold up over more shows, and, while it's just me thinking, I wonder how much Larry wants to tour.

In all, I'd prefer to take my chances with stadiums, fewer dates, more band energy on those dates, possibly better ticket pricing and Bono's voice holding up the whole tour.

PS -- for me, Vertigo and Elevation were nearly the same arena -- set lists and some video technology aside, because the heart and ellipse were the same concept. Claw 2 fine by me.

 

[The Panther]

U2 are getting into the late stages of their touring career now. Do they want to be remembered for staging an ugly monstrosity that uses enough energy to power a developing nation for a year, or do they want the DVDs and videos and YouTube clips that will be their late-career legacy to be of smaller venues with musical -- not high-tech -- entertainment, and interesting song choices that can be played at small venues, not at stadiums?

Actually, knowing them, they probably prefer the former.

 

[OpenG180]

This "let's do it bigger than anyone ever did" act is getting old.

 

[OpenG180]

So i guess i agree with the pantera.

 

[Vlaco]

As long as the music is good/great/excellent I don't mind whether they play stadiums or arena's. I'd love to see them indoors though (only went to stadium shows), but I don't complain if I get the chance to see them again (and again).

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

I seriously doubt that they will repeat 'the claw'... or anything from the past, really. I don't really care about stadium vs. arena as long as the setlist is enjoyable. But it does get more difficult to find tickets to arena tours. Damn, why did they have to become so huge?!

 

[Axver]

I'm sceptical that it will be harder to get tickets to any future arena tour than it was in the past. Unless they somehow surprise everyone with a late-career classic that tears up the charts, they're going to increasingly become a heritage act with stable audience demand, rather than increased demand driven by a successful single/album. I actually expect arena tours to become easier to get tickets for, not harder.

 

[Popmartijn]

I'm sceptical that it will be harder to get tickets to any future arena tour than it was in the past. Unless they somehow surprise everyone with a late-career classic that tears up the charts, they're going to increasingly become a heritage act with stable audience demand, rather than increased demand driven by a successful single/album. I actually expect arena tours to become easier to get tickets for, not harder.

I don't think so. While it may be so that the audience demand has stabilized, with an arena tour there will be much less supply of tickets. So with a large demand and a smaller supply, getting tickets will be quite hard. Or at least, harder than it was for 360 or Vertigo (outside US).

 

[U2girl]

They won't repeat themselves. Plus the three Claws were put on sale after 360 tour ended.

 

[Nick66]

Arenas. A few big screens for people in the cheap seats. And four guys on stage playing music with passion. I don't care much which ones, as long as they play like they mean it. If they do that, the audience will provide everything else they need.

No claws, costumes, characters, masked activists, hanging cars, giant lemons, golden arches, spinning disco balls, lasers, mirror jackets, satellites or spaceships.

If the music can't speak for itself, it's time to hang it up.

 

[Galeongirl]

I don't think so. While it may be so that the audience demand has stabilized, with an arena tour there will be much less supply of tickets. So with a large demand and a smaller supply, getting tickets will be quite hard. Or at least, harder than it was for 360 or Vertigo (outside US).

Yeah, that's why I'd still prefer a Stadium show to anything else. Simply because the demand here is so ridiculously high, if they did 2 or even 3 arena shows, it wouldn't be enough to saturate it. So getting tickets would be hard.

I really don't mind stadium shows anyway, I loved the Claw and the sheer size of it all. And it kept you dry when standing in the pit when it poured

 

[AndrewCowley]

I wonder if they would try playing full albums? It could be a way for them to play some underplayed songs, but because the whole idea is they are playing a full album they won't need to explain it.

 

[BGD75]

I loved the 360. It was absolutely amazing and glad to have experienced it. But the next time around I wouldn't mind bit of a change up, and going to Elevation type of tour.

 

[Nick66]

I'm sceptical that it will be harder to get tickets to any future arena tour than it was in the past. Unless they somehow surprise everyone with a late-career classic that tears up the charts, they're going to increasingly become a heritage act with stable audience demand, rather than increased demand driven by a successful single/album. I actually expect arena tours to become easier to get tickets for, not harder.

This goes against the popular wisdom, but I've always thought this also. I also agree w/what you said above about the 360 tour.

Shows like 360, ZOOTV and Popmart, while spectacular, have always been the exception rather than the rule for U2 tours. They are really at their strongest when the music works its magic with the audience and the spirit of the whole place just takes off. You don't need all the pyrotechnics for that to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I think if you're going to have a stadium tour you should probably have that stuff...it keeps it interesting for most of the audience to whom the band are just tiny figures on the stage (if they can see them at all). And there have been some amazing stadium shows I've been to. But really, I'm mostly just there for the music.

I wish they'd just go back to arenas and simple shows. U2 should be able to keep the ticket prices reasonable if they don't have the huge overhead that goes with a monster like 360. And the people who go will be those that really want to be there, and if someone cant get tickets, so be it.

 

[Shawn Bonneau]

If the album does actually come out this fall, then arenas will make sense in North America as they'd start the tour in Feb or March. Zoo TV, Elevation and Vertigo were successful with this. To tour right after they sweep the Grammy's is a good move and we'll all sign up for U2.com memberships for pre-sales if we cared enough.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think so. While it may be so that the audience demand has stabilized, with an arena tour there will be much less supply of tickets. So with a large demand and a smaller supply, getting tickets will be quite hard. Or at least, harder than it was for 360 or Vertigo (outside US).

Indeed.

 

[digitize]

I like big stages and stadiums under many circumstances. Stadiums have huge benefits for U2 nowadays. Bono's voice crashes so quickly while touring nowadays. The drop in quality of his voice from Chicago to Pasadena and Vancouver on 360's second leg, for instance, was pretty alarming. I can't imagine what a fifty show American arena leg would do to him, and it would probably still bring the show to fewer people than a twenty-show American stadium leg. So logistically, doing 360 in stadiums made sense for U2, and the claw was a fantastic way of handling it. Furthermore, if U2 want to go beyond the claw and make a truly amazing production, they have quite a penchant for it. During PopMart and ZooTV, the show as a whole had a story to tell and a message to carry. The music was a part of it, and the stages, costumes, and everything else worked with the music. I really think that PopMart and ZooTV were better for it. The shows were about the music, and the music could have stood on its own. But, if your music has a strong theme, why not use the tools that you have at your disposal to create a show that displays that theme? Unfortunately, I don't see U2 doing anything as thematically strong as ZooTV or PopMart again. But even still, there are reasonable arguments for stadiums. And outside of North America, I doubt they're avoidable at all.

 

[Rhiannon64]

They are really at their strongest when the music works its magic with the audience and the spirit of the whole place just takes off. You don't need all the pyrotechnics for that to happen.

But really, I'm mostly just there for the music.

I wish they'd just go back to arenas and simple shows. U2 should be able to keep the ticket prices reasonable if they don't have the huge overhead that goes with a monster like 360. And the people who go will be those that really want to be there, and if someone cant get tickets, so be it.

I am in absolute agreement with you. I would prefer smaller venues as opposed to the huge stadium shows.

And you are right: They are really at their strongest when the music works its magic with the audience and the spirit of the whole place just takes off. They were legendary for that!

I got into U2 in the 1980's because their music was (and still is) so powerful. I got to see several of those JT shows (some of them up very close) and it was amazing to see what the band was capable of without the pyrotechnics and the mammoth staging. They had to rely on the music and the spark that Bono so often talked about to put on a powerful show. Not to say that ZooTV wasn't equally as amazing...it was..I've come to appreciate that tour more and more with the passage of time. It set a precedent--I don't think the B stage was ever done before that tour, was it? And yes, the big staging was included so that the people in the back of the stadium would be able to "see" the show, as well.

I just hope the overhead is down so that ticket prices aren't force up too high.

 

[Popmartijn]

This goes against the popular wisdom, but I've always thought this also.

Please explain how so?

The way I see it, you have a much lower supply compared to a stable demand. As such, it'll be quite hard to get tickets.

A small example.
Elevation Tour: 113 shows (all more or less soldout), 2.1 million tickets sold
360° Tour: 100 shows (all more or less soldout), 7.2 million tickets sold

So it looks like there's a demand for about 7.2 million tickets for a U2 tour. Should U2 go back to arenas then the supply will be around 2.1 million tickets (considering that the tour keeps the same amount of shows, which seems likely to me as I don't think they suddenly want to play 200 shows or so). Which means that demand trumps supply at about a 3:1 ratio.
Good luck getting tickets!

 

[Nick66]

Please explain how so?

The way I see it, you have a much lower supply compared to a stable demand. As such, it'll be quite hard to get tickets.

A small example.
Elevation Tour: 113 shows (all more or less soldout), 2.1 million tickets sold
360° Tour: 100 shows (all more or less soldout), 7.2 million tickets sold

So it looks like there's a demand for about 7.2 million tickets for a U2 tour. Should U2 go back to arenas then the supply will be around 2.1 million tickets (considering that the tour keeps the same amount of shows, which seems likely to me as I don't think they suddenly want to play 200 shows or so). Which means that demand trumps supply at about a 3:1 ratio.
Good luck getting tickets!

I'm not entirely convinced that demand will stay stable. In any event, there were a huge number of casual fans @ 360 who went just because it was a huge event. I think if the next tour is more like Elevation or Vertigo, the people who really want to go will be able to get tickets. You pointed out the numbers from Elevation...U2 put on some great shows, made a lot of money, the fans got to see some amazing performances, and everyone survived just fine. I managed to get tickets to both Elevation and Vertigo, all arena shows, all major markets, are more than one. And I didn't participate in a pre-sale or wait in line. It will be fine.

And if some people can't get tickets, so be it, it's not the end of the world. No one has the right to attend a U2 show. The people who really want tickets will find a way to get them. And maybe if the shows are filled w/more hard core fans, they'll get some of that old spirit back.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

I'm not entirely convinced that demand will stay stable. In any event, there were a huge number of casual fans @ 360 who went just because it was a huge event.

Arguably, the prior two tours had as many, if not more, casual fans due to songs like Vertigo and Beautiful Day getting radio airplay or other publicity. NLOTH had less of that influence, IMO.

And the 360 casual fan factor could have increased because of the stadium format -- it's possibly many went to the show / worked for tickets because tickets for a stadium show were perceived to be and actually were easier to come by -- at least in some markets.

I think demand could actually increase, possibly by significant amounts because many will assume that this is The Last U2 Tour --- and they might be correct.

The 'last tour' variable is one I'm hoping U2 addresses before or during the tour... it will change the approach to tickets and vacation planning for some.

 

[trevgreg]

The 'last tour' variable is one I'm hoping U2 addresses before or during the tour... it will change the approach to tickets and vacation planning for some.

... and then like many other acts, they can announce new tour plans after "the last tour" had already taken place!

 

[Globo14]

I like big stages and stadiums under many circumstances. Stadiums have huge benefits for U2 nowadays. Bono's voice crashes so quickly while touring nowadays. The drop in quality of his voice from Chicago to Pasadena and Vancouver on 360's second leg, for instance, was pretty alarming. I can't imagine what a fifty show American arena leg would do to him, and it would probably still bring the show to fewer people than a twenty-show American stadium leg. So logistically, doing 360 in stadiums made sense for U2, and the claw was a fantastic way of handling it. Furthermore, if U2 want to go beyond the claw and make a truly amazing production, they have quite a penchant for it. During PopMart and ZooTV, the show as a whole had a story to tell and a message to carry. The music was a part of it, and the stages, costumes, and everything else worked with the music. I really think that PopMart and ZooTV were better for it. The shows were about the music, and the music could have stood on its own. But, if your music has a strong theme, why not use the tools that you have at your disposal to create a show that displays that theme? Unfortunately, I don't see U2 doing anything as thematically strong as ZooTV or PopMart again. But even still, there are reasonable arguments for stadiums. And outside of North America, I doubt they're avoidable at all.

I agree with everything here.