Stones stage compared to Vertigo Stage...

[Chizip]

Yeah, like you never post anything silly in here, right?


Yet another good post from ouizy

only when im

 

[U2Man]

only when im

Were you yesterday?

 

[Chizip]

yes

 

[U2Man]

yes

You are forgiven then.

 

[Chizip]

you know those smilies were funny

but now back to the topic at hand....i'd like to see people's responses to ouizy's excellent post

 

[Popmartijn]

Well, Chizip asked for some responses, so here's mine.

What can be done differently?

Well, take a look at today’s stadium tours – mainly U2 and the Stones. There are three main elements that the show requires, lighting, sound, and video. It seems to me, the new trend is how these three things are applied to a steel frame. No longer are these elements integral to the show, but they are applied to a black steel frame similar to a curtainwall system for a building (the windows that are applied to the outside of a glass tower.) This is the modern day version of a theatrical setpiece. Gone are the days of Steel Wheels, gone are the days of The Wall. Now it is build the frame, hang the stuff, start the show.

This is something I don't see/understand. What do you mean when you say they're no longer integral to the show? Is it just that many lights are put on the sides or do you mean something else? Because I thought U2 still used incorporated lighting in the design. Yes, some lights are just mounted on a frame and hung up high in the arena so to provide an uncluttered view for everyone in the building. But in the arena shows they did also have lights in the stage and the curtain was a light curtain as well as a video curtain. For the outside leg, the lighting was in/behind the screen, making it an integral part of the design.

Could U2’s team pull off something in the league of this stage? Yes. Have they? Yes – ZOO TV was one of the most innovative outdoor sets of its time. What I would like to see at a U2 show is more automation. I could give back some of the very expensive LED’s to see something happen to a stage while the band performs.

Well, I'm not really enthusiastic for this concept. I have to say I haven't seen the Madonna show, so I don't really know how it looks like. But to me, it seems a bit too much, too distracting. Will it really support the music, or is it just a gimmick?

Yes, we all know there will be a video screen, but does it have to be stagnant? The Stones proved you can break up a huge screen and get it moving on 40 Licks. Pink Floyd proved you could move a screen years ago. To have a screen simply to have a screen does not make sense to me. We are in the time where the screen better damn well do something other than show images, or someone is going to say something about it. The indoor ‘screen’ for Radiohead was amazing, shit, even Britany Spears’ team did some creative things with the LED’s on her last show.

The outdoor screen was moving. (although only between songs, not during songs)
And what is the function of a screen? Isn't it to show images? Why should it do anything else? I think it's more important what is shown on the screen than whether or not it can move.

One of my biggest criticisms now is the ‘four screens’ that continuously show the band. I think they are a huge distraction and take something away from going to a live gig. Why do I want to go and watch what is happening in front of me on TV as it is happeneing?

I completely disagree with you here. I think those four screens are great! You always need to show what's going on on stage for those at the back, the side and the rear. They don't always have these perfect viewpoints where they can see what each bandmember is doing, what emotions they go through, etc. You need a screen to show it, or else there will be a huge storm of criticism of people who say they can't see a thing at all.
And instead of having a director making decisions what to be shown on those screens (which would be Bono for probably 95% of the time) they decided to show all members during the whole concert. This way the audience can decide what to watch. I think it's great.
And are they really that much of a distraction? Those screens are situated out of direct viewing lines, so you don't have to watch them.

I think this point also contradicts your earlier arguments. First you say that a screen should be dynamic, should more, should be an integral part of the design. And now you say a screen is distracting and take away from the live show. So what do you want? Do you want to have screens at large concerts (arena and up)? Or do you want to have no screens?

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I don’t believe in love-ins, and I don’t believe in most of the silliness that has been going on in this forum. This forum is about the Vertigo tour in general, and this is a very relevant topic since most of the creative team behind U2 (the band who could do no wrong) and the Stones. The idea that there are no original ideas out there is absurd, and I will not listen to anyone who tries to defend this theory. Yes there are people (you are reading one of them) who will criticize whatever the band comes up with and again, that is because it is our favorite band, and we expect them to do things at a level higher than the rest (who are few and far between in this level of performance.) Bigger does not always mean better and there are many precedents to prove this (look at acts like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Massive Attack), acts who prove that with forced limited resources amazing things can be done. Hell, if you have not seen it, try to get some images from Madonna’s re-invention tour. That was, in my opinion the most high-tech, and well done indoor stage production I have seen in years.

I am tired of these threads being hijacked by one or two people who have to state that opinions are invalid in reference to critical assessments of what U2 has done this year. Not only are they valid, but if the design team behind the band wanted ‘real’ input to their work, they would read some of this, rather than just the magazines who praise their work regardless.

What can be done differently?

Well, take a look at today’s stadium tours – mainly U2 and the Stones. There are three main elements that the show requires, lighting, sound, and video. It seems to me, the new trend is how these three things are applied to a steel frame. No longer are these elements integral to the show, but they are applied to a black steel frame similar to a curtainwall system for a building (the windows that are applied to the outside of a glass tower.) This is the modern day version of a theatrical setpiece. Gone are the days of Steel Wheels, gone are the days of The Wall. Now it is build the frame, hang the stuff, start the show.

So what can be done?

Well, going back to the indoor stage for a moment, I think more energy is being put on the technology of the show versus the experience. How much money is going into LED’s, wireless communications, IMAG video projection, and video editing? Tons. Back to Madonna for a second. Yes, she had the LED video walls, but they moved, They circled the stage and for each song were not just lit up with useless graphics, but were placed into positions that changed the environment of the stage. Now besides the people she had swinging from the lighting rig, and the catwalk suspended from the arena roof that lowered over the crowd, the entire stage was a plexiglass turntable that spun, lowered, and raised to completely change the shape and dimension of the stage. Aside from all of that – there was a conveyor belt at the front of the stage, where the sound FOH position was located, a move that had never been done before.

Most of the things in that design were ‘never done before’ and as I was critical of the show – it was one of the best I have ever seen, and I am not really a Madonna fan.

Could U2’s team pull off something in the league of this stage? Yes. Have they? Yes – ZOO TV was one of the most innovative outdoor sets of its time. What I would like to see at a U2 show is more automation. I could give back some of the very expensive LED’s to see something happen to a stage while the band performs. Yes, we all know there will be a video screen, but does it have to be stagnant? The Stones proved you can break up a huge screen and get it moving on 40 Licks. Pink Floyd proved you could move a screen years ago. To have a screen simply to have a screen does not make sense to me. We are in the time where the screen better damn well do something other than show images, or someone is going to say something about it. The indoor ‘screen’ for Radiohead was amazing, shit, even Britany Spears’ team did some creative things with the LED’s on her last show.

Now – I think one of the main reasons for criticism is the fact that the indoor Vertigo show was so similar to Elevation (even the design team admits this was one of their goals) that when you couple the design with the setlist (of about 50% of the same songs as Elevation) there is reason to say something. Tag a $100+ price to see this and there you go.

I really, really thought this time around the band was going to pull out the stops and go fully in the round (as Chizip) suggests inside. I thought they would have a round stage with at least a minimal amount of automation.

One of my biggest criticisms now is the ‘four screens’ that continuously show the band. I think they are a huge distraction and take something away from going to a live gig. Why do I want to go and watch what is happening in front of me on TV as it is happeneing?

I like the fact that Willie has the latest and greatest video editing software and on the fly he can change what we see, but I think the disconnect lies in the fact that 90% of the people there do not know he is doing this. They could save the money on his toys and put it into a more novel stage design. I think the fans are hungry for it, and Vertigo can be seen as a good tour, which could have been great. The problem I have with that is that I do not know how many more tours we are going to see.

so what your trying to tell me and everyone else who likes the stage, that were not allowed to? that were not allowed to think its great? we can only think its good? because as you said you wont have anyone defending it, so were all meant to think the same things you think and not think the stage is great

ok goes against everything i have been thinking for the last5 months, and i agree the stage is now completley crap, i would much rather have a britney esque stage than what U2 are doing

infact i think i shall protest, or petition them

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Well, Chizip asked for some responses, so here's mine.



This is something I don't see/understand. What do you mean when you say they're no longer integral to the show? Is it just that many lights are put on the sides or do you mean something else? Because I thought U2 still used incorporated lighting in the design. Yes, some lights are just mounted on a frame and hung up high in the arena so to provide an uncluttered view for everyone in the building. But in the arena shows they did also have lights in the stage and the curtain was a light curtain as well as a video curtain. For the outside leg, the lighting was in/behind the screen, making it an integral part of the design.



Well, I'm not really enthusiastic for this concept. I have to say I haven't seen the Madonna show, so I don't really know how it looks like. But to me, it seems a bit too much, too distracting. Will it really support the music, or is it just a gimmick?



The outdoor screen was moving. (although only between songs, not during songs)
And what is the function of a screen? Isn't it to show images? Why should it do anything else? I think it's more important what is shown on the screen than whether or not it can move.



I completely disagree with you here. I think those four screens are great! You always need to show what's going on on stage for those at the back, the side and the rear. They don't always have these perfect viewpoints where they can see what each bandmember is doing, what emotions they go through, etc. You need a screen to show it, or else there will be a huge storm of criticism of people who say they can't see a thing at all.
And instead of having a director making decisions what to be shown on those screens (which would be Bono for probably 95% of the time) they decided to show all members during the whole concert. This way the audience can decide what to watch. I think it's great.
And are they really that much of a distraction? Those screens are situated out of direct viewing lines, so you don't have to watch them.

I think this point also contradicts your earlier arguments. First you say that a screen should be dynamic, should more, should be an integral part of the design. And now you say a screen is distracting and take away from the live show. So what do you want? Do you want to have screens at large concerts (arena and up)? Or do you want to have no screens?

 

[ouizy]

KUEF,

Before I reply can I ask you a serious question?

How old are you?

Thanks,

Ouizy

 

[Chizip]

June 1, 1985 is his birthday according to his profile

 

[KUEFC09U2]

KUEF,

Before I reply can I ask you a serious question?

How old are you?

Thanks,

Ouizy

i am 20 years of age, and why would you want to know that? seriously am i not allowed to think the new U2 stage is great? am i not allowed to go aganist your wisdom and intellegence?

p.s. i dont really fancy being subjected to ageism, so if you dont mind, thanks

 

[yimou]

KUEF.. Do you want people to reply to these kinds of threads and try to have a normal discussion ?. If yes, then why do you always start with the -- So i am not allowed to think that the stage is great -- Or the -- I am not allowed to love U2 and the Vertigo tour

 

[KUEFC09U2]

KUEF.. Do you want people to reply to these kinds of threads and try to have a normal discussion ?. If yes, then why do you always start with the -- So i am not allowed to think that the stage is great -- Or the -- I am not allowed to love U2 and the Vertigo tour

well its true in this case, quizy has basically just told me i am wrong for thinking its great? what else would you want me to say?

and i noticed no-one replied to Popmartijn post, is that because it was a well balanced argument against quizys post?

 

[ouizy]

i am 20 years of age, and why would you want to know that? seriously am i not allowed to think the new U2 stage is great? am i not allowed to go aganist your wisdom and intellegence?

p.s. i dont really fancy being subjected to ageism, so if you dont mind, thanks

Quite honestly, every time I read one of your replies, all I want to say is "Dude, you need to chill out..." But I don't. I try to restrain myself.

I asked how old you are because when communicating over the web like this it is hard to discern how old people are, and in conversations it is always easier to speak when you know who you are talking to.

There was never going to be any ageism, and for that matter and your information I am 31 years old. The last thing I would ever do is try to dissuade anyone's opinion against the band I grew up with, let alone someone who is younger than me. One of the most important qualities of this band is their ability to draw younger fans year in and year out.

That said, I have been listening to them for longer that you have been alive, and the first show I went to was when you were 2.

Now that that was said, I will respond to your posts:

Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 theirs really very little U2 could do now were people wouldnt be accusing them of copying themselves

Originally posted by Ouizy The idea that there are no original ideas out there is absurd, and I will not listen to anyone who tries to defend this theory.

What I meant here is that if you believe there are no new ideas out there - that is simply absurd. Had the band come up with a unique concept, I doubt there would be so many people accusing them of copying themselves, but they didn't. I was NOT saying that I would not listen to anyone else's opinion, and furthermore NEVER said that everyone, let alone anyone should agree with mine.

Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 so what your trying to tell me and everyone else who likes the stage, that were not allowed to? that were not allowed to think its great? we can only think its good? because as you said you wont have anyone defending it, so were all meant to think the same things you think and not think the stage is great

No, actually I was not saying this at all and the fact that you may have inferred this from what I wrote clearly shows me one of two things, 1. you did not read what I wrote or 2. you did not understand what I wrote.

#2 is acceptable, #1 is not if you are going to reply like this.

You were the one who requested ideas of what we think the band should do, and in my reply I listed a number of precedents of designs I liked, things I would like to see the band do, and things I would like to see the band not do.

However, you did not comment on any of this.

I asked you how old you were due to the next thing you wrote:

Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 ok goes against everything i have been thinking for the last5 months, and i agree the stage is now completley crap, i would much rather have a britney esque stage than what U2 are doing

infact i think i shall protest, or petition them

I asked how old you were because I truly thought at this point that I was corresponding with a child. You tell me you are 20. That's cool - man I am not here to insult you - I just could not understand this post.

And lastly,

Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 seriously am i not allowed to think the new U2 stage is great? am i not allowed to go aganist your wisdom and intellegence?

Quite the contrary - I hope you think the stage is great. It is the idea of the outdoor spectacle that got me into stage design in the first place. That was in the early 80's of course, but nonetheless, if it gets you into it and involved, more power to you. And for your second line, I actually invite you to go against my wisdom and intelligence, creative responses regarding the subject at hand are what interest me the most. But KUEF, to be honest, once we get started talking about this subject matter, or the setlist subject, your replies always say the same thing over and over and over and over again. They are immature responses blindly defending whatever the band does. When someone challenges you, you claim there is a lot of hate in here and post threads like "love-fests" or whatever. you will notice I never post in those threads, because I find no use in them. I am interested in the music and the stage design, one probably more than the other.

So, please I ask you and I have asked you this before, when someone posts a critique, and their OPINION, do not take it personally like you have anything to do with the band U2, its music, or their design team. It is they that I am criticising, not you. Aside from that, and maybe I am making a big assumption here, I feel like there are some people here, if only a few of them, that enjoy reading what I have to write. I have been around here a long time, and have seen a lot. I have seen a lot of people come and go, and to be honest I would much rather look forward to an intelligent dialogue with you versus immature banter, which is what I think most of these informative threads seem to turn into, largely due to comments you make.

So KUEF, once again, and for the last time - please do not take what I , or anyone else says so personally, if we did not care at all we would not post, because we are interested and have opinions we do.

I really have nothing else to say except I hope you take what I said to heart because the tour is not over, and we have a lot more to talk about...

-ouizy

OK - now I am editing this because I see you just posted. First of all can you please type my name correctly? I always type your name correctly, and I would actually expect the same from you. it is: O U I Z Y. Secondly, after I wrote this, I planned to reply to Popmartijn's informative reply, unlike yours.

 

[yimou]

Quizy didn´t tell you that you could not enjoy the stage. Quizy have some ideas about the stage which should not change your opinions at all.

PopMartijn made a great post as well. Its two opinions and such posts are important for a good discussion.

I think the outdoor Vertigo stage kicks ass. The indoor stage looks too much like the Elevation stage.

No matter what then U2 always have some interesting and entertaining stage designs.

The ZOOTV design was perfect for AB. The album and the stage design completed the experience and i think the gimmicks were needed for that record.

POPMART ruled as well. Again it was the only stage design that could represent Pop on the road. Big ass screen, big lemon,, Everything done to the extremes.

ELEVATION was another great step for U2. The back to basic feel of the record needed a simple stage design. The heart and lightning created a personal feel that brought the best out of the ATYCLB songs.. Perfect as well

The VERTIGO design is great. Especially the outdoor design. Again the indoor thing looks too much like the ELEVATION design but still it suits the songs.

So all in all, then i think U2´s stage designs are fantastic.

 

[Doppelgang]

Jumpin Jack Flash its just about cash cash cash! and who seriously gives a fuck about the stones' stage any how and if you do why post on a U2 website?

 

[U2Man]

Jumpin Jack Flash its just about cash cash cash! and who seriously gives a fuck about the stones' stage any how and if you do why post on a U2 website?

Because there are other bands in this world than U2 and it makes sense to compare things in the world of stage design

Btw. this site needs more people like ouizy!!

 

[Hewson]

OK, now that this thread has denigrated, lets get back to the original matter at hand.
I went to the Stones show last night. The stage is fairly impressive, definitely massive. It does look like a parking garage (hey this is Boston, its a garage, when they hit Europe, it'll be a car park ). The big screen in the middle is very cool, about 40' tall and clear as day. Inside the "car park" there are also screens which just add to the lighting with colors and shapes rather than video images since they are broken up by the outer part of the structure.

The angle on this photo is a bit deceiving:

The "On stage" people are in the 2 lower levels of the "Car park" and not really as close to the action as this photo might suggest. I'd say the lower level folks are about 20' above the rear of the stage, and the upper box is about 30' up. Only during the 1st verse of "Sympathy for the Devil" did Mick venture onto the elevated section of the stage above/behind Charlie where these people would be really close. I'm sure its a cool experience, but don't think its worth $250. When I first heard about people being "On Stage with the Rolling Stones", I envisioned something like Van Halen's "Golden Rings" from last year, which were 2 sections within the stage, sort of like mini "bomb shelters", these seats are more like rear club or balcony seats due to the height.

The coolest part of the staging by far was the satellite stage moving out with the band playing "Miss You" into the center of the field. (I joked to my friend that they designed this because it was too long a distance for the band to walk out there). Charlie's drum kit gets pushed forward by some roadies,, and the rest of the band (plus Chuck Leveall) gets on a platform in front of the drum kit, it raises a few feet then rolls out over the catwalk while the band plays to the edge of the infield. They play 2 more songs out there, start up another and the whole thing goes back in reverse.

Other than that Mick was the only one who used the catwalk, probably 4 other times, plus he uses the side runways, including a full sprint from Fenway's right filed corner across the stage to the left field corner, and faster than Manny Ramirez, impressive for a man in his early 60's. Keef ventured on the right field runway a couple of times, but otherwise the rest of the band stayed on the main (still huge) stage.

Good show, but ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous. The seating area at Fenway is awful for a concert (plus 2 huge light towers the band set up made many seats obstructed), the only decent seats are field seats which ran $453.00, a high percentage of the remaining tix cost $163.00 and they were all a long way from the stage.

It'll be interesting to see how they stage the arena portion of the tour.

 

[mabel]

It'll be interesting to see how they stage the arena portion of the tour.

Yeah, I'm curious about that too!!! I can't wait for reviews of the first arena show. Still very nervous about my 419 seat at MSG, but at least I sold the other ticket, so that's a big relief! Not that anyone really cares, but as a college student of limited means the prospect of being out $75 was kind of terrifying! Note to self: Never buy concert tix w/o knowing FOR SURE that you've got a concert buddy set up!

 

[Val]

I think compared to many arenas and stadiums, any seat at MSG is a good seat.
You are lucky to see them there. Enjoy the show.

I love the Stones, but I just can't afford to buy a tix. It's really a shame.

 

[kellyahern]

Good show, but ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous. The seating area at Fenway is awful for a concert (plus 2 huge light towers the band set up made many seats obstructed), the only decent seats are field seats which ran $453.00, a high percentage of the remaining tix cost $163.00 and they were all a long way from the stage.

I thought about seeing them in Tampa, but when I checked, the only seats left were the $400 ones (now it's sold out).

I saw them about 6 years ago and they put on a good show .

 

[mabel]

Thanks, Val! I'm sure I'll have a blast. It'll be my first time (and at these prices, I'm pretty sure my only time) seeing them.

 

[Neilz]

I thought about seeing them in Tampa, but when I checked, the only seats left were the $400 ones (now it's sold out).

I saw them about 6 years ago and they put on a good show .

Even if they were front seats; 400 USD is just insane! They should be ashamed to ask these kind of prices!

 

[Infinity]

The onstage seats are $453, but guesss what, you get an open bar all night.

 

[Neilz]

The onstage seats are $453, but guesss what, you get an open bar all night.

These onstage seats are up on the stage right? So they allow you to get pissed and puke over the Stones...

 

[DignityPassesBy]

I don’t believe in love-ins, and I don’t believe in most of the silliness that has been going on in this forum. This forum is about the Vertigo tour in general, and this is a very relevant topic since most of the creative team behind U2 (the band who could do no wrong) and the Stones. The idea that there are no original ideas out there is absurd, and I will not listen to anyone who tries to defend this theory. Yes there are people (you are reading one of them) who will criticize whatever the band comes up with and again, that is because it is our favorite band, and we expect them to do things at a level higher than the rest (who are few and far between in this level of performance.) Bigger does not always mean better and there are many precedents to prove this (look at acts like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Massive Attack), acts who prove that with forced limited resources amazing things can be done. Hell, if you have not seen it, try to get some images from Madonna’s re-invention tour. That was, in my opinion the most high-tech, and well done indoor stage production I have seen in years.

I am tired of these threads being hijacked by one or two people who have to state that opinions are invalid in reference to critical assessments of what U2 has done this year. Not only are they valid, but if the design team behind the band wanted ‘real’ input to their work, they would read some of this, rather than just the magazines who praise their work regardless.

What can be done differently?

Well, take a look at today’s stadium tours – mainly U2 and the Stones. There are three main elements that the show requires, lighting, sound, and video. It seems to me, the new trend is how these three things are applied to a steel frame. No longer are these elements integral to the show, but they are applied to a black steel frame similar to a curtainwall system for a building (the windows that are applied to the outside of a glass tower.) This is the modern day version of a theatrical setpiece. Gone are the days of Steel Wheels, gone are the days of The Wall. Now it is build the frame, hang the stuff, start the show.

So what can be done?

Well, going back to the indoor stage for a moment, I think more energy is being put on the technology of the show versus the experience. How much money is going into LED’s, wireless communications, IMAG video projection, and video editing? Tons. Back to Madonna for a second. Yes, she had the LED video walls, but they moved, They circled the stage and for each song were not just lit up with useless graphics, but were placed into positions that changed the environment of the stage. Now besides the people she had swinging from the lighting rig, and the catwalk suspended from the arena roof that lowered over the crowd, the entire stage was a plexiglass turntable that spun, lowered, and raised to completely change the shape and dimension of the stage. Aside from all of that – there was a conveyor belt at the front of the stage, where the sound FOH position was located, a move that had never been done before.

Most of the things in that design were ‘never done before’ and as I was critical of the show – it was one of the best I have ever seen, and I am not really a Madonna fan.

Could U2’s team pull off something in the league of this stage? Yes. Have they? Yes – ZOO TV was one of the most innovative outdoor sets of its time. What I would like to see at a U2 show is more automation. I could give back some of the very expensive LED’s to see something happen to a stage while the band performs. Yes, we all know there will be a video screen, but does it have to be stagnant? The Stones proved you can break up a huge screen and get it moving on 40 Licks. Pink Floyd proved you could move a screen years ago. To have a screen simply to have a screen does not make sense to me. We are in the time where the screen better damn well do something other than show images, or someone is going to say something about it. The indoor ‘screen’ for Radiohead was amazing, shit, even Britany Spears’ team did some creative things with the LED’s on her last show.

Now – I think one of the main reasons for criticism is the fact that the indoor Vertigo show was so similar to Elevation (even the design team admits this was one of their goals) that when you couple the design with the setlist (of about 50% of the same songs as Elevation) there is reason to say something. Tag a $100+ price to see this and there you go.

I really, really thought this time around the band was going to pull out the stops and go fully in the round (as Chizip) suggests inside. I thought they would have a round stage with at least a minimal amount of automation.

One of my biggest criticisms now is the ‘four screens’ that continuously show the band. I think they are a huge distraction and take something away from going to a live gig. Why do I want to go and watch what is happening in front of me on TV as it is happeneing?

I like the fact that Willie has the latest and greatest video editing software and on the fly he can change what we see, but I think the disconnect lies in the fact that 90% of the people there do not know he is doing this. They could save the money on his toys and put it into a more novel stage design. I think the fans are hungry for it, and Vertigo can be seen as a good tour, which could have been great. The problem I have with that is that I do not know how many more tours we are going to see.

WOW that was a long post ... so i didnt bother reading it, but thats not to say it wasnt a good effort ... well done

 

[Hewson]

The onstage seats are $453, but guesss what, you get an open bar all night.

The onstage seats are $250.00, the field seating was $453.00, including the back sections of the field.
No open bar.

 

[Infinity]

ohh okay...man thats stupid, the field gets ripped.

 

[ouizy]

I am still kind of in shock that the band was not allowed to sell field spots on top of the diamond.

There really is somthing to be said for sitting way in the back and having an empty field between you and the stage.

Weird.

I hope they are not too many venues like this.

As far as open bar in the onstage section, wow - that seems odd. I am sure there will be some brilliance who gets wasted and decides to climb down (or up) the wing of the stage.

Anyone know more about the LED screens in these sections of the car park. I am curious, as I actually think this is one of the better touches of the design.

How tall are they? How long are they? Are they used for light and color, or also video?

 

[cleazer]

I think thats a pretty unique and cool looking stage. The idea of putting fans up there is pretty cool too. That said, for 2 of the 4 Chicago shows this year, I had seats directly behind the stage, and I'm pretty sure my seats for those two U2 concerts were both BETTER AND CHEAPER than those "above stage" seats for the Stones.

Why does everyone call that a "carpark"? It seems quite clear to me that its supposed to look like an opera house!