U2's tour schedule is abysmal and everyone knows it.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Axver

Vocal parasite
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
152,977
Location
1853
You know what? I'm getting sick and tired of U2's pathetic Americentric tour schedules. Now with rumours of a third North American leg - I swear, those better not come true. There's just no excuse for playing the US at the expense of everywhere but Western Europe. I really don't understand why it's so impossible for U2 to play all their US dates on ONE SINGLE LEG. Heck, they did it rather nicely on War, and while that was a long time ago, I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible now.

Come on people, look at U2's incredible profits thus far. The European leg of Vertigo is the most profitable tour in European history by a country mile. There is just no excuse for not playing the Southern Hemisphere for, as of 2006 (as 2005 is already fully scheduled), EIGHT YEARS, or if you happen to live in New Zealand, THIRTEEN YEARS. They may not necessarily profit monetarily from coming down here, but I'm sick of defending that reason. We're not selling televisions or dishwashers here, people. This is fucking MUSIC. When you've just amassed a gigantic profit in Western Europe and North America, I think you can more than afford to come to the Southern Hemisphere. Anyone with any grasp on life knows that real profit doesn't come from money, and if U2 perform concerts in Australia, South America, and especially New Zealand, I imagine they'd be immensely rewarding.

So U2, get your fucking act together and visit New Zealand, Australia, South America, Central America, Africa, and Asia (including mainland Asia, not just Japan!). I realise some of those parts of the world aren't in the Southern Hemisphere, but they're out of the U2 Hemisphere. I'm just so bloody tired of what feels like every fucking US city having a concert while OVER HALF OF THE WORLD has NO U2 concerts. That's ZERO. While you New Yorkers are rocking out to seven concerts this autumn, think of the fact that there are millions of U2 fans worldwide who have no concert in their country to even attend. And don't give me this population comparison bollocks. Fact is, the US has roughly 40-50 concerts coming up while the rest of us have NONE.

Let us all sincerely hope that the rumours of U2 coming down to the Southern Hemisphere come true and that every single rumour about a third US leg prove to be absolutely fraudulent. I would be immensely happy and overjoyed if U2 did another Lovetown.
 
I'd like to add that frankly, I don't care if I see a show or not if they come to the Southern Hemisphere (unless they visit New Zealand, in which case I'm there faster than you can say "One Tree Hill"). I had my fill at the three Boston first leg shows. What incenses me is that my friends and stacks of other dedicated fans down here aren't lucky enough to have been able to make the trek across the Pacific - these people deserve a concert. It angers me that privilege upon privilege is showered upon North American and Western European fans while those down here are simply forgotten.
 
Axver,off all the rumors the only one i truly believe is that U2 will play Australia,most of the rest is just bullshit
 
It would definitely suck if U2 didn't go to Australia and New Zealand, not to mention South America on this tour. However, at this point we have no idea if the 4th leg North American rumors are true at all. It seems to me the rumors of Australia/New Zealand/South America are a lot stronger.
 
Bono's shades said:
It would definitely suck if U2 didn't go to Australia and New Zealand, not to mention South America on this tour. However, at this point we have no idea if the 4th leg North American rumors are true at all. It seems to me the rumors of Australia/New Zealand/South America are a lot stronger.

Right, and I hope it stays that way. It bothers me enough that every tour, the US gets two legs. Why is it so impossible to play just one leg?
 
Everyone deserves a concert, but it's not always financially possible. And that's not always up to the band. We all know they're millionaires, but there's only the four of them, plus Paul McG. What about all the people it takes to put on the show....the roadies, caterers, truck drivers, PR people, promoters.....I doubt THEY will want to put on break-even shows or lose money putting on shows b/c they're touring for weaker markets.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
Everyone deserves a concert, but it's not always financially possible. And that's not always up to the band. We all know they're millionaires, but there's only the four of them, plus Paul McG. What about all the people it takes to put on the show....the roadies, caterers, truck drivers, PR people, promoters.....I doubt THEY will want to put on break-even shows or lose money putting on shows b/c they're touring for weaker markets.

Considering U2 just raked in something in the order of $200 million in Europe, I think they have the spare cash to pay the crew.

I've gotten to the point where I don't give a shit about financial viability. Get rid of all the expensive trappings and just play on an empty stage. I think most of us are far more concerned with the music than the visuals. All we want is a U2 concert. Nothing more. Is that really so much to ask?
 
Axver said:

I think most of us are far more concerned with the music than the visuals. All we want is a U2 concert. Nothing more. Is that really so much to ask?

Well, IMO, yes, b/c it's THEIR time, money, music, passion, life's work, etc so I think they get to decide how the show looks. That doesn't mean we have to automatically like it - there's things about the Vertigo shows I personally would change - but I don't think they should do whatever the fans want just because they're rich. With that attitude, where do you draw the line? How "rich" is rich enough for someone to be expected to do what everyone else wants simply b/c he or she can afford it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to raz anyone for complaining or say it doesn't suck.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Well, IMO, yes, b/c it's THEIR time, money, music, passion, life's work, etc so I think they get to decide how the show looks. That doesn't mean we have to automatically like it - there's things about the Vertigo shows I personally would change - but I don't think they should do whatever the fans want just because they're rich. With that attitude, where do you draw the line? How "rich" is rich enough for someone to be expected to do what everyone else wants simply b/c he or she can afford it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to raz anyone for complaining or say it doesn't suck.

Of course, you can say this when your country has had more shows in the last four years than my two countries (Australia and New Zealand) have EVER had.

I think I have a right to be pissed off. Harp on all you want about money. I thought music was about passion and emotion, not dollars. I used to argue the financial argument, you know, I tried to convince myself that U2 were justified in giving us down here the cold shoulder. Now I see through that.

It's not too much to ask for U2 to come and play some concerts for their devoted fans outside North America and Western Europe and you know it.
 
Axver said:


Of course, you can say this when your country has had more shows in the last four years than my two countries (Australia and New Zealand) have EVER had.

Sorry, didn't realize the only opinions being considered were of people from Oz or New Zealand.

Did I not JUST say I agree that it sucks?

Music is about passion and emotion, but it takes quite a bit more than that to put on a successful show. Besides, I thought you did get to fly halfway around the world to see them?

And I thought it was pretty much confirmed that they were going to play Australia/New Zealand......
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Sorry, didn't realize the only opinions being considered were of people from Oz or New Zealand.

I didn't say that. I just pointedo ut that in four years, your country has had more shows than my two countries have ever had. Same goes for the US versus South America, or versus Africa, or versus Japan ...

Did I not JUST say I agree that it sucks?

Sorry, did I misinterpret you? I thought you said U2 were justified in not coming to areas outside North America/Western Europe. I think there's no justification for that.

Music is about passion and emotion, but it takes quite a bit more than that to put on a successful show. Besides, I thought you did get to fly halfway around the world to see them?

And I thought it was pretty much confirmed that they were going to play Australia/New Zealand......

I did fly halfway around the world to see them. As I said in an earlier post, I'm bothered by the fact there are thousands of fans here who are not lucky enough to make the trek and simply don't get to see U2. I know a lot of them. They are just as devoted as any hardcore fan in the North and they should be able to see a concert. It's not fair that they miss out.

Well, there's been no confirmation. Australia seems fairly likely. Utterly no word on New Zealand - honestly, I have no confidence U2 will ever go back to NZ. I guess that if I don't get my hopes up, I'll be even more elated if they ever do go ...
 
U2 make their money out of europe and the states and for the rest of the world larry plays a song on the drums and if the boys get it they go nowhere,if they don't they go were he say's which is probably back to howth.I would love U2 to play all of the rumors next year,but we have to wait and see,but i think Oz is a definite
 
Axver said:

Sorry, did I misinterpret you? I thought you said U2 were justified in not coming to areas outside North America/Western Europe. I think there's no justification for that.

Yes, I think they are justified b/c it's their show, their money, and their time away from their families at stake. Yes, it DOES suck and I do feel bad for everyone not in North America or Western Europe, but I still don't feel right about holding it against the band personally when what it really takes to put on an international tour or what personal things might be going on are things none of us here can know that much about.
 
While I don't disagree with the basic premise that U2 should bring Vertigo 2x down under, I do strongly disagree with the assertion that the US does not deserve two legs.

The US market is THE primary market of the world. That's reality. Accept it. Also, given how the first leg was truncated because the band's personal issues, U2 is rightfully returning to the US for a second leg. I would go as far as to say that the second US leg is just a continuation of the first US leg, with U2 making additional $$ in the areas they already played during the first US leg.

Frankly, I do not believe U2 will bring Vertigo back for a third US leg simply because the album and the tour are not as ground breaking as ZooTV was. (Yes, I know that the US never got a third leg then, too.) The caveat though is that U2 has two different stages for this tour, and U2 may seek to extend the Stadium tour to the US to make more money. What's wrong with that? The demand is there, and the US is the primary market of the world...
 
Geez, Axver. Maybe you could wait to get over excited about this until you actually hear some definitive information about the tour extention?
Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing people bitch about how many shows the US is getting. It's a friggin' huge country with a friggin' huge demand for shows. That's why they play so many dates here.
I really do feel for the countries that haven't had shows on past tours, I really do, but I think getting this fired up about a rumor is a waste of energy.
 
It's not just the rumoiur, you know. It's the fact that in four years, the US has had more shows than Australia and New Zealand have EVER had.

That's just embarrassingly abysmal.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Music is about passion and emotion

If they considered only this, they would not even tour the U.S.

I was lucky enough to attend a couple of concerts in South America and the passion of the fans was incredible... they would kick most U.S. fans' butt (naturally, asides from the ones that post here at Interference... :D ).
 
ahem, on a more serious note, i have to agree with U2Dork and MTEdge: market forces are a determining factor in planning a tour. Population density alone in the States would dictate that it is economically productive/profitable to play more shows...
 
Axver said:
It's not just the rumoiur, you know. It's the fact that in four years, the US has had more shows than Australia and New Zealand have EVER had.

That's just embarrassingly abysmal.

We get it dude.

Ya want some cheese with that whine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom