martha
Blue Crack Supplier
In the LA Times today, there was an article devoted to the demise of the stadium tour. The point of the article was that with indoor prices skyrocketing, acts no longer have to play stadiums to make a big gross for a show.
U2 was mentioned, along with Bruce and the Stones, as an act that still can "make a stadium tour a serious consideration" for 2005. Paul was quoted as follows:
So, according to this quote from Paul, playing a stadium gig has nothing to do with reaching more people in a particular market, and everything to do with the kind of show they want to do.
Which changes the arguments both for and against stadium shows for the upcoming tour.
U2 was mentioned, along with Bruce and the Stones, as an act that still can "make a stadium tour a serious consideration" for 2005. Paul was quoted as follows:
"It's a little hard to predict. They haven't finished the new album yet, and the character of the album and the new production will be the determining factors. Quite honestly, in the case of U2, it's more a function of what kind of music they want to do, rather than what kind of box-office gross they want to achieve. Certainly playing indoors is much easier, and the logistics are more controlled. Now that high ticket prices are accepted, if you're going to take the audience to a big outdoor event, you'd really have to be doing something very, very good, and we would take that responsibility very seriously. If we decide to go outdoors, it will be because it's woth doing on a grand scale."
So, according to this quote from Paul, playing a stadium gig has nothing to do with reaching more people in a particular market, and everything to do with the kind of show they want to do.
Which changes the arguments both for and against stadium shows for the upcoming tour.