SOE 21 - It comes down to this...

[popacrobat]

leg 1 vertigo:

San Diego
Anaheim
LA
San Jose
Glendale
Denver
Seattle
Vancouver
Chicago
Philadelphia
NY
NJ
Boston


13 cities above, but you can easily play a few nights in LA and skip Anaheim; a few nights in Vancouver or Seattle, skip the other; play MSG and skip NJ in 2018.


leg 1 IE:

Vancouver
San Jose
Phoenix
LA
Denver
Montreal
Chicago
Toronto
Boston
NY

10 cities. That's more like it for 2018. No need to double dip on LA and Anaheim, Vancouver/Seattle etc.

Like I said, I won't be surprised if they play a show or two in Philadelphia, Dallas, D.C., Denver, Atlanta, Vegas. But I wouldn't bet on it, especially after they had stadium shows in three of those markets in 2017.

It was four years between Elevation concerts and Vertigo concerts, and U2 were coming off two very commercially successful albums. Demand was sky-high. Demand will be much lower in 2018, no matter how good SOE is, based on 1.) the band being older and 2.) the band having just played millions of people in 2017. Not that complicated.

 

[Registered Dude]

Why don't y'all just wait and see what cities they announce?

 

[womanfish]

Why don't y'all just wait and see what cities they announce?

this really highlights our level of boredom around here waiting for something to happen. Maybe we should go back to arguing about why Phoenix isn't selling well! Just kidding really, please no one mention it again.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Why don't y'all just wait and see what cities they announce?

Because then sicy and diemen wouldn't have side jobs.

 

[The_acrobat]

I don't really think they'll play Little Rock, just saying they have a sufficient arena.

Sacramento has a brand new arena, and they are trying hard to book everyone they can, so it wouldn't surprise me if U2 played there. Same with Detroit, even though they just got a show this year.

Not really sure why some of you think my suggestions are so unreasonable. I even said they wouldn't play all of those cities.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

I have a good feeling about Europe getting another new song from SOE rather than little things.

 

[The_acrobat]

I have a good feeling about Europe getting another new song from SOE rather than little things.

I like the way your mind works!! Let's hope so!

 

[Danny Boy]

Tomorrow is the last Friday in July before the European leg, so we should have the new single by midnight, no?

 

[mama cass]

U2 doing an arena tour in Europe is like trying to kill Godzilla with a bb gun, as far as satisfying the demand.

they're touring stadiums in Europe

 

[The_acrobat]

they're touring stadiums in Europe

... clearly...
I was referring to the next leg of the IE Tour, and how it's basically a waste of time for u2 to tour arenas in Europe because the demand is so strong.

 

[The_acrobat]

Before anybody jumps up my ass about that last comment, let me rephrase; it's not a waste of time for U2 to play arenas. Those intimate arena shows are incredible in their own way, the same as a stadium show is. I have come to the point where I like them both equally.

I just mean that U2 practically has un-exhaustable demand in most of Europe. If they do 40 arena shows next year, that's great... but they could also easily do 40 stadium shows. They could play to more people and make more money. But to their credit, they seem to really enjoy the arena tour, and really want to pursue that.

Like somebody said earlier, they could've filled 2 stadium shows in Sweden, for example, instead of coming back to America and playing cities like St. Louis and New Orleans, with curtained off sections of seats.

 

[bono2017]

Yeah, but people travel from those states to go to the JT30 shows. I don't really see U2 going to smaller cities so soon after playing massive stadiums in markets like Buffalo, Louisville, Indy, St. Louis, etc.

I don't see them playing the amount of cities that they did on Vertigo Leg 3 again. I live in Connecticut. Why should they bother playing Hartford, Albany or Providence again when they can play NYC and Boston for an extra night or two, sell out, and not have to move equipment?

Because its about the new album and the new songs and promoting that. That's the priority. U2 are an active band and desire to have the NEW music be the most popular music of the year. An extra night in Boston won't do much for the album, compared to a new show in Hartford which generates its own amount of media in separate market.

 

[cseggleton]

Because its about the new album and the new songs and promoting that. That's the priority. U2 are an active band and desire to have the NEW music be the most popular music of the year. An extra night in Boston won't do much for the album, compared to a new show in Hartford which generates its own amount of media in separate market.

A new show in Haaaaartford generates buzz?

 

[bono2017]

But Sting they don't make money from album sales like the old days now.
They make money from performing live.

Do you think they'll sell more tix in 8 nights at NYC or 1 night each in:
Portland
Salt Lake City
Sacramento
San Antonio
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Omaha
Des Moines?

Or 1 night each in:
Milwaukee
Columbus
Albany
Jacksonville
Little Rock
Memphis
Edmonton
Winnipeg?

Or any combo of the above?

(Those are all cities on The Acrobat's list by the way.)

The 2015 model is probably closer to what we'll see if they hit NA again in 2018 or 2019.
The big markets will get multiple nights, some mid level markets get one night, Little Rock is going to get the same thing Spaulding Smails and Yukon Cornelius got.

Having the NEW songs be popular and accepted by the public is more important than the money or even the ticket sales. That is primarily how the band defines RELEVANCE. Is the public, media, critics into the new music and talking about the new music like they did with Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, HTDAAB, ALTYCLB etc? Just playing a few big cities won't generate nearly as much media coverage and interest as a tour that pushes deep into the heartland as well as playing the big cities.

If the band want to do everything they can to give the NEW music its best chance of being popular and accepted by the masses, then they are going to have to pack up the suit case and hit the road.

 

[bono2017]

They will not play San Antonio. Although San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the country, it's not a strong music market unless you're county or metal(now this has been slowly changing). BUT they could easily sell out a show in Austin, which is only 60 miles from SA and draw from both populations.

I'm sure they would do just fine in San Antonio. Remember, this is an Arena show, not a stadium show. They don't have to sell 55,000 tickets, they just have to sell 15,000. Hell, do both Austin and San Antonio.

 

[bono2017]

leg 1 vertigo:

San Diego
Anaheim
LA
San Jose
Glendale
Denver
Seattle
Vancouver
Chicago
Philadelphia
NY
NJ
Boston


13 cities above, but you can easily play a few nights in LA and skip Anaheim; a few nights in Vancouver or Seattle, skip the other; play MSG and skip NJ in 2018.


leg 1 IE:

Vancouver
San Jose
Phoenix
LA
Denver
Montreal
Chicago
Toronto
Boston
NY

10 cities. That's more like it for 2018. No need to double dip on LA and Anaheim, Vancouver/Seattle etc.

Like I said, I won't be surprised if they play a show or two in Philadelphia, Dallas, D.C., Denver, Atlanta, Vegas. But I wouldn't bet on it, especially after they had stadium shows in three of those markets in 2017.

It was four years between Elevation concerts and Vertigo concerts, and U2 were coming off two very commercially successful albums. Demand was sky-high. Demand will be much lower in 2018, no matter how good SOE is, based on 1.) the band being older and 2.) the band having just played millions of people in 2017. Not that complicated.

1. This bullshit about being old has to stop. BB. King never really changed the number of shows he did per year and he was touring like that in his 80s.

2. This tour may not start until 2019, but if it does start in 2018, there are dozens of cities the band has either never been to or not been to in a long time, that were not played in 2017, and have an arena that can fit 15,000 people.

 

[bono2017]

A new show in Haaaaartford generates buzz?

More than an additional show in Boston would. Just look at how the band promoted the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby.

 

[mikal]

We're at a place called Faaaaaaarrgggooo!

 

[The_acrobat]

I'm sure they would do just fine in San Antonio. Remember, this is an Arena show, not a stadium show. They don't have to sell 55,000 tickets, they just have to sell 15,000. Hell, do both Austin and San Antonio.

The only reason why I said San Antonio is because they have a pretty large arena that was built fairly recently (opened in 2002 according to wikipedia). Whereas, Austin has the Frank Erwin Center, where U2 have played 4 times between 1985 and 2001. It's a little bit smaller, but not by much, but it was built in the 70's. Either way, I think the San Antonio/Austin market could possibly get a show, considering Dallas and Houston both got one this year. Could be wrong, just speculating.

I don't think a lot of people look at what other artist's tour schedules look like. Roger Waters, Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Chili Peppers, and even more current acts like Katy Perry, Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran etc play single arena dates in cities like San Antonio, Louisville, Des Moines, Omaha, Tulsa all the time. These are no longer backwater towns, they're all stops on most major tours.

 

[BVS]

I'm sure they would do just fine in San Antonio. Remember, this is an Arena show, not a stadium show. They don't have to sell 55,000 tickets, they just have to sell 15,000. Hell, do both Austin and San Antonio.

I live here. I'm telling you, that wouldn't make sense.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

1. This bullshit about being old has to stop. BB. King never really changed the number of shows he did per year and he was touring like that in his 80s.

2. This tour may not start until 2019, but if it does start in 2018, there are dozens of cities the band has either never been to or not been to in a long time, that were not played in 2017, and have an arena that can fit 15,000 people.

lol BB King played 1000 seat theatres. His net worth is 30 million dollars, or less than half what U2 earned in one month on JT30.

I'd venture to guess that BB King wouldn't have played the New Milford Community Theater if he could have made twice his net worth play 4 shows.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Having the NEW songs be popular and accepted by the public is more important than the money or even the ticket sales.

What world do you live in?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The only reason why I said San Antonio is because they have a pretty large arena that was built fairly recently (opened in 2002 according to wikipedia). Whereas, Austin has the Frank Erwin Center, where U2 have played 4 times between 1985 and 2001. It's a little bit smaller, but not by much, but it was built in the 70's. Either way, I think the San Antonio/Austin market could possibly get a show, considering Dallas and Houston both got one this year. Could be wrong, just speculating.

I don't think a lot of people look at what other artist's tour schedules look like. Roger Waters, Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Chili Peppers, and even more current acts like Katy Perry, Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran etc play single arena dates in cities like San Antonio, Louisville, Des Moines, Omaha, Tulsa all the time. These are no longer backwater towns, they're all stops on most major tours.

Except U2 can play in 8 cities and make two to three times as much as those other acts you names can make playing in 30 cities. And that's the point.

It's not that they can't. It's that they've gotten to a point of not needing to.

 

[BEAL]

I would fly back to Des Moines to see U2 in my hometown.

The arena there has pulled in all the big acts lately, so why not?

Issue is it's 5 hours from Chicago. 4 hours from Minneapolis. 3 hours from Kansas City.

So not sure they gain anything from it

 

[The_acrobat]

Except U2 can play in 8 cities and make two to three times as much as those other acts you names can make playing in 30 cities. And that's the point.

It's not that they can't. It's that they've gotten to a point of not needing to.

Fair enough. I drove to Chicago 3 different times (4 if you count South Bend, IN) to see U2 when that was the closest they came to Ohio on that particular leg, I can do it again if I need to. I feel I'm getting spoiled by this JT Tour. Indy, Louisville, Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh are all less than 4 hours from my house, I haven't had this kind of selection since 2001!

 

[zoocarolina]

Cripes, I thought this was the new album thread! We need some new album news.

 

[The_acrobat]

Cripes, I thought this was the new album thread! We need some new album news.

Hopefully they'll play "Little Things" this weekend in London, or maybe even another new song! I'm sure that at some point there will be some kind of interview in the European press that will also address the new album.

 

[bono2017]

I live here. I'm telling you, that wouldn't make sense.

Ok, what do you think would happen if they did it? I think if U2 brought a stadium show to either Austin or San Antonia they could sell 30,000 tickets for that one show. Because of that, I think they could do an arena show in San Antonio and one in Austin and be just fine. I mean if you think U2 would only be able to fill up a single arena show whether it was in San Antonio or Austin, then I see your point, but I don't think demand for them would be that low. If you can even consider do a stadium show there, then that automatically means you can do two arena shows. Especially if they are spread out with one in San Antonio and the other in Austin.

 

[bono2017]

lol BB King played 1000 seat theatres. His net worth is 30 million dollars, or less than half what U2 earned in one month on JT30.

I'd venture to guess that BB King wouldn't have played the New Milford Community Theater if he could have made twice his net worth play 4 shows.

I only brought up BB King because of age and level of touring. He does not have the tour at all like that, given how wealthy he is. The fact is that he is ABLE to do that. That is the only point I was making. Its got nothing to do with how many millions you have and how many millions you can make.

Again, for U2 what is relevant to them is making an impact with their NEW music. You don't do that by playing limited amount of shows in big cities, you get out on the road like they did for Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, ATYCLB, HTDAAB.

 

[bono2017]

What world do you live in?

Definitely not Trump's world. U2, despite what one would say about events in 2017, NEVER want to be thought of as a heritage act. The spirit and purpose of the band is in their NEW music. If successful, it can potentially bring in new fans as well. The band are awash in so much money that the additional marginal utility of more declines with each tour. The real challenge for the band is not in ticket sales or tour grosses, its in getting their NEW songs played on the radio again or whatever one would equate with the radio in this day and age. Having their NEW music be heard and become popular among the masses just as many of their old songs were. U2 have not had a hit song since Vertigo. Having another hit like that or other old songs is a much greater challenge for them, than simply showing up and x stadium or x arena and doing a show that easily grosses millions of dollars.

U2 to this point have not been a cruise control heritage act and I don't think they are about to become one.