After months of staying mostly in the dark about the tour, we finally saw the show in Raleigh. We have seen U2 a few times going back to the mid 80s, and we were fairly disheartened by many components of last night's show. Since there seems to be fairly universal praise for this tour on this site, I'd like to engage others, those who agree and disagree, in a discussion on certain points.
It all starts with the tickets: prices, seat locations, etc. Though my wife and I spent our time on GA floors at shows (for lots of bands) in the 80s, we've hit a point where we are not convinced it's worth the hassle. As a result, since U2 moved to the GA floor model in 2001, we've gone for the high dollar seats. We are OK with the extravagance as we value experiences over things, plus we have friends who go to multiple shows whereas we only go to one per tour. However, I was quite skeptical from the get go about the seats we ended up with through the presale, since, according to the seating chart, they tended toward the back of the stage, and they weren't particularly close to the field.
Meanwhile, I started to hear that people were getting into the inner circle as late as 7:00 or 7:30 and getting decent spots on the back rail with a reasonable amount of space. I decided that that was the solution to our perceived problem, and I grabbed 4 GAs during a drop.
So, the "best seats in the house are among the cheapest"? We got into the inner circle about 5:45 or 6:00, and we did get a spot on Adam's side near the back rail. We started to talk about whether we were going to be happy in the pit or in our seats, and a group of ladies next to us earnestly told us to stay where we were. It didn't take long for the density of people to get to a point that ensured my wife and daughters, all 5' 2" could not see at all. That brings me to the first point: why in the world is everyone here convinced that GA is so fantastic? Is everyone who posts on this site 6 feet tall? Unless you have the luxury of spending significant time waiting in line and are lucky enough to get front rail, or you are 6 feet tall, the GA seats are horrible. As I suspected, the GA area was packing them in all the way to the end zone opposite the stage. Does anyone really get a kick out of seeing (or, more accurately, not seeing) a band they love on a video screen? Obviously, since my wife and daughters could not see at all, we went to our "premium" seats right after Muse left the stage.
I suspected from the seating chart that our premium seats were not so nice, but they were really worse than I expected. We were at the 2:00 position on Adam's side and all the way up in row W. This was essentially a rear stage view, nowhere near the field, and miles away from the stage. These were $250 seats. So, my second question is, does everyone on this site really think U2 is fair to charge these prices for crappy seats? Does everyone here think the seats I described are not crappy?
The last observation concerns the stage and the lack of use of the outer ring. All we've heard about is how U2 was trying to get closer to more people with the 360 concept, or, as Bono put it last night, they were going for "intimacy on a grand scale". Our observations? The main stage is small and more akin to an arena stage than a stadium stage. Further, the band rarely used the outer ring, and, when they did, it was in a perfunctory mode, and they seemed in quite a hurry to get back to the main stage.
I sum it up like this. Given the small stage, the distance of that small stage from the closest seats, and the fact that the outer ring was all but not used, there are really no good seats to be had in the stadium at any price. That leaves GA as the only option, but unless you invest the insane amount of devotion and time required to get on the front rail and/or are 6 feet tall, you are going to have a limited view if you can see anything at all. My conclusion is that this setup, and its execution, has resulted in the band isolating itself from more of its fans, not the other way around. Only a very, very few (we're talking in the 100s) fans are getting a good spot at these shows.
Does anyone here agree with me? Does anyone here think my points are entirely without merit?
It all starts with the tickets: prices, seat locations, etc. Though my wife and I spent our time on GA floors at shows (for lots of bands) in the 80s, we've hit a point where we are not convinced it's worth the hassle. As a result, since U2 moved to the GA floor model in 2001, we've gone for the high dollar seats. We are OK with the extravagance as we value experiences over things, plus we have friends who go to multiple shows whereas we only go to one per tour. However, I was quite skeptical from the get go about the seats we ended up with through the presale, since, according to the seating chart, they tended toward the back of the stage, and they weren't particularly close to the field.
Meanwhile, I started to hear that people were getting into the inner circle as late as 7:00 or 7:30 and getting decent spots on the back rail with a reasonable amount of space. I decided that that was the solution to our perceived problem, and I grabbed 4 GAs during a drop.
So, the "best seats in the house are among the cheapest"? We got into the inner circle about 5:45 or 6:00, and we did get a spot on Adam's side near the back rail. We started to talk about whether we were going to be happy in the pit or in our seats, and a group of ladies next to us earnestly told us to stay where we were. It didn't take long for the density of people to get to a point that ensured my wife and daughters, all 5' 2" could not see at all. That brings me to the first point: why in the world is everyone here convinced that GA is so fantastic? Is everyone who posts on this site 6 feet tall? Unless you have the luxury of spending significant time waiting in line and are lucky enough to get front rail, or you are 6 feet tall, the GA seats are horrible. As I suspected, the GA area was packing them in all the way to the end zone opposite the stage. Does anyone really get a kick out of seeing (or, more accurately, not seeing) a band they love on a video screen? Obviously, since my wife and daughters could not see at all, we went to our "premium" seats right after Muse left the stage.
I suspected from the seating chart that our premium seats were not so nice, but they were really worse than I expected. We were at the 2:00 position on Adam's side and all the way up in row W. This was essentially a rear stage view, nowhere near the field, and miles away from the stage. These were $250 seats. So, my second question is, does everyone on this site really think U2 is fair to charge these prices for crappy seats? Does everyone here think the seats I described are not crappy?
The last observation concerns the stage and the lack of use of the outer ring. All we've heard about is how U2 was trying to get closer to more people with the 360 concept, or, as Bono put it last night, they were going for "intimacy on a grand scale". Our observations? The main stage is small and more akin to an arena stage than a stadium stage. Further, the band rarely used the outer ring, and, when they did, it was in a perfunctory mode, and they seemed in quite a hurry to get back to the main stage.
I sum it up like this. Given the small stage, the distance of that small stage from the closest seats, and the fact that the outer ring was all but not used, there are really no good seats to be had in the stadium at any price. That leaves GA as the only option, but unless you invest the insane amount of devotion and time required to get on the front rail and/or are 6 feet tall, you are going to have a limited view if you can see anything at all. My conclusion is that this setup, and its execution, has resulted in the band isolating itself from more of its fans, not the other way around. Only a very, very few (we're talking in the 100s) fans are getting a good spot at these shows.
Does anyone here agree with me? Does anyone here think my points are entirely without merit?
) was that the band, especially Bono, seemed distracted at best, if not downright bothered by something. I'm not a multi-show per tour person, but I have seen these guys a few times, and they just seemed to be somewhere else. I'm not seeing too many posts anywhere to this effect, but most of my friends noticed it. I mean, it's to the point that I'm actually worried about Bono and the band. Maybe it's nothing. After about 7 songs (well, starting with Unforgettable Fire, among my favorites of the night), the show got better, but it was more like Bono was trying hard to enjoy himself rather than actually doing so. More to your point, I really like the new album but am not such a fan of ATYCLB, so wasn't thrilled with the setlist on that front. But I really didn't expect to be. MLK was a nice surprise, as was Ultraviolet (and loved the jacket - I must make one for myself!). But, yeah, beyond my incesant complaining about my seats, the show was good. That's the problem - it was just good, and I'm used to "transcendant" and "life changing" from U2 (ok, a little unfair to expect, but that's what they've always delivered). Had I felt the fire and passion of past tours, I'd have gotten over my crappy seats. By the way, I am not making this up, one of the Stones shows I saw was the same stadium (Carter-Finley), and the seats were almost exactly the same (last night was section 2 row W; Stones in 89 was section 23 row V - directly across from the seats I had last night). Somehow, the intensity and energy level from the Stones, as well as the size and position of their stage, made it great. I felt part of the Stones show, whereas last night it was more like TV. A damn fancy TV.
