To Stadium or To Arena: A Poll

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Where would you rather see a U2 concert?

  • Outdoor Stadium with 50,000 or more people

    Votes: 49 36.8%
  • Indoor Arena with 25,000 or fewer people

    Votes: 84 63.2%

  • Total voters
    133
No contest: the smaller the venue, the better.

Wish it were at all reasonable to hope to see U2 in a small theatre.
 
Stadium imo. The bigger the better.

Though it would depend on the stage setup. And the country. No offense but I think for Europe stadiums is the best, and for the US perhaps Arenas would be better.
 
or you can see them in Vegas Oct. 23 and experience something in between :wink:

can't wait! :hyper:
 
The 360 tour HAS to be in stadiums. They said somewhere that they can't play in any indoor venues because the Claw is too big...
 
i'm not a whiny bitch, i'll take what i can get. thus, i'm not voting because i'd take either.

Same here.

But if I had to choose, I would want Stadium on the first leg and Arena on the next.

I am just glad that we are seeing the band this year, in a couple of months for me anyway.
 
I've seen U2 in both arenas and stadiums, and honestly I LOVE the vastness of the stadium show, but I love a nice small arena show too! Right now I voted for stadiums because I'm excited to see a U2 stadium show!
 
If I can get tickets...U2 should play in clubs only but seeing as it's near impossible to get tickets, the bigger the better
 
arenas, and its not even close for me. the size and how loud the crowd is adds absolutely zero to the experience for me. stadiums are a pain, i don't care about the huge spectacle, i go to hear the songs. i used to care somewhat about the spectacle, not at all anymore. i much preferred zootv indoors to the stadium version.

my ideal would be in a 2000 capacity theater, with no screens, no claw, none of it and just the band playing.
 
arenas, and its not even close for me. the size and how loud the crowd is adds absolutely zero to the experience for me. stadiums are a pain, i don't care about the huge spectacle, i go to hear the songs. i used to care somewhat about the spectacle, not at all anymore. i much preferred zootv indoors to the stadium version.

my ideal would be in a 2000 capacity theater, with no screens, no claw, none of it and just the band playing.

I'm in total agreement with you. The only possible advantage I can see to a stadium show is the greater availability of tickets.
 
Nothing compares hearing a freindly 70,000 crowd go wild... but its also cool to play a small bar just for 300 friends.
I think U2 could play a stadium (or 2) in one big city. Then hang around for a few days and play local bars (with free beer for the band, of course), then just move on to the next town :up:
 
i would have liked to see the 360 tour in arenas,that would have been great.
talk about up close and personal.
 
arenas

I hate stadiums for the sound and rain issues when they're not enclosed. And paying 40 bucks to park and the fact that it takes hours to get in and out of the place, when I can just take a train that goes literally right to the arena where I can see them. Not being "whiny", I've seen them in both-but in my opinion football stadiums were not designed for concerts. I don't need or want a claw or any other spectacle. One reason I'd never pay to go to more than one show of a stadium tour.
 
I've never seen them play in a stadium before, so I'll get back to you on this after my shows. :wink:

As a general rule, I do prefer smaller venues just because large crowds make me very anxious. However, I'm very excited about seeing this tour with loads of other people. It should be fun! I think it helps that I have seats near the floor - being up in the nosebleed rafters of a stadium doesn't help with the anxiety and my fear of heights. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom