U2's touring - would you be ok with this?

[U2girl]

We have seen how Bono's voice can improve upon resting - last leg of Vertigo, and, somewhat surprisingly, the recent non-tour performance. (though it may have been warmed up by this month's studio work)

So, what if the band decided to drop the long and stadium sized shows and did arena-sized shows at best and played less shows but with more mixed setlists and above all assuming this would take a lesser toll on the voice (or Larry's wrists, if you like) ?
Or would you keep the way things are now ?

 

[u2trinity]

well this would be good for the band ie Bono and Larry and it may come to this at one point .

but tickets are dificult to get now with as many shows as they play , with fewer shows it would be nearly impossible .

 

[last unicorn]

Yes, but it will be more difficult to get tickets!

 

[coolian2]

Hell no

 

[schnumi]

Only if it's really necessary but id rather see them do one more stadium only tour or at least do a longer tour, for example do europe twice instead of america etc.

I think they still are too "young" to give up on a grand tour, they can do it as they proved with Vertigo tour.

 

[Utoo]

I think they're okay the way they are now. If they only did arena shows, they'd have to do more, not fewer. Right now, they're knocking off whole countries in Europe by doing one or two nights in the stadium. In the US, they could knock off a few superfluous gigs.....no one needs three dozen shows in NYC on one tour.

All the same, periods of rests certainly do wonders for Bono's voice. One solution would be to space out the time between gigs, essentially making a smaller tour last longer. But I don't know what that'd do to the vibe of the tour, plus it'd make them look a lot like the geezer bands that seem to tour endlessly (i.e., the Stones).

 

[sue4u2]

In the US, they could knock off a few superfluous gigs.....no one needs three dozen shows in NYC on one tour.

Yeah, then they could come to the south for a change. They could play in Ladd Stadium in Mobile and cover 4 states, Alabama Florida (panhandle) Mississippi and Louisana.
(one can dream )

 

[Pop Artist]

In the US, they could knock off a few superfluous gigs.....no one needs three dozen shows in NYC on one tour.

Speak for yourself.

Kidding! kinda

 

[Rob33]

no I wouldn't like this because for the reasons mentioned above...it seems it would make it much harder to get tickets...

 

[EdgeIsTooSexy]

i like arena tours better

 

[Irishteen]

i like arena tours better

I like getting tickets

 

[CTU2fan]

Well if all the people who insist that HTDAAB and ATYCLB suck would stop going to gigs we could all get tickets

I'd say maybe more "off days" between gigs, if that would help. No back-to-backs unless maybe on occasion when there are multiple gigs in a city (Boston, Chicago). In that scenario it would make more sense to do stadiums rather than arenas though...if you're playing less gigs it should be bigger venues.

 

[Rob33]

I've never been to a stadium show..can someone honestly tell me how the sound compares to arenas, and also, how the crowd differs (better stadium crowds or arena crowds, etc.).....specifically in reference to a U2 show...so, anyone been to both stadium and arena and can talk about this...thanks

 

[EdgeIsTooSexy]

I've never been to a stadium show..can someone honestly tell me how the sound compares to arenas, and also, how the crowd differs (better stadium crowds or arena crowds, etc.).....specifically in reference to a U2 show...so, anyone been to both stadium and arena and can talk about this...thanks

Arenas are just more personal than stadiums thats why i prefer it. As far as sound I dont think I have a very good example. because Hawaii's sound system wasnt that great...

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

i like arena tours better

wtf.. is wrong with IE today for me this is the third time I have attempted to respond to a post..


Anywho,
I agree with ya here. I prefer arenas over stadiums.. For obvious reasons. It is just more intimate.

All shows last tour minus the Hawaii show were arena shows. They did several shows for some cities.. (i.e. Chicago, Boston and NYC ) so I imagine that will happen again. I don't like stadium, especially stadium GA.. It is just pure hell... ugh. I see the grandioseness of stadium shows but I just don't get that same feeling I get at a arena show. I obviously can live with a mix of stadium and arena if that's what they choose to do.

I had no problems whatsoever getting tix to the 10 arena shows I saw last tour. I am well aware that the major majority of people out there had serious problems.. But for the most part there were plenty of people selling, trading and almost giving away tix last tour thru these boards and others. So that should definitely be there the next tour.

 

[Cin]

I would love it if they played smaller shows but would be totally crushed if I couldn't get tickets. I'm already having a minor panic about the next tour and it's not even in the works yet

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Fewer number of shows in areas like California and NYC is something that's never going to happen. With that many people in those areas the demand is there, so that aspect of touring for most big acts (Stones and Springsteen are two which come to mind) will never change. BFE Arena in Anywhere, USA doesn't exactly rake in the cash.

I'd spontaneously combust if they did smaller shows with varied setlists (honest to goodness varied setlists, not a rarity thrown as a bone to the die hards here and there), but like someone here said, I like being able to get tickets.

 

[chocky]

If it meant they could crank out a new album every 2 years by cutting down on touring, I'd be happy for them to play just a handful of arena shows each year

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I really wouldn't care either way. I just want to get a chance to see them while they're still out and about, that's my only concern. And if one type of tour takes care of whatever physical issues they have, they should do it that way. I want to see them, sure, but I also want them to be well-rested and healthy enough to play.

Angela

 

[pepokiss]

yeah... that idea is great... specially for our pockets, because.. you know those few shows will be cheap

 

[AndrewCowley]

Stadium or arena, I can't advocate them playing shorter shows. Their shows clock in at a little over 2 hours (perhaps 20 hours 20 mins for some of the longer ones) and you can't charge the money U2 charge and play for less time. How long have Springsteen's concerts on his current tour been? Based on the past I'd guess 3 hours. One top act vs. another. Big difference.

Anyway perhaps playing fewer shows is an option. The best way for that is for them to give up chasing the mainstream ala BD and Vertigo and put out a more introspective album. Then fewer people will want to come and see them. They'd know that on average those audiences would contain more hard core fans and then they couldn't ignore us! There'd be no excuse not to vary the setlists up!

 

[BVS]

Stadium or arena, I can't advocate them playing shorter shows. Their shows clock in at a little over 2 hours (perhaps 20 hours 20 mins for some of the longer ones) and you can't charge the money U2 charge and play for less time. How long have Springsteen's concerts on his current tour been? Based on the past I'd guess 3 hours. One top act vs. another. Big difference.

Bruce is an anomaly, he's always been known for long shows. 2 hours is the norm... and many charge more for less.

 

[LemonMelon]

If it meant they could crank out a new album every 2 years by cutting down on touring, I'd be happy for them to play just a handful of arena shows each year

Agreed. But, of course, I'm willing to pay for those shows at this point. Ask me again in two years when I'm a college student.

 

[BVS]

If it meant they could crank out a new album every 2 years by cutting down on touring, I'd be happy for them to play just a handful of arena shows each year

Will never happen, well maybe in a few years when they are too old to tour, but U2 IS still a live band.

 

[Rob33]

Will never happen, well maybe in a few years when they are too old to tour, but U2 IS still a live band.

umm..yeah BVS...i think a "few" is a bit off

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

In the US, they could knock off a few superfluous gigs.....no one needs three dozen shows in NYC on one tour.

if every show sells out in the first hour, is it really superfluous? there's 21 million people in the new york metropolitan area. the region has more people than many european countries. they play a lot of shows there because the demand is there, not because they think it's neat.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

How long have Springsteen's concerts on his current tour been? Based on the past I'd guess 3 hours. One top act vs. another. Big difference.

springsteen's shows on his current tour have been clocking in at just under 2 1/2 hours (with one encore break lasting approx. 2 minutes instead of the two 5-10 minute breaks most bands do).

 

[waynetravis]

I'd like if they gave the whole world 2 doses per tour

 

[The_acrobat]

I think we're in for at least one more mega tour like the Vertigo tour. I think they might do some stadiums in North American to cut down the number of shows they have to do. I think they could do stadiums in these cities

NYC
Boston
Philly
DC
Chicago
Detroit
Miami
Atlanta
Dallas
Denver
Phoenix
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle

Toronto
Montreal
Edmonton?
Winnipeg?
Vancouver

In my opinion, if they sell out 2 arena shows quickly, as was the case in most of these cities, they can sell out 1 stadium show in the same city. Anybody else agree/disagree?

 

[zuropa_fit]

Stadiums
Arenas

'nuff said.


Let them take breaks during the tour and, oh I don't know, spend time with their families.