2015 U2 Tour - General Discussion Thread IV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's settled. Only rich people like U2

That feeling when you score 4 red zone tickets!

103adzn.jpg
 
So Mr. Median just spent 2.5% of his annual income to take his family to a U2 concert, if he purchased the tickets at the $275 price.



what's also interesting is that no one can live in the cities getting the concerts with a $50,000 a year income, unless they are very young. i'd say "middle class" in the top tier cities would be a $200,000 a year income (with 2 salaries). it might sound crazy, but it's true. when you surf rents in for 2BRs in Manhattan and it seems to start around $3600 a month, yes, only people who have income live there.

my guess is that the relative wealth of each area (San Jose, NYC, Boston) is considered when it comes to ticket prices, and perhaps the reason why such cities were selected. i can't imagine $300 tickets flying off the shelves in Tulsa.

you could look at that two ways. the super diehards who make very little money and scrimp it together to get a ticket and then have to travel from, say, Tulsa to Chicago are kind of getting screwed. but one is also not entitled to a cheap U2 show in your backyard. they're not playing DC -- i'd either have to pay $200 for round trip Acela to NYC, or fly somewhere. it turns out i have a vacation planned that will bring me to the Boston area exactly the night of Boston 1, so it all worked out brilliantly. but had that not happened, and had the NYC shows been mostly midweek, i was fully prepared to sit this one out, unfortunately.

but you could also say that those fans in the lower population areas were reasonably well serviced by 360, with it's far reach and cheap tickets. easy to get tickets, and genuinely affordable, like housing and food in those areas (compared to SF or NYC). and they got the closest thing to a "greatest hits" tour U2 has ever done, which might have been what someone willing to pay $30 for a ticket would ever want. "play Pride, man." and they did.

so ... i dunno. i think you could argue that the people who live in the cities where the tour is making stops likely do have the $300 to spend on a ticket. and those that don't live there are forced to make hard choices, which does kind of suck. it's a good argument for the merits of a stadium tour if the goal is to satisfy demand and let everyone see U2. but then, they just sort of did that less than 4 years ago.

it could be that U2 wants to be focused on the show itself, and NOT do greatest hits night after night. a longer residency seems to suit them (and their age) better, and maybe because they want time to really play through their catalogue for *them*, rather than satisfy demand in a workman-like way they did from 2009-2011. yes, they have to make LN money, and i'm sure they want to make money, but this situation might actually satisfy their artistic ambitions for this particular tour (in their 35 years of touring) better than than last tour.

just a thought.

i know someone in Akron is going to feel screwed, but then, we could also say that it's not U2's job to satisfy that customer, it's their job to do the best work they can. that's what we say we want out of their albums, right? we all want it to be "experimental," right? we all want them to tell radio to fuck off and make the music that they want to make, right? we want Bono to tell those tacky Taylor Swift pop kids in midwestern malls that "we don't need you," right?
 
Ticket prices shouldn't be based on income levels at the city you're playing.

It should be based on the production costs of the show.



that's not how a market works. there's a threshold that must be reached so that you aren't actively losing money, but it's demand that sets prices.

here's a very interesting article that actually argues for some even higher priced tickets, and to stop the underpricing of some tickets, using Springsteen as an example:

The Price of the Ticket - The New Yorker

Two recent concerts—the shows that Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band performed at the Izod Center, in the New Jersey Meadowlands, on May 21st and May 23rd—have come to serve as a referendum on what’s wrong with the live-music business. The shows marked the end of the first leg of Springsteen’s “Working on a Dream” tour, which was announced in late January, after the release of his new album. In the flush days of the record business, bands toured to support the album; these days, the album is a teaser for the tour. (The Boss’s new album, which has a list price of $18.98, has sold about five hundred and fifty thousand copies in the United States; last year’s Springsteen tour grossed $204.5 million.) Ticketmaster handled the majority of the dates on the first U.S.-based leg of the tour, and tickets for most of the twenty-six shows went on sale on Monday, February 2nd—a day after Springsteen’s halftime performance at the Super Bowl.

The Izod Center is a two-tiered arena with roughly twenty thousand seats, which is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, a public agency that was also the promoter for these two shows. (Live Nation promoted dates in other cities.) Some forty million people live within two and a half hours of the Izod Center, many of them Springsteen fans. The Boss could probably have sold out ten shows at the venue; because he had decided to do only two, desire for the tickets was guaranteed to be intense. With tickets in such short supply, market logic dictated high ticket prices. But Springsteen and his longtime manager, Jon Landau, had fixed prices at ninety-five dollars for lower-tier and general-admission standing-room floor tickets, and sixty-five dollars for upper-tier tickets. Given what Springsteen could have asked (the Stones charged four hundred and fifty dollars for the best seats on their most recent U.S. tour), these tickets were a remarkable bargain—proof, if anyone needed it, of Springsteen’s solidarity with his working-class fans.

The phenomenon of below-market-value tickets has inspired a cottage industry of economists seeking to explain seemingly illogical pricing in the rock-concert business. Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist who, in May, was confirmed as the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for economic policy, is one. “There is still an element of rock concerts that is more like a party than a commodities market,” Krueger told me. A ticket to a rock show, he said, bears elements of a “gift exchange,” in which intangible benefits accrue to the seller. Cheap tickets increase the possibility of a sellout, which augments merchandise and concession sales. Sellouts make the concert experience better for musicians and audience alike. And, one might add, a cheap ticket is the price the music industry pays to preserve the illusion that the sixties never ended. “In some fashion, I help people hold on to their own humanity—if I’m doing my job right,” Springsteen once said, of his performances. At least, he helps people hold on to their savings.

In a 2006 paper titled “Rockonomics: The Economics of Popular Music,” written with Marie Connolly, Krueger reports on data that he and twelve Princeton students collected at a Springsteen concert in Philadelphia, on October 6, 2002. Every ticket cost seventy-five dollars, and the box-office amounted to around $1.5 million. Krueger and his researchers found that a quarter of the fans they interviewed before the show had bought their tickets on the secondary market, where they had paid an average of two hundred and eighty dollars. Had Springsteen charged the market price for all tickets, he would have collected about four million dollars in additional revenue, a figure Krueger calls “astounding.” Studying concert-ticket sales, Krueger also told me, is not all that different from analyzing mortgage-backed securities, which were at the heart of the financial crisis. Both are bought and then resold on a secondary market, and “both markets are also subject to price bubbles, lack of trust, inadequate regulation, and imperfect information.”

By drastically underpricing the Izod Center tickets, Springsteen was inadvertently helping to create the circumstances for an orgy of speculation and scalping on the secondary market. The desire for a hot ticket is not an economic calculation; it’s a craving. Thanks to the Internet, satisfaction is only a couple of mouse clicks away.


so you could look at it that by having lower priced tickets, Bruce is foregoing a big chunk of change, yet reinforcing his man-of-the-people brand, but then that $4m goes into the creation of this market that we are all decrying, and that it seems LN/TM is trying to get access to with their stupid "packages."

so it's kind of win-win. Bruce tours and makes money, and trades the extra money for the intoxicating atmosphere of a sold out show (a way to get people to come back again and again, and it's worked on me -- i saw the Baltimore show on this particular tour and it was i think the single best concert i've ever seen) while keeping his aura of integrity that's critical to his particular brand (and his politics).

there's no judgement here. you become a brand (or "heritage act") after a certain point (for Bruce, it was probably around 1984, for U2 it was probably around 1993), and there's not much you can do about it. you have a critical mass of fans who have expectations and needs, and there is a shift. 1978 will never happen again for Bruce, and neither will 1985 for U2.

so what do you do other than protect it? this is likely worth more than the $4m Bruce passed up by not charging higher prices, but then that money went into less savory hands.

it's all very interesting.
 
that's not how a market works. there's a threshold that must be reached so that you aren't actively losing money, but it's demand that sets prices.

here's a very interesting article that actually argues for some even higher priced tickets, and to stop the underpricing of some tickets, using Springsteen as an example:

The Price of the Ticket - The New Yorker

I'm not debating economics. I'm just saying how I think tickets should be priced.
 
It's settled. Only rich people like U2

Of course not, but on average it is the relatively rich who purchase the $275 tickets.

what's also interesting is that no one can live in the cities getting the concerts with a $50,000 a year income, unless they are very young. i'd say "middle class" in the top tier cities would be a $200,000 a year income (with 2 salaries). it might sound crazy, but it's true. when you surf rents in for 2BRs in Manhattan and it seems to start around $3600 a month, yes, only people who have income live there.

my guess is that the relative wealth of each area (San Jose, NYC, Boston) is considered when it comes to ticket prices, and perhaps the reason why such cities were selected. i can't imagine $300 tickets flying off the shelves in Tulsa.

I would think though that San Jose, NYC, and Boston have plenty of people who work at places like McDonalds for minimum wage. Individually, 75% of people who receive an income in the United States make less than $50,000 a year. Only 6% of individual incomes are $100,000 and above.
Also, Wikipedia list Boston's median income per household at $51,739 which is about the same as the national average, which means half of the households in Boston are making less than that.

As for the more "rural areas" vs "urban areas" ticket prices on average appear to be the same, at least they were on 360. Take a look at the following:

U2 360 TOUR
September 29, 2009
Landover, Maryland
Fedex Field
GROSS: $6,718,315
ATTENDANCE: 84,754
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $79.27

U2 360 TOUR
October 18, 2009
Norman, Oklahoma
Ok Memorial Stadium
GROSS: $4,395,085
ATTENDANCE: 50,951
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $86.26

Norman Oklahoma actually had a higher average ticket price than the Washington D.C. area. So this suggest that price levels between the various markets on a U2 tour across the United States are roughly the same.

Ticket prices shouldn't be based on income levels at the city you're playing.

It should be based on the production costs of the show.

Its based on the demand for tickets in the market.

that's not how a market works. there's a threshold that must be reached so that you aren't actively losing money, but it's demand that sets prices.

here's a very interesting article that actually argues for some even higher priced tickets, and to stop the underpricing of some tickets, using Springsteen as an example:

The Price of the Ticket - The New Yorker




so you could look at it that by having lower priced tickets, Bruce is foregoing a big chunk of change, yet reinforcing his man-of-the-people brand, but then that $4m goes into the creation of this market that we are all decrying, and that it seems LN/TM is trying to get access to with their stupid "packages."

so it's kind of win-win. Bruce tours and makes money, and trades the extra money for the intoxicating atmosphere of a sold out show (a way to get people to come back again and again, and it's worked on me -- i saw the Baltimore show on this particular tour and it was i think the single best concert i've ever seen) while keeping his aura of integrity that's critical to his particular brand (and his politics).

there's no judgement here. you become a brand (or "heritage act") after a certain point (for Bruce, it was probably around 1984, for U2 it was probably around 1993), and there's not much you can do about it. you have a critical mass of fans who have expectations and needs, and there is a shift. 1978 will never happen again for Bruce, and neither will 1985 for U2.

so what do you do other than protect it? this is likely worth more than the $4m Bruce passed up by not charging higher prices, but then that money went into less savory hands.

it's all very interesting.

I think if U2 were a heritage act by 1993 they would not have seen the big slump in ticket sales with POPMART in 1997. 360 might suggest that they have finally reached that level, but I still think there is an element of risk in what U2 are doing, and that there is still a chance for them to get hurt at the concert box office if the new album fails to help generate ticket demand.

Also, there was a recent tour by Bruce where he played 3 shows at Giants Stadium but had to stop at three because there was not enough demand to warrant more shows which was a bit of surprise since its Bruce's home turf and the largest single city market in the world. So even Bruce is not insured of the same rush for tickets with each tour.
 
You're comparing stadiums to arenas, which proves my point. Stadium tickets are on average cheaper for fans, that's why they can not only meet demand but also play in less traditional markets. Arenas are much, much smaller, there's a scarcity of tickets, which sends the prices higher and ...


Wait a minute. I know who this is.

Nevermind.

Also, LOL at "would have seen a big slump in sales for PopMart." Have we not all heard about the empty stadiums on the 3rd North American leg? That's exactly what happened.

Sent from
 
I don't think U2 tickets are that expensive in today's market. I've paid $150 for muse $140 for gaga $160 for beyonce $120 for foo fighters and $35 for bon Jovi (cheap seats but what a view and what a concert!) in the last year alone and so paying $85 for my favourite band of all time is nothing. To the general public I don't think the tickets costs are that surprising. Plus it makes sense, smaller venues, higher prices for seats. I mean some shows have already sold out so someone is buying the tickets! A seat in an arena is always going to be better than when you are in a stadium 2miles from the screen. I just checked my seats for Vancouver and I am :hyper::hyper::hyper: over the view.
I mean comparing the view and the spots you can get for GA I. Rod laver arena vs Etihad stadium is worth the extra cost alone (melbourne concert venues) of the concerts I've been too.

However I am truly annoyed that I logged in at 10am on the dot over van 2 and couldn't get one bloody ga. However I have faith I can pick one up between now and may 15th. Just would like the certainty now! I'm excited as an australian fan I get to see the show before it's been around the world 5 times and two years before gracing us with its presence! :drool:
 
YES a pair of GA for Chicago 3 with my friend's new membership code, and a single GA for Chicago 4 with my existing pre sale code

SOOOOOO HAPPY!!!!! Looking for GA buddies and accepting suggestions on what to do in Chicago as we make a long weekend of it from Toronto :)


Deffo thinking we should all have an interference meet up. I'd be a GA buddy! hoping to get Chicago 3 tix in the general sale on Monday for my buddy and me! :)


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I don't think U2 tickets are that expensive in today's market. I've paid $150 for muse $140 for gaga $160 for beyonce $120 for foo fighters and $35 for bon Jovi (cheap seats but what a view and what a concert!) in the last year alone and so paying $85 for my favourite band of all time is nothing. To the general public I don't think the tickets costs are that surprising.


i agree that in comparison to other huge acts, U2's prices are in line. I appreciate SO much that U2 makes their floor tix such a reasonable price. Because I've had Beyonce floor seats in an area and they were like $350+. The $82 for GAs is great. I get that they are not a charity (ha), I think they should get paid for going on tour, and get paid well.

But I do think those lower bowl $600 party packages are bullshit and I DO think Livenation and Ticketmaster are at their core shitty fucking companies. I do kind of begrudge the band for doing business with them. Free market, whatever...but I'm not exactly a capitalist in general.
 
You're comparing stadiums to arenas, which proves my point.

Where did I compare stadiums to arenas? I did compare the D.C. 360 stadium show to the Norman 360 which shows that there are no significant differences in prices between the big cities and the more rural areas for U2 tickets. Norman Oklahoma's prices for 360 were actually a little more expensive on average than D.C.


The following example may be more in line with what you are thinking of and its an arena big city to arena small city comparison.

U2 Elevation Tour
June 14-15, 2001
Washington D.C.
MCI Center
GROSS: $ 3,172,418
ATTENDANCE: 37,971
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $83.55

U2 Elevation Tour
May 4, 2001
Lexington Kentucky
Rupp Arena
GROSS: $1,143,878
ATTENDANCE: 16,642
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $68.73

Still, the average price difference is only $15 dollars. It could just as well be lower demand for U2 in Kentucky as the difference in cost of living.

Stadium tickets are on average cheaper for fans, that's why they can not only meet demand but also play in less traditional markets.
Both the Stadium shows compared and the Arena shows compared had similar priced tickets. You have your GA tickets, your high priced lower level tickets, the mid level price, and the "nosebleed" price. The averages differ primarily from the number of tickets being sold at each price level.

Arenas are much, much smaller, there's a scarcity of tickets, which sends the prices higher
That's true, but U2 is still in general using the same price levels for tickets in the more rural areas of the country as they are in the big cities as shown above.


lso, LOL at "would have seen a big slump in sales for PopMart." Have we not all heard about the empty stadiums on the 3rd North American leg? That's exactly what happened
Read again, I said the following:

I think if U2 were a heritage act by 1993 they would NOT have seen the big slump in ticket sales with POPMART in 1997.

Yes, there was a big slump in ticket sales in 1997 which is why the band were indeed NOT a heritage act by 1993 as they were still dependent on the success of current product for ticket sales.
 
Where did I compare stadiums to arenas? I did compare the D.C. 360 stadium show to the Norman 360 which shows that there are no significant differences in prices between the big cities and the more rural areas for U2 tickets. Norman Oklahoma's prices for 360 were actually a little more expensive on average than D.C.


The following example my be more in line with what you are thinking of and its an arena big city to arena small city comparison.

U2 Elevation Tour
June 14-15, 2001
Washington D.C.
MCI Center
GROSS: $ 3,172,418
ATTENDANCE: 37,971
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $83.55

U2 Elevation Tour
May 4, 2001
Lexington Kentucky
Rupp Arena
GROSS: $1,143,878
ATTENDANCE: 16,642
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $68.73

Still, the average price difference is only $15 dollars. It could just as well be lower demand for U2 in Kentucky as the difference in cost of living.



Both the Stadium shows compared and the Arena shows compared had similar priced tickets. You have your GA tickets, your high priced lower level tickets, the mid level price, and the "nosebleed" price. The averages differ primarily from the number of tickets being sold at each price level.



That's true, but U2 is still in general using the same price levels for tickets in the more rural areas of the country as they are in the big cities as shown above.




Read again, I said the following:

I think if U2 were a heritage act by 1993 they would NOT have seen the big slump in ticket sales with POPMART in 1997.

Yes, there was a big slump in ticket sales in 1997 which is why the band were indeed NOT a heritage act by 1993 as they were still dependent on the success of current product for ticket sales.





That's great, STING. Proud if you.

I did misread your PopMart comment, but actually it proves my point -- the falloff in ticket sales was because that's when they became a heritage act/brand (as I initially said) when the "pop kids" stopped paying attention to them, and stopped buying the tickets they bought in 1987 and 1992. What was left were the diehards who had already been won over, not us much new converts. U2 were I think highly aware of their status as a "brand," hence the whole idea of the tour wherein they tried to mock/ironize their status as such while also acknowledging the reality. PopMart was half baked, but it had a really interesting idea at its core.





Sent from
 
Irvine, again, hands down the best poster on here. Your research is impeccable. From one Bruce fan to another, I say: Bravo. I wish I had been able to go to your Baltimore show though! Oh well, next tour--if Backstreets is still functioning. Do people still do business over there?

(though I disagree about why ticket sales fell off in PopMart--they could have remained "hot" if the tour had been any good, period. They made the hugest musical and tour concept mistake of their careers and lost fans who never came back. temporarily, they lost knowledge of who they were, and the damage was irreparable... they picked up a lot of new fans with Vertigo though, when you saw parents take their teens to the shows. It's tragic, really...I think we'd see a lot of Mellinials at these shows, a new generation of fans would discover U2 in their turn..if not for these prices.

And interesting about the correlation between lower prices=sellouts=better shows and reinforcing the brand, and perhaps enhancing artistic integrity. Bruce and U2 share the same political spectrum in many issues. Much bigger disconnect, then, using the article's argument, with these prices:D. Someone's graduate thesis awaits.<g>.

Another factor that you overlooked that contributes to the population/demand debacle is that in recent years the rampant gentrification caused by the New Urbanism movement in certain neighborhoods and towns close to the venues has wreaked havoc with the expenses people have to pay to get to shows. It used to be that people lived a short drive or public transport ride away from the venues, but gentrification has forced many working and middle-class people out of the very areas like the Meadowlands area of NJ where audiences live. Places like DUMBO used to be immigrant and working-class havens for most of the 20th century now are fashionable neighborhoods for the titled elite. And not just families. The NY Times ran a story a few months ago about how gentrification had made rents skyrocket in Manhattan and Brooklyn to the point where even the big bookstore chains could not afford to operate there, and concerns about how Manhattan could remain the publishing capital of the world if it had no bookstores. It's the flip side of 20 yrs ago--suburbs now are resembling inner cites with crime statistics in some areas. The venues were built near areas where large swathes of ordinary people had easy access to them, but no more.

I seem to have struck a nerve with my "rich people" post. I did **NOT** mean to say that everyone who attends a U2 show is rich! Far from it!! I attempted to explain myself, but failed I guess.
I was merely wondering what kind of people were going to be filling those blocks of $300 tix seating in the lower tiers night after night, a good chunk of the arena, since it isn't you or me. Headache, your comment "I have 12 U2 tix and I have no idea who they are" is not true for anyone on this forum who have Fan Club GA's or a bunch of mid-level seats for 1 or 2 shows like CK, but in a place like NY, Bono Man's screencap of "The Wolf of Wall Street" is entirely true--those are EXACTLY the "braggers" that TM is aiming for, or who will be able to bite. They will not give a crap about U2 other than the fact that they're at the hottest place to be "seen" in NY that week, maybe get their mug on Pg 6 of the NY Post. So I apologize if I gave offense. I've seen a lot of suffering among folks in my town the past yr, and being half-Irish, I too tend to spout off, like a certain preacher we all love.

What really intruiges me about Irvine's post is the hint of the "small venue, musically "artisanal"U2 vs the "stadium, populist" U2, playing the hits. How would the Innocence(acoustic)/Experience "rock" arrangement fit in with this? Would U2 being artistically crimping themselves by trying to box themselves into a musical format in which the new songs could not grow in any direction the freedom of the show dictated, since the show itself is locked into a strict musical format?
 
i agree that in comparison to other huge acts, U2's prices are in line. I appreciate SO much that U2 makes their floor tix such a reasonable price. Because I've had Beyonce floor seats in an area and they were like $350+. The $82 for GAs is great. I get that they are not a charity (ha), I think they should get paid for going on tour, and get paid well.

But I do think those lower bowl $600 party packages are bullshit and I DO think Livenation and Ticketmaster are at their core shitty fucking companies. I do kind of begrudge the band for doing business with them. Free market, whatever...but I'm not exactly a capitalist in general.

Oh I totally agree I don't look at party packages because they are laughably expensive for absolutely nothing and I also agree that ticketmaster is the scourge of the earth and their systems in place are horrendous.

I haven't looked at other arena set ups but for vancover I got two $100 tickets in section 309 row 3, that seems pretty good but perhaps row 3 is from the top? Otherwise I am very happy with cost/seat etc.
I also think unless your rear of stage there is rarely a bad seat in an arena and ga is magnificent from anywhere. The only variable is who is around you :wink:
 
I was hoping GAs would be in the $50-65 range but $76....eh, well....I'm just happy to have the tix I need at this point! We are not rich. We do not fly to see U2 or stay in hotels or see 3, 4, 5+ shows per leg. In college I was able to catch more shows because 1) I could find a friend going and hitch a ride, 2) could change/make plans short notice, 3) there simply were more venues available within a day's drive, and 4) the GA tickets were hard tickets we could trade or I could buy at face from another person. Now, we drive to the closest venue (Chicago), get tix two nights in a row, and either camp out or hope my husband's rich aunt is at her vacation home that week so we can crash at her place. As far as I know, the shows we're going to sold out right away so I don't get all early complaining about how this tour may flop and U2 is no longer relevant. I don't get the "relevant" thing anyway, never did. I like U2, always have and always will. Most of Bono's lyrics do not speak to me out of any personal experience, but I like their songs whether they have any "relevance" to my life or experiences or not. I like listening, I like singing them, I like their concerts. I have been front row GA, soundboard GA, far corner 3rd row from the very top of the venue like I was swinging from the ceiling, rear stage seats, etc. As long as I still like U2 I will suck it up and buy tickets to 1-2 of the closest shows.
 
Oh I totally agree I don't look at party packages because they are laughably expensive for absolutely nothing and I also agree that ticketmaster is the scourge of the earth and their systems in place are horrendous.

I haven't looked at other arena set ups but for vancover I got two $100 tickets in section 309 row 3, that seems pretty good but perhaps row 3 is from the top? Otherwise I am very happy with cost/seat etc.
I also think unless your rear of stage there is rarely a bad seat in an arena and ga is magnificent from anywhere. The only variable is who is around you :wink:

The only variable is who is around you is the most important variable. One time I had a real @#$^&&% next to me and my boyfriend and it really did dampen the show. The final straw was when he "accidentally" groped my ass! This really caused a problem and we ended up moving to another part of the floor losing the "killer" spot on the rail. Thank goodness it was a repeated viewing so I had already experienced the show for the first time in beautiful reserved seats. I prefer the reserves but the GA is always fun for a different experience.

Show 1 in Vancouver will be reserved (Sec 116 Row 5) but the second night will shake it up with all the other hardcore U2 fans. See you all there!
 
I KNOW THIS!

I was just saying I think they should be based on production costs in my little hypothetical ideal world.

Good grief.

Just playing along... in production costs I assume you'd be including wages, right?

How much would it be the wage of Bono, Edge, Adam and Larry in your hypothetical ideal world? :hmm:
 
Not staging, thats info that will come in handy when scoping out where to go for GA or what sections to look for in terms of ticket releases.
 
So is there anyone here that is planning on avoiding all spoilers re: setlist/staging once the tour starts? :lol:

Nope. I plan on hanging out in the setlist threads every show if possible. Did it on 360 and I think I maybe missed less than 4 of the setlist threads total. Here's hoping we get some awesome live feeds this year...

scuba-diver.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom