No no no !! No offense but look everywhere -- it's supposed to be a 360 degree show it was called the 360 tour and the show was billed as everyone having a clear view from every angle. the band's highly choreographed performance, and one only needs to to look at u tube to see it's basically the same thing every night, barely pays lip service to this idea, it wasnt 1 percent of what it could have been. So I was left wondering why waste the time, energy, money, manpower to make this huge gluttonous monstoristy if the band werent going to fullfill their promise with their performance. Jesus, the bay city rollers in 1976 had a square stage where they REALLY did play to all sides - mostly to sell more tickets, and surely this was U2's motive as well, on top of the fact that these guys go all out and dont do anything half way. But dont get me wrong, I thought the show was awesome, it just wasnt at all what I expected based on what they promised, and thus it was the basically the same as if the stage had been square except for tiny moments here and there which hardly justified the stage set up. I'm not bitter, I was just hugely disapointed in that aspect of it, and it was far from the historical ground breaking performance I though it would have been and AGAIN: It COULD have been because they DID pull it off once during the set, but I wonder if they were aware (or even care) what a huge waste this thing was? I mean look at the times we live in - people are out of work and unemplyment is really high, and people are being frugal not excessive all over the world -- this stage and the fact that it's basic functionality was lame I though kinda was U2 thumbing it's nose and the global socio-economic crisis, an appauling gesture really, and an excessive self induldgent attempt at remaining relevant and impressive.. .. .. But there shouldnt have been any "behind the stage", the stage was supposed to be circular, 360 degrees, and the performance should have been, all night - why else bother with this huge stage? I didnt go to see a round stage lolz, I went to see a round performance, and that would have been so awesome. I dont mean every band member facing me all night lolz, I mean the band playing to all of the stadium for all 23 songs. You get my point now? That would have been so amazing and unforgetable, trully. But it didnt even come close to happeneing and it's a shame cus they could have done it. SOrry now it's me that's rambling, but I think I have a point, and U2, as awesome as they are, really deserve to be called out on this. If anyone could have pulled this off it was U2, and they had the concept, the resources, and the expectation was set up. Why did they crawl back into thier shells on it? I just dont get it. Did they get shy or something? lolz jk.
OH and one more thing - I am 100% positive I am not alone in this thinking, even if I dont get any back up on this forum, as many of the people around us were expressing the same anticipation before the show and the same disapointement durring and after, so I think it was the expectation U2 set up for the fans, not something we misinterpreted or misunderstood. But nevertheless, I have been following U2 since the release of BOY and I must say they have never sounded better to me and that's what it's all about, always has been, and regardless of what other expectation they set up, it always will be. It's just had I known this wasnt going to be a 360 experience, I would have got the GA tix, or something off to the side facing the front.