Sounds like it would be in conjunction with a tour, but who knows. More to comeSounds like quite a venue. They're actually doing the Vegas residency thing, that would replace a tour I assume.
If you thought people were complaining about static setlists before…
Imagine thinking the band would seize an opportunity to vary their setlists. If they didn't do it on previous, more stripped-down tours, they certainly aren't going to do it on one with such a specific audio-visual presentation.
My god, the delusion.
I mean the setlists for 360 we're fairly static so not sure whee you're going there.
Completely disagree. They would save so much extra time and physical toil being in the same place that it would give them a lot of extra ability to mix it up every night. Literally all they would have to do once they’re settled in is show up every night which means plenty of time during the day to workshop other songs. I think they would likely hone 40 or so classics (each with visuals and lighting) plus new material before they open and then be able to do whatever they wanted night to night.
Casual audience isn’t going to complain as long as half the songs are ones they really want to hear. SOI tour was totally stretching it though and I’ve come across a fair amount of people that were disappointed they spent big money for tickets and got…THAT. That tour starting with mostly SOI/SOE songs was frankly a slap in the face to practically everyone who isn’t a sycophant.
Oh, and peeps should probably be warned that it’s become pretty customary for arenas to have a much smaller “pit” (if any) and put everyone else on the floor in seats that are then priced accordingly (and, of course, still got to stand the entire time). Probably gonna be a lot of annoyed fans if they go through with that (which basically everyone is because $$$) as floor capacity for the proper “pit” will be far far less than it used to be.
Also gonna be major issues when we’re talking about a million hardcore fans around the planet used to getting good seats or floor tickets all competing for the same residency of however many dates. Could be a big crunch in particular for the early shows. Millions of fans competing for 20,000 tickets, and, well you catch my drift. On the plus side, audience more full of hardcore fans rather than people showing up thirty minutes late dropping hot dogs on my feet (for real). I’m not sure anyone who was still a top tier touring act has ever done a Vegas Residency - there’s a slight has-been factor in the past. So demand has never been as high as it would be for U2.
Really is the future for touring for huge names. If a band like U2 can get the sound and visuals they want with no real cost of their own to plunk down AND no massive touring costs and time sucks and physical grueling of travel, then why ever tour again? It’s a better deal for all provided the fans are willing to get out to Vegas.
Well don’t go?
Setlist will certainly impact my decision, that’s for sure. Pointless to go in blind and have to sit through all that mediocrity.
Kind of bizarre that No Line was full of bangers and the new songs got cut down to almost nothing by the end of the tour yet these guys insisted on playing so many songs from the albums nobody asked for, night in and night out. Perhaps stadiums vs arenas was the issue (yet, Miss Sarajevo…)
I mean the setlists for 360 we're fairly static so not sure whee you're going there.
I'd probably end up divorced if U2 ever went to a rotating setlist skin to Springsteen or Pearl Jam because I'd spend all my time and money following them around.
Alas, I think I'm safe on that one.
Kind of bizarre that No Line was full of bangers and the new songs got cut down to almost nothing by the end of the tour yet these guys insisted on playing so many songs from the albums nobody asked for, night in and night out.
No line full of bangers but innocence and experience tours were bad? I think you’ve unfortunately revealed yourself to be a troll, sir. No Line was impotent dross.
RBW and Cedarwood Road were absolutely highlights that demanded your attention, and if you were bored, then that’s on you, casual.
Calling someone a casual for disliking some new material is…something. I loathed those plodding numbers when I first heard them and nothing changed that for me. Frankly, I just don’t care about the visuals. Joshua Tree with its gorgeous Anton Corbijn footage projected onto a massive Drive-In theater was probably the most effective at enhancing the experience but I’m there for the music and pay attention to the performance/performers.
Iris and Every Breaking Wave revealed themselves to be great songs marred by overproduction. Perhaps the gimmicks helped me get through the rest of the new songs a bit? Certainly didn’t improve them though.
Many folks said the same in 1992 when they opened with 8-9 AB songs. Or in 1997.
Referring to the general stage setup. Not reliant on video screens or choreography like I&E, etc. Will point out that the setlists near the end of that tour were undoubtedly the most career encompassing, Greatest Hits-y ever and probably what both the casuals and diehards most want.