Classic or Dud: U2

Odd set list. No Achtung Baby or Joshua Tree tracks.

didn't really need the entire review to make that point

during U2’s tiny club gig

"tiny"

Please U2, go away

Even people I know who don't particularly like the band have had nothing but good things to say about the current tour.

Ladies and gentlemen: the Rolling Stones!

Tbh I don't trust the opinion of people who aren't U2 fans but still see U2 shows

like music critics you mean?

Roadies

hot dog sellers

a more diplomatic statement i could have made is "i am intrigued that people who don't particularly like U2 are seeing them on this tour, and would be curious to know the circumstances of their attendance"

U2 are arguably underdogs on this tour, post iTunes fiasco, Bono held together by metal pins. They seem vulnerable, which makes them a little more likeable.

The pathos of Bono with his diamond encrusted neck bolt that stops his noble head from wobbling off his millionaire's shoulders.

best thing, and its not rly close run tbh, about u2 are the ppl who make a point of disliking them

DeRo, no huge fan of the band/arena shows in general, raved about last night. And Kot, a longtime Bono foil (great recent interview he did with him), loved it, too. From the clips I've seen, looks almost like a high tech show and less a concert, per se. Special sound, staging, etc., but supposedly the band itself is at its most just four guys making music in some time, too. Which seems like a contradiction, but who knows.

the band itself is at its most just four guys making music in some time

You see, this is where you lost me.

Bummed to learn "people I know" meant dero and kot, was rooting for it being the significant other of a fan or a hot dog seller

Eh, I can name some people I know you don't know, too. Like my cousin Mike.

Also my friends Linda and Jon.

Though music critics are people too, at least some of them.

DeRo is actually a muppet

stuck in a concert (that you can't get out of)

The Muppets haven't released a good album since Pink Flag. Now they're old and rich.

why did mike, linda and jon see u2 if they're not fans? not to pry, but you brought it up

Possibly in the hope that it might be Bono's turn to fall off the stage?

perhaps an inheritance based challenge by Mike's late great uncle impelled Mike to treat Linda and Jon to the most expensive concert of their lives?

Ha. I never said they were not fans, but I admit I exaggerated their disinterest. They're fans, for sure, and I can't imagine them not going if they could. But I think like a lot of U2 fans, even though they have always gone to see the shows, they have not always been huge fans of everything the band has done, either albums or tours. Yet their take away following the first night here at least was it far exceeded expectations, and that they left the show with a greater appreciation for the most recent album, which supposedly dominates the show. And they said it looked pretty cool, too. So there's that.

I also know a couple of people in my boat who, yeah, can't really justify paying. I'd like to go; while the band has never been my numero uno, they were the first concert I ever saw and I've seen them be great before. But I'll be fucked if I'm going to pay $100 for a ticket that lets me hang from the United Center rafters.

i kind of don't think any concert is worth $100. i mean wtf is that shit.

Ha. I never said they were not fans, but I admit I exaggerated their disinterest.

You called them "people I know who don't particularly like the band" you two-faced liar mcliarman, you macphisto

the reason i've kept needling is i knew that first post was bullshit and i couldn't figure out why anyone would make up such an absurd story. the idea of people who don't like u2 seeing a new u2 show and liking it, what balderdash.

Yeah, Macphisto Macmea Culpa. Though to be fair, DeRogatis is a hard dude to please when a big target like this is served up (food metaphor!). Even if he liked it he would pretend he didn't, so I was honestly shocked he raved.

xpost I dunno, it's a lot of money, but I think some shows might be worth that, if there's a real degree of Broadway-style spectacle. But yeah, that's a lot to ask, for nosebleeds especially. I think the way these bands often do it these days is offer a bunch of GA seats early to fans at a lower, or at least <$100 price, so the diehards can do their thing without going broke. I also think bands like U2 inspire a silly level of dedication in their fans, who are also getting older and, I'm going to guess, don't hit three clubs a night in search of the next U2, and can maybe justify paying plane ticket prices to see them.

I'd love to know the economics of these bands, why they choose the prices they do, or what the minimum price could be to pay for the spectacle and expenses and still come away making a ton of cash. The word has always been that until the era of nu-U2, the band lost a lot of money on tour, but that doesn't justify desperately filling their coffers to make up for past mistakes. Broke Leonard Cohen out of the Buddhist retreat this band is not.

I just bought some tix to see the Mekons next month, and I thought the price was pretty high at $25. But that's in a small place, and they're also playing a big public park for less than that to get in.

i assume aging arena bands charge an arm and a leg because they can

You know what is fun, though? Taking people to shows who claim they don't like the music! I took a friend to see Morrissey some years back, and all he knew was the second-hand "oh, whiny, wimpy, woe is me" reputation, but he left impressed. Likewise taking someone to see Rush who grew up slotting them in with Styx and REO. He left impressed, too. So it does happen, sometimes, even if it happens under duress. I recently took a friend to see Slowdive and Low, neither of which he had ever heard of, let alone heard, and he was blown away. It's nice to see some honest enthusiasm, which is actually what I often like about arena shows, people losing their shit at every pre-tested bit.

For what it's worth, I don't see the point of paying that much for a ticket when I can watch The Edge fall off the stage from the comfort of my own home.

There's no price too high for that, imo.

i don't see the point of taking people who claim they don't like the music to concerts when i can just pretend i did

I'd love to know the economics of these bands, why they choose the prices they do,

Supposedly, because he hates touring, Charlie Watts asks for a ridiculous guarantee in the hopes that it can't/won't be met. "Yeah, I'll do the tour...if you pay me $10 million!" His bluff is always called, which is at least one reason (among presumably many) Stones ticket prices are insane.

xpost Because under the guise of a semi-pro, I often have two tickets and invite along whatever buddies can make it.

xpost:

Oh right, so not only is he a ropey drummer, he's partially responsible for milking the wallets of his fans. Great stuff.

I hear Mick tours to support his extensive money collection.

I remember John Lennon laying into The Rolling Stones in his Playboy interview from 1980 for staying together for as long as they had, and that was 35 years ago now. If Lennon had lived, I wonder what he'd think about them still being together!

I'm sure it'd be a regular subject on his podcast until his teary interview with jagger.

After the Beatles' 1979 Get Back reunion album/tour debacle, Lennon didn't have a leg to stand on criticizing the Stones.

http://alexbledsoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/shipper04.jpg

Yeah, but that was the era of the band that only featured John, though Ringo did sit in on a few dates.

Big arena spectacles rule. I would always go see U2, I love the huge stage stuff so much.

"supposedly the band itself is at its most just four guys making music".

This is more or less related to one thing that I've always found the weirdest of seeing U2 live. With most stadium acts, it's usually them in those huge stages they use, filling them with a sizeable number of musicians/collaborators: you've got the E-Street band with their huge roster, Madonna with all those dancers or the Stones outnumbered by their dozen choir girls and their wind sections. U2 couldn't be more different in this aspect: it's just the four of them alone in the middle of those gargantuan stages, singlehandedly carrying these shows. It especially hits me when they play "New Years Day" and you see the Edge pulling his guitar aside to play the keyboards, because they don't even have a keyboardist with them on stage.

https://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1531542,1531569

^ They have extra musicians under the stage generally.

i think it's just an extra keyboardist on some few songs and mostly triggered loops and samples

Pretty sure I saw a documentary with an extra guitarist too, cant find it on youtube.