TJT
Active topics
2017-06-09 - Manchester
 Tour: Joshua Tree Tour 2017
Songs played: 20
Audio recordings: 0
  1. Originally posted by EDDMB:[..]
    Agree 100% with this...if McGuinness was still in charge this tour never would have transpired and SOE would have been out by the end of 2016....

    I will be in Miami tomorrow , and Tampa on Wednesday , so Im one of the old geezers the band targeted here , and thats fine cause I will have a blast and have great sets to both gigs . That being said , I just wish they wouldn't have played a tune past R&H....just the big 80's songs if we are doing a nostalgia show , go full on with it
    That's the thing. They aren't doing a nostalgia tour. As a recent article articulately put, U2 have taken The Joshua Tree and planted it firmly in 2017. Having seen two shows already, I can tell you this is not the band looking to dust something off the shelf to please the old-timers. This tour is easily the most activist-centered tour they have ever done. The Joshua Tree in itself is an album that heavily comments on the political, social, and spiritual state of the world. It did in 1987 and it is still highly relatable today. Looking outside the Joshua Tree set, nearly every song is either a political warhorse or dedicated to a particular cause. Very few songs performed are without some sort of social commentary.

    I say this because this message is targeted towards the most politically and socially active age group demographic, which has always been those in the mid 20s to 30s. If they wanted to go full nostalgia mode, they easily could have. However, their approach has shown that this is clearly not the case.
  2. Damn you took a big hit of the koolaid man
  3. I also completely disagree with the idea that this is some contractual agreement. If this was truly the case, there are far easier and cheaper ways to fulfill an agreement than putting on a stadium tour. For example, they could have done an arena tour, or even a festival circuit. They could have recycled a stage with no multimedia involvement and market it as "just the music". They didn't have to do multiple dates in cities and certainly didn't have go to South America. They could have done exactly what Muse is currently doing.
  4. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]
    That's the thing. They aren't doing a nostalgia tour. As a recent article articulately put, U2 have taken The Joshua Tree and planted it firmly in 2017. Having seen two shows already, I can tell you this is not the band looking to dust something off the shelf to please the old-timers. This tour is easily the most activist-centered tour they have ever done. The Joshua Tree in itself is an album that heavily comments on the political, social, and spiritual state of the world. It did in 1987 and it is still highly relatable today. Looking outside the Joshua Tree set, nearly every song is either a political warhorse or dedicated to a particular cause. Very few songs performed are without some sort of social commentary.

    I say this because this message is targeted towards the most politically and socially active age group demographic, which has always been those in the mid 20s to 30s. If they wanted to go full nostalgia mode, they easily could have. However, their approach has shown that this is clearly not the case.
    Come on Ahn1991. Don't believe the bs. First off, I'm not saying they are wrong to do tour The Joshua Tree. They saw an opportunity to tour stadiums for a Joshua Tree birthday and make a lot of money. Either because SOE wasn't finished or they want to release SOE in some special tech way like suggested a few years ago. So they re-released Joshua Tree for the 3rd time in 30 years. Selling Super Duper Deluxe editions to their fans for a lot of money. Then they go on tour to make more money but need a reason to do so. They don't want to pass on a missed opportunity. They will be 67 yrs old when the Joshua Tree turns 40 so they better make their money now. But they need a reason to do it because SOE was supposed to be out in 2016. So they decide to tour the 30th anniversary of the Joshua Tree to make tons of money and say part of the reason is because America is back to it was in 1987. (Trump is like Reagan. Yet they came up with the idea before Trump was elected. In August 2016. See Willie Williams interview @u2.com) The Joshua Tree to me is more of a spiritual album than political. There are two political songs, Streets and Mothers. Yes this tour is an activist-centered tour like you said. It's not because The Joshua Tree is some great political statement. Yes it's a beautiful album. I have no problem with them touring 30 yrs later. It's an activist tour because they needed a reason to cash in on the tour. It's the popular way to go these days from the left. Why weren't they for women's rights on the 360 tour or any tour before then? They are reaching for a cause as they reach into your pockets and pay off their mortgage in the south of France.
  5. Originally posted by raynman009:[..]
    Come on Ahn1991. Don't believe the bs. First off, I'm not saying they are wrong to do tour The Joshua Tree. They saw an opportunity to tour stadiums for a Joshua Tree birthday and make a lot of money. Either because SOE wasn't finished or they want to release SOE in some special tech way like suggested a few years ago. So they re-released Joshua Tree for the 3rd time in 30 years. Selling Super Duper Deluxe editions to their fans for a lot of money. Then they go on tour to make more money but need a reason to do so. They don't want to pass on a missed opportunity. They will be 67 yrs old when the Joshua Tree turns 40 so they better make their money now. But they need a reason to do it because SOE was supposed to be out in 2016. So they decide to tour the 30th anniversary of the Joshua Tree to make tons of money and say part of the reason is because America is back to it was in 1987. (Trump is like Reagan. Yet they came up with the idea before Trump was elected. In August 2016. See Willie Williams interview @u2.com) The Joshua Tree to me is more of a spiritual album than political. There are two political songs, Streets and Mothers. Yes this tour is an activist-centered tour like you said. It's not because The Joshua Tree is some great political statement. Yes it's a beautiful album. I have no problem with them touring 30 yrs later. It's an activist tour because they needed a reason to cash in on the tour. It's the popular way to go these days from the left. Why weren't they for women's rights on the 360 tour or any tour before then? They are reaching for a cause as they reach into your pockets and pay off their mortgage in the south of France.
    Agree with most of that except the money parts.... They each have over 200 million dollars, Bono with over 600 million, I'm sure that's more then enough to pay for a house...
  6. Originally posted by u2_michaelc:[..]
    Agree with most of that except the money parts.... They each have over 200 million dollars, Bono with over 600 million, I'm sure that's more then enough to pay for a house...
    I know they are all super duper deluxe version rich. I'm not rich but if I was I suppose I would want to be richer. Human nature I suppose. Especially when it comes so easy. I'm not disputing your figures because I have no idea, but how did Bono become 3 times super duper deluxe richer than the other three? I thought they split it evenly. And I remember him losing a lot of money years ago in bad investments. (He invested in Blackberry as iPhone just came out)
  7. Originally posted by raynman009:[..]
    I know they are all super duper deluxe version rich. I'm not rich but if I was I suppose I would want to be richer. Human nature I suppose. Especially when it comes so easy. I'm not disputing your figures because I have no idea, but how did Bono become 3 times super duper deluxe richer than the other three? I thought they split it evenly. And I remember him losing a lot of money years ago in bad investments. (He invested in Blackberry as iPhone just came out)
    Yes that's true, human greed takes over.
    I would guess that Bono takes some sort of % of what RED earns..plus he's in bed with political powers so what does that tell you.
  8. Originally posted by u2_michaelc:[..]
    Yes that's true, human greed takes over.
    I would guess that Bono takes some sort of % of what RED earns..plus he's in bed with political powers so what does that tell you.
    I seriously doubt that Bono takes a % from Red. I seriously doubt he would ever do that. He's still a very righteous guy. He's still my hero afterall. But he/they will freely take all the money their fans agree to give them for their music / tours / re-issues. He's not stupid.
  10. I hope isn't true. If so it's very sad. They should be donating 90% of proceeds to Africa. Although it kinda reminds me of the Clinton Foundation receiving millions of dollars from countries when she was Secretary of State. Clinton received millions from the Middle East. Most of the money went to pay her staff. I really hope that is not true with Bono. That would really disappoint many fans including me


  11. she'll not see this week out. She actually wrote her resignation prior to the result in her own constituency.
  12. Originally posted by raynman009:I hope isn't true. If so it's very sad. They should be donating 90% of proceeds to Africa. Although it kinda reminds me of the Clinton Foundation receiving millions of dollars from countries when she was Secretary of State. Clinton received millions from the Middle East. Most of the money went to pay her staff. I really hope that is not true with Bono. That would really disappoint many fans including me
    You said it yourself Bono is not stupid, if he and his foundation that he co founded can get people to give because they honestly think it makes a difference than the foundation makes profit , so does Bono. That's why charity exists to make money and give away as little as possible from the proceeds.

    You would think the scummy government would give away so of the billions of dollars they make off our hard work but, no they don't...its always up to the "people" (us) to give and give and give some more.