GEN
Active topics
  1. They still have a contract until 2020, and they have to honor their end. U2 has clauses but of course they also don't have a say in many things.
  2. Even if the band weren't happy with being forced into these shows they still have an obligation to the fans to give it their all. I think what we are getting now is far from their best
  3. Originally posted by Remy:[..]
    They still have a contract until 2020, and they have to honor their end. U2 has clauses but of course they also don't have a say in many things.
    Yes but they wouldn't be commiting any crime that could send them behind bars they would just be in a position where they would have to pay money to live-nation as they would be in breach of contract. I think the band would be more than willing to breach there contract if they weren't happy with whatever was being proposed to them.


  4. exactly my thoughts too. I saw the first show in Vancouver. he's nothing like he was in the last tours. He worked at connecting with the audience but on a general level, no side bars, no laughs or teasing, no interacting with the audience beyond a normal show for a normal band - and they arent a normal band. We talked about this after the show and figure this tour was a contractual obligation now that they're under Live nation.
  5. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    Yes but they wouldn't be commiting any crime that could send them behind bars they would just be in a position where they would have to pay money to live-nation as they would be in breach of contract. I think the band would be more than willing to breach there contract if they weren't happy with whatever was being proposed to them.
    I believe this whole tour is being done because of the breach in the contract where songs of experience was supposed to be being toured now.but is obviously not ready............At the end of the day U2 will be paid very well and live nation will want revenue from the tour
  6. Originally posted by Remy:[..]
    A suspicion I had for a while is that U2 actually was forced to do this tour by LiveNation to make up for the delay of Songs of Experience. If that is the case, then it is natural for the band to play shorter sets and be on 99% rather than 100% during a show (or even pre-show). It just can make a very small difference.


    I thought this too, I actually thought it went as far as this tour being a stipulation in their contract when it was signed. I think they've gone down a little bit of a one way street, I don't know if the returning to I+e tour as Adam was suggesting is going to be satisfying for them.
  7. Good to see I'm not the only who has a weird feeling hahah
  8. Yeah I'm of the same mindset. I think they have pretty much been able to call the shots since the end of the 1980's, and are in charge and masters of their own destiny 100% Thats my belief anyway. Plus I really don't think they'd do this tour if they didn't want to or didn't see the merit in doing so. Nobody owns them.

    That said... there was definitely some talk floating around before the tour started that they were 'obliged' to do it - so there is something to that at least.

    Personally what I think has happened is someone, perhaps as a guess, say, Arthur Fogel @ LN or some other similarly placed high-up in the industry, has had to call in a favour of the band - and perhaps rather than it being a case of contractual obligations, it was some sort of favour they had to repay. Checkout how much Bono thanks Arthur Fogel and LN in years gone by. He has probably pulled a lot of strings for U2 in times gone by, got them good deals etc., and maybe, just maybe he's had to call in a favour for LN for financial reasons and U2 felt they had to oblige. Purely speculative though, I've really no idea.

    I also think they're becoming a little enslaved by the tech / screen and the concepts they have running (TJT - the journey to it, and then post TJT - the whole women thing, One campaign / HIV, refugee crisis - all of which are a great, but it's like 100% of the show - there should be some room to manoeuvre). It shouldn't be the case that they have to behold to this stuff, especially the tech, they mixed up 360 a lot and had a lot of fun during the course of that tour. There is a danger of the same thing, night in, night out, and that they're gonna get a little bit sick of it, though the whole thing will be done soon enough either way, Second leg is what, just 12 shows, third leg I haven't counted yet, but not that many is it?

    I also know, Bono doesn't like being up on stage for much more than 2/2.5 hours and as they get older maybe the other guys too have issues lasting it out. Even on the Elevation rehearsals, heading towards 20 years ago now, Bono makes reference to not liking being up on stage for so long (about 2/3 of the way into a set), so I don't think we'll ever get any 3 or 4 hour extravaganza's from them, ever. That's a real pity, I wish they were hungry for being up there for 3 or 4 hours pulling all kinds of magic rabbits out of magic hats, but that's just the way it is it seems. One of my other favourite bands Simple Minds, have to have a mid-show cup of tea and packet of Custard Creams these days, so some of it has to be down to age too, and we've got to give them that.
  9. Originally posted by guykirk9:I don't know whenever I've seen them this tour (Chicago and Louisville) Bono seemed fine, he engaged with us (and me) quite a bit, I haven't noticed any particular sadness other than when they play Little things.


    He seemed quite happy and engaged when I saw them in Chicago and Cleveland, too. I would say he bantered with the audience more last night than he did when I saw them on I & E.

    I've said before that 360 and I & E still top this tour for me in terms of shows I've seen, but I don't think there's reason to panic that the band doesn't have their heart in it anymore. Sure they are maybe nervous about finishing up SOE and their future/legacy but to me it seems like they are really enjoying this tour. And so are the sold out stadiums of fans singing along every night.
  10. U2 are a band that's forward looking. Looking back is reasonably depressing. I too think the band is happiest when doing the new stuff, or new interpretations of the old stuff (like SBSduring the last tour). I remember years ago Bono mentioning how he'd hate to be like the Rolling Stones doing their version of the Steel Wheels tour.
    Sadly, this tour has elements of Steel Wheels.
    For me, this tour is the opposite of what U2 stands for: rear facing nostalgia.
    And I really don't like it.
    Nostalgia is great when you're relaxing with a beer with some music playing and you want comfort.
    This tour does feel like a revenue earner designed to reconnect with lapsed 'users' and keep the money tree flowing.

    If you're stuck in the past the danger is that you remain there. The sooner this tour finishes the better. Keep looking forward, the large core fans will remain.
  11. I think they should pack it in within the next few years before it gets really embarrassing frankly
  12. I disagree entirely. I think there is a misconception that explicit homages to the past necessarily results in living in the past. Furthermore, given a band like U2 who has so repetitively spoken out against looking back, the contrast is striking enough to give one the impression that looking back is the equivalent of having given in to the temptation.

    But I think this misses the point. There is no problem in looking back. The problem is if you look back at the expense of moving forward. There is a time and a place for looking back, and if it's done in a measured way, and doesn't swallow the band's impulse to move ahead, but rather marks a particular occasion, then it need not be seen as off limits. U2 I think has always been slightly paranoid about anything they do having even a hint of nostalgia. As a result, now that they are doing this, the accusations are easy by way of sheer contrast with their prior statements.

    I disagree and have always disagreed with their quasi-paranoid stance in the past about nostalgia, and I think now they have gotten it right. I do understand and appreciate that impulse -as so many acts have petered out while being preoccupied w/ the past. But that said, a mindful moderation is more important than a strict avoidance of the past.

    The issue is not whether you look back - but when, how, on what occasion(s), and how often, and, most importantly, do you then go back to moving forward, or do you get stuck in that as a a sole or primary mode of operation. If, when JTT2017 is wrapped up, U2 moves on as they always have, and doesn't make this type of thing the recurring regular practice, then that'll mean they haven't drifted as so many has said they have. You can glorify the past in such a manner that the future dries up, but you can also glorify in a more appropriate way. If SOE goes down a black hole, and we get a Zoo TV 2021 Tour, then maybe all these concerns will vest as true. Until then, I think U2 has found a reasonable balance between not stagnating and not being inordinately afraid of the past.