ACH
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    De facto YES of course, but definitely not in the words of the band. "We try to offer all our fans the same experience", "we want all of our fans to get the maximum", bla bla.
    They say that but it's definitely bull. Do you think them playing a single night in Omaha, Nebraska is as important to them as playing in Dublin?

    (Judging by your experience from Dublin 17 it probably is ).
  2. Originally posted by hoserama:[..]
    My favorite use of that was their excuse for not having an A/B setlist in 2015. They booked all their shows in pairs (initially), talked about having two setlists....but then "Oh we wouldn't want to spoil fans going to only one"

    Meaning--too much work to work up another setlist in rehearsals.
    it's too much work indeed, but also it would make a lot of fans angry if they were only able to attend only one show. First night 80s & innocence album and then second night 90s & innocence album? or first night 80s & 90s and then second night everything post 2000 ? I don't remember exactly what they were planning to play each night and certainly it did seem like an interesting idea to bring everything together in a pair of shows and ultimately reach the destination of 'innocence', but in the end I believe they made the right choice and the setlist worked pretty well in my opinion.
  3. There's plenty of other bands that have varied setlists, or there's been bands with rotating blocks of their setlist. They do just fine.
  4. Originally posted by LikeASong:I sort of agree with both sides. Another thing to discuss would be: if the band wanted to feed off the energy of fresh, unknown fans (which is alright)... why not do it at every show? Why only in the gig(s) that were being recorded? Are some gigs more important than others?

    Probably too much hassle to do it at every gig on that tour as work contracts had already been drawn up,they did do it on the Vertigo tour which got rid of these uber rich self entitled a**holes.
  5. Originally posted by SJKamal:[..]
    They say that but it's definitely bull. Do you think them playing a single night in Omaha, Nebraska is as important to them as playing in Dublin?

    (Judging by your experience from Dublin 17 it probably is ).
    Poor Omaha fans, you're so discriminatory!!!!!!!
  6. I have personally seen U2 in Omaha and thought it was fine
  7. Warren Buffett was the only fan they cared about in Omaha.
  8. I would disagree that the potential reason they played in Omaha (to see / connect with a rich guy) also means they put on a lesser performance in the city they happened to be in. Just another night on tour.
  9. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]

    Probably too much hassle to do it at every gig on that tour as work contracts had already been drawn up,they did do it on the Vertigo tour which got rid of these uber rich self entitled a**holes.
    The contracts don’t really have anything to do with it; I think they just realized it was a problem, corrected it in some poor fashion by some accounts, and then revised their approach for the Vertigo Tour like you say.

    I really don’t think people were following U2 around *in large front row numbers* until 2001.
  11. Originally posted by MattG:[..]
    The contracts don’t really have anything to do with it; I think they just realized it was a problem, corrected it in some poor fashion by some accounts, and then revised their approach for the Vertigo Tour like you say.

    I really don’t think people were following U2 around *in large front row numbers* until 2001.
    Maybe not in such big numbers as flights and accommodation were very expensive In the 80s and 90s most people could only afford to see one or two shows as a lot of their audience were probably in college or high school back then ,the contracts I'm referring to are for the venue and crew staff who probably just did it as a one off for Boston and were paid extra for doing it as everything is signed off and agreed on for staff before a tour starts.