Originally posted by MattG:Some of you need to lighten up on this whole 'vegas residencies are washed up' rhetoric... These aren't the Wayne Newton, flashy-lounge-singing ranks they used to be.
A few of 2023's Vegas Residencies:
Adele (one of the highest-grossing artists of the 21st century)
Garth Brooks (a stadium act in the US; his last stadium show in my market was a complete sell-out)
Carrie Underwood (just wrapped a full US arena tour; one of country's hottest stars)
A few Vegas Residencies from the past 5 years:
Lady Gaga (tours a mix of arenas and stadiums, virtually always a sell-out show)
Katy Perry (arena sell-out act)
Silk Sonic (massively popular project, shows exclusive to Vegas, extremely high-profile performers)
Drake (tours a mix of arenas and stadiums, virtually always a sell-out show)
It just doesn't make sense to use this as support for the argument that they're "washed up" or that this move is indicative of them heading in that direction whatsoever. The technology that's going into the actual physical construction of the building has literally never been seen before. The venue is in the shape of a sphere and U2 will, theoretically, play in the center of it. The venue is backed by Madison Square Garden, the most popular venue in the USA. Nobody will have ever seen what this venue can do before U2 will do it first.
How does ANY of the above not SCREAM U2? It's literally a perfect scenario for them, and it seems like a big deal to me. I get if you're upset that this residency isn't in your part of the world. Vegas is extremely unique and there's a reason they pull these enormous residency acts. This event is more about the opening of a venue, not U2's end-all, be-all game plan for presenting live material to all of their fans. No, they probably won't tour this concept, because it will probably be heavily reliant on the technology of the building. I'm sorry they aren't building the Sphere in your backyard.
U2 aren't going to play on a casino ballroom floor for 30 nights over 2 months crooning the same songs to drunk gamblers who are almost out of money. This is an enormous endeavor and its tiring to see so many people claim that THIS is the reason they're washed up. Do some research. Vegas residencies are incredibly lucrative deals that offer a very unique experience. Do a lot of older performers take them because they're easier on their bodies, mental health, families, crews, etc? Absolutely. Does that mean they are, in turn, only for people who have nothing left to offer?
Come the fuck on. Be mad that they're going to waste a whole promotional cycle on bad re-recordings of older songs, not that they're playing in Vegas.
Originally posted by MattG:Some of you need to lighten up on this whole 'vegas residencies are washed up' rhetoric... These aren't the Wayne Newton, flashy-lounge-singing ranks they used to be.
A few of 2023's Vegas Residencies:
Adele (one of the highest-grossing artists of the 21st century)
Garth Brooks (a stadium act in the US; his last stadium show in my market was a complete sell-out)
Carrie Underwood (just wrapped a full US arena tour; one of country's hottest stars)
A few Vegas Residencies from the past 5 years:
Lady Gaga (tours a mix of arenas and stadiums, virtually always a sell-out show)
Katy Perry (arena sell-out act)
Silk Sonic (massively popular project, shows exclusive to Vegas, extremely high-profile performers)
Drake (tours a mix of arenas and stadiums, virtually always a sell-out show)
It just doesn't make sense to use this as support for the argument that they're "washed up" or that this move is indicative of them heading in that direction whatsoever. The technology that's going into the actual physical construction of the building has literally never been seen before. The venue is in the shape of a sphere and U2 will, theoretically, play in the center of it. The venue is backed by Madison Square Garden, the most popular venue in the USA. Nobody will have ever seen what this venue can do before U2 will do it first.
How does ANY of the above not SCREAM U2? It's literally a perfect scenario for them, and it seems like a big deal to me. I get if you're upset that this residency isn't in your part of the world. Vegas is extremely unique and there's a reason they pull these enormous residency acts. This event is more about the opening of a venue, not U2's end-all, be-all game plan for presenting live material to all of their fans. No, they probably won't tour this concept, because it will probably be heavily reliant on the technology of the building. I'm sorry they aren't building the Sphere in your backyard.
U2 aren't going to play on a casino ballroom floor for 30 nights over 2 months crooning the same songs to drunk gamblers who are almost out of money. This is an enormous endeavor and its tiring to see so many people claim that THIS is the reason they're washed up. Do some research. Vegas residencies are incredibly lucrative deals that offer a very unique experience. Do a lot of older performers take them because they're easier on their bodies, mental health, families, crews, etc? Absolutely. Does that mean they are, in turn, only for people who have nothing left to offer?
Come the fuck on. Be mad that they're going to waste a whole promotional cycle on bad re-recordings of older songs, not that they're playing in Vegas.
Originally posted by MattG:Some of you need to lighten up on this whole 'vegas residencies are washed up' rhetoric... These aren't the Wayne Newton, flashy-lounge-singing ranks they used to be.
A few of 2023's Vegas Residencies:
Adele (one of the highest-grossing artists of the 21st century)
Garth Brooks (a stadium act in the US; his last stadium show in my market was a complete sell-out)
Carrie Underwood (just wrapped a full US arena tour; one of country's hottest stars)
A few Vegas Residencies from the past 5 years:
Lady Gaga (tours a mix of arenas and stadiums, virtually always a sell-out show)
Katy Perry (arena sell-out act)
Silk Sonic (massively popular project, shows exclusive to Vegas, extremely high-profile performers)
Drake (tours a mix of arenas and stadiums, virtually always a sell-out show)
It just doesn't make sense to use this as support for the argument that they're "washed up" or that this move is indicative of them heading in that direction whatsoever. The technology that's going into the actual physical construction of the building has literally never been seen before. The venue is in the shape of a sphere and U2 will, theoretically, play in the center of it. The venue is backed by Madison Square Garden, the most popular venue in the USA. Nobody will have ever seen what this venue can do before U2 will do it first.
How does ANY of the above not SCREAM U2? It's literally a perfect scenario for them, and it seems like a big deal to me. I get if you're upset that this residency isn't in your part of the world. Vegas is extremely unique and there's a reason they pull these enormous residency acts. This event is more about the opening of a venue, not U2's end-all, be-all game plan for presenting live material to all of their fans. No, they probably won't tour this concept, because it will probably be heavily reliant on the technology of the building. I'm sorry they aren't building the Sphere in your backyard.
U2 aren't going to play on a casino ballroom floor for 30 nights over 2 months crooning the same songs to drunk gamblers who are almost out of money. This is an enormous endeavor and its tiring to see so many people claim that THIS is the reason they're washed up. Do some research. Vegas residencies are incredibly lucrative deals that offer a very unique experience. Do a lot of older performers take them because they're easier on their bodies, mental health, families, crews, etc? Absolutely. Does that mean they are, in turn, only for people who have nothing left to offer?
Come the fuck on. Be mad that they're going to waste a whole promotional cycle on bad re-recordings of older songs, not that they're playing in Vegas.
Originally posted by cmaly:Adele: Lame
Garth Brooks Lame
Carrie Underwood. Lame
Lady Gaga Lame
Katy Perry Lame
Silk Sonic Lame
Drake Lame
Originally posted by dstankie:Vegas is the epitome of superficiality and American capitalism gone wrong. Always has been, always will be.
Zoo TV and Popmart parodied excess and visual overload.
Now I'm supposed to feel happy that U2 is embracing these things by playing a "state of the art" arena in a series of shows that can only be attended by people with means?
We're a little far from "all I got is a red guitar, three chords, and the truth," no?
Originally posted by justinpushplay:I think it’s important to note, that would also separates this from other Las Vegas residencies by acts is that the band is not playing a casino theater. Céline Dion and Britney Spears and gaga and Aerosmith were all playing large venues that were part of casinos. This is a new arena built for concerts, it’s not a stage set 40 feet away from the slot machines at treasure island... if the band were doing 6 shows at the Thomas and Mack arena 20 minutes away, no one would be batting an eye