U2 - 360 Degrees Tour "Cheap Seats"

[auctioneer69]

I was curious to see what the much-hyped $30 ticket would buy me at Seattle's Qwest Stadium next June? I expected a seat in the nosebleeds. What was offered was far worse - a seat in the nosebleeds behind the band. $30 for a view of the 'thingy' and a video-screen. Even more galling was the next price point - $57.50 was basically the same area. The 360 Degree Stage which is only really a 360 degree video screen is just a rouse to rake in the dough. Friends of mine who paid $100 for a ticket have the luxury of a nose-bleed with a view. For a band who have "marketed" themselves as being all about integrity - they are really taking the piss. To put this in some sort of context, I went to see the Police outdoors at the Gorge, Washington two years ago. $75 got us the opportunity to sit anywhere on a sloping lawn outside of modestly sized front section where tickets were going for $225. Even better the support band was Elvis Costello and the Attractions. Maybe it might be worth paying that much to see U2 if they were still somewhat close to making great music. That's hardly the case and poor Bono can no longer properly sing songs like "With or Without You" or "Bad" any longer.

[remphish1]

I had a cheap seat at Giants Stadium in NJ and I was dead center not behind the band. They actually have full view seats at the $30 price but they are hard to get. If it plays into your decision at all they do move around to all areas of the stage and those seats behind the stage aren't 100% terrible.

[redpillbox]

It's been said here before, but in reality the higher price tickets ($100-225) subsidize all of the best seats which are standing GA/Field seats (i.e. the potential front row seats) and those are the next price up you mentioned, the $57.50 seats. They could actually charge twice that amount, while still keeping the higher ticket prices ($100-225) right where they are. The absolute cheapest tickets are exactly where you'd think they'd be, behind the stage which offers a completely unobstructed view, but you are right, you'd be looking at 3/4 of their backs most of the time (Larry's drum-set rotates).

 

What I don't think is recognized enough is just the ballsy audacity of putting on such an enormous stadium show during these economic times. Say what you will about U2, they take their business seriously and I don't believe they are beyond criticism, but they have really put it all on the line (they rotate three separate stages at any given time) when they could've simply stuck to a much safer production and played several nights in arenas just adding dates as others sold out. By all accounts I've read, the band hasn't even reached the break even point despite breaking attendance records at several venues -- now they will because they are selling out all their dates, but what if they hadn't?

 

I honestly believe they look at it like an investment in their fans. Like, "we'll give our fan club members the best seats in the house for cheaper price and give them a HUGE show." The only bands that can charge upwards of $200 for a ticket are bands that have been around for a while and grown up with their audience. Anyway, you see my point...

[MattZ]

I honestly believe they look at it like an investment in their fans. Like, "we'll give our fan club members the best seats in the house for cheaper price and give them a HUGE show." The only bands that can charge upwards of $200 for a ticket are bands that have been around for a while and grown up with their audience. Anyway, you see my point...

 

Actually, I don't see your point. Are fans really more interested in a huge show than the music? Who cares about three rotating stages? How is that an investment in their fans?

[redpillbox]

Actually, I don't see your point. Are fans really more interested in a huge show than the music? Who cares about three rotating stages? How is that an investment in their fans?

 

 

When I said three rotating stages, I meant they have three complete stage set-ups on the road. Three enormous "Claws". One being set-up, one in transit, one for the day of show. I was just trying to illustrate the fact that they've taken on a pretty large financial burden/gamble in putting on such an elaborate show. I think, the argument that they're in it only for the $ is belied by what they've put on the line here.

 

What Auctioneer69 commented on was the bands intentions. My claim isn't what I personally would prefer (arenas, incidentally). I'm only commenting on what I believe THEY believe, what their intentions are - "Let's give the fans a great gig, a great show that tests the boundaries of what's been done in stadiums previously." Misguided or not, I think they are attempting to break some new ground, and it's not "just a rouse to rake in the dough." It's an investment in their fans because they are putting their own "dough" on the line to do something different, when it doesn't really benefit them. At this point the best case scenario for them, the tour sells out, they break even on operating expenses, make money off of their t-shirts and everyone goes, "Oh, well that's U2 they always sell-out." Worse case scenario, they have a repeat of the PopMart scenario and they take an absolute bath, losing millions and a ton of face in the process.

 

My opinion here: The reason U2 has put on some of the best stadium gigs ever is related to this investment in their stage. To integrate a stage set-up with what's going off musically is exactly why the band connects with everyone from the person in the front row to the fan who's staring at Adam Clayton's ass all show from Auctioneer's $30 seat. It's not about smoke and mirrors, the music has to be there, but it builds an intimacy and community in the crowd that wouldn't necessarily be there otherwise.

[Sir Stewart]

To integrate a stage set-up with what's going off musically is exactly why the band connects with everyone from the person in the front row to the fan who's staring at Adam Clayton's ass all show from Auctioneer's $30 seat. It's not about smoke and mirrors, the music has to be there, but it builds an intimacy and community in the crowd that wouldn't necessarily be there otherwise.

But, according to auctioneer, they didn't connect, and 'it' wasn't there.

[redpillbox]

But, according to auctioneer, they didn't connect, and 'it' wasn't there.

 

I may be misreading your post, but the show hasn't happened yet, so how would auctioneer know if they did or didn't connect to the audience in the stadium?

[Guest Speed Racer]

How would you know if they did connect, since the show hasn't happened yet. Paying $30 to stare at a pin-point that someone swears is my favorite rock star's ass sounds like the least "connected" thing I could do, honestly. I've never had any interest in an arena show, at all. I've always been boggled by bands that think they can somehow "touch" fans by hiking up the budget to create some obscene spectacle (a sin U2 commits annually) and raise ticket prices quite literally out of the park.

[MattZ]

I get what you are saying redpillbox, but you sound like a biased fan, and I sound like a biased nonfan (or, former fan). Just seems to me you are going out of your way to praise the band for putting in so much effort to connect with their fans. But the fact remains that this is a touring machine now, with the focus on a spectacle. They'd connect with all their fans (and much more sincerely, IMO), if they "invested" in their fans by focusing on writing great songs, and playing normal venues instead of Giants Stadium. I just dont get what they are accomplishing by trying to connect with the guy in the last row behind the stage at Giants Stadium. But then, like I said, this is probably why I am not a fan.

 

And I love your avatar. It needs to be said.

[Guest Speed Racer]

they could've simply stuck to a much safer production and played several nights in arenas just adding dates as others sold out. By all accounts I've read, the band hasn't even reached the break even point despite breaking attendance records at several venues -- now they will because they are selling out all their dates, but what if they hadn't?

 

Wait a second - why would a "much safer production" been a bad thing at all, instead of a monstrous stage event that barely makes the band break even?

[borracho]

i had a $50 cheap seat at the Norman show. it was behind the stage, about 30 rows up. they definitely played more to the front - probably at least 90% of the time, but it was an open stage, and each member at some point numerous times would walk around the stage to the back on the catwalk. the behind the stage crowd definitely wasn't forgotten about. you couldn't see all that great, but at a stadium show when you're more than 100 feet away, does it really matter anyway? doesn't matter front, back, side, rear... you're not gonna see a whole lot, so get used to looking at the video screen... i had friends who were on the sides who paid $125 and i had a better view than they did. i just went for the experience anyway since i'd seen them 3 times already. a fun night out...

[IRememberDBoon]

i had a $50 cheap seat at the Norman show. it was behind the stage, about 30 rows up. they definitely played more to the front - probably at least 90% of the time, but it was an open stage, and each member at some point numerous times would walk around the stage to the back on the catwalk. the behind the stage crowd definitely wasn't forgotten about. you couldn't see all that great, but at a stadium show when you're more than 100 feet away, does it really matter anyway? doesn't matter front, back, side, rear... you're not gonna see a whole lot, so get used to looking at the video screen... i had friends who were on the sides who paid $125 and i had a better view than they did. i just went for the experience anyway since i'd seen them 3 times already. a fun night out...

 

 

F that. Id rather watch a Jeff Dunham puppet show and I love U2 and hate Jeff Dunham

[redpillbox]

I get what you are saying redpillbox, but you sound like a biased fan, and I sound like a biased nonfan (or, former fan). Just seems to me you are going out of your way to praise the band for putting in so much effort to connect with their fans. But the fact remains that this is a touring machine now, with the focus on a spectacle. They'd connect with all their fans (and much more sincerely, IMO), if they "invested" in their fans by focusing on writing great songs, and playing normal venues instead of Giants Stadium. I just dont get what they are accomplishing by trying to connect with the guy in the last row behind the stage at Giants Stadium. But then, like I said, this is probably why I am not a fan.

 

And I love your avatar. It needs to be said.

 

 

Speedracer - I can see that we're coming from two different outlooks and I can appreciate that. I don't think we'll find a common ground here. If you are opposed to stadium or arena shows in principle and dismiss them out of hand, there's not going to be much I can say. Not trying to sound sarcastic, but I'm curious if you've ever been to an arena/stadium show before? I am also curious about what you paid for your last Wilco show?

 

Matt - Admittedly, I am a fan. I do think I can step outside of the role though and take an objective look at the situation. And, if I got to boil it down, I'll just say that I disagree with auctioneers main point, which is that they are only in it for the $. The rest, probably is another discussion altogether (stadiums vs. arenas vs. theaters vs. clubs vs. bars) - I don't know what's considered a "normal" venue . I agree about the songwriting criticism; I think their output has been sporadic since 'Pop'.

 

And thanks for the (reluctant? ) kudos on the avatar. You a fan of KV?

 

Red

[Guest Speed Racer]

Last I paid for a Wilco show was $35, but that was a few years ago. I honestly don't care for concerts too much in general because my expectations for bands tend to exceed the kind of experience a concert on other people's terms provides me. I prefer going to concerts of bands I don't know as well so I have fewer expectations.

 

That being said, I don't think that bands should go out of their way to impede the audience experience like U2 is doing, in my opinion. I think more people would rather see U2 for less without some spider-claw abberation serving as a stage, and have tickets at a cheaper price. I've never been to an arena show, no, but it's clear at least 40,000 of the 50,000 people who go are paying for a crowd experience and not a U2 experience. You couldn't get me to pay $5 for a crowd experience (and you couldn't get me to experience U2 if you paid me, but that's another story altogether), but you certainly couldn't get me to pay $30 to look at a pin-point someone says is famous.

[auctioneer69]

It's been said here before, but in reality the higher price tickets ($100-225) subsidize all of the best seats which are standing GA/Field seats (i.e. the potential front row seats) and those are the next price up you mentioned, the $57.50 seats. They could actually charge twice that amount, while still keeping the higher ticket prices ($100-225) right where they are. The absolute cheapest tickets are exactly where you'd think they'd be, behind the stage which offers a completely unobstructed view, but you are right, you'd be looking at 3/4 of their backs most of the time (Larry's drum-set rotates).

 

What I don't think is recognized enough is just the ballsy audacity of putting on such an enormous stadium show during these economic times. Say what you will about U2, they take their business seriously and I don't believe they are beyond criticism, but they have really put it all on the line (they rotate three separate stages at any given time) when they could've simply stuck to a much safer production and played several nights in arenas just adding dates as others sold out. By all accounts I've read, the band hasn't even reached the break even point despite breaking attendance records at several venues -- now they will because they are selling out all their dates, but what if they hadn't?

 

I honestly believe they look at it like an investment in their fans. Like, "we'll give our fan club members the best seats in the house for cheaper price and give them a HUGE show." The only bands that can charge upwards of $200 for a ticket are bands that have been around for a while and grown up with their audience. Anyway, you see my point...

 

A good debate about U2's intentions. I will add a couple of other points.

 

I hugely admire Bono's work on behalf of and advocacy for the millions in Africa who are sick and poor or both. That said, am I the only one to see the huge contradiction in the massive carbon footprint of this tour (three massive separate stages et all)? If global climate change is a reality (and that what most scientists in that field believe) the people in Africa who already live in some of the most water-sensitive countries anywhere will suffer disproportionately. Oh I am sure they have bought carbon offsets but from a symbolic position the tour is all wrong.

 

Secondly, U2 get a huge pass from the media in general. There was a time when U2 were both a commercial and artistic juggernaut. Its clear from tours like this, the membership fees they charge for their fansite, sponsorships with Blackberry, the huge deal they signed with the nauseating Live Nation, the expensive re-issues of their old albums, moving their "business" HQ to the Netherlands, their interest in developing a hit musical based on Spiderman etc set against the fact they have released 2 albums this decade (one decent, the other poor) against the five they released in the 1990's (including the "Passengers" side-project) and the six they released in the 1980's that they are now far more interested in extracting every dollar of revenue possible from their loyal fan base and their "brand". Yet because they have been so skillful in building a brand based on integrity and authenticity no-one in the music press or otherwise make the serious case that they are just as money hungry and as artistically relevant as the Rolling Stones today.

 

I'd make a strong case that the design of this stage was a lot more about opening up another 10,000 - 15,000 seats for sale per night at $30 - $57.50 (in affect like adding a small arena to a stadium every night) than some grand artistic statement.

 

I say these things not as someone who hates u2. They were the first band I saw live (1983) and think the "Joshua Tree" and "Achtung Baby" are classics. But on more than just a musical level, I find them more and disappointing as time goes on.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I also want to echo what auctioneer said most recently. U2's bottom line hasn't been about music for over a decade, and they really have become a commercial parody of themselves. I don't think they're in this 360 business for the money (they likely wouldn't notice if their bank accounts doubled, since infinity multiplied by two is of course...), but I think their in it for their perceived accolades as showman. Since they can't get any accolades for their songwriting these days, they need to seek praise from somewhere.

[MattZ]

Matt - Admittedly, I am a fan. I do think I can step outside of the role though and take an objective look at the situation. And, if I got to boil it down, I'll just say that I disagree with auctioneers main point, which is that they are only in it for the $. The rest, probably is another discussion altogether (stadiums vs. arenas vs. theaters vs. clubs vs. bars) - I don't know what's considered a "normal" venue . I agree about the songwriting criticism; I think their output has been sporadic since 'Pop'.

 

And thanks for the (reluctant? ) kudos on the avatar. You a fan of KV?

 

Red

 

Reluctant kudos? Heck no! I didnt even realize it was KV (Vonnegut?), but yeah, it's very cool.

 

I don't know what a "normal" venue is -- you've got me on that one. I guess I sort of come out where SpeedRacer is on all of this. I know it's awfully banal and frankly, cliche at this point, to pick on U2/Bono. I dont mean to go down that path. It just strikes me as odd that the band would spend so much effort and time (if you are right) on creating a spectacle instead of focusing that energy on creating music. And then just playing at whatever venues they could sell out. Do they really think their fans appreciate the spectacle more? I have a hard time thinking they do. Either way, we've beaten this horse dead. Carry on.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Either way, we've beaten this horse dead. Carry on.

 

But that's the thing! Just when you think they couldn't waste their money in a dumber way, marginalize their music more than they already have, or mediawhore themselves more than their previous venture into the world did, they out-do themselves!

[u2roolz]

Ok. First, I want to say something that happened to me at the Foxboro show in MA that I saw in Sept. People were standing in the back of every row. Pretty much about 20 people at each entrance to go down to the floor. So if you paid $30 for a ticket, take your time getting to your seat. You may be able to hang out by the concession area on the concourse. I don't know why there were no ushers or security? Anyways, the view was excellent. I ended up standing with these people and I had a seat kiddie-corner facing the soundboard. I completely understand the idiocy of people having to stand if their view from heaven wasn't great. But I say take advantage of your "cheap" ticket and stand.

 

I wouldn't say that U2 does this annually (tour). They tour every time a new U.S. president gets in office. The thing they do annually now is rerelease the old records with bonus content that was on the over priced iTunes "complete" box set. Ok. Maybe one or two songs are new. But the last 2 tours after the PopMart debacle were indoor arenas except in Europe etc. They played 7 shows in Boston over a year in 2005. Every show I assume sold out. This wasn't the case at the 2nd night in Foxboro this year. It's a lot easier to sell out 20,000 arenas than 70,000 over priced.

 

Why did they do it? Well, they wanted to top themselves and break out of their confines of playing (it safe) indoors in the U.S. I think every thing that's being said can be taken into account. Ego, money, breaking down the doors on stadium tours' technology, claiming to have low ticket prices than they turn out to be the worst seats in the house. (there's no way I'm sitting in the last row for $50.00 in an open air stadium. Does Bono want me to fall to me death like that overweight woman in The Naked Gun?)

 

That being said the show was pretty amazing BUT the parking situation prevented me from catching the whole show. My friends went to night 1 and they were stuck in the lot for 3 hours before they moved an inch. I skipped out on night 1 because their setlists have been pretty static on this tour and that's typical of them. $40.00 to park too. How nice. I kind of like the idea that U2 tours every 4 years. It makes their real die hards (read: the ones that would eat Bono's shit and think that there's nothing else going on musically in the world. I've been there in 1997. You wait and wait for a new album and then await a tour announcement. There's a lot of people at the U2 message boards that come off as naive and insane. They're drinking the Bono kool-aid. I really wonder if they go live and hide in caves in between U2 tours and albums.)

[u2roolz]

Some more points before my mind goes blank:

 

I sometimes state that I have my U2roolz screen name as a sign of who I once was. I mean I spend most of my time on here. I think that speaks volumes. Ever since I saw Wilco in 2003 at Boston's Fleet Pavillion, it all clicked for me. Under a different lense, I thought this is the band that I've been looking for. MUSICIANS making amazing music and still creating an AMAZING live show. Not from zillions of screens and a McDonald's Arch and Bono talking for 10 minutes about poverty in Africa. Wilco was and is the real deal for me. I still love U2 but in a weird way now. Maybe like that ex-girlfriend that got into your head good and comes back every 4 years and blows you away, but still lets you down and leaves a void. That sense of being left behind. I respect the decision to go away for 4 years, but it seems like that's all part of the plan/scheme to make them the big deal every time they come back.

 

Oh. U2 released 3 albums this decade. Depending on if you want to believe that 2000 was the 1st year in this decade. All That You Can't Leave Behind in 2000. I think all of the hits on this record sound better live. Especially, the Bono and Edge acoustic version of Stuck In A Moment. Elevation works live and isn't that great on there. There's a handful of tunes that work - In A Little Whlle, Wild Honey, When I Look At The World, and Kite all sound great though on the album.

 

Atomic Bomb I enjoyed at the time. Over the years the same thing started happening. The live versions trumped what was recorded. I can agree with people if they say that this was forced.

 

No Line, in my opinion, was their best record of this decade. It's too bad that they matched it with a stadium tour.

 

For the record and the judge and jury: I haven't bought any of the new U2 rereleases. I passed on The Unforgettable Fire to pick up R.E.M.'s 39 songs live instead. And that paid off in dividends. I also haven't picked up their 1st 3 remastered. Money is tight and like I said a lot of that stuff was and/or should have been on the Complete "Box Set" from iTunes. So I feel a bit cheated, but it seems almost scripted now. I don't let it sting. I'll buy them at some point.

 

Ending here: I don't know if meeting Jeff has swayed my overall opinion on the band. I was very gracious to have met this man a few times in such short a time period. I feel more connection to this band. Fuck. Even the HQ emails seem more sincere than the U2.com ones looking for $50 to sign up for a membership to get a day early crack at tickets.

 

That is all.

 

(Edit: LOL. This all sounds very Oprah or Dr. Phil)

[u2roolz]

I almost forgot to add the most important thing on here. Take a look.

 

"It’s confirmed: U2 will play Montreal on July 16.

 

The band will perform on the polo field at the Montreal Hippodrome, kicking in $3 million for the construction of a temporary open-air stadium to fit 60,000 to 80,000 people.

 

It is the only date for which U2 is not performing in a pre-existing stadium, not to mention fronting the cost of building one."

 

Read the rest here - U2 Montreal 2010

[ih8music]

“After the concert, the stadium will be demolished and (the site) will become a real estate project.”

That's quite an environmentally sensitive thing for a band like U2 to do.

[auctioneer69]

Some more points before my mind goes blank:

 

I sometimes state that I have my U2roolz screen name as a sign of who I once was. I mean I spend most of my time on here. I think that speaks volumes. Ever since I saw Wilco in 2003 at Boston's Fleet Pavillion, it all clicked for me. Under a different lense, I thought this is the band that I've been looking for. MUSICIANS making amazing music and still creating an AMAZING live show. Not from zillions of screens and a McDonald's Arch and Bono talking for 10 minutes about poverty in Africa. Wilco was and is the real deal for me. I still love U2 but in a weird way now. Maybe like that ex-girlfriend that got into your head good and comes back every 4 years and blows you away, but still lets you down and leaves a void. That sense of being left behind. I respect the decision to go away for 4 years, but it seems like that's all part of the plan/scheme to make them the big deal every time they come back.

 

Oh. U2 released 3 albums this decade. Depending on if you want to believe that 2000 was the 1st year in this decade. All That You Can't Leave Behind in 2000. I think all of the hits on this record sound better live. Especially, the Bono and Edge acoustic version of Stuck In A Moment. Elevation works live and isn't that great on there. There's a handful of tunes that work - In A Little Whlle, Wild Honey, When I Look At The World, and Kite all sound great though on the album.

 

Atomic Bomb I enjoyed at the time. Over the years the same thing started happening. The live versions trumped what was recorded. I can agree with people if they say that this was forced.

 

No Line, in my opinion, was their best record of this decade. It's too bad that they matched it with a stadium tour.

 

For the record and the judge and jury: I haven't bought any of the new U2 rereleases. I passed on The Unforgettable Fire to pick up R.E.M.'s 39 songs live instead. And that paid off in dividends. I also haven't picked up their 1st 3 remastered. Money is tight and like I said a lot of that stuff was and/or should have been on the Complete "Box Set" from iTunes. So I feel a bit cheated, but it seems almost scripted now. I don't let it sting. I'll buy them at some point.

 

Ending here: I don't know if meeting Jeff has swayed my overall opinion on the band. I was very gracious to have met this man a few times in such short a time period. I feel more connection to this band. Fuck. Even the HQ emails seem more sincere than the U2.com ones looking for $50 to sign up for a membership to get a day early crack at tickets.

 

That is all.

 

 

My bag. I thought that All You Can't Leave... was released in 1999 instead of 2000. It's funny that was the last time that a U2 album had somewhat of a subdued release. Good to hear you like REM "39 Songs". Yet to get it. Also, the U2 emails might seem a little insincere since Live Nation also do that stuff for U2 now. And you are totally spot on re: a lot of U2 fans. Very cultish in the true meaning of the world "cult.

[u2roolz]

Ok. First, I want to say something that happened to me at the Foxboro show in MA that I saw in Sept. People were standing in the back of every row. Pretty much about 20 people at each entrance to go down to the floor. So if you paid $30 for a ticket, take your time getting to your seat. You may be able to hang out by the concession area on the concourse. I don't know why there were no ushers or security? Anyways, the view was excellent. I ended up standing with these people and I had a seat kiddie-corner facing the soundboard. I completely understand the idiocy of people having to stand if their view from heaven wasn't great. But I say take advantage of your "cheap" ticket and stand.

 

Auctioneer, I hope you read this. I'm not sure if it was like this at every stadium. But if it is like this in Seattle then go for it. It puts you at eye level with the band and the screen.

 

Edit: Oh yeah, after typing all of this about U2 I did something that has never happened to me before. I freakin' bit my tongue while eating. It freaked me out. For a second I really thought that Bono had special powers.

[Shakey]

Don't forget your pillow.