Originally posted by drewhiggins:Then it's done. I had never even heard of it before.
start with Ultraviolet, The Fly or Bad. Or do a complete run through
Originally posted by drewhiggins:Then it's done. I had never even heard of it before.
Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]
start with Ultraviolet, The Fly or Bad. Or do a complete run through
Originally posted by sonia_lastrega:[..]
Hey, Shannon! I'm also from Australia and did the same thing you did, only for the beginning of the tour (Chicago 1&2, Toronto 1&2, Boston 1, NJ1). I also thought some of the audiences were very lame, especially the first Toronto show, which was just excruciating. People were leaving the stadium at 10pm, halfway through the show. It wasn't the only time I noticed the stadium emptying early, but it was the worst case of it. Up front at the rail was full-on mad awesomeness, but up in the stands, not so much.
My personal theory (the current one anyway) is that U2 have become a 'bucket list' band for a lot of people and the stadium shows are just letting more bucket list people in. The one time I had seats (NJ1) there were people all around me who'd never seen them before but wanted to 'see them at least once'. Maybe that's inevitable, maybe they're just not connecting with the audience with the new music, I don't know.
Originally posted by shannon19:[..]
Hey Sonia, I hope you had a great trip, hopefully u2 will make it back to Australia soon so we can show them how a crowd should react to them and their music!
You're probably right about people in the $30 seats just wanting to see u2 as part of their bucket list, they saw the claw, heard a few songs and that was their money's worth and they can say 'i was at u2 at the rose bowl'. I thought it was just the new songs that weren't connecting with the audience but mysterious ways was the only song the rose bowl seemed to get into.
Originally posted by haytrain:Okay....I was at the Rose Bowl, and I'll admit that it was a pretty lame crowd, especially compared to Dublin. But that's just a typical Los Angeles crowd. I lived there for years, and that's the stereotypical knock on them, that they show up late and leave early. I guess that's why I was surprised why U2 chose to shoot at the Rose Bowl, since I knew this would be a problem.
Sidenote: I'm sick of people complaining about how the audiences at the Rose Bowl took more pictures on their point-and-shoot cameras than anywhere else. Seriously, people...welcome to the 21st century. There weren't a lot of cameras at the Popmart or Elevation because digital cameras weren't as affordable as they are now. I saw just as many people shooting photos during the show in Dublin as I did in Los Angeles. Why do you care if people take pictures anyway? Doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the show at all...
Originally posted by EDDMB:[..]
Well said.I read your comments and LMAO.It was nice to read something positive for once.Too much bitching and moaning.I thought it was great that the band let us watch the gig for FREE.
![]()
Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]
Nobody bitched about the webcast really. Most of the negativity is based on the assumption that this rather average performance may make it onto an official DVD