1. As I always do. Leave the surprises as they come. Full review coming whenever I get the chance.

    Wild Horses - OMG.
  2. KaiserJose, shannon19 and sonia_lastrega have provided more food for thought in this, the eternal debate of U2 live audiences.

    I don't even know what to say anymore, and perhaps I shouldn't say anything, so I won't be labeled a disgruntled ranter of a concert-goer with a hidden agenda and a chip on his shoulder, to boot

    Admittedly, to properly comment, I would have to attend many more shows and see many more video bootlegs, around the globe.

    Thing is, I'm stuck in this country, anyway, (a country with many positives, too) and I'm gonna enjoy myself at every concert I go to - especially when I had to pay a handsome sum. Also, it appears we do get a nice selection of wild people from foreign lands at least for something as big as U2. Nevertheless, I have to think hard about whether I can accept anything less than GA - pity the poor beer drinkers and hot-dog eaters and early-leavers around the seats where I'd be standing up my 6' 8", jumping as much as possible with the little space in between rows, belting out the lyrics to every song, all night long... you get the picture - it'd be a pity for me, as well.

    Note: I actually haven't seen the Rose Bowl show, but I have no reason to doubt your comments. For that matter, I haven't even seen Vertigo from Chicago and Elevation from Boston, so this makes me very curious how these American audiences of recent years will appear on official footage.
  3. The crowd on Elevation isn't too bad. Vertigo blows.

    And the reliance of some of the more boring members of the audience on their precious beer is hilarious. If people have to have alcohol to enjoy a U2 concert they're already fucked and should go see the Eagles instead.
  4. 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.


    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.
  5. 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.


    Fingers crossed that they do come down here. Australian crowds know how to party, though I have to say the Brisbane crowd for the first Vertigo show of the 5th leg (at least from the seats where I was unfortunately stuck) was pretty damn ordinary too. I think we made more noise at the rehearsals.

    PS. Yes, I had an incredible trip.
  6. I read this thread yesterday and was having a nostagic u2 evening last night after downloading bootlegs of a few early concerts I was at (amazing never thought I'd hear them again Thanks U2 start!!!) I put on red rocks. The crowd there are looking kinda enthusiastic! I've only seen u2 in Ireland and france so cant comment on the transatlantic debate, but if I can get a ticket for New York next year I'll rport back!!!
    ok, I'm Biased, but if you search "u2 belfast" on youtube theres a news report from the joshua tree when Bono tells us who the best audience is!
  7. 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...
  8. 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...


    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.
  9. 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.


    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
  10. 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


    I dont know why they filmed in L.A.Californians have a bad rep for shows,concerts ,games etc.NYC should have been filmed.The best parts from our 2 shows could have made it onto the DVD and the extras DVD as well.
  11. In the end..it's all about the money

    And after Red Rocks, Paris, Sydney, Mexico City, Slane Castle, Boston, Chicago and Milan..they though Los Angeles would look nice. And they will sell it anyway. And it wasn't that bad actually.