MUS
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by LikeASong:If Coldplay did outstanding performances (not only stage-wise) they shouldn't be afraid of the 360 stravaganzza. I'm aware that the 360 Tour will never (or in a nearby future) be topped in terms of attendance and gross, but it wasn't another Zoo TV artistically and performance wise. Sure the hardcore fans like us love it due to the setlist gems they've dropped and other things, but to the general audience it was just a mastodontic world tour featuring a spider stage and a laser jacket (I've heard that same opinion from a lot of people so I really know what I'm talking about). Coldplay are at the top of their popularity right now, and they have the chance to do something (artistically) bigger than 360. Just my 0'02$.

    From a technical and logistical standpoint, the 360 Tour was far more than another ZooTV tour. Because of the stage setup, 360 was able to utilize more of the stadium than ever possible. Even though The Claw was massive, if you think about how much space it takes up on the field, you would be surprised to discover that it actually leaves far more space on the field than the stadium stage setups of other bands, meaning there are far more GA tickets available than ever before. Additionally, they restructured the price brackets which essentially made tickets for 360 the cheapest it has ever been to see U2 live in recent history. As a result, they performed to far more people than any other band in any other tour.

    However, I actually feel that Coldplay's tour can't really go much bigger from an artistic standpoint. The only way I think they can expand is by expanding their audience (switch to stadiums) and expand their setlist (24 songs instead of 20). The visual aspects of the tour seem over-produced, mainly their obsession with lasers and flashing strobes. I love the Xylobands. I love the confetti. But the light show pushes beyond excessive at times. If the visual technicians can exercise a bit of restraint and learn to use the subtle effects to enhance the music as opposed to using huge visuals, the tour can become a masterpiece. It will never be bigger than 360 and I think it would be a mistake for Coldplay to attempt to replicate or surpass 360 while on tour, but it can certainly become a masterpiece.

  2. Coldplay can't pull off a full blown stadium tour in the US (yet, maybe never), I don't know how to explain it, everyone seems to just "like" Coldplay, but their fanbase seems to not increase from album to album it seems (in the US at least)
  3. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    From a technical and logistical standpoint, the 360 Tour was far more than another ZooTV tour. Because of the stage setup, 360 was able to utilize more of the stadium than ever possible. Even though The Claw was massive, if you think about how much space it takes up on the field, you would be surprised to discover that it actually leaves far more space on the field than the stadium stage setups of other bands, meaning there are far more GA tickets available than ever before. Additionally, they restructured the price brackets which essentially made tickets for 360 the cheapest it has ever been to see U2 live in recent history. As a result, they performed to far more people than any other band in any other tour.

    However, I actually feel that Coldplay's tour can't really go much bigger from an artistic standpoint. The only way I think they can expand is by expanding their audience (switch to stadiums) and expand their setlist (24 songs instead of 20). The visual aspects of the tour seem over-produced, mainly their obsession with lasers and flashing strobes. I love the Xylobands. I love the confetti. But the light show pushes beyond excessive at times. If the visual technicians can exercise a bit of restraint and learn to use the subtle effects to enhance the music as opposed to using huge visuals, the tour can become a masterpiece. It will never be bigger than 360 and I think it would be a mistake for Coldplay to attempt to replicate or surpass 360 while on tour, but it can certainly become a masterpiece.

    Spot. On.

  4. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    From a technical and logistical standpoint, the 360 Tour was far more than another ZooTV tour. Because of the stage setup, 360 was able to utilize more of the stadium than ever possible. Even though The Claw was massive, if you think about how much space it takes up on the field, you would be surprised to discover that it actually leaves far more space on the field than the stadium stage setups of other bands, meaning there are far more GA tickets available than ever before. Additionally, they restructured the price brackets which essentially made tickets for 360 the cheapest it has ever been to see U2 live in recent history. As a result, they performed to far more people than any other band in any other tour.

    However, I actually feel that Coldplay's tour can't really go much bigger from an artistic standpoint. The only way I think they can expand is by expanding their audience (switch to stadiums) and expand their setlist (24 songs instead of 20). The visual aspects of the tour seem over-produced, mainly their obsession with lasers and flashing strobes. I love the Xylobands. I love the confetti. But the light show pushes beyond excessive at times. If the visual technicians can exercise a bit of restraint and learn to use the subtle effects to enhance the music as opposed to using huge visuals, the tour can become a masterpiece. It will never be bigger than 360 and I think it would be a mistake for Coldplay to attempt to replicate or surpass 360 while on tour, but it can certainly become a masterpiece.

    I'm totally with you here.

    And comparing with VLV tour, this one basically has the same structure and size. The difference, in my opinion, is the fact that VLV tour was really a piece of art, with the balloons, fireworks, butterflys and stuff like that (earned from Viva La Vida art and conception).

    This new tour basically has the same structure, but in order to fit with the new album artwork, it looks more like a disco than a rock show.
  5. Another interesting thing to point out is that this tour really is the Mylo Xyloto tour. The latest show featured all but 2 songs from the new album and the songs left out have never been played live before. While 360 did eventually turn into a greatest hits/rarities tour (which was awesome), I doubt Coldplay will bring in many other old songs into the mix, especially since I see their current set to be as high powered as they could possibly make it.
  6. Originally posted by ahn1991:Another interesting thing to point out is that this tour really is the Mylo Xyloto tour. The latest show featured all but 2 songs from the new album and the songs left out have never been played live before. While 360 did eventually turn into a greatest hits/rarities tour (which was awesome), I doubt Coldplay will bring in many other old songs into the mix, especially since I see their current set to be as high powered as they could possibly make it.


    According to Setlist.fm, Sparks is going to be played on the X-Stage tonight, while Strawberry Swing is going to be played between Charlie Brown and Paradise.....why they would put Strawberry Swing between those two, I have absolutely no idea. I thought they'd never play it again....especially between those two. Love the fact Sparks is being played tho
  7. Don't believe the "in advance" (e.g. not happened yet) stuff from Setlist.fm. Most of it is made up by trolls or bored fans.
  8. Originally posted by jmushouse:[..]


    According to Setlist.fm, Sparks is going to be played on the X-Stage tonight, while Strawberry Swing is going to be played between Charlie Brown and Paradise.....why they would put Strawberry Swing between those two, I have absolutely no idea. I thought they'd never play it again....especially between those two. Love the fact Sparks is being played tho

    About the setlist.fm... very low reliability in their reporting, even after the concert has already happened.

    It's like one of the 360 show where everybody was listening to what they thought was a live stream up until the band started to play Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses. It was at that point when we discovered it was actually a troll playing a Vertigo Tour bootleg.

    But bringing back Sparks and Strawberry Swing doesn't make any sense whatsoever, especially since both songs are honestly quite lackluster in a live setting.


    On that note, there's apparently a bit of a stir on the Coldplaying forums (which I recently became a member of to keep track of the band) regarding the setlist. The complaints were essentially too many new songs, not enough oldies.
  9. I can't see why should someone complain about a setlist for containing "too many new songs", it's stupid. Of course, we all love the "oldies" (which ain't that 'old' anyway) but the band is supporting their new album, the logical thing is playing as many new songs as you think it's neccesary to do it right. Setlists can be critizised for lack of changes, for being stale or boring, but for having too many new songs? WTF.

    Regarding Sparks, I could definitely see it back at the acoustic part of the ocassional show.
  10. Sparks, SS, and Glass of Water were soundchecked before. I see no reason why they wouldn't make their way into the setlist.
  11. Originally posted by LikeASong:Don't believe the "in advance" (e.g. not happened yet) stuff from Setlist.fm. Most of it is made up by trolls or bored fans.


    I see now. Nevermind.
  12. Checking back, it looks like those songs got removed anyway. Oh well.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.