pegasaurus

U2 did not lose money from Popmart. While it didn't do as well, it was also nowhere near as costly to produce and therefore did not run the risk of bankruptcy.

From ZooTV wikipedia page: The band incurred heavy expenses to produce the tour, leading to only a small profit. According to McGuinness, "We grossed $30 million in T-shirt sales. Without those we'd be fucked." Bono later said, "When we built Zoo TV, we were so close to bankruptcy that if five percent fewer people went, U2 was bankrupt. Even in our irresponsible, youthful and fatal disregard of such material matters, it was terrifying."

Coldplay is definitely able to sustain a stadium tour. They certainly aren't able to pull off anything as massive as 360, but with their newest album full of hits, they would definitely be able to pull off a stadium tour. This is especially true since they had all those festival gigs to warm up. That's why many people found it surprising that they started in arenas before moving up to stadiums.

Somebody is getting far too mad over absolutely nothing. From a fiscal standpoint, it makes the most sense for the band to come back to the US. That's where all the money's at. There's no guarantee that Coldplay can sell out a stadium in most other countries. Even then, the infrastructure of the US makes it far easier to schedule dates with less costs than elsewhere. Also, regarding an earlier post, while PopMart was not considered a commercial success, it's a well known fact that ZooTV nearly bankrupted U2. Bringing your own television station around the world is not cheap.

I don't think comparing MX to U2's Elevation Tour is quite fair since the Elevation Tour has immense sentimental value for the US because they announced the second North American leg after the 9/11 attacks and even played a series of shows in New York. Even though that tour wasn't very long, most people did not believe a second North American leg would even happen because of the attacks. But U2 came to the states anyways and turned many songs from ATYCLB into songs that spoke directly to general sentiment that US citizens were feeling at the time. The tour that spoke on an emotional level to the most powerful nation in the world in their time of need easily secured U2's position as the world's top live act. Coldplay's MX Tour is good, but it is by no means speaking to any nation as a whole on an emotional level, at least not in the same way the Elevation did. The reason why I say that a short tour would raise questions is because the MX tour has the misfortune of following the behemoth 360 Tour. Coldplay and U2 are both bands that occupy similar genres and even share the same fanbase. The only difference is that Coldplay's most recent release was a commercial hit while U2's, not so much. In spite of this, MX has started with a couple snags, the main one being the short setlist. The only way I can see them ending the tour without going to North America again is if they keep the setlist at around 20 songs for the entirety of the tour. Fans would still grumble about the short setlist, but they would give the band the benefit of the doubt for being consistent. But if they increase the setlist length, all the locations visited during the early stages of the tour would definitely feel bitter if they didn't make a return trip. Also, I'm not sure where you got the impression that the tour is impressive from a commercial standpoint since the tour has a very real risk of bankrupting the band... Think about U2's ZooTV Tour. It was ingenious, extravagant, and superb from a presentation standpoint. From a commercial standpoint, dragging a TV station across the world nearly drove the band to bankruptcy.

If they don't do a second NA leg, a lot of people are going to be extremely disappointed and it would definitely raise quite a few question marks about their ability to sustain a global tour, especially since it didn't initially start in stadiums. But then there's also the question of how long they can fiscally afford to stay on the road. It's already been mentioned several times that this tour could bankrupt the band, so they may be forced to cut it short.

Was the Cologne gig a festival show? I thought it was a part of the first European leg. EDIT: Ok I looked back and it was a festival show. I also looked at the shows in the first European leg and they were roughly 18 or so songs, so there is a small increase. But their song selection during the first leg was somewhat surprising to me since they picked many songs that I honestly don't think work very well live...

Oh yeah, the change is definitely good. And you're absolutely right. Towards the end of the 360 and Vertigo, the band were switching things up quite a bit. But many of their staples remained and the general narrative of the tour was preserved with the exception of the encore for the most part. 360 was a weird one in that it evolved in extremely clear stage. In Coldplay's case, I think it's still a bit early to start discussing setlist changes since the tour hasn't fully developed to your typical 24 song set. Granted, their setlist actually has grown a bit. Their Cologne set was 14 songs and their San Jose (4/27/12) set was 19 songs. When the setlist expands, we'll see some of their older songs come back and some slots to make nice rotations between nights.

In both cases, they found a way to make it work with an actual person, whether it was Snow Patrol bringing in another female to sing Martha's part or Bono flexing his opera muscles to play Pavarotti's part. But I will say that during one of the first performances of Miss Sarajevo when Pavarotti was not available, the band did take out an old school gramophone to play a recording of Pavarotti's part. But with POC, a recording of Rihanna seems very out of place and devalues the song quite a bit, in my opinion. In response to Black Rose's suggestion, you really don't want them to do that. It ruins the entire aspect of their gig. I know U2 designs their shows to be a story with different parts of the narrative and I'm sure Coldplay does the same thing when they designed their setlist. There are some songs that you always want to keep in the mix because of the role they play in the overall narrative. For Coldplay, these songs may be Yellow, Charlie Brown, Every Teardrop, their heavy hitters, essentially. Then there are a few slots that can feature different songs in a somewhat cyclic fashion, like Warning Sign's slot can be cycled for other acoustic-like songs. I will admit that I don't follow Coldplay as obsessively as I follow U2, so I probably won't know the ins and outs of their setlist and the songs they have available like many of you do, but I'm sure there is a set organization and a place to introduce variation.

This is correct. You can hear it pretty clearly on the Cologne bootleg. Violet Hill transitions directly to GPASUYF.

I definitely do not see them heading anywhere towards a Pop-era style in any way shape or form, with the exception of one comment in which Bono joked about bringing the giant Lemon to Glastonbury. Their musical style and production in HTDAAB and NLOTH have been unlike any of their prior albums. In fact, looking at all of U2's albums and tours in a continuum, Pop and the PopMart Tour are completely on their own plane. Pop was a result of them wanting to take the ZooTV feel and scale it up. They tried it, it was cool, but they have never turned back to that way since.

Popmart is a very bad example to refer to since the majority of U2 fans (and the band itself) considered that tour to be a complete failure. In fact, they felt they had overextended their hand with the visuals such that they scaled back their visuals drastically for their Elevation Tour, which is probably the most visually simplistic tour they have ever had post Zoo TV. I'm saying that the show must be build around music with the visuals supporting and enhancing the experience. There are some parts of the MX show that feels built around the visuals with the music almost being an afterthought. All in all, cut down on the lasers and the flashing lights. They're cool to have, but not in excess.

Unless Coldplay bought one of The Claws that U2 used for their tour, the show is not going to be 360°.

The European summer shows will be interesting with their late summer sunsets. I know that during U2's 360 and Vertigo Tours, the late sunsets had the band starting their set in pretty much broad daylight.

This statement actually embodies my main "complaint," if you can call it, about this tour so far. One leg is in the books and I feel that some people are still asking if they are going to a Coldplay concert for the music or for the visuals. The show directors seem to LOVE the visual effects, but I think they need to tone it down a few notches during some songs because now you have two conflicting aspects that make people wonder if this is a lightshow or a concert.

Collaborated songs like PoC work well on the album, but unless you can bring the person with you on tour, they don't work at all live. The only exception I can see to this rule is U2's Miss Sarajevo because Bono sings Pavarotti's opera part fantastically.

Age is just a number. U2 is at least 10 years older and they're still rocking. The "dancing" is a possible reason, but it's part of their live show. Furthermore, Chris hasn't shown any sign of strain on his voice this tour.

Yes, the setlist should be longer. But as I mentioned earlier, they don't have many strong live hits to draw from. As I said before, if they add more songs, I anticipate that they will bring back Politik, possibly Lost!, maybe A Message, and hopefully introduce Up With The Birds (which is technically supposed to transition directly from DLIBYH.

I think their setlist is the best it's ever been. If you want my honest opinion, while Coldplay is a great live act, they actually have very few songs that work well live. The only songs I can seem them adding back to the setlist are Politik, maybe Lost! (not very strong live, but still decent), and A Message, which does work well live, but possibly not in a gig setting. All of their other songs are either extremely mellow, too mellow to work in a live setting, or have too much of a rambling feel to work in a live setting. And this is exactly why I love Mylo Xyloto. It's easily my favorite Coldplay album and stands up there with my favorite U2 albums (I'm a hardcore U2 fan). I felt that MX was designed with the live stage in mind. They wanted to create an album that not only sounds great in your stereo/laptop, but also on the stage.

Wait Chris's voice has been great though....

This is also true. Not much a fan can do about the setlist. Either way, they put on a great show. Furthermore, we can speculate why they play shorter sets all we want, but only the band knows the truth.

I still think it would be totally worth it if their tour schedule could sync up with my school schedule. But I feel the general sentiment is that some (or many) fans are simply wondering why they don't play 24 song sets on a regular basis or (in this particular tour) why they don't up their venues from arenas to stadiums. While the arena vs. stadium question has no real finite answer since both types of venues have their advantages and disadvantages, the issue with their set length is definitely a question worth asking. Ignoring the whole "Coldplay tickets are expensive and I want my money's worth" argument, the main point is that the band is way overqualified to be playing what is essentially a festival set at a full gig. They've got the material, they've got the experience, and they've got the crowd. The question fans ask and will most likely keep asking is "what's holding them back?"

Considering the fact that I bought a GA ticket for a U2 concert over the summer for $120, found myself so close to the band that I could literally give Bono a high-five (24 song set) and the fact that Coldplay tickets seem so much more expensive than U2 tickets were, I think it's fair to have some expectations for the band. I know they typically go for around $200 and that's not exactly pocket change for a college student...

I think their set has always fluctuated between 20 and 24 songs. But what is strange is that the set length fluctuates from these two numbers within a tour. If I recall, the VLV tour started out with 20 song sets and eventually grew to 24 song sets. However, when you compare Coldplay to other big name live acts out there, the main act of comparison being U2, Coldplay's sets have always been on the shorter side. While Coldplay obviously has the right to play however long they choose, it is strange for them to be playing shorter sets, especially since they have the capability and the material to play the typical 24 song set. One thing to note is that they are playing in arenas, which lets them somewhat get away with it, but if they decide to tour stadiums while keeping a short set in addition to their rather light tour load (again, compared to other tours from a scheduling standpoint), fans will be asking questions.

There are actually a couple songs on the album that were intended to be played as seemless tracks right from the start. These songs would be MX/HLH, MMIX/ETIAW, and AHT/DLIBYH/UWTB. For that reason, I suspect that if/when they decide to expand to a 24 song set, they will add Up With The Birds.