mike7man

Ah, sure--if you're in the situation you're in, that totally works! Good luck--I hope you're work it out.

My wife decided to come with me--so we need GA tix for her!

Actually, no. The problem w/the GAs on this tour is they're nontranferable--there's no way to do this trade.

I noticed that c. 11:00 AM or so on Weds. 6/24, there was a ticket drop on TM including GA. Here's my question: Did anybody notice a ticket drop including GA for the Thursday 6/26 show? If so, when? Maybe c. 11:00 AM on Thurs.? I ask because my wife is thinking about coming with me to Chicago 3 and 4 (we just got back from Chicago 1 & 2), and I need GAs for her Sun. and Mon.

Guys, there was never a "flip". Rather, the original TM info/stage diagram was very vague, and gave no indication of which end the main stage was on.

Makes no difference whatsoever. RZ tix are RZ tix, that's it. RZ1 does mean you're on a certain side, however.

No, it didn't change (for seats)--or at least, not exactly. Rather, in the original (super-non-informative) TM diagram, it wasn't clear that there was a main stage and a b-stage at all, let alone which ends they were on. This drove many of us (including me) nuts for some time, as, obviously, knowing which ends the main and b-stages were on is quite important when buying seats. Nonetheless, it's more accurate to say that the original TM diagrams simply didn't indicate which ends would have the main and b-stages at all. This also made it impossible to know where the RZs really were. So what's changed, really, is that finally the TM diagrams do show this. Alternatively, I suppose one could argue that the original TM diagrams seemed to indicate a single, horizontal stage extending the length of the floor--that is, some sort of an in-the-round setup. What tipped me (and some others) off early on, however, that there actually was a main stage and b-stage was 1) how the ticket pricing varied for different sections (e.g., with more lower-priced tix behind the main stage end than the b-stage end), 2) the "limited view" warnings on various sections, and 3) finding some better maps (the classic one being the San Jose map from the arena itself). This info pretty much made it certain that it actually wasn't an in-the-round setup--and essentially revealed where the main and b-stages were (which the original TM maps certainly did not) Any way you slice it, however, it was really not OK at all for the actual stage setup to be so unclear when tickets were sold--and relatedly, that it took a lot of detective work to figure out the main stage vs. b-stage arrangement.

As others have said above, there was no "stage flip"--rather, the original TM diagrams simply gave no indication of which ends the main vs. b-stages would be on (or even that there would be main vs. b-stages at all, as opposed to some kind of "in the round" deal). Detective work--like examining the ticket prices for various sections, finding the very helpful San Jose arena (not TM) map, etc.--by various folks (including myself) did suggest early on that the main stage would be toward the 118 end, the b-stage toward the 108 end, but this wasn't completely verified until reports from those attending the Vancouver shows came in. Apparently, some folks (understandably) assumed the main stage would be toward the 108 end due to the original TM diagram which showed the RZs closer to that end. In any case, I'd definitely suggest the 108 seats are better. Yes, like Ingrida says, you'll be closer to the main stage in 118, but behind it.

I agree--the "four little pictures" popmart shirt worked well too.

My wife got the new U2 book (member benefit) today, so finally the membership gifts are beginning to be sent out. Hopefully, the vinyl will come out soon.

Ingrida--I think the info you want is earlier in this thread (?).

Totally. Also, to my eye, shirts w/actual pictures of the band members on them rarely look good (with the exception of the "four small contiguous panels" shirts from the Elevation tour).

Like Jeff and Silverbullet said, the locations of the main stage and e-stage have not changed--BUT--they were never indicated at all on the original maps. The original (super-unhelpful) TM maps just showed a long rectangle with the RZs on the right. It took a lot of sleuthing by various folks to figure out (from ticket prices, limited view warnings, and finding the San Jose venue map) where the main stage and e-stages were going to be. And in any case, what's changed are the RZs.

Good question. Hope somebody answers you (don't know myself)--

Good luck, but on this site, all tickets must be face value only. Also, don't post your email/phone--ask folks to PM you.

If you've got GA, you have a problem. If you've got seats, no problem. Sounds like you have GA--try contacting TM in the UK and see if they can help you. Bigwave (moderator here) might be able to help as well (PM him).

I understand the posts by Chadd and Chris regarding the possible problems with performing tons of lesser-known songs. But--that's a different issue than the different/pairs of shows issue. U2 has lots of very popular, well-known songs, so that even with making very substantial changes from night 1 to night 2, each night could still contain a majority of hits, etc.--but nonetheless still be two substantially different shows. And I agree w/vertigojds--if the "very different pairs of shows" idea had never been promoted to begin with, I'd be fine. But it was, so the fact that things didn't turn out that way is disappointing to those of us who got excited about it.

it all gets filtered and appears in the tour page for that show, for instance todays is here : http://www.u2.com/tour/date/id/45561321 people not at the show can see whats happening as it happens, and afterwards, and it creates a great archive of each show. Regardless of these factors, to me the bottom line is simple--someone else's right to take a picture or video or whatever simply does not extend to blocking others' view of the show, particularly when (as is often the case) the offending parties hold their phones, etc. in the air for extended periods of time.

Even with their ties to a smartphone giant? Good point--guess I shouldn't hold my breath!

Of course, Max, the "going to try" remark did not guarantee a certainty. But, that along with the whole "pairs of shows" idea, reasonably gave folks the idea that the shows would have truly major differences from night 1 to night 2. And the NYT story that Mark linked above (posted right here on u2.com) definitively establishes that the "very different pairs of shows" idea is in fact exactly what U2 intended to communicate in the tour announcement ("....the initial idea was to work up two entirely different concerts...")--not some overblown misinterpretation by fans (cf. "rumors"), as you seem to imply. So...guarantee? No, but that's a bit legalistic, I think. Incontestable that fans were led to reasonably expect majorly different pairs of shows? I think so.

Yes, there are fold-down seats inside the red zone barrier (on the side that is farthest away from the stage . . . ) Thanks! That's very helpful to know.

Sure, Jeff makes a lot of good points, as Bajagirl rightly emphasizes. BUT--and yeah, this point has been made to death, but it bears repeating--THE BAND ITSELF made a lot of noise when the tour was announced to the effect that there would be truly major differences between the "pairs" of shows. This is incontestable, no? If they hadn't said this (and made a big deal out of it), I'd be on the side of those like Jeff who've rightly pointed out that they've never made huge setlist changes, why this is (i.e., putting together a tightly integrated show), etc. But sorry, they did make a big deal out of talking about how different these pairs of shows would be--and that's just not really happening. Vertigojds said this very eloquently above, and I'm forced to agree. At the very least, they could have made the 2nd half very different from night 1 to night 2--even if these changes were pretty consistent from pair to pair of shows. This is a different issue than complaining about them not doing much spontaneously mixing things up, etc.

Another question--sounds like there was at least one recent show (Phoenix 2, I think) where RZ was actually let onto the floor before regular GA. Was this also the case for LA1-4?

Miscellaneous red zone question--on the 360 tour, at least some venues also had some seats along the rear of the RZ. Is this also true this tour? I might take my elderly mother to one of the NYC shows, and it'd be nice if there some seats she could rest on from time to time.

If they come to Australia, they'll definitely include NZ as well--they have in the past, and obviously it makes sense given the location(s).