Even when attempting to judge this analysis or comment with as objective of a stance as possible, it is hard to find any sense in this response.

Let us try to take U2 out of the equation.

With any artform, the most successful pieces of art are those that take the medium into account and use it to its utmost advantage. This is pretty much common knowledge by now. For example, an inner voice and/or narration and detailed backstory work better in a novel then they do in a film – movies are shorter in general and more visual. Dialogue exchanges work better in theater than novels or film – Live actors in an auditorium can project nuance in the delivery of the dialogue and the interaction better than a novel, and more suited to live interaction than film.

To suggest “I go to concerts to hear a unique and once-in-a-lifetime portrayal of songs in all their subtlety — not a bunch of other people’s voices. People can sing along to a record…” is quite absurd and ignorant to the medium.

The 1st part of that statement anyone can get behind – “unique and once-in-a-lifetime portrayal of songs”. It is also conducive to any setting, venue, etc. However, the second half of this statement completely ignores the medium, and thus makes it a ridiculous statement of intent or purpose – “…in all their subtlety — not a bunch of other people’s voices.”

If this is the primary goal, then it a ridiculous notion for one to even attend a concert. This is specially true in this day and age when high quality bootlegs of soundboard quality are easily available. Now granted, this is not to say that subtlety cannot or should not be an objective or goal of a live performer, however, it should be nowhere near the primary objective.

If this was the primary objective for either the audience or the performer, then the medium for this objective must inherently be small, intimate, and highly conducive to picking up detailed, nuanced sound. It should be ONLY in venues made for live music performance.

To even suggest that this be the primary objective in anything but a concert hall then is just foolhardy, as you would have a far better achievement of the goal by listening to a recording of the live performance on headphones at home, with no distractions. It is even more ridiculous to suggest this as a primary goal in ANY setting larger than a 1000 capacity. But a stadium gig, takes this goal into just plain moronic territory.

Regardless of the band playing. An arena or stadium concert making subtlety its primary concern is the equivalent of a a film making lengthy monologues and/or dialogue exchanges its primary focus, or a painting making rhythm and visceral impact of movement its primary concert. Maybe a time experiment on this might work to some extent, however the overwhelming majority of this attempt is just plain misplaced.

Great artists, and great art, understands the medium being used and use it to its fullest advantage. As ruthe33 and Megan Click have pointed out quite well, communal experience is a whole other entity. It is also intrinsic to the “medium” of large crowds. Great performers know how to use this.

You are attempting to claim that the audience is making it about themselves. However, crowd participation and interaction has ALWAYS been part of live performance. Response is expected. This is not just in the form of polite clapping and cheering at the end. Where would comedy be without laughter and hollering and cheering. The performance teype/style dictates (quite properly) the expected response. A dramatic scene elicits a quieter more hushed introspective response. Action naturally elicits more boisterous raw outburts of surprise, shock, thrill etc. Suspence elicits screams gasps and horror, etc

EVERY artist and performer want and expect a reaction from the audience. This is part of the “thrill” of live performance for the artist.

Think about what you are saying. If it is truly what you say: “to hear a unique and once-in-a-lifetime portrayal of songs in all their subtlety — not a bunch of other people’s voices. People can sing along to a record”, then why do artists continually mention getting a “thrill” out of performaing before a live audience. If what you are saying has any merit, why not just perform live, no audience, and sell that record?

So to recap:
1) Your primary goal in no way matches the medium in terms of crowd size
2) Your primary goal in no way matches the medium in terms of venue
3) Your primary goal completely ignores medium altogether, meaning it does not take into account the manner in which something is done, and if this is in fact the best way to go about it.
4) Even if you ignore 1, 2, and 3, even the style of the artform is ignored – its a ROCK CONCERT, crowd noise and reaction are EXPECTED
5) From the artist’s perspective, your stated goal conflicts with the very reason for performing in front of a live audience, rather than a controlled audience, or just recording live with no audience at all.

The no drinking thing sounds great, though. Too many use concerts as an excuse to get drunk and obnoxious and ruin it for everyone else.