Is u2 light show bettter then this

[badu2fan]

NIN had an incredible light show and then they made a free show for their fans.....

YouTube - 16. The Greater Good - This One Is On Us presents "Another Version Of The Truth : The Gift"

Radiohead might enjoy this techno....

 

[BVS]

You happen to pick a rather boring portion of their show to make your point.

I don't think you can really ask which one is better, they both seem to have very different purposes. U2's "light show" was created to couple with their still very taditional live rock act. NIN is a whole other concept of a band trapped in a TV/ computer.

Both very good for what they are meant for...

but nice try.

 

[Marien]

I would have to see it live, I'm not really very impressed by this example, the animation may be very conceptual but it doesn't develop, of course it matches the monotony of the song, I don't think we can compare this with U2's 360 tour, it's totally different and the answer will depend on the taste of the audience.

If I had to compare this to a U2 tour I would choose ZooTv and then I prefer U2's, but judging from a video on Youtube is not fair and I know it.

 

[Galeongirl]

I'd have to see it live, but just for the record, since I'm a U2 fan I'd say U2's lightshow is better thAn this.

 

[MikeyJB]

This is the future of live concert lightshows, so I'd have to say NIN top U2 on this. But they were two different types of shows - the NIN gigs were played in arenas.

 

[Marien]

This is the future of live concert lightshows, so I'd have to say NIN top U2 on this. But they were two different types of shows - the NIN gigs were played in arenas.

Are you talking about the technology or the show?
Because I think this one example is really boring, although it is only a Youtube video and I'm not a fan of this kind of music.

 

[BVS]

This is the future of live concert lightshows

I sure hope not, unless a band finds some other way to utilize it...

It worked for NIN, but any band with true stage charisma it would suck.

 

[ascender_RS]

Not the best example to show, but I think NIN put some stunning shows on over the last couple of years and used the lights and tech to very good effect. Its a very different sort of show from what the 360 tour is, not to mention very different music. Just a different approach really.

 

[MikeyJB]

Go search for some better examples on Youtube if you're not convinced and then try and tell me its not the way forward. Its one the most technologically advanced tours of recent years (bar 360 of course).

 

[ntalwar]

The lights need to match the song. GOYB had great strobe lighting. I don't like the band playing in the dark.

 

[BVS]

Go search for some better examples on Youtube if you're not convinced and then try and tell me its not the way forward. Its one the most technologically advanced tours of recent years (bar 360 of course).

I've seen the show, I just think that the band themselves were boring and the concepts of standing behind this box got boring at times. The visuals were stunning, but only bands that you didn't really want to see do anything could pull it off.

 

[MikeyJB]

Nine Inch Nails had more than proved themselves as an incredible electrifying live band way before that 2008/9 tour though (check out Youtube clips of the Woodstock 1994 show if you don't believe me), it was just Reznor taking the concept of live performance and pushing it in a technologically innovative direction.

the concepts of standing behind this box got boring at times.

I take it you also wouldn't enjoy Pink Floyd's The Wall tour which is also considered one of the finest examples of innovative live rock performance?

 

[BVS]

I've seen NIN several times, but nice try. Like I've said, and you keep ignoring, it worked well for this concept I just think performers such as U2 and others that have charimatic live acts would be lost in such a set up.

The PF reference isn't nearly the same either, I'm not sure how you are even making a correlation.

 

[sue4u2]

Nine Inch Nails had more than proved themselves as an incredible electrifying live band way before that 2008/9 tour though (check out Youtube clips of the Woodstock 1994 show if you don't believe me), it was just Reznor taking the concept of live performance and pushing it in a technologically innovative direction.



I take it you also wouldn't enjoy Pink Floyd's The Wall tour which is also considered one of the finest examples of innovative live rock performance?

You seem to desperately want to make this a pissing contest.
Let it go and just enjoy.
NIN are phenomenal and innovative with what they do. It doesn't make them any better than U2 or anyone else.
Everyone loves what they love and I love NIN videos.
I also love to see U2 venture into the unknown every time they do. Since they don't do that many videos, it's not, well anything I loose sleep over.
The technology that is out there is beyond reproach for every band that can incorporate it.
Enjoy it and stop making it a better or worse situation.
It'll drive you nuts trying to think of "what they should have, could have done.
It's petty and really unimportant, these days.

PS: I saw Pink Floyd "The Wall" live, in 1980 - it was mind blowing.

 

[MikeyJB]

You seem to desperately want to make this a pissing contest.
Let it go and just enjoy.

Huh? The question of the topic is 'Is U2's light show better than this?' and I'm making the case that NIN's is more advanced in terms of where live concerts will eventually progress to.

BVS - I'm making the correlation between that and PF because they spent the vast majority of that show performing behind a wall as I'm sure you're aware, and that at the time it was a huge innovation in concert performance.

 

[BVS]

BVS - I'm making the correlation between that and PF because they spent the vast majority of that show performing behind a wall as I'm sure you're aware, and that at the time it was a huge innovation in concert performance.

It's been awhile since I've seen this tour, but from what I remember the wall gets constructed and torn down as they play, once again it worked for them, but if it was U2 or REM or some other band where you had a charismatic frontman it would suck and that was my point.

The technology is cool, but my whole point is that someone would have to find a much different means of using it, for most bands you don't want to see behind something all night. So to say it's the future is jumping the gun.

 

[popshopper]

Go search for some better examples on Youtube if you're not convinced and then try and tell me its not the way forward. Its one the most technologically advanced tours of recent years (bar 360 of course).

The way forward? I wouldn't go that far. For one it wouldn't work in a stadium setting, its almost impossible to do that sort of high contrast lighting outdoors. Secondly, there's no real innovation there, it's a screen and a band and particular well staged light show. Thematically it's a cross between Zoo TV and the Wall. You'd also need a band were frankly you don't really care about the bands onstage performance, NIN fit the bill as all anyone cares about is Reznor and given the amount of instrumentation he does he's normally static.

 

[BVS]

Secondly, there's no real innovation there, it's a screen and a band and particular well staged light show.

Actually this isn't true, the technology itself is pretty innovative and impressive, the screens are interactive; like at one point Reznor shines a spotlight on to the screen and it reacts to the light and looks like he's splashing paint on to the screen, another section of the show he was touching this grid in order to change the pattern...

 

[MikeyJB]

In any case, I applaud it simply because its far more interesting than what most artists were/are doing at the moment in terms of live performances.

Went to see Arctic Monkeys in an arena setting a couple of months back and fuck me they could have done with some interesting light show, I was almost drifting off to sleep.