Ok before I reply, know that I'm in no way trying to start a fight with you, but honestly this and your last post on it just left me shaking my head. It's not personal, so don't take it as such. But the notion that the audience has some greater responsibility here just sounds crazy.
Or, alternatively, "well maybe it's your fault for not being precisely what we want you to be!"
Well who's fault is it then, if a band doesn't go over well? The audience's? U2's? The sun's? The venue's? The responsibility lays solely with the band to win the audience. Noone else. There is no "precisely" given that across that many people there is such a diversity in taste in music and to say that there isn't is just disingenuous.
Some bands just don't translate well in front of 50,000+ people.
Agreed! So then why are they there?? Did U2 hold a gun to their heads and say you better do these gigs, assholes? This is not some upstart band that is on it's first album. They're 4 albums in, have played to other larger crowds if I'm not mistaken, and some of those crowds were people that weren't necessarily there to see them. So a U2 crowd is just THAT different an animal? I think not.
but then I slip my headphones back on, buy my tickets for their theater gigs and move on with my life.
Except of course, posting repeatedly on a U2 forum about it.
incredibly talented bands like Interpol who have made seminal albums
You of all people know that this is completely a taste comment. I'd say they are of average talent, when compared across the talent spectrum against other bands of the last 20-30 years. They're not blazingly brilliant, especially in the vocals dept. And "seminal"?? My definition of seminal in terms of music is "highly original or creative that is of such importance that it influences future art". Must've missed the droves of bands citing Interpol as an influence..
it doesn't keep me up at night.
Getting really picky here...but you do realize you posted this at 1:40 in the morning, right?
(We need a "ribbing/pokey" smiley!)
But unless the complaint is that they aren't communicating with the crowd enough, they probably aren't doing anything "wrong," at least so very wrong that they transcend subjectivity.
Well there's the rub. Other opening acts have been met with much skepticism (if not outright derision, masked as "subjectivity", even) and yet have found a way to transcend it and put on a good show. So..no, maybe good ol' Tom didn't do anything "wrong" per se, but he also didn't seem to do enough "right" either, to get people interested.
The only wrong move was performing for U2 fans (the fact that they're U2 fans is less relevant than the fact that there are 50,000+ of them), and that's where the lashing out begins.
So again, it's the U2 fans' fault? Frankly, in a stadium of 50,000 (actually, wasn't it more like 80,000 over there? I forget) people, I think you'd find more people who are just "casual" fans who probably have a different favorite band than U2, than "hardcores who listen to only one band". Therefore, if a band fails to come across not only to the minority hardcores but also to the greater part of the audience that are casual and there for, who knows, a good rock show, to see U2 do their greatest hits, whatever, but could probably love other bands as well, well then is that still the audience's fault? Over, what, 6 shows or however many it was? Really??? I'm gonna guess that many of those people at the U2 shows are probably also the same kind of people that go see other bands at festivals etc, and in general enjoy hearing new and different music OTHER THAN U2. Yeah, I think that sounds more realistic.
Now for a more general comment about this discussion and where it's gone (AIMED AT NOONE IN PARTICULAR):
This is not an Interpol forum, or a Kasabian forum. IT IS A U2 FORUM. If a band opens for U2 and they don't go down well, we have every right to come on the forum the next day and state whether or not we liked it. For it to descend into characterizations and generalizations about what kind of people U2 fans are or what kind of taste they have is just ridiculous. For anyone to get so defensive that they start losing control of their temper about this subject is equally ridiculous, given where we are posting (U2 fan forum). I can see Interpol fans getting riled up if U2 fans invaded their forum after a U2 show and started posting crap - by all means, let em have it Interpol fans. But to start this "well look who they were playing in front of, U2 fans in general suck" type assertion on a U2 fan forum is just outrageous.
And ffs, if Tom from Kasabian runs off his mouth and disses U2 fans and/or U2 in general, yes people on a U2 fan forum are going to say things like "well I saw them and hated their show so fuck them", "well I saw them liked the show but man what an idiot for saying that", "oh well, they didn't translate well live so fuck em", "you know what Im going to rethink where I spend my next music-buying buck if this guy is going to be such an ungrateful prick", "FUCK YOU TOM KASABIAN SUKKKS!11!", and any other variation/choice comments like it. It doesn't mean that ANY of the people posting these comments are mindless twits who don't like any other band's music, it means they are people having fairly normal human reactions to inflammatory statements, on a forum for the band/fans the guy is dissing.
What should we all have said "Hmm. Well I respect his right to an opinion, so no comment" - uh, yeahhhhhh. Right.
It's always the bands that don't immediately jump out at you, but slowly grow that are the most rewarding to listen to
