Why no Lovetown North American leg?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
T

The_acrobat

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
5,248
Location
Ohio
Does anybody know why the Lovetown tour never made it to North America? Or why it only had a limited run in Europe? The whole tour seems a little strange to me, timing wise. Rattle and Hum was released in the fall of 1988, yet the Lovetown Tour didn't begin until September 89. Was there originally intended to be more shows in 1989? R&H was actually a successful album, and JT was still a hit, you'd think the potentially for a massive world tour in 1989 would've been huge. Just wondering if anybody has any info as to why things unfolded the way they did?

Love town is, IMO, when the band were at their best in terms of performing their songs. The band was tight, Bono was singing strong, and the shows were great.
 
Although Lovetown promoted R&H, it was not strictly speaking conceived to do so. Remember, the purpose was to make up for the Joshua Tree Tour not going to Australia and New Zealand - which was originally planned for early 1988 (as well as Latin America, but that fell through entirely). Since the JT Tour had already featured two massive legs of North America, it shouldn't be terribly surprising Lovetown didn't go there. The European shows were more a matter of convenience, hitting some strong markets to celebrate the end of the decade and taking what ought to have been a victory lap (obviously the mood in the band proved to be somewhat different). Note how the shows in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan are really comprehensive in their scope, while in Europe it's not a comprehensive tour at all. No UK, no Italy, no Scandinavia, no Spain, etc.

Of course they could have done more, but given how this short tour worked out, I imagine a lengthier global jaunt could have completely torn the band apart.
 
Ax hit the nail on the head...kind of a 'make-up' tour for markets not hit during the Joshua Tree. I have to say the January 10, 1990 show is one of the best shows I ever seen (on video) or heard. What a way to close that tour...:yes:
 
Axver said:
Yeah there wasn't much live activity in 1988, just a few other R&H promo appearances if you scroll down this list: U2 Various Dates: 1978-1989 - U2 on tour
Click to expand...


Not to nitpick, but your write up for the Smile Jamaica show indicates Bono as attending, but the whole band played the show. I only mention it because the write up for the show that followed, 11 days later, mentions Angel of Harlem being played live by the band for the first time... When actually the Smile Jamaica show was the premier!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Huh. I'll sort that out. I don't think I've even looked at those listings in the last decade!
 
Lovetown... a weird, rarely discussed, wholly uncelebrated time in the band's history.

they must really have been in bad headspace(s) at that time.

shame, because what we have of that tour is evidence of a band at the top of its game.
 
I wish the band appreciated this period as much as we do. I think they'd like the forget it. I'd like a fucking full length concert release from this tour. We know the pro shot footage exists from Dublin and Sydney. I've watched the hell out of the stuff available on YouTube, but if really like a full, uninterrupted show.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interferencek
 
Didn't realise this was such a bad time for the band as a whole, never really read anything about lovetown just knew they were great concerts.

so if anyone has any articles/interviews that touch on it that are worth reading , I'd love to give them a look .
 
Bill Flanagan's book "U2 at the end of the world" talks about the problems during love town quite a bit. I haven't read it in at least 10 years, probably more, so I don't recall very many specifics, just that they were miserable and felt like a traveling jukebox. It certainly doesn't show through in the performances.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interferencek
 
Axver said:
Huh. I'll sort that out. I don't think I've even looked at those listings in the last decade!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I only read the entries because I was curious to see what exactly they were up to in 1988.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I guess they were wise to not tour America in 1988. They had a huge album and a movie in theatres so they probably wanted to avoid overkill. The backlash was starting to happen anyway. I was watching videos from Rattle and Hum, specifically Desire, and it dawned on me that last year I was hanging out in the general area of where U2 filmed the day portions of the Desire video. Hotel Rosslyn, and the alley where Bono is doing his fierce walk are right in the heart of a bad, seedy area of Los Angeles. I was only there because I was visiting The Last Bookstore.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I believe the 'traveling jukebox' comments were directed more (by the band) at The Joshua Tree tour than the '89 tour. Larry in particular seemed to be sort-of bummed by The Joshua Tree tour (well, when isn't he bummed?) because, despite achieving all their dreams and conquering the world at 26, they were playing huge shows that weren't fun, still struggling to hold it together live, and not really enjoying it. They also thought they weren't good enough, live.

I read some interview with Bono where he says that he essentially badgered the other 3 into doing the Lovetown tour. He implied that he had to talk them into it, a lot. But yes, they were keen on making up those lost down-under shows anyway, and maybe Bono used that as a starting point to add in the small shows in Dubin leading up to New Year's Eve angle.

What is particularly great about this tour -- and it's something entirely lost on the band members, evidently -- is that they had no particular agenda, no priority set-list, and no album to promote. It didn't hurt that Bono's voice was in peak form. Some amazing shows here.

In retrospect, and based on what I've read, I *guess* the reason the band members have unhappy memories of this period is not the shows themselves -- which, musically, were fabulous -- but because by late '89 they had all realized that they were in danger of becoming rock dinosaurs and desperately needed to go in a new direction. But during Lovetown they still had no idea what that direction was. So, they were worried and anxious the whole time.

Unfortunately, U2 are the kind of band that feel better when they're hard-selling an album.
 
The Panther said:
Unfortunately, U2 are the kind of band that feel better when they're hard-selling an album.
Click to expand...


I'd call this a feature, not a bug. I love how most U2 eras (albums/tours) carry some sort of a common theme.

But Lovetown being a notable exception is great. Short but awesome tour that broke all the rules. Not what I'd wish U2 to do their whole career, but definitely something that I'm glad happened.

Also, in my opinion at least, something happened between JT and LT to make U2 noticeably better live performers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's good most eras have had a common theme, but at this stage in their career, U2 should definitely focus on delivering incredible live shows full of incredible live songs rather than doing the new album hard sell.
 
And Ian is not wrong. I was going to make a post early in this thread about Lovetown being well respected around here but wondered if that was perhaps just my energy.
 
The_acrobat said:
Bill Flanagan's book "U2 at the end of the world" talks about the problems during love town quite a bit. I haven't read it in at least 10 years, probably more, so I don't recall very many specifics, just that they were miserable and felt like a traveling jukebox. It certainly doesn't show through in the performances.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interferencek
Click to expand...

What a wonderful book that is. I really must read it again. It's almost startling how open and candid they were.
 
The_acrobat said:
Does anybody know why the Lovetown tour never made it to North America? Or why it only had a limited run in Europe? The whole tour seems a little strange to me, timing wise. Rattle and Hum was released in the fall of 1988, yet the Lovetown Tour didn't begin until September 89. Was there originally intended to be more shows in 1989? R&H was actually a successful album, and JT was still a hit, you'd think the potentially for a massive world tour in 1989 would've been huge. Just wondering if anybody has any info as to why things unfolded the way they did?

Love town is, IMO, when the band were at their best in terms of performing their songs. The band was tight, Bono was singing strong, and the shows were great.
Click to expand...

Because Rattle and Hum got burned in America ?
 
The Panther said:
I believe the 'traveling jukebox' comments were directed more (by the band) at The Joshua Tree tour than the '89 tour. Larry in particular seemed to be sort-of bummed by The Joshua Tree tour (well, when isn't he bummed?) because, despite achieving all their dreams and conquering the world at 26, they were playing huge shows that weren't fun, still struggling to hold it together live, and not really enjoying it. They also thought they weren't good enough, live.

I read some interview with Bono where he says that he essentially badgered the other 3 into doing the Lovetown tour. He implied that he had to talk them into it, a lot. But yes, they were keen on making up those lost down-under shows anyway, and maybe Bono used that as a starting point to add in the small shows in Dubin leading up to New Year's Eve angle.

What is particularly great about this tour -- and it's something entirely lost on the band members, evidently -- is that they had no particular agenda, no priority set-list, and no album to promote. It didn't hurt that Bono's voice was in peak form. Some amazing shows here.

In retrospect, and based on what I've read, I *guess* the reason the band members have unhappy memories of this period is not the shows themselves -- which, musically, were fabulous -- but because by late '89 they had all realized that they were in danger of becoming rock dinosaurs and desperately needed to go in a new direction. But during Lovetown they still had no idea what that direction was. So, they were worried and anxious the whole time.

Unfortunately, U2 are the kind of band that feel better when they're hard-selling an album.
Click to expand...

They got better exponentially live after the 80's though. It didn't help that they were like deer in headlights in the late 80's with the movie.

There was an album/movie to promote. And while the voice was *on most of the time, isn't Lovetown the only tour to feature delayed shows due to Bono's voice going out in the end ? He had to see a doctor and change his way of singing. Or there'd be no U2 anymore.

How are they not better hard-selling an album ? In their case it pays off in spades when they've a clear theme, album or tour. It's good they're not going down dinosaur teritorry by playing older albums in full/promoting remasters like many of their peers.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
Because Rattle and Hum got burned in America ?
Click to expand...
This statement proves you weren't there at the time. In 1988, the only mainstream 'review' that 90% of music fans in the US paid attention to was the Rolling Stone review, which gave the album 4 stars and flattered U2. The L.A. Times and other reviewers lauded it. It sold 14 million copies and produced numerous hits.

They were bigger than ever in the US in 1988 and 1989. Not touring there was presumably because they were all burned out from the '87 tour, and also they didn't want to be charged with over-exposure.
 
U2girl said:
They got better exponentially live after the 80's though.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think their live peak is 1984 to 1993 or so. A U2 show before 1992 was like a force of nature. They were up there, alone, doing it the hard way, with no help, and knocking people out night after night. That's the real legacy of the group. Their live powers were also at their peak early in the ZooTV period, but now they had a lot more help and fancy stuff to hide behind. Their live appeal, for me, was reduced starting just after that. Some 1997 shows are very poor by their standards.
U2girl said:
How are they not better hard-selling an album ? In their case it pays off in spades when they've a clear theme, album or tour.
Click to expand...
They're better not doing it because it's boring. Every album since 1991 is the same pattern -- release album, tour it to death, recover. Long period between records. (Yawn...!) I have no interest in the corporate calendar. I prefer artists who mix it up and challenge themselves and their audience by doing the unexpected at least sometimes.
U2girl said:
It's good they're not going down dinosaur teritorry by playing older albums in full/promoting remasters like many of their peers.
Click to expand...
Right, because that's what I suggested they do....
 
U2girl said:
It's good they're not going down dinosaur teritorry by playing older albums in full/promoting remasters like many of their peers.
Click to expand...

Yeah that Achtung-heavy set in 2011 definitely wasn't promoting the Achtung remaster. :rolleyes:
 
tumblr_mzrhekQLFM1s0teago1_400.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
822
zoo skis
Z
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
743
lazarus
lazarus
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
731
lazarus
lazarus
TheWanderer
2022 subscriber gift: Achtung Baby 30 Live
3 4 5
Replies
148
Views
16K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom