MERGED->Bad reviews of U2's concert in Chicago+Chicago dinosaur writers rip u2,again

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I agree, there was something missing at that first show. I can't put my finger on it, but I just wasn't excited like I was when I saw them during Elevation. Bono didn't seem as impassioned. Maybe I just knew that I had four more shows to go to... But definitely, I didn't have any real spine tingling moments like I did during the first time I saw them. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome, but it seemed to fall a bit short. But it seems as if every writer for the Tribune or Sun-Times rips on anything they want to, whether it be a political candidate, Chicago sports team (they pretty much said the Bulls would lose in Game 6 before it even happened), or a U2 album/concert. These writers need a Chicago sports team to win something badly so they don't have to be so cynical. If the Cubs or White Sox win the World Series, I guarantee there will be a much more positive spin in their writing.:)
 
I saw both U2 shows in Vancouver; Incredible shows, great sound, great music. I go to U2 for their music. If they want to say some things about what's going on around the world during the music, I don't care.

Compared to other live bands, nobody has come close for the last 20 years or so.
 
Seattle 2 was a mind blowing experience. I will never forget the energy in the Key Arena.

NOW, as far as this guy thinks....I went to the concert to enjoy, have fun, sing with the music and totally let my hair down. This I did. AND, if you were so lucky to see them before the show like I did you would know that these guys are sincere about their work and dedicated to their fans. Try meeting the Rolling Stones or Paul McCartney prior to the show.

This guy is just a square old foggy with no brain, AND may I ask why even go to the show???? GRRRR.

I wasn't forced to buy my "expensive" ticket. I would of paid much more in fact.

I will see them again in Portland Oregon for the last concert. Like I said, if you don't like, why go?????
 
In terms of the Chicago writers, Kot of the Tribune has always been very pro-U2 so I don't think he has an axe to grind. However (as can be seen in his May 13 interview with Bono), he strongly favors the more cutting-edge creativity of prior U2 work. In a sense, although I much prefer hearing 1980s songs to Pop songs, I have to agree with him: I mean, what makes U2 better than the Stones, for example? More hits? No. Longevity? No. Continued creativity, studio risk-taking, and enthusiastic live experimentation with consistently outstanding results? Ah, yes.

The Kot-Bono interview is fantastic to read. Although I DO think U2 craves being the biggest (and would even if they were not also the best), I thought Bono defended U2 reasonably well on the Vertigo-sellout charge. However, I did agree with Kot's pointed statement to Bono that the "big moments" of the 5/7 show were primarily centered around the old hits, and I thought Bono's response that Vertigo and Original are somehow innovative was fairly weak.
 
the trascript of the interview goes a very long way in explaining why U2 is doing/has done what they've done since basically the mid 90s (post Zoo TV/Zooropa). Agree or disagree with their reasons, Bono explains a lot of their thinking and their goals. This is a must read for anybody who considers themselves knowledgable enough to rip U2 for one reason or another (ie, setlist selections, album directions, media relations)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...pt,1,7123090.story?coll=chi-homepagenews2-utl
 
Last edited:
A rockband is a rockband. I understand that Bono has a political agenda - and has always preached since the born again days of October. However, having been taken to the cleaners by ticket agency so that I could get tickets for the Philly show (there were no tickets left 5 seconds after going on sale), I felt I deserved value for my money - not a 30 minute political-charity infomercial.
The great thing about the Zoo tv tour (and indeed Popmart) was that they stopped preaching to us (by the Lovetown tour of 89 I was really tired of Bono's half informed opinions).
I think that a lot of what the critics said is true. I just wanted to say - get on with the music guys, that's what we paid for.
I disagree with a lot of what has been said about the new material. I think it sounded great in concert and slots neatly in amongst the classics.
 
Of course Bono has to defend HTDAAB and claim Vertigo et al are innovative and fresh, but not much argument can be made for that. Kot's review stings because it is true, U2 are on cruise control mode, happy to crank out AOR music and pander to teenagers/MTV/new audience. If they lose some of the old audience like myself (not that old! LOL), so be it.

What's sad though is they have fully retreated from the experimentation of the 1990's, where literally ANYTHING was possible. The next place U2 was going to take you was TOTALLY and UTTERLY new and that in and of itself is exciting, even if the end result was sometimes not fully developed (ie parts of POP).

I was at Chicago IV and enjoyed the encore immensely (WOWY & BAD were terrific), but the main set I found stale, preachy, and largely unaffecting (aside from Gloria and RTSS). I can't seriously imagine anyone who saw ZooTV, PopMart or Elevation would prefer Vertigo to any of those earlier tours. That is why you're seeing a surprising number of negative reviews (fans and critics) this go-round - not because I or others want the U2 of 1989 or 1997 or 1993 back, it's because I want a TOTALLY NEW U2 back, which is what those earlier versions were. The new songs are all ground U2 has covered before. I would argue that the previous attempts were better, and that can be debated, but there can be virtually no debate that this is repeat territory.

(And to those who would reply to my opinion with a "well can I have your tickets", no you can't. I LOVE this band, this is my band as it is yours, and it pains me that while still very competent, they have lost some steam on the fastball, and the curveball is totally gone)

Serious replies encouraged.
 
With all the negative comments regarding the lack of energy at the 5/7 show, I wonder how Kot missed hearing the 20,000 fans screaming (ooooohh, ooooohh, ooooooh, ooooh) during the opening chords of ELEVATION without prompting from Bono (cause EVERYONE, EVERYONE knows that Bono had no energy that night).

Kot might have mistaken Kings of Leon for U2!!!
 
The problem with Bono calling Greg Kot is that Bono actually thinks that Greg Kot is human, with feelings and emotions. All of us in Chicago already know that Greg Kot is an idiot (if everyone remembers, he completely trashed Achtung Baby when it first came out, but changed his tune when he later found out that Achtung Baby was a major critical success), which proved years ago that he never had the ability to judge music. After the recent article about the conversation with Bono, (and hundreds of emails) the only thing he can say on radio is that having Vertigo advertised on TV is no good.

The truth is, if U2 were a garage band and released How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb as some obscure, unknown group and played clubs that fill 200 people and only 100 people show up, he would have raved about the album and the tour
 
I disagree. I thought Kot's review was very insightful, although I agree the title (the term dinosaur, in particular) went too far. Kot is very human, and the questions he asked in the interview are the exact questions that needed to be asked to U2. He gave Bono a more-than-fair chance to explain the band's viewpoint - a chance that few other bands are likely to get.

In the article, Kot explicitly states that nearly everyone in the arena was happy with the show. He did not trash the show blindly. As a discerning observer, he points out that U2 does not rise up to its own high standards of studio and live innovation.

The new album IS a great collection of songs. But it does not rise up to the U2 brand, which includes (at least in the past) continued excellence with a continuously evolving style.
 
sv said:
I disagree. I thought Kot's review was very insightful, although I agree the title (the term dinosaur, in particular) went too far. Kot is very human, and the questions he asked in the interview are the exact questions that needed to be asked to U2. He gave Bono a more-than-fair chance to explain the band's viewpoint - a chance that few other bands are likely to get.

In the article, Kot explicitly states that nearly everyone in the arena was happy with the show. He did not trash the show blindly. As a discerning observer, he points out that U2 does not rise up to its own high standards of studio and live innovation.

The new album IS a great collection of songs. But it does not rise up to the U2 brand, which includes (at least in the past) continued excellence with a continuously evolving style.
oh right so its just yours and his opinions that matter? see this is where i start to get irratated because i get slammed for defending the band, and saying how much i liked the album or tour, but then theres people like you who are stating there opinions as if they are facts "The new album IS a great collection of songs. But it does not rise up to the U2 brand, which includes (at least in the past) continued excellence with a continuously evolving style" as proved that one quote, what about the people that are happy? and would like it to stay how it is?
 
KUEFC09U2, I don't know what your past experiences have been on this board, but let's be clear that I did not "slam" you. It's truly ridiculous to get "irritated" by anything you read here. Anyone can read my posts and see that there are no personal slights. You're making this debate much more personally confrontational than needed. We have differing views on this subject - big deal! We might agree on other subjects. That's the fun of participating in a forum like this - we all love U2 and disagree on specific issues yet still respect each other's right to an opinion.

In terms of whose opinion "matters": as it turns out, mine and yours do NOT matter one iota to the band. On the other hand, Kot's opinion DOES matter, which is why Bono spoke with him.
 
Hey KUEF--what parts of "I thought" or "I disagree" from sv's comments did you not understand as OPINION?
 
This kind of forum is asinine. It is extremely tiresome for the people in this forum to complain about every single thing. If the band played the most obscure setlist, you would say, "They did not play One, WTSHNN, Pride, etc). The band is playing to an audience who for the most part is seeing one show. They are going to play a standard setlist with a few changes here and there. If you can't grasp that concept, maybe you should consider selling your ticket.

Isn't great that a band actually stands up for what they believe rather then have a bunch of naked women and clowns and other spectacles that add nothing to the show? This is who they are and if some critic who has a personal agenda does not like it, then I have two words for him or her....
 
U2matthew said:
This kind of forum is asinine. It is extremely tiresome for the people in this forum to complain about every single thing. If the band played the most obscure setlist, you would say, "They did not play One, WTSHNN, Pride, etc). The band is playing to an audience who for the most part is seeing one show. They are going to play a standard setlist with a few changes here and there. If you can't grasp that concept, maybe you should consider selling your ticket.

Isn't great that a band actually stands up for what they believe rather then have a bunch of naked women and clowns and other spectacles that add nothing to the show? This is who they are and if some critic who has a personal agenda does not like it, then I have two words for him or her....
thats my point all along, people seem to think they have a right to demand what gets played and what dosent get played or whatever, if bono dosent run around like an athlete then they just say "well was good not great, not enough energy, bono didnt run around like the elevation tour" is going to see your favorite band play some songs not enough?, is the music just not enough for you? you need to see him run, jump, skip, and dance all the way round the ellipse for it to be a "great" concert?

people who right negative reviews ALWAYS say ,"well was good not great" or and my fav "have seen the band on EVERY TOUR, so know what am talking about bla bla, and something was missing, i dunno what, the band sounded great"

lol so the band sounded great, but the concert wasnt great? is that not a contradiction? is the band not sounding great while playing these songs good enough for ya?, if not then what the hell you doing going to the concerts

rant over
 
So does every body on this forum need to put the words "In my opinion..." in front of every single sentence they write? Isn't it understood that this WHOLE board is a blending of opinions? And when you say you're 'deending the band', aren't you really just defending your OPINION about the band?
 
KUEF - have you been to a show on this tour yet?

Did you absolutely love everything that was done at the show?

Just curious...
 
ouizy said:
KUEF - have you been to a show on this tour yet?

Did you absolutely love everything that was done at the show?

Just curious...
nope, but i dont see the difference anyway? i will be going in to the show in manchester, and will not be worried if bono dosent run, if bono dosent drag someone from the crowd, the thing that i was more concerd about before this tour, was how the band would sound, and listening to the boots the band sound the best they have in years, and to me thats why i am going to see them, for there music, not how many laps or whatever bono does around the stage
 
RobH said:
So does every body on this forum need to put the words "In my opinion..." in front of every single sentence they write? Isn't it understood that this WHOLE board is a blending of opinions? And when you say you're 'deending the band', aren't you really just defending your OPINION about the band?
no why would i be defending my opinion? my opinion means nothing, seems americans have such a different way of looking at concerts than europeans, we go for the music, and no matter what to make it the best concert we have been to, its only YOU that can make it the best, if you go with all these crazy expectations, then of course your gonna be dissapointed, just go and have a good time, sing, dance, smile, and laugh, dont over judge EVERY detail
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
seems americans have such a different way of looking at concerts than europeans, we go for the music, and no matter what to make it the best concert we have been to,

Isn't this itself an opinion? Do you speak for all Europeans?

We could bounce this back and forth forever, (and sometimes I seem to spend to much time on here doing exactly that) but I just can't for the life of me understand exactly what the problem is with people repeating/posting/making negative comments about the band on here.

And please don't give me the 'sticking up for the band' line. You're not their publicist. You are simply sticking up for your opinion about the band.

Debate the merits of the arguments, not the person's right to do so.
 
"...nope, but i dont see the difference anyway..."

The difference is that people should be allowed to be critical of what they experience.

Having not experienced it yet, I dop not understrand how you can complain about people walking away from a show with various opinions.

If you were to go to the show and say for instance, the band sounded great, but I did not like the color of Bono's shoelaces, I would say so be it.

It is all a matter of opinion, but I suggest you go to the Manchester show (hopefully enjoy it) and then form your own opinions rather than criticizing others...
 
ouizy said:
"...nope, but i dont see the difference anyway..."

The difference is that people should be allowed to be critical of what they experience.

Having not experienced it yet, I dop not understrand how you can complain about people walking away from a show with various opinions.

If you were to go to the show and say for instance, the band sounded great, but I did not like the color of Bono's shoelaces, I would say so be it.

It is all a matter of opinion, but I suggest you go to the Manchester show (hopefully enjoy it) and then form your own opinions rather than criticizing others...
but cant you just go to a show with the intention of making it the best concert you have been too? rather than analizing every detail of that said concert?, after all its no a bloody report you have to do for work, its a concert, a night out, something that should just be enjoyed rather than pinpointing the lesser details, and thats my opinion,
 
Kot did trash the show blindly. In fact, he didn't even have to see the 5/7 show to write his article. He never mentions the fans reaction to the music, which was particularly surprising since the fans were vocally energized at that show. I sat close enough to the stage to hear the crowd all around sing loudly during the re-worked Elevation, one of the truly unexpected and great moments. The crowd also sang loud on SBS, and were loud enough during Pride to get Bono to quiet Edge and Adam so that the crowd could be heard. Kot never mentions this, instead he talks about ticket sales and Larry's apology and trashing the album and Bono calling the President, and making false claims that are untrue.

One day he describes how U2's new material was wonderful live, the next day says that they didn't focus energy on the new material. Kot normally gets away with whatever he wants to (as usually not enough people know about the obscure bands he reviews), but with U2 there are many people that know the band better than he does, so he can't get away with crap reviews as his difficencies are out in the open.

He has now had two chances to review the music at the concert, but instead gives fake generalities and completely stays away from reviewing the songs performed live.

U2 played 22 songs, 7 from the new album, 2 from All That You Can't Leave Behind, 6 rarely heard songs for the diehards, 2 songs that rotate from tour to tour (sometimes heard, sometimes not) and 5 from the greatest hits package.

Which means that 5 to 7 out of 22 (or 23% to 32%) of the songs could be called from the greatest hits package.

Most of the concert (68%) was new or rarely heard material, which makes the whole basis for his review completely false.
 
DEROGATIS HAS A POINT

DEROGATIS takes a lot of stick in this forum, but his review hits home on a number of counts.

Bono - inexplicably - dedicated a song at Madison Square Garden to the "brave men and women of the American military". Perhaps he foresaw the mindless boos and cat calls that came two songs later when the UN Declaration of Human Rights was dispayed on the video screens.

Will Bono make such a dedication in Europe? Will he fuck. So what is this all about? Crowd pleasing? Either he has an opinion or he doesn't. He cannot call the American military brave on one hand and then ignore their blatant breaches of Article 5 of the UN Declaration at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram - and fuck knows where else.

The commercial Bono appears to have won against the courageous Bono on this tour.
 
Re: DEROGATIS HAS A POINT

fergalq said:
DEROGATIS takes a lot of stick in this forum, but his review hits home on a number of counts.

Bono - inexplicably - dedicated a song at Madison Square Garden to the "brave men and women of the American military". Perhaps he foresaw the mindless boos and cat calls that came two songs later when the UN Declaration of Human Rights was dispayed on the video screens.

Will Bono make such a dedication in Europe? Will he fuck. So what is this all about? Crowd pleasing? Either he has an opinion or he doesn't. He cannot call the American military brave on one hand and then ignore their blatant breaches of Article 5 of the UN Declaration at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram - and fuck knows where else.

The commercial Bono appears to have won against the courageous Bono on this tour.
for one, is there any need for your language? and 2 have you just registerd for this board to moan?
 
I don't understand your note. My critique is not a moan - simply an honest expression of my views, language and all. What, are we not allowed to criticise the band in this forum?

I went to Madison Square Garden and my evening was ruined by the numbskulls who booed U2 for having the temerity to display the UN Declaration of Human Rights on the video screens. It is U2 that decided to go down the road of being more than their music - that their message is now confused is, to me, sad. And that is not to moan.
 
I heard that U2 management was thinking about the Third Leg tour stops and decided to give Boston more shows than Chicago because the writers at Chicago's newspapers would shred U2 in the name of 'independent thought' while Boston writers would praise U2 to the high heavens. Guess that turned out to be a good move.

OK...I made that all up.

But it makes abundant sense :huh:

Chris in NH
 
Back
Top Bottom