Mark Cunningham article on Vertigo Tour tech details

[toze pinto]

Quite an interesting reading:
http://www.totalproductionus.com/SiteFiles/May05_U2.htm

Full of tech details on the production, abandoned stage concepts and so on.

There is an intriguing quote on individual stage mixes:
"Whereas Adams and Niall Slevin look after the personal mixes for Bono and Edge, Skaff concentrates on Larry Mullen Jr., Adam Clayton, Terry Lawless and the so-called '911' emergency back-up mixes. Skaff is using an astonishing 38 of the 40 mixes available to him on the Paragon II."

I know the first four names quite well.

Terry Lawless is since at least Popmart the uncredited live "5th U2" adding keyboards, loops and guitar (not sure about the latter).

I wonder what they mean by "so-called '911' emergency back-up mixes"...

 

[Chizip]

Terry is the person who plays the synthesizer/organ thing for Miracle Drug. At the chicago 5/7 show they completely fucked up the timing of it at the begining and he had to stop and start over twice, before they finally got it right you can hear Bono say "You can play Terry."

Later in the song the mic for the Edge's voice isnt turned up loud enough and Bono has to yell "Turn his voice up, Joe, turn up the voice."

Needless to say it wasn't the smoothest version of the song.

 

[Chizip]

this is a very interesting article on the tour production, thanks a lot for posting it It's good to understand the insider thoughts on the show. To be honest, after the first time I saw the show I was a little underwhelmed by the production. When I entered the buliding I was expecting some new and exciting stage design, needless to say it was a little bit of a let down when it looked just like the Elevation design. When the curtain of lights came down that was pretty cool, but it was nothing that blew me away, like I thought I was going to be blown away. I guess I had too high of expectations...

but remember the big Vertigo tour is Elevation part 2 debate? i guess this quote pretty much confirms that the tour is like an Elevation part 2...

"Jake Berry commented: "People have asked why it looks the same. But wasn’t Elevation one of the most perfect tours ever? It provided both a huge spectacle and an opportunity for fans to get very close to the band, by way of the center pit. I equate it to being like the manager of a soccer club. If you’re winning, don’t change your manager, and this was a winning formula, so don’t change the basic design."

Frankly, although I understood Berry's practicality, I was shocked by this remark as it flies in the face of U2's career-long mission of constant reinvention. In tandem with their recorded output, Zoo TV, PopMart and Elevation represented huge leaps in terms of their live presentation. By contrast, Vertigo appears to be a short hop.""

ahhh, i love vindication

this was very interesting too

Where the injustices of Africa are concerned, Bono's assault on conscience cuts deep during the trilogy of 'Pride', 'Where The Streets Have No Name' and 'One'. 'Streets' has traditionally been 'the big red moment' but this time, the Africa theme of Bono's dialogue is underpinned by displaying a MiSphere gallery of African flags. Williams explained: "It’s all the African nations and they’re scrolling down, and scrolling up, and the panels are moving. But the trick is that, halfway through, all the flags fly out, the trusses fly in, and we get all the blinders for that big redemption moment... and then the red comes up at the end. So it’s kind of like, 'ah, we were just kidding you!'. That whole Africa thing came out of Bono's attempts to find the right way to pitch the One campaign.

i still think it the intro to streets was cooler on previous tours though

I do think they need to utilizie the curtains of lights more. They only use them for 6 or 7 out of 23 songs, and when they dont use them it looks just like the Elevation tour. Actually when theyre up it's worse than the elevation tour because they dont have the lights that they project onto the audience...

so, use the curtains more!

 

[Chizip]

nobody else found this article interesting?!?!

 

[Miricale_Drug]

i did - fascinating. then again i loved the techie one as well that was around a little while ago. Some people love the songs, some love the ''deeper area'' its those who will read this chizip

 

[ouizy]

...about to read it - I am drooling...

 

[ouizy]

This was one of the most informative pieces I have ever read (besides mine of course ) about U2's production.

Hard to imagine so much goes into the show, and hard to imagine how much Willie's opinion about the design varies from most of the people in here...

 

[hibricc]

Wow, tons in that article to discuss. I'll just pick one point.... I was surprised to find how little creative direction the band exercised in the show design. It seems like there's this small team that conceives the show, then a HUGE team that implements it - and the band is part of the second group. Sure, they have to approve everything, but the original ideas aren't theirs.

This doesn't make me think less of the show - or the band - I just found it surprising.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Wow, tons in that article to discuss. I'll just pick one point.... I was surprised to find how little creative direction the band exercised in the show design. It seems like there's this small team that conceives the show, then a HUGE team that implements it - and the band is part of the second group. Sure, they have to approve everything, but the original ideas aren't theirs.

This doesn't make me think less of the show - or the band - I just found it surprising.

Well, as far as I know, this is how it's usually done with most bands of U2's popularity and tour size.

The tour designer will sit down with the band and present a few possible layouts and concepts, they've got a lot of art resources already made up that just need the nod from the band, small suggestions from the boys can result in changes, but to expect that the four guys would have a hand in the tour from the very beginning is a bit much,

 

[hibricc]

Well, as far as I know, this is how it's usually done with most bands of U2's popularity and tour size.

The tour designer will sit down with the band and present a few possible layouts and concepts, they've got a lot of art resources already made up that just need the nod from the band, small suggestions from the boys can result in changes, but to expect that the four guys would have a hand in the tour from the very beginning is a bit much,

That makes sense, of course. I guess I just never thought about it that much until I read this article. I always had the impression that the level of collaboration was higher than it is.

 

[Chizip]

well it sounds like they used to have more input in the design process for previous tours

The U2 members have been considerably less involved in the design process for Vertigo than on previous tours, leaving Williams and Fisher to the task of conceptualizing around the current themes and moods dictated by the new album and the world around them.

 

[ouizy]

The band always had a TON of input actually - up to Elevation. I know they would sit with Mark Fisher (he told me this) and sketch out ideas, well before the tour while the record was being recorded.

I feel that for this tour for various reasons, that has changed. I think the designers (who remember, were basically coming off the tail end of the 40 Licks tour, the We Will Rock You show, and the Ka show in Vegas) were left with the charge to do the design. Now after reading the article, I think the general concensus after Elevation was (at least for indoors) was "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I am sure this was communicated to the band. There are just way too many similar design pieces (albeit very much updated technologically) between the two tours. I really am surprised by this move, and I fear this has trickled down to the outdoor show. The fact that the outdoor stage is built out of the indoor stage, and that the only set piece is another huge video screen (a la Popmart) it seems the theory follows suit.

It would have been great to see an entirely unique design, but I guess when time and cost wer put into play, creativity lost out. Andto be honest, from that article no one is apologizing for it.

I fear, but recognize the fact that for design geeks like myself, an interesting set piece, lighting move, or sound effect is more important to me than a well played Pride.

 

[Chizip]

It would have been great to see an entirely unique design, but I guess when time and cost wer put into play, creativity lost out. Andto be honest, from that article no one is apologizing for it.

I find that to be a little disappointing as well.

 

[Neilz]

The band always had a TON of input actually - up to Elevation. I know they would sit with Mark Fisher (he told me this) and sketch out ideas, well before the tour while the record was being recorded.

I feel that for this tour for various reasons, that has changed. I think the designers (who remember, were basically coming off the tail end of the 40 Licks tour, the We Will Rock You show, and the Ka show in Vegas) were left with the charge to do the design. Now after reading the article, I think the general concensus after Elevation was (at least for indoors) was "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I am sure this was communicated to the band. There are just way too many similar design pieces (albeit very much updated technologically) between the two tours. I really am surprised by this move, and I fear this has trickled down to the outdoor show. The fact that the outdoor stage is built out of the indoor stage, and that the only set piece is another huge video screen (a la Popmart) it seems the theory follows suit.

It would have been great to see an entirely unique design, but I guess when time and cost wer put into play, creativity lost out. Andto be honest, from that article no one is apologizing for it.

I fear, but recognize the fact that for design geeks like myself, an interesting set piece, lighting move, or sound effect is more important to me than a well played Pride.

I can only agree with you on this...

About the outdoor production; they can be lucky that stage technology these days is this far that when U2 want's a big outdoor LED screen, one can just rent one and implent it on the indoor stage set piece... Just look at the beautiful screen Coldplay uses today... Look at the Eurovision Song Contest stage... All of this stuff can be rented where the Popmart screen was a unique U2 production...

I have the feeling that U2 doesn't "need" to be as creative anymore to put on a big show because of the stock staging/screen/lighting techniques available these days... A lot of people are overwelmed by the outdoor stage, while some (like us) are aware of the fact that the outdoor production isn't what U2 was once good in; original and creative...

 

[Popmartijn]

Well, I think Willie made some good points in the article regarding that piece of criticism (not an entirely unique design):

I asked Willie Williams, U2's lighting guru since 1982 and now their overall show designer, to comment on this observation. He said: "It's a fair statement, but it’s interesting how some functional elements of a show are never questioned. We had exactly the same backline last time. We had the same PA last time, and yet no one’s saying, 'gosh, how dull, it’s repetition, have they run out of ideas?'

"We really questioned whether we should do something completely different, or whether we should use that format again. But, in the end, the only reason to not do it would be because we did it last time. And to put them in a less successful performance situation, for no good reason, just seemed churlish. Another major factor which prompted those decisions, was the fact that we are actually playing in many of the same buildings."

And besides, the video content/light show is completely different from last tour, but I don't hear anybody talking about that. Just because they again have an open stage and an enclosed pit for the indoor shows, it's suddenly an uncreative design.

 

[Chizip]

I think Willie's excuses are a bit of a cop out. Who says a new production format would put them in a "less successful performance situation?" It was up to him and the other designers to find a new and exciting show that wouldn't put them in a less successful performance situation. But they got lazy and took the easy way out. The fact that were playing in many of the same buildings as last tour should not be a "major factor" in designing the production of the tour.

The different video/light show content you talk about is the curtain of lights, and it only gets used for 6 or 7 songs out of 23, and not even for all of the full songs. So basically, for 6 or 7 songs you get a very poor resolution video screen, and the rest of the 16 or 17 songs is a poor man's Elevation type production. Even some of the stuff on the curtain of lights is kind of lame. Are you telling me they couldnt think of anything better than a cheesy cartoon looking fighter plane to throw on the screen for Bullet?

I just think the creativity of designing this tour was just not there the way it was for the past few tours. Maybe that is because U2 didn't give as much input this time.

 

[Chizip]

"The high school crowd hasn't been happy with our product lately"

"Can't blame them. They want new material. Our stuff has been repeated to many times. You can't sell the same thing to the same old crowd forever."

 

[chrissybaby]

nobody else found this article interesting?!?!

I did, thanks guys. I love stuff like this. The thing that I found really interesting was the Massive Attack connection. I saw a few of the 100th Window shows and they were amazing, such a brilliant use of the screen, it's funny coz i mentioned to my girlfriend that i thought some of the graphics were in a similar vein (very low res and blocky).

Thanks again for the heads up!

 

[Chizip]

due to another thread I was rereading a great article about the Popmart tour design, and I found this quote

Yet it's not easy to classify. "One of the biggest problems that people are going to have with the show is that it's just completely different--there are no big lighting trusses hanging down and no big speaker columns on either side of the stage," Owens says. "Your reference points are gone--and what you expect to happen just doesn't. But I think that's great. It's a bit like the album; it will take a while for people to see what's going on. What's so fantastic about U2 is that they're willing to take these gambles. That's the Paddy factor, actually--the Irishness. We all copped an attitude that if it doesn't work out, well, we all can go out and have a pint later."

"There is an extraordinary confidence, that comes mainly from Bono, that's just infectious," Owens concludes. "You just know that if he and Willie believe it will happen, chances are it will."

that is quite a different attitude than the "it worked last time, so lets do it again" attitude they had for this tour. it seems like for everything U2 does these days they are using the "play it safe" type attitude rather than the gambling attitude they had during the 90's, and thats a bit of a shame.

if you want to read the rest of the article go here

http://lightingdimensions.com/mag/lighting_us_super_popmart/

its good stuff

 

[U2girl]

...