Here's my U2VT article, with statistical comments and such, in case anyone wants to read it: http://www.u2-vertigo-tour.com/article344.html
bgmckinney said:Interesting there would be such a u2-metal overlap. I mean, I know it's not huge, we're talking a small percentage of the forum, but still - obviously some people here are big fans of both. Interesting dynamic. I wonder if it has something to do with the element of theatricality (I don't mean that pejoratively) and emotional intensity...
maycocksean said:Aii, don't rub it in. Truth be told I'd have been happy just to see Saitama II (and it would have fit better with my schedule since I still wouldn't have missed any more work) in addition to Saitama 1.
Alisaura said:I'm not a metal-head by any means, but I certainly love some of it.
Does Tool count as metal? I love Lateralus, but their earlier albums are a bit much for me. And I haven't got the latest one.
maycocksean said:Yeah, I gotta hit the hay as well.
Thanks for a great evening all! I'll definitely check in on the Hawaii setlist party even if it's already over by the time I can get on the computer.
Take care!
gmc said:So Axver,was it a good show for the Science Of Snippetry?
Axver said:
For me, it's the technical proficiency. I am not a metal fan, per se, but a progressive rock fan who delved into progressive metal and suddenly found himself savouring the wider metal world from a back door. I don't like much of the often immature, juvenile metal that people think of when they first think of metal; I tend to go for the more obscure bands, the ones with insanely intricate songs and very proficient musicianship. I am especially a fan of atmospheric metal and progressive death metal.
I guess this begs the question as to what I'm doing here. U2 were one of my first musical loves, long before I got into metal, and I've never moved away from them, especially not their eighties work. Even more than technical proficiency, I highly value atmosphere. U2's eighties stuff has that in bucketloads. Metal bands such as Agalloch and Orphaned Land have it in bucketloads. And U2 also know how to write a well-structured, intriguing song, so that also explains why I like them, as well as melodic rock bands such as Crowded House.
gmc said:Looks Kite as flown into the breeze,pity........
Axver said:
2. The song just didn't sound as good without Tim Moriarty on didgeridoo.
bgmckinney said:
Interesting. I don't pay too much attention one way or another to intricacy, as I don't think it has much to do with rock and roll. Jazz and "classical" music operate on such a higher level of sophistication than rock that I can't see any band nearing that standard - pop music is just a different kind of creature altogther. I do understand what you mean about atmosphere, though. In the HTDAAB-release era Bono gave an interview in which he talked about the fact that U2 songs contain glimpses of so many different worlds. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something like - you're walking down a rainy city street, but then in the distance, down an alleyway, is a glimpse of sunset sky, and somewhere else a saxophone comes through an open door. I was quite excited to hear him say that because I'd thought the same thing for years. Contrast that with, say, Radiohead or Metallica, who are at once more musically intricate and highly atmospheric, but who create the same atmosphere with each song...
Anyhow, I'll have to give a listen to some of those bands.
Axver said:
I think there are two reasons for Kite's absence from Japan:
1. Roofed stadium. Bono can't really fly and release the kite.
2. The song just didn't sound as good without Tim Moriarty on didgeridoo.
Alisaura said:
Maybe I was standing in the wrong spot (okay, two wrong spots), but I don't recall actually hearing the didgeridoo at all. Might have to listen to Melbourne 1 again...
need... sleep...
Axver said:
The best you can hope for is a different snippet, really.