cant be that much if they only played 22 songs in total last nightMofo said:
and i wouldnt really class anything that the stones have done in the last 10 years as a "hit", so that brings it down to 30 years of "hits"
Stones stage compared to Vertigo Stage...
- Thread starter u2wedge
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
and i wouldnt really class anything that the stones have done in the last 10 years as a "hit", so that brings it down to 30 years of "hits"
ok Kuef, here is my idea. i threw this together in about 2 minutes so it is very rough
this would be the indoor show. as you can see the round stage is directly in the middle of the floor. there is also a catwalk that goes all around the stage that bono could walk around on. this would also allow people to be in a "bomb shelter" type area in between the catwalk and main stage. the main stage could also spin around a couple times douring the show, so it would face everybody at some point.
the could still use the curtains of light during the shows too.
this would be the indoor show. as you can see the round stage is directly in the middle of the floor. there is also a catwalk that goes all around the stage that bono could walk around on. this would also allow people to be in a "bomb shelter" type area in between the catwalk and main stage. the main stage could also spin around a couple times douring the show, so it would face everybody at some point.
the could still use the curtains of light during the shows too.
not too badChizip said:ok Kuef, here is my idea. i threw this together in about 2 minutes so it is very rough
this would be the indoor show. as you can see the round stage is directly in the middle of the floor. there is also a catwalk that goes all around the stage that bono could walk around on. this would also allow people to be in a "bomb shelter" type area in between the catwalk and main stage. the main stage could also spin around a couple times douring the show, so it would face everybody at some point.
the could still use the curtains of light during the shows too.
but all i was saying is you would still get people who are unhappy, specially the people that love to be at the front every show, simply because they wouldnt get the same view as they would at an end stage setup, lol
zoopop
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I give the Stones credit for just going for the huge production. There aren't many bands who attempt at something unique or innovative when it comes to producing a concert. It used to be the Stones, U2, and Floyd who would attempt on taking on stadiums. Whats sad is that its still the Stones and U2 who can do a stadium show or spend a good amount of $$$ on a decent concert production. Artist and promoters see more $$$ by putting production aside and charging more money for tickets. Can you imagine what a ticket would cost to see Popmart today? Just 8 years ago Popmart tickets were $50 and $35. Thats it. Even though the Stones or U2's production isn't as great or extravigant as before, its still a full on production with some magic. Better than what other bands give us.
Also, I have a feeling U2 will see this stage and want to top it on the next tour. That was the plan with Popmart. The Rolling Stones wanted the huge screen but saw the production $$$ as a big obstacle. U2 took on the challenge. But they did regret it later on, according to the VH1 interview.
Also, I have a feeling U2 will see this stage and want to top it on the next tour. That was the plan with Popmart. The Rolling Stones wanted the huge screen but saw the production $$$ as a big obstacle. U2 took on the challenge. But they did regret it later on, according to the VH1 interview.
KUEFC09U2 said:chizip i just hope you "feel" it at your next few shows, you seem like such a big fan and i hate the thought of your being so down on the tour as your are
haha, even though it probably doesnt sound like it, i still enjoy the shows very much. i mean it's u2, they always put on a great show. i just feel this tour just isnt as good as some of their previous tours, maybe i just had too high of expectations. but i feel bad because i do feel like i am coming off way too negative in this forum but i truly do enjoy the shows and love u2.
personally i see the outdoor screen as being innovative, its kind of like 2 screens in one, as the bottom isnt joined to the top, also with all the lights actually buily behind the stage it gives it a very haunting vibe when they play ONE or whatever, and it just glows purple,zoopop said:
then you have the mind blowing effects of say vertigo, when the screen uses both video and lighting
as i say hopefully you will feel the magic again at your next show, because this tour isnt as bad as some make it out to be lol, as i said its the best i have seen from them, granted i havent got much experience, just popmart and elevation, but it tops themChizip said:
Mofo
Refugee
KUEFC09U2 said:cant be that much if they only played 22 songs in total last night
and i wouldnt really class anything that the stones have done in the last 10 years as a "hit", so that brings it down to 30 years of "hits"
lol yeah well let's remember they are in their sixties!! and still is 30 years of hits and a lot of them, besides suits me fine as I am planning on seeing them and I am more of a casual Stones fan I mean I know a lot of their stuff but I am far from being a hardcore fan ala U2
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Yet another good thread ends in an orgy
Figured this would be worth a shot...
Anyone interested in a ticket to see The Stones at MSG. I've found myself stuck w/ an extra, and I'm looking to sell it at face+fees (about $75). Alas, it's not really the best seat, and none of my friends really want to spend the $$ to go, but at least you'd be in the building, right? I couldn't resist, as I figured the Stones are a must see at least once, and they can't have too many more goes in them!
Any takers?!?!
Anyone interested in a ticket to see The Stones at MSG. I've found myself stuck w/ an extra, and I'm looking to sell it at face+fees (about $75). Alas, it's not really the best seat, and none of my friends really want to spend the $$ to go, but at least you'd be in the building, right? I couldn't resist, as I figured the Stones are a must see at least once, and they can't have too many more goes in them!
Any takers?!?!
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
I feel the love 
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Chizip said:
True, there must be a reason why they keep away
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Chizip said:
well i dont have 75 dollars, but perhaps there is something i could do for you
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Chizip said:
TheBrazilianFly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
That's a fucking great rock n' roll song!zoopop said:
Mofo said:
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I don’t believe in love-ins, and I don’t believe in most of the silliness that has been going on in this forum. This forum is about the Vertigo tour in general, and this is a very relevant topic since most of the creative team behind U2 (the band who could do no wrong) and the Stones. The idea that there are no original ideas out there is absurd, and I will not listen to anyone who tries to defend this theory. Yes there are people (you are reading one of them) who will criticize whatever the band comes up with and again, that is because it is our favorite band, and we expect them to do things at a level higher than the rest (who are few and far between in this level of performance.) Bigger does not always mean better and there are many precedents to prove this (look at acts like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Massive Attack), acts who prove that with forced limited resources amazing things can be done. Hell, if you have not seen it, try to get some images from Madonna’s re-invention tour. That was, in my opinion the most high-tech, and well done indoor stage production I have seen in years.
I am tired of these threads being hijacked by one or two people who have to state that opinions are invalid in reference to critical assessments of what U2 has done this year. Not only are they valid, but if the design team behind the band wanted ‘real’ input to their work, they would read some of this, rather than just the magazines who praise their work regardless.
What can be done differently?
Well, take a look at today’s stadium tours – mainly U2 and the Stones. There are three main elements that the show requires, lighting, sound, and video. It seems to me, the new trend is how these three things are applied to a steel frame. No longer are these elements integral to the show, but they are applied to a black steel frame similar to a curtainwall system for a building (the windows that are applied to the outside of a glass tower.) This is the modern day version of a theatrical setpiece. Gone are the days of Steel Wheels, gone are the days of The Wall. Now it is build the frame, hang the stuff, start the show.
So what can be done?
Well, going back to the indoor stage for a moment, I think more energy is being put on the technology of the show versus the experience. How much money is going into LED’s, wireless communications, IMAG video projection, and video editing? Tons. Back to Madonna for a second. Yes, she had the LED video walls, but they moved, They circled the stage and for each song were not just lit up with useless graphics, but were placed into positions that changed the environment of the stage. Now besides the people she had swinging from the lighting rig, and the catwalk suspended from the arena roof that lowered over the crowd, the entire stage was a plexiglass turntable that spun, lowered, and raised to completely change the shape and dimension of the stage. Aside from all of that – there was a conveyor belt at the front of the stage, where the sound FOH position was located, a move that had never been done before.
Most of the things in that design were ‘never done before’ and as I was critical of the show – it was one of the best I have ever seen, and I am not really a Madonna fan.
Could U2’s team pull off something in the league of this stage? Yes. Have they? Yes – ZOO TV was one of the most innovative outdoor sets of its time. What I would like to see at a U2 show is more automation. I could give back some of the very expensive LED’s to see something happen to a stage while the band performs. Yes, we all know there will be a video screen, but does it have to be stagnant? The Stones proved you can break up a huge screen and get it moving on 40 Licks. Pink Floyd proved you could move a screen years ago. To have a screen simply to have a screen does not make sense to me. We are in the time where the screen better damn well do something other than show images, or someone is going to say something about it. The indoor ‘screen’ for Radiohead was amazing, shit, even Britany Spears’ team did some creative things with the LED’s on her last show.
Now – I think one of the main reasons for criticism is the fact that the indoor Vertigo show was so similar to Elevation (even the design team admits this was one of their goals) that when you couple the design with the setlist (of about 50% of the same songs as Elevation) there is reason to say something. Tag a $100+ price to see this and there you go.
I really, really thought this time around the band was going to pull out the stops and go fully in the round (as Chizip) suggests inside. I thought they would have a round stage with at least a minimal amount of automation.
One of my biggest criticisms now is the ‘four screens’ that continuously show the band. I think they are a huge distraction and take something away from going to a live gig. Why do I want to go and watch what is happening in front of me on TV as it is happeneing?
I like the fact that Willie has the latest and greatest video editing software and on the fly he can change what we see, but I think the disconnect lies in the fact that 90% of the people there do not know he is doing this. They could save the money on his toys and put it into a more novel stage design. I think the fans are hungry for it, and Vertigo can be seen as a good tour, which could have been great. The problem I have with that is that I do not know how many more tours we are going to see.
I am tired of these threads being hijacked by one or two people who have to state that opinions are invalid in reference to critical assessments of what U2 has done this year. Not only are they valid, but if the design team behind the band wanted ‘real’ input to their work, they would read some of this, rather than just the magazines who praise their work regardless.
What can be done differently?
Well, take a look at today’s stadium tours – mainly U2 and the Stones. There are three main elements that the show requires, lighting, sound, and video. It seems to me, the new trend is how these three things are applied to a steel frame. No longer are these elements integral to the show, but they are applied to a black steel frame similar to a curtainwall system for a building (the windows that are applied to the outside of a glass tower.) This is the modern day version of a theatrical setpiece. Gone are the days of Steel Wheels, gone are the days of The Wall. Now it is build the frame, hang the stuff, start the show.
So what can be done?
Well, going back to the indoor stage for a moment, I think more energy is being put on the technology of the show versus the experience. How much money is going into LED’s, wireless communications, IMAG video projection, and video editing? Tons. Back to Madonna for a second. Yes, she had the LED video walls, but they moved, They circled the stage and for each song were not just lit up with useless graphics, but were placed into positions that changed the environment of the stage. Now besides the people she had swinging from the lighting rig, and the catwalk suspended from the arena roof that lowered over the crowd, the entire stage was a plexiglass turntable that spun, lowered, and raised to completely change the shape and dimension of the stage. Aside from all of that – there was a conveyor belt at the front of the stage, where the sound FOH position was located, a move that had never been done before.
Most of the things in that design were ‘never done before’ and as I was critical of the show – it was one of the best I have ever seen, and I am not really a Madonna fan.
Could U2’s team pull off something in the league of this stage? Yes. Have they? Yes – ZOO TV was one of the most innovative outdoor sets of its time. What I would like to see at a U2 show is more automation. I could give back some of the very expensive LED’s to see something happen to a stage while the band performs. Yes, we all know there will be a video screen, but does it have to be stagnant? The Stones proved you can break up a huge screen and get it moving on 40 Licks. Pink Floyd proved you could move a screen years ago. To have a screen simply to have a screen does not make sense to me. We are in the time where the screen better damn well do something other than show images, or someone is going to say something about it. The indoor ‘screen’ for Radiohead was amazing, shit, even Britany Spears’ team did some creative things with the LED’s on her last show.
Now – I think one of the main reasons for criticism is the fact that the indoor Vertigo show was so similar to Elevation (even the design team admits this was one of their goals) that when you couple the design with the setlist (of about 50% of the same songs as Elevation) there is reason to say something. Tag a $100+ price to see this and there you go.
I really, really thought this time around the band was going to pull out the stops and go fully in the round (as Chizip) suggests inside. I thought they would have a round stage with at least a minimal amount of automation.
One of my biggest criticisms now is the ‘four screens’ that continuously show the band. I think they are a huge distraction and take something away from going to a live gig. Why do I want to go and watch what is happening in front of me on TV as it is happeneing?
I like the fact that Willie has the latest and greatest video editing software and on the fly he can change what we see, but I think the disconnect lies in the fact that 90% of the people there do not know he is doing this. They could save the money on his toys and put it into a more novel stage design. I think the fans are hungry for it, and Vertigo can be seen as a good tour, which could have been great. The problem I have with that is that I do not know how many more tours we are going to see.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Chizip said:good post
Yeah, like you never post anything silly in here, right?
Yet another good post from ouizy
