Vertigo Tour: Total failure or just relative failure?

[instantregan]

Most of us remember when U2 was the most daring, innovative, convention-busting band on the block. Zoo TV was a garish, intrusive mindfuck of an exploration into mass media. PopMart took commercial culture, peeled away the shrinkwrap, and then asked us scream at it. The Joshua era was an affirmation of earnestness and artistic integrity as U2 absorbed their new title as World's Best Band, daring to put gospel singers and blues performers up on stage in the process.

Elevation explored the soul of music, figuring out how to take a sports arena and make it as intimate as a jazz lounge...

And then Vertigo.

Just what the fuck was Vertigo, anyway?

One can almost imagine the conversation that Bono had with Willie at the start of the process. "Okay Williams, what we want to do this time around is create a "U2 Live Sampler Platter." The stage design from Elevation, the visuals of PopMart, some acoustic "Lovetown" moments, and bits of theming from Zoo TV thrown into the encore for good measure. You see, Willie, we've shot our wad. You should hear this album. It's fucking terrible. Everything is derivative of something that we've already done. I guess we need a tour to match."

The irony of all this, of course, is that they've ended up pandering to the most conservative and obstinate in their fan base - the exact same people that yowled like a battered kitten when they learned that there'd be electronica in their U2 music 15 years ago. These are the people who will submit most of the scalding responses to my post here, the "I just want to hear them play!" curmudgeons and the "OMG, I was in GA twelve times!!!" indiscriminates. Face it, you people would pay $250 a ticket even if the next tour was the band covering every song from Streisand's "Memories" album while dressed in kimonos. Don't even pretend to actually have an opinion.

Whereas the band essentially gave the finger to the placid and the resistant, now they're satiating them with the tried and true. It's effortless, it's easy, and it's a hell of a great way to make money... but is it U2?

(Kot: You were right.)

 

[bono_man]

I do understand where you are coming from in some aspects. To label the tour a failure because of this though is a mistake. Look at the attendance figures alone. They are ALOT better than Popmart. As a live show, I would see Vertigo any day over Popmart too.

I was disappointed to see the band do the same stage idea for the indoor shows. The live set for the outdoor gigs is great however. Also, I really think when U2 have re-invented live performance so much over the years, they can have the luxury to go back and repeat a few things in the live arena.

Not that I would like to see them do another heart/bomb shelter type of idea next time. But I think there is a certain leway (spelling?) you can give to U2 for what they have done in the past.

 

[indra]

the next tour was the band covering every song from Streisand's "Memories" album while dressed in kimonos.

You know, that could be kinda fun... I sure as hell wouldn't pay $250 to see it, but damn it would be hilarious.

 

[corianderstem]

Face it, you people would pay $250 a ticket even if the next tour was the band covering every song from Streisand's "Memories" album while dressed in kimonos. Don't even pretend to actually have an opinion.

Hell yeah, I'd pay $250 to see that, if only so I could have an educated opinion when I came back here to howl, "Man did that SUUUUUCK!"

As for your question whether or not "this is U2," you may just have to face that yes, this is U2 now. Making money, wanting to (still) be the biggest band in the world.

The real question is: are you willing to be on board with this U2, or is it time to say sayonara, cherish your fond memories of the U2 that once was, and maybe even hold onto a little hope that things may change in the future?

 

[Axver]

some acoustic "Lovetown" moments

Lovetown didn't have any acoustic moments. The first time U2 did an acoustic set was on ZooTV.

And as it has slayed Elevation for quality, I certainly wouldn't label the Vertigo Tour a failure.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Looking back, maybe the 6 or so weeks during Dec 04-Jan. 05 that they weren't sure would even do the tour were supposed to be time when Willie & Co. were supposed to do all the conceptual work with the band?

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Face it, you people would pay $250 a ticket even if the next tour was the band covering every song from Streisand's "Memories" album while dressed in kimonos. Don't even pretend to actually have an opinion.

Would we get the kabuki make up and Japanese wigs too????

 

[corianderstem]

Now it's sounding more like an elaborate Madonna video from the 90s!

 

[TranceEnding]

And then Vertigo.

Just what the fuck was Vertigo, anyway?

I dunno and I actually don't really care

"I just wanna see them play!!"

especially in Kimono's .. that's hot

 

[God Part III]

Vertigo is U2's best tour.

The fact that the played The Electric Co. makes it their best tour ever.

Every old song (Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, Gloria, Discothèque and so on) even sounded better this tour than on previous performances. Zoo Station was awesome.
Great long sets, awesome stage design, great voice and an Edge on fire.

I can't see how this tour could be considered a failure.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i don't think the idea of vertigo can honestly be measured, because i in no way believe that the way it played out is how it was supposed to.

i'm thinking the original plan was to hit arenas in the US in the early spring, then take the arenas to europe, then return to the US with the stadium set up, back to europe, and then the rest of the world.

their stadium setup had to have cost a hell of a lot more than the arena set up, yet the arena set up was used 79 times, the stadium set up will be used a total of 53 times... and before the second delay i don't think it was even that many times.

so while it was hardly a failure... there were some great shows in there, and tickets sales were through the roof... i'm think u2 might see it as a minor one, by no fault of their own, of course.

with all that's gone on with the edge's daughter, i think u2 wants to erase the vertigo tour... which is why i actually believe they want to get a new album out by the end of 2007 so that they can go back out on the road in 2008 and tour the way they want to, not the way they were forced into.

 

[Mogi]

Failure, no way. That is quite harsh to even think that honestly. There are so many bands that would give their soul to put on a show like the one in Sao Paulo. They were dead on target and the visuals were amazing.
I pretty much look at this album and the tour as a blended version of everything they´ve done.
Everyone says derivitive, and yes, it is, but not because they are out of ideas. I think they basically wanted to mark their first 25 years with an album and tour of this type of theme.
Jeez, they have done every tour and album different than the other and quite different than anything out there.
Give them a break.
I am sure they will move into new exciting directions and hopefully that will stop this melodrama about the death of this band.

Get over it.

 

[vaz02]

Vertigo is without doubt one of u2's great achievements and to think otherwise is a bit ....slow.

Stupid thread.

 

[Utoo]

i don't think the idea of vertigo can honestly be measured, because i in no way believe that the way it played out is how it was supposed to.

i'm thinking the original plan was to hit arenas in the US in the early spring, then take the arenas to europe, then return to the US with the stadium set up, back to europe, and then the rest of the world.

their stadium setup had to have cost a hell of a lot more than the arena set up, yet the arena set up was used 79 times, the stadium set up will be used a total of 53 times... and before the second delay i don't think it was even that many times.

so while it was hardly a failure... there were some great shows in there, and tickets sales were through the roof... i'm think u2 might see it as a minor one, by no fault of their own, of course.

with all that's gone on with the edge's daughter, i think u2 wants to erase the vertigo tour... which is why i actually believe they want to get a new album out by the end of 2007 so that they can go back out on the road in 2008 and tour the way they want to, not the way they were forced into.

Agreed. I think the original intent for the Vertigo Tour was to be much darker than what they ended up doing. I first got this impression after looking at some of the tshirts first available on u2.com before the tour, as well as the book that came with the super-deluxe HTDAAB, among other things. I think that with the news of Sian's diagnosis and then the original delay, a push or want for any hard attitude on the tour was lost in favor of a more retrospective, introspective, softer approach. In the end, it was still highly entertaining.


You can't keep doing ZooTV or Pop forever. At some point, you need to just be a band. If Pop was the next step after ZooTV, what would the next step after Pop be? The Virgin Prunes! Not something I'd pay to see...

 

[adrball]

Shame you haven't included Relative Success or Total Success to make this balanced.

Like the Album, some liked it and others didn't.

Most of the shows sold out so I reckon it must have been a success.

 

[powerhour24]

Talk about your dumb threads, because it's not mind-bogglingly over the top it's a failure? It was intimate, but also at the same time very theatrical, and had their most varied setlists in a long time (of course Pop and Zooropa were kind of ignored).

 

[mikal]

Talk about your dumb threads, because it's not mind-bogglingly over the top it's a failure? It was intimate, but also at the same time very theatrical, and had their most varied setlists in a long time (of course Pop and Zooropa were kind of ignored).

totally agreed. this topic is fucking stupid, and i'm being generous.

 

[Chizip]

Talk about your dumb threads, because it's not mind-bogglingly over the top it's a failure? It was intimate, but also at the same time very theatrical, and had their most varied setlists in a long time (of course Pop and Zooropa were kind of ignored).

Talk about your dumb post...

He never said it was a failure because it wasn't a huge production, in fact he praised the elevation tour for it's intimacy

Elevation explored the soul of music, figuring out how to take a sports arena and make it as intimate as a jazz lounge...

He said it was a failure because all the ideas of the tour were recycled from previous tours. There were no new or innovative ideas to make this tour special, they were just milking their previous successes. There was an article that stated that U2 decided to take a more hands off approach to the design of this tour, and I think the production suffered as a result. But extenuating circumstances (such as Sian) may have made this necessary, so the band gets a bit of a pass.

No one can deny the commercial success of the tour, debating the success of the artistic aspect of the tour is another story.

Debates without insults on this board would be nice for a change.

 

[Chizip]

totally agreed. this topic is fucking stupid, and i'm being generous.

if you don't like the thread, why dont you either debate the points of the author or just ignore it altogether?

its posts like these that really bring down the board moreso than what the original poster said. at least he made a point that can be a topic of discussion, this post adds nothing to the board

 

[U2girl]

I think credit goes to U2 for making a tour with some elements of their past tours that still made for a great show. (not even mentioning they could have cancelled everything back in March)

Oddly though that the tour with most interesting setlists since Lovetown (maybe ever, we got to hear all U2 albums plus a Passengers song) got the setlist complaints.

Someone I think on U2log.com summed it up well: A marriage of different U2s. The same can possibly said of the album, too.

The lightbulbs were a new element. I liked the activist/post 9/11 undertones in it. Last but not least, Bono's voice made a comeback. He was easily better than Elevation and Popmart.

 

[mikal]

if you don't like the thread, why dont you either debate the points of the author or just ignore it altogether?

its posts like these that really bring down the board moreso than what the original poster said. at least he made a point that can be a topic of discussion, this post adds nothing to the board

actually, my post is probably the best post this year. you're just jealous of my perfect abs.

 

[dsmith2904]

I'm closing this thread to end the bickering.

 

[Sicy]

I have a couple of things to say to the posters that come into threads and discussions to just say they are 'fucking stupid'.

I consider this trolling and it needs to stop. If you dont like a thread, or if you disagree with a thread but dont have anything to add or anything constructive to say other than its 'fucking stupid' DONT POST IN IT.

The thread was doing fine until a few people ruined it.

Warnings will start to be issued and temporary suspensions may be handed out to the posters who continue to ruin discussions like this.

It's not fair to the posters that want to continue the discussions.

Now, since there are/were posters that are really interested in participating in this discussion, if the original thread starter wishes to start a new thread about this topic I will allow it this time. SANS bickering.