Whats the point of the large screen?

[Muad'zin]

Not really a rant, more an observation.

I was at the Munich show and it dawned upon me that by the time show started, it was already dark. The stadium lights had already come on. So the band didn't really have an excuse to not use their big screen until COBL because of natural light. There wasn't any. And I'm sure in Spain and Portugal darkness may also come earlier then at the more nordic locations they played so far. So why didn't they use the big screen earlier? Still it only came on until COBL. You've got this big gizmo, thanks to which the overall production is supposedly so demanding that there is zero chance of some setlist variation and you don't use it, even when you can use it? And then when it comes on, it mostly shows images the likes of which my windows media player can reproduce whenever I use it to play some MP3's. They're playing big stadiums now, not arena's. Those 2 side screens with their obsession on bringing closeups of each band member like during Elevation aren't really helpfull to the people in the back. I've been there, they don't give a good overview of what goes on. At least during Popmart the big screen, when not being used to show screensaver imagery, gave the people in the back some overview what the tiny people on stage were doing. If U2 refuses to use the big screen for 2/5's of the show even when they could use it and don't use the side screens or the big screen to give a good overview they might as well abandon the thing all together and focus everything on the music. That way production becomes less demanding, they can do more variation and theoretically it would allow them to now go to places that weren't profitable because of the expenses of the big production.

 

[Chizip]

I haven't seen the satdium show, so I probably shouldn't really comment, but from the pictures and videos I have seen, I have to say the Popmart screen was used in a much more interesting manner.

But, like I said, I haven't seen it firsthand, so I can't be certain for sure.

 

[L03VIk]

The reason why they don't use the screen before COBL is complicated in my opinion:

1. The first songs are presented as straight forward rock songs, without any fuzz.

2. Many shows has been in daylight until COBL, and therefore there aren't made any graphics for the screen on those songs...

3. They use the 12 Manual lights inside the screen before COBL, so the use A PIECE of the screen ;-)

4. The COBL effect is AMAZING, when the big screen lights up. It wouldn't maybe be as effective if the screen was used on all the songs before...

5. Vertigo II is being a great contrast, almost a different song, from Vertigo I.


As for the Popmart screen, that was more like a TV screen, with smaller distance between each pixel. I think the great thing about the Vertigo screen is that it don't steal any attention from the band, but only "amplifies" some of the songs... Nothing bad sad about the Popmart screen though, it was a great thing, but served as something completely different...

 

[Jim]

"So the band didn't really have an excuse to not use their big screen until COBL because of natural light"

Do you really think that they would create different visual artwork for each show on the European tour based the lighting and timing of the concert? I don't mean to sound arsey but honestly, I get the feeling that U2 will be blamed for the weather at their concerts before long..

And if you are unhappy with the 'windows media' type images then send out your CV to the millions of creative companies across the world and hopefully we'll see your artwork on the next tour.

It's annoying because all of the friends that I went to the concerts with in the UK this summer, who grew up with U2 but would never have heard of (or be interested in) interference.com or any day to day U2 fandom were totally blown away by the current U2 show, by the whole experience, the communal high of the day and the connection between band and audience. Yet on a U2 fan forum people will pick and pick at the individual pieces of the show that are so insignificant to the overall picture.

Again - if you can do better, form a band, get our there and GOOD LUCK!

 

[KUEFC09U2]

windows media? you kidding me? so your telling me the affects for COBL, btbs, sunday bloody sunday, yahweh, miracle drug, etc are windows media imagery? wow what else we going to bitch about as i think this just about covers everything

also as said above, the majority the european shows have started in total daylight, look at the UK and ireland shows for proof, so i hardly think they are going to bust there arses of to make artwork that will not even be seen at the minority of shows

and imo the screen is bloody amazing, and another willie williams succsess

 

[Muad'zin]

Some people are getting defensive again. At least L03VIk makes some good points rather then bitch about mine. And besides I'm not ranting, I'm making an observation.

The big screen can be switched on earlier, especially in Southern Europe where it gets dark earlier. Its not even a question about not having imagery. During Popmart they also supplied screensaverlike imagery during the songs but when not it didn't go off, or show a monochrome color, it gave us normal video feed so the people in the back could get an impression of what happened on stage and feel connected. Would it kill U2 to do something similar. The only reason I can think of for not using it earlier is because they like the impact it has when it suddenly comes on during COBL.

But essentially I want U2 to give the people in the back something to give them an overview. If the big screen is off, or shows all sorts of artistic like stuff, its essential that the side screens show what happens. A chest up closeup doesn't convey that Adam takes a stroll on his B-stage. A chest up closeup doesn't convey that Edge does the Electric co. solo on his B-stage. I don't have to see Larry playing the drums on his piece of the small screen all the time and Bono does so many things that can't be covered with just showing his face on his half of the small screen. IMHO the camera work is so much more better during the support acts. At least then they try to show you what happens on stage, the way concert videoscreens are supposed to work.

 

[scottyT]

yeah i agree mr. i can't say your name eye of sauron.


they need to be more artsy. they can do it..... i believe in them.

 

[cmb737]

I would like to know why anyone that can't stand observations and critiques made by long time fans about a band they love even bother entering the forum. Just to piss on those that don't say with every post "U2 is the greatest of all time, no if, ands, or buts...they cannot do anything better ever."

Jeez. It's a good point considering they used the screens (ala curtains) from the first song on for the entire NA leg regardless of the setlist. It's a reasonable point of discussion. Having an opinion doesn't make anyone more important than anyone else.

BTW..I think Chizip and I are both stoked we saw the majority (if not all) of our shows in the US. Seems like we got the better deal!

 

[MTEdge]

Having seen both the US shows (Philly1, NJ1, NJ2, and NY) and the European shows (Twick1 and Twick2), it's my opinion that the European productions were better. More songs... More "homecoming" shows... More ZooTV like atmosphere... Just my two pence.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I would like to know why anyone that can't stand observations and critiques made by long time fans about a band they love even bother entering the forum. Just to piss on those that don't say with every post "U2 is the greatest of all time, no if, ands, or buts...they cannot do anything better ever."

Jeez. It's a good point considering they used the screens (ala curtains) from the first song on for the entire NA leg regardless of the setlist. It's a reasonable point of discussion. Having an opinion doesn't make anyone more important than anyone else.

BTW..I think Chizip and I are both stoked we saw the majority (if not all) of our shows in the US. Seems like we got the better deal!

and i dont get the fact that whenever we state an opinion that goes against these "critiques" we always get the same response rather than a rational conversation,

as i said why bother working 2x as hard to make new artwork for the first couple of songs, when only a couple of countries will get to see it? the majority of the european shows have started in total daylight

 

[Neilz]

It's very normal in modern big production shows that the stage gets 'unveiled' as the show progresses... So to begin with the screen turned off, and end in full glory is really normal...

 

[kaber]

At Twickenham, when they did show the band on the large screen (usually in black and white), the picture was not very clear whereas the small screens were. The graphics however looked great.

Probably the daylight at Twickenham and resolution of the screens means they were not on all the time and showing the band.

I think the amount of screen usage was about right.

From what I have seen of the Elevation tour, this is a far better production.

Cheers

Kaber

 

[KUEFC09U2]

At Twickenham, when they did show the band on the large screen (usually in black and white), the picture was not very clear whereas the small screens were. The graphics however looked great.

Probably the daylight at Twickenham and resolution of the screens means they were not on all the time and showing the band.

I think the amount of screen usage was about right.

From what I have seen of the Elevation tour, this is a far better production.

Cheers

Kaber

nooo stop it, did you not know that if your not supposed to make a comment when someone posts something against the band

 

[U2Man]

nooo stop it, did you not know that if your not supposed to make a comment when someone posts something against the band

 

[1stOne]

confused as ever U2Man

Tis me, calling from Barcelona, the morning after the night before. What a fantastic show!!! A magic moment when the screen lit up for city of blinding lights. Great new visuals for Miracle Drug. That was the best crowd ever. No 2nd thread for the setlist party? Hey, I met ramblin rose

 

[KUEFC09U2]

confused as ever U2Man

Tis me, calling from Barcelona, the morning after the night before. What a fantastic show!!! A magic moment when the screen lit up for city of blinding lights. Great new visuals for Miracle Drug. That was the best crowd ever. No 2nd thread for the setlist party? Hey, I met ramblin rose

just curious how would these concerts rate in your overall U2 concert going experience?

 

[zooholland]

I think the screen was absolutely awesome, great artwork...I do however kind of agree about the side screens. It might be better to show the whole overview once in a while too. I went to amsterdam very early to be in the front section (and i was) so i didnt have any problems. But friends of mine (who are not really big die hard fans) arrived later and they were half way in the standing (ga) zone. When i talked to them about it later some of them didnt even noticed there were B stages.

So if you are in front it doesnt matter but in the back its probably very useful to have the whole picture on the screen (or by the dvd later LOL )

 

[U2Man]

confused as ever U2Man

Tis me, calling from Barcelona, the morning after the night before. What a fantastic show!!! A magic moment when the screen lit up for city of blinding lights. Great new visuals for Miracle Drug. That was the best crowd ever. No 2nd thread for the setlist party? Hey, I met ramblin rose

Haha, I saw your name on the front page....and thought.....did she fly home immediately after the show???

Glad to hear you had a good time! No, the setlist party had only one thread. Had they played Spanish Eyes, I'm sure it would have made it to two threads....but let's not get into that now. Did you bring a sign?

Btw. You do know, that we need to see a picture of you and Ramblin Rose together, right?

 

[1stOne]

Haha, I saw your name on the front page....and thought.....did she fly home immediately after the show???

Glad to hear you had a good time! No, the setlist party had only one thread. Had they played Spanish Eyes, I'm sure it would have made it to two threads....but let's not get into that now. Did you bring a sign?

Btw. You do know, that we need to see a picture of you and Ramblin Rose together, right?

Ha! Couldn´t wait to get back to the blue crack. Had mail from Zwervers. He hasn´t been too well No I didn´t take a banner. It was a fantastic show and I had a great spot. The B-Man looking mighty fine.

Picture? Luckily RR didn´t have her camera. Also met KBRY and UKTan. Fly back tomorrow...aw well, back to the sun

 

[U2Man]

Ha! Couldn´t wait to get back to the blue crack. Had mail from Zwervers. He hasn´t been too well No I didn´t take a banner. It was a fantastic show and I had a great spot. The B-Man looking mighty fine.

Picture? Luckily RR didn´t have her camera. Also met KBRY and UKTan. Fly back tomorrow...aw well, back to the sun

We all gave zwervers a warm welcome at the setlist party

No camera! Ha! You're telling me you all went to Barcelona and didn't bring a camera! Ha! Don't believe you!

 

[1stOne]

just curious how would these concerts rate in your overall U2 concert going experience?

Only saw one Elevation concert KUEF, but as for the Vertigo Tour, this show was on another level. I don´t know how it could have been any better. Bono was so emotionally raw, especially on Miracle Drug. Adam didn´t stop smiling once. It was a case of the Barcelona crowd entertaining the entertainers. Bono said they would never forget it. Neither will I

 

[1stOne]

We all gave zwervers a warm welcome at the setlist party

No camera! Ha! You're telling me you all went to Barcelona and didn't bring a camera! Ha! Don't believe you!

I DID have a camera..... RR didn´t! We all met at an Irish bar on Friday night.

BTW...I´m upset because I didn´t see anyone else wearing an Interference T shirt.

 

[ouizy]

Critique:

Well - I have not been to a European show,. but from the numerous photos and technical articles I have read I feel as follows:

I think the band and its production crew may now be focusing on something a bit too much. In all the arts, collaboration is seen as a beneficial thing, but it is the way in which you bring in your collaborators, and the crowd that you present to, which determines if the collaboration is a success or not.

I fear the band has left a bit too much to the production team (of which, of course I am in awe) and in doing so, the production team's interests sometimes shine through the band's during the show. I am not sure why the 'team' uses so many visuals created from other artists. As U2 seems to want this to be a rock's rock show, there seems to be a ton of artsy graphics built in.

Now there is nothing wrong with this, but sometimes it can be a bit too cerebral and a bit too much. I thought the fighter plane from the arena show was a good example of this. Yes, I knew an artist created this and it had some deep meaning, but during that song I kept hearing, "What is with that cartoon?" "That is lame."

Well, the art was not really reaching its audience.

With the stadium screen, one of Williams's finest touches is always lighting his objects and not using them for what they are. yes it is a video screen, but it is also a scuptural object that can be lit simply as an object. When this is done well, it is great. So therefore I think there is nothing wrong with them not using the screen the whole show. I actually like to see these things lit up.

I have issue with the visuals, and number of visuals the band is showing. The whole idea behind the video screen at a concert began with showing people at a distance things that they otherwise could not see. Then it went to content (something Williams is the first one to admit to advancing.) It is the content that sometimes actually becomes distracting. You can sometimes forget you are at a rock show if you just sat and watched the graphics. U2 then simply becomes the soundtrack to whatever Williams decides to put on that screen.

All in all I think the production team just missed hitting a great design. My critique is that in these shows they are using very high technology, but is it for their enjoyment and interest, or the shows.

There is a technical article in the lates Wired magazine about the arena show and I have to say unless you are into a lot of the stuff Williams is doing, you woul dnever know it was there. I applaud the use of the newest technology, but only when it supports the show. Not as a distraction.

I think there could have been less visuals, less 'toys' like the infra-red imaging, and more big rock elements (lights, video of the band, set.)

I say dumb it down a bit, really go back to basics, save some LED money for other elements of design.

I am sorry to say, but I would not be surprised if the Stones tour is a notch above Vertigo.

Anyway - that is my rant - I could talk for hours on this, but to answer the thread's subject line - you have to understand that Williams does not only see the screen as a screen, but as a set piece, and thus it will not be on showing video all the time, but will simply be an elegant backdrop.

 

[Chizip]

That fighter jet is super lame.

 

[neutral]

It is a bit cheesy.


Hey ouizy will you do a stage/production article this tour? The Elevation one is amazing.

 

[Lancemc]

Alright, I haven't seen a European show, but these are my impressions from the first leg show I saw.

They only used the light curtains for 7 songs. Just this fact alone made them all the more powerful I feel.

The light curtains are also different from the Eurigo setup because they can be retracted to the ceiling when not in use, stripping the stage to an essentially Elevation style setup.

When they were used though, I though it was perfect every time. City of Blinding Lights was incredible as an opener with the light curtains blazing the whole time.

Vertigo was awesome of course. I think the visuals stayed the same for that song in Europe?

Sometimes was cool. Some people didn't like the walking man, but I thought it fit the song perfectly. Surreal in a way.

A liked the Bullet background. The jet was a neat touch I thought. Then again, I think this is one of the best versions of Bullet we've seen yet, up there with the Zoo TV version.

Streets, while most feel is a bit weak this tour (I tend to agree) still made great use fo the light curtains with the African flag display. I like how during the bridge when the arena goea black with the strobe light effect, the curtains retract for the last bit of the song.

Zoo Station was cool. Not as impressive as the big screen in Europe, but the static effect was perfect for the song.

Finally, the single most visually awesome moment of the show was The Fly. Nonstop sensory assault. In conjunction with the FANTASTIC floor lights built into the stage flashing all sorts of trippy rainbow colors with the light curtains flahsing classic Fly truisms and waves of blues, reds, yellows, and greens. It was simply hypnotizing.

Overall, a great show visually. I hope they keep it basically the same fo the third leg, except maybe use the curtains for a few more songs.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Critique:

Well - I have not been to a European show,. but from the numerous photos and technical articles I have read I feel as follows:

I think the band and its production crew may now be focusing on something a bit too much. In all the arts, collaboration is seen as a beneficial thing, but it is the way in which you bring in your collaborators, and the crowd that you present to, which determines if the collaboration is a success or not.

I fear the band has left a bit too much to the production team (of which, of course I am in awe) and in doing so, the production team's interests sometimes shine through the band's during the show. I am not sure why the 'team' uses so many visuals created from other artists. As U2 seems to want this to be a rock's rock show, there seems to be a ton of artsy graphics built in.

Now there is nothing wrong with this, but sometimes it can be a bit too cerebral and a bit too much. I thought the fighter plane from the arena show was a good example of this. Yes, I knew an artist created this and it had some deep meaning, but during that song I kept hearing, "What is with that cartoon?" "That is lame."

Well, the art was not really reaching its audience.

With the stadium screen, one of Williams's finest touches is always lighting his objects and not using them for what they are. yes it is a video screen, but it is also a scuptural object that can be lit simply as an object. When this is done well, it is great. So therefore I think there is nothing wrong with them not using the screen the whole show. I actually like to see these things lit up.

I have issue with the visuals, and number of visuals the band is showing. The whole idea behind the video screen at a concert began with showing people at a distance things that they otherwise could not see. Then it went to content (something Williams is the first one to admit to advancing.) It is the content that sometimes actually becomes distracting. You can sometimes forget you are at a rock show if you just sat and watched the graphics. U2 then simply becomes the soundtrack to whatever Williams decides to put on that screen.

All in all I think the production team just missed hitting a great design. My critique is that in these shows they are using very high technology, but is it for their enjoyment and interest, or the shows.

There is a technical article in the lates Wired magazine about the arena show and I have to say unless you are into a lot of the stuff Williams is doing, you woul dnever know it was there. I applaud the use of the newest technology, but only when it supports the show. Not as a distraction.

I think there could have been less visuals, less 'toys' like the infra-red imaging, and more big rock elements (lights, video of the band, set.)

I say dumb it down a bit, really go back to basics, save some LED money for other elements of design.

I am sorry to say, but I would not be surprised if the Stones tour is a notch above Vertigo.

Anyway - that is my rant - I could talk for hours on this, but to answer the thread's subject line - you have to understand that Williams does not only see the screen as a screen, but as a set piece, and thus it will not be on showing video all the time, but will simply be an elegant backdrop.

imo the stage is amazing, the stones stage might well have more to it, but theres no way they will match what U2 display on them screens,

and am sorry to say but why is that you only every posts in negative threads? or say negative things about this tour?

just a question dont flame me for asking

 

[ouizy]

It is a bit cheesy.


Hey ouizy will you do a stage/production article this tour? The Elevation one is amazing.

Thanks neutral.

I may do one for this tour if I can find the time. I like to do them after the tour has ended - it is easier to extract all the detailed information that way.

I find it very interesting that other media outlets are catching on to the advances U2 has made in the touring industry. There have now been in depth articles written by Wired, Lighting Dimensions, Lighting and Sound Design America, and Barco, as well as others that each offer a bit or two that is different from the rest.

They all have the standard interview stuff with Williams, but each offers a little nugget here and there.

I would write one, to be complete, but who knows what will happen on the third (fourth, fifth?) leg. I shall wait and see.

If you liked Elevation I also wrote a bit about the Joshua Tree here:

http://forum.interference.com/t78259.html

I planned on doing ZOOTV and Popmart, but lost time...

 

[cmb737]

imo the stage is amazing, the stones stage might well have more to it, but theres no way they will match what U2 display on them screens,

and am sorry to say but why is that you only every posts in negative threads? or say negative things about this tour?

just a question dont flame me for asking

I can personally remember many many posts with very positive comments made by this user. This current one, which was very well thought out, is a discussion about the use of the screen and its artistic value to the show and audience. I find Ouizy to be one of the most informed impartial and well spoken U2 fans on this site. Saying the Stones tour might be grander (which it very well might be) isn't negative.

Your constant knee jerk reactions are.

 

[MTEdge]

Well said.

U2's preference for static setlists does not require its fans to prefer them as well. U2's alleged hatred for POP does not mean that U2 fans must hate POP, too. U2's reluctance (failure?) to play Acrobat or Crumbs does not mean that U2 fans must enjoy Pride for the zillionth time.

In short, criticisms of the band are not personal slights. So long as the dissent is "informed dissent," I am all for it.