Live 8 vs Live Aid

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

gman

New Yorker
Joined
Jun 13, 2001
Messages
2,570
Location
Highlands of Scotland
In general am reffering to u2 here of course. I thought the live aid performance blew the live 8 outta the water. Poor choice of songs and quite predictable. Dont think they woulda have won over so many ppl as they did wi live aid.
 
Think you are on your own here, practically. It was completely different and cannot be compared.
 
who did they need to win over? it wasn't a competetion, it wasn't 1985 and U2 didn't need to establish themselves.

they just lent their music to a cause.
 
I do not agree. Ok, I was expecting other songs (like Streets, Pride), but them performance was very good, and as openers were very beautiful. The One performance was very beautiful too. I'm not disapointed. What more could they do? They had a fight to Viena, they made the job very well.
The only thing that occured me was that they could have played City of blinding lights, because it could be integrated in the spirit of the concert and because it would give a great effort in the very poor releasement of the single.
 
I don't know...I love Sunday Bloody Sunday, but I don't think the Live Aid performance was really that great (R&H was so much better). Bad live is probably my favorite song ever, but objectively I don't think the Live Aid performance of it was that great (the R&H version and the more recent versions are better). Maybe I just don't "get" the moment though, I was born five years after the original Live Aid.

I really liked the performance of One-Unchained Melody at Live8, Beautiful Day and Vertigo were just sort of :shrug:...I dunno, I don't think either LiveAid or Live8 were that outstanding, but they were both solid. :up:
 
I was in Urbana, IL with a friend (he was taking a summer class at Univ. of IL) the weekend of Live Aid. We both had birthdays and we celebrated. We also watched Live Aid.

The U2 performance then was great, but mostly because of Bono's interaction with the crowd - which was not only unique compared to the other artists, but was viewed as unique for any artist at the time. Even though Bono did this regularly at U2 concerts, most of the world had not experienced this. As such, that one act helped U2 tremendously.

But as far as the songs go, even if U2 had performed "Pride", I don't see how an anti-war song, an anti-drug song and a song about MLK relate to famine in Africa. While all outstanding songs, I don't think they were really the best for the moment. Furthermore, "Bad" and "Pride" were off of U2's latest release - strongly suggesting that U2 were doing some major self-promotion. That may be part of the reason the other members of U2 were so mad at Bono that day - his actions prevented them from playing "Pride", which was their big "hit" at the time. I'm sure they felt Bono blew their chance at further promotion that day.

In stark contrast to 1985, U2, who are now veterans that hardly need that type of promotion, played what was probably the most apropos songs of the day. Other artists played some brilliant work, but U2's "Beautiful Day" and "One" were perfect. Even "Vertigo", with it's focus on confusion and disorientation, was appropriate. Those three songs set the tone and the mood for the rest of the day. While "Crumbs from Your Table" may deal directly with the L8 issue, U2 haven't played this song live yet and it is not a well known song. For an event like this, playing an unrehearsed catalog song is NOT the way to go.

I felt the artists playing in the L8 were even better than those who played in '85! This time, the artists REALLY got why they were there. This wasn't some token charity event - this was a life-changing decision meant to help persuade the nations of the world to help an entire continent of people!!

As such, I felt U2 were spectacular. Bono's speeches were far more powerful than his interaction with a woman being crushed (even if he did potentially save her life for it's arguable that Bono's jumping off the stage is what caused the poor woman to be crushed initially anyway).
 
Last edited:
just in general, live 8 was MUCH better than live aid.. there was a lot of crap performances in live aid... including Sting.. Sting kicked ass this time, probably because people criticized his performance from live aid

and whatever you say about u2's performance... blackbird was great.. makes me get choked up when i hear those lines
 
Two great performances, but I have to give the nod to Live Aid in 1985. I saw it live (on TV) and that was absolutely one of the most electric sets I've seen by ANY band ever.

And I'm so glad they didn't dress up in Sgt. Peppers garb as I heard they might. Now THAT would have been campy.
 
london , paris , berlin , toronto , philadelphia , rome
zoo tv meets pop mart
and you can watch it now , on aol
fantastic
 
I thought their openinng was brilliant? How can you not love the Sgt Peppers opening?:shrug:

What other veteran artist on that day could have got away with two songs they had written in the past 5 years? The Who and Floyd sets were amazing loved them, but they were also highly predictable and all their songs are an awful lot older than the ones U2 played...
 
The Live 8 set didn't even come close to touching the Live Aid performance for me. It pretty much went how I expected it to in regards to songs, even if I secretly hoped for something different.
It was still enjoyable enough :shrug:
If i'd been alive during Live Aid and had seen that performance, I would have got extrememly excited - the Live 8 set didn't quite do that.
 
Well it was close for me until I realized Bono still had the mullet back in 85.

Gotta go with Live Aid now.
 
It's hard to compare, but I think Live 8 was better. The fact is, U2 are better now - as they should be. If they had chosen to do Bad again this time, it probably would have been a million times better than Live Aid... Bono's voice is much better now, it has that deeper quality. Although I guess there's no way they could beat the whole audience interaction thing, by now everyone knows U2 does that kinda stuff anyway. If they did it again, they would be accused of repeating themselves.

Plus, One was amazing. There's a reason that's the greatest song ever written. I thought it was kind of lacking this tour, but the Live 8 restored it to former ZooTV glory and then some.
 
I liked them both and the point being is that U2 made an effort to be there and showed the world that they are still the best live act on the planet.
 
U2's role is diffrent

Now they have to showcase their best stuff and give a great performance.

Previously they had to win people over by being new.

Both were great for what u2 could acheive
 
Live 8 was GREAT !! :applaud:

Live Aid was INCREDIBLE !! :bow:

I liked Live Aid much better because of U2's CLASSIC performance.
Their Live 8 performance was spectacular but it did NOT over-whelm me
the way the 1985 Live Aid performance did ... :drool:
 
U2 were amazing at both shows. Absolutely doing what they do best. Bono can really get a crowd going even if it is early afternoon.

Live Aid seemed more profound maybe because it was covered all day here in the states and you didn't have to jump from aol to mtv crap to see it. The message I think may have been lost on people only able to see it on MTV with the silly commercials and asinine VJ's making it seem like a day at the mtv beach house.:mad:
 
In terms of the music and concerts on show, Live Aid was better than Live 8, in quality and performances on the day. This is mainly due to the fact that the quality of acts around in 1985 were arguably better than the bands around now.

The line ups in Live Aid were more impressive than Live 8, but this time we had more concerts and more artists, therefore greater variety and a greater number of people were able to watch it this time.

In terms of U2's performance, everyone has to realise that it was 20 years ago and not many people knew about U2 as they do now, which is obvious. Live Aid for U2, was about making a great impression and in some respects, promoting themselves and their music, so I agree about the comments regarding the band being pissed off with Bono, as this could have ruined their chance to make an impression.

After making a landmark and standout performance at Live Aid, I think it was up to the new acts such as The Killers or Razorlight to come to the fore, but none came close to U2's effort in 1985. Queen was the best act in the original concerts and arguably, Madonna, Robbie Williams, Pink Floyd, The Who and U2 were the "Queen" acts of Live 8, as they were the standout acts this time, getting most audience interaction and reaction from the press etc.

U2's aim this time was to live up to their name and deliver a powerful message to the world, which they did through their performance and Bono's speech. The duet with Paul McCartney will be one of the most memorable moments of the day and their own set, while predictable , was perfect in my mind.

Beautiful Day was was a perfect way to start the concert and get instant reaction from the crowd. Vertigo continued that up-tempo feel to the start of the concert, with great passion and energy and to keep everyone really excited. One was a great contrast, they needed a slow song after two faster tunes. It gave Bono time for his speech and was a good chance for peope to reflect on the cause and envoke the emotion of the day. Unchained Melody was a good way to include the audience in a sing along at the end as well as continuing that emotion and Blackbird was a nice nod to Paul McCartney.

In conclusion, the setlist has all the right ingredients. It had a recent classic everyone was familiar with, a recent single that most bands would be expected to play, as there was always going to be an element of self-promotion, just like the idea behind playing Pride and Bad in 1985 and then they needed an all-time classic that had universal appeal and with great emotion.

We could argue that they could have kept up the energy by replacing Vertigo with Pride and replaced One with Streets, as there all time classic, but i think they did really well in the time they had and fulfilled the agenda this time around.

Also, did anyone else notice that, throughout the BBC's coverage, they mentioned U2 and Paul McCartney's performance more than any other act and in the press, there are more pictures/coverage and great reviews about U2 and Paul McCartney than most acts, apart from Madonna and possibly Robbie Williams. Enough said.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't even alive for live aid and no one has bought me the DVD yet (gosh i might have to buy it myself)

I watched live 8 and am watching it now (i taped it)

The opening was fantastic Macca & U2 singing sgt. peppers, The Beatles are my 2nd fav artist and sgt. peppers is my fav beatles song so i was wrapped!!

I didn't like the song choice of BD! i think that song is just a tad over rated! i like it but not v much!
One was great but it could have been better if they sung a song from the 80's!

Apart from that the whole thing was great!!
 
Nothing in the Live8 concert compared to the sheer magic of "Bad" at Live Aid. Nothing could. That was one of those rare moments in Rock n Roll history. Having said that Live8 overall as a "concert" was probably slightly better than Live Aid. Pink Floyd was great. U2's "One" was as close to perfect as you can get, R.E.M. was good, Bjork was amazing, Annie Lennox's "Why" was flawless, Neil Young (with wife Peggy???) was very cool. I'd have to say though I would give up seeing ALL of Live 8's performances for 1985's "Bad" - no question.
 
I don't think Bono could have interacted with the crowd as much as 1985 even if he tried. Remember the Live Aid set from Wembley Stadium? There was literally the stage, a lower step w/ blockade, and then a sea of people straight from the front to the back of the stadium. The bands were right in front of the crowd.

In contrast, the Live 8 stage was set back from the crowd, and then there were VIPs in the very front section, cordoned off from the rest of the general admission crowd. The most diehard fans were a couple hundred feet away this time, not just 10 like in 85. I felt some of the intimacy was lost with that.

So Live Aid gets the nod here, but Live 8 comes up close. I read the setlist before seeing U2's performance on the replay, and was rather disappointed, but the songs definitely exceeded my expectations. Vertigo worked surprisingly well, much better live then in studio.
 
I wish I could have an opinion on this...but I cannot. I watched Live Aid (I was almost 15 at the time) and I was so totally blown away by the WHOLE thing. It's one of those defining moments of my life.

But the coverage of Live 8 was such shit here in the states that I don't even feel that I SAW any of it. I mean, U2 & Paul were fab on Sgt. P, but except for that, the only other full performance/songs I even saw were Green Day and Pink Floyd. There might have been one or two other "full" songs shown--if so, I missed them.

I mean, at one point someone said "Wow, that was a great set by Madonna." ???!!! If it was so great, then why didn't they SHOW IT!

I was so fed up that I turned off the TV as MTV and VH1 showed their microphone ponies cleaning up rubbish! I suppose the ABC show after showed full sets, but I was over it by then. Maybe someday they'll release a good dvd.

My idea was that perhaps the Pay-per-view people would have gotten together and let us "buy" a country/channel. The $$ could have gone to the Live 8 coffers, and we could have tuned in to a whole day at one of the locations.

This isn't to say that I don't totally applaud Geldof and Bono for their hard work. It's just hard to look past the crap deal that we got here in the states and compare concerts...

ok, off my soapbox now!
 
I too was blown away by Live Aid in 1985. The coverage was amazing. All day TV and radio uninterrupted (if I recall). People in my neighborhood had it blasting out their cars all day. And what was everyone talking about.....that performance by U2. Suddenly there were these whole bunch of nimrods in my neighborhood that liked U2. It was kind of scary..I liked having them all to myself...or so I liked to think.
 
I'm listening to my local NPR station right now. They are playing highlights from Live Aid. They just played Sunday Bloody Sunday and it absolutely blew me away. And that's not even the song U2 is really famous for playing that day - Bad is! As much as I loved seeing Paul McCartney performing with U2, not even Sgt. Pepper's from Live 8 was as thrilling as that.

As a whole Live 8 had a ton of great music - more than Live Aid did. And Live 8 is much bigger in the sense of what it is trying to accomplish - permanent change, not a band-aid (no pun intended). But Live Aid was done in a less cynical age when people actually cared about music, so everyone - even those who didn't get cable - got to see quite a bit of it. And if you had cable and MTV, you got to see practically the whole thing! And very, very few artists had their sets interrupted by VJ chatter.
 
If you missed Live 8, just go to AOL music, type in the artist, click on their videos link, and pick the Live 8 song you want to see, they even have full screen if you want. Internet Explorer only.
 
It's a generation thing i think,I thought the coverage by Vh1 & MTV was awful and they should be banned from doing any events ever.Live aid '85 was so BIG everyone was in on it.I live in philly and heard from some who went down into the city for it that they said it was filled with commercials in between the few acts we had here and did not even show U2 at all. How terrible!In 85' there was more of a joint effort watching the bands go back and forth and giving each one their due.Pink Floyd stole the day,they sounded awesome.U2 seemed rehearsed and it wasn't the tightest performance I ever heard but the Sgt. Pepper thing was really cool. it was too many cities and too much emphasis on the event rather than the actual cause at hand. I agree that U2 are seasoned vets by now and that they are far better in their talents but it was so fresh to see such heart in the '85 performance and i'm not saying it's their fault it's just the way the event was set-up , watch the live aid dvd and look at the passion of not only the bands but the crowd. it was truly amazing.
the Vj's at that time would not dare interupt any of the performances. I guess they had to do vertigo but it's getting a bit tiring along with beautiful day but hey thats waht they had to do. Go see them live in a city near you. This tour will not dissapoint.
 
Back
Top Bottom