Live or Memorex ?

[Popmartijn]

I don't see why U2 feel the need to put on all these high-tech shows. Sure, they're great, but we're not going to see a Hollywood movie, we're going to see a LIVE BAND. Note the word 'live'.

The new U2 Show book gives a great insight to this. Basically, it states the motives by U2 not to give just a concert, but a show, a piece of performance art, where the whole package will be more than just the music. Some may agree with this goal, some don't.

Some may argue U2 need these sounds to complete their songs, but U2 should have thought of that when they made the bloody songs! Why would you record a song in the studio that is too complex to perform live?

Because it's a bloody good song maybe? Should The Beatles have stopped recording songs after 1965? Is Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody a bad song just because it has parts that can't be recreated live? Should we judge albums solely by its ability to be recreated live?

C ya!

Marty