My friend hates ZOO TV Sydney
- Thread starter The_acrobat
- 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.
I'm a somewhat younger fan. I jumped on the U2 wagon in 1995. After buying all their albums and videos I realized a few things like most other fans. U2 had been around for 10 years when Achtung Baby was released. Does anyone like doing something the same way for 10 years? You can't really blame U2 or their fans for wanting something different. Like we quote all the time "dream it all up again." U2 got bored with their sound and how they toured. Larry himself said it was becoming work for him and the boys. So they wanted to have some fun and throw a massive curve ball at the world with Achtung/Zooropa and Zoo TV. I agree with some people maybe that you had to be around to understand it all. Zoo TV isn't just my favorite tour because of the music. It's the irony of it. It was more about the music. It was having fun with it and doing something the world didn't think a band like U2 could do. Since day 1 we've seen a different U2 with every album.
I mean you kinda have to be around to understand it all when looking at Bono's mullet from back in the day
I mean you kinda have to be around to understand it all when looking at Bono's mullet from back in the day
The Disciple
New Yorker
Screw Ur friend!!!!! 
david
ONE love, blood, life
I think ZooTV should be looked at as a traveling art piece.
I got the ZooTV DVD through eBay and had never seen any Live ZooTV videos or heard any ZooTV recordings. I watched this video and it kicked the fucking shit out of me. It was and IS fucking incredible. The band were fucking solid. Bono is living every song and the band is right there behind him. I love the song choice. I love the daring.
Those of you who hate the tour need to imagine the time when you FIRST saw/heard it. I dont have 100's of live concerts, so to me, its magic. It would have been nice if they swithced up some stuff but than again, whatever. The DVD I saw of it I loved and I wish to god I saw it.
Those of you who hate the tour need to imagine the time when you FIRST saw/heard it. I dont have 100's of live concerts, so to me, its magic. It would have been nice if they swithced up some stuff but than again, whatever. The DVD I saw of it I loved and I wish to god I saw it.
love_u2_adam
Blue Crack Addict
Zoo TV was:
1. fun
2. not like any thing else
3.any one who doesnt like zoo TV doesn't like having fun i guess
1. fun
2. not like any thing else
3.any one who doesnt like zoo TV doesn't like having fun i guess
xaviMF22
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Nube Gris said:
love_u2_adam
Blue Crack Addict
xaviMF22 said:
shes not crazy...shes right!!!!now get in describe, I'm bored!!
xaviMF22
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
love_u2_adam said:
shes not crazy...shes right!!!!now get in describe, I'm bored!!
fine
Zoocoustic
War Child
I have a theory that the people who came on board the U2 bus in the 90's (like me) loved (and miss) ZooTV so much because we were never familiar with "real" U2 of the 80's. Sure the 90's was all an act - all irony - but it was so cool, and we never knew the difference. All we saw when we looked at 80's U2 was how preachy and mainstream they were. We loved the 90's U2. Then, when U2 ditched the irony in 2000, we weren't thrilled with who the band had now become (or in reality, who they returned to being). Hence, everything outside of the 90's, to us, is not the band we all knew and loved, which ironically, wasn't the true U2 at all.
Maybe I'm totally off base, but that's the way I saw it.
Maybe I'm totally off base, but that's the way I saw it.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
To me 80's U2 isn't the real U2. Yeah, I know they're really no less Ue in reality, but the U2 I know and love is cutting edge, worth jumping around to and a bit ironic at times. Their more country-ish stuff just isn't my thing! I love it, I just don't love it as much as post 80's stuff.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I can see how some might say ZOO TV seems dated. I often feel that way looking at some old JT era or videos. I'm so used to seeing U2 a certain way now, that going back to the JT era or UF era or AB era suddenly doesn't feel right. It's as if I'm looking at some bygone era that can't be recaptured - and truthfully, I am. U2 will never be that way again.
ZOO TV might seem a bit more like this because the technology used in 1992 is nothing like the technology of 2006. If U2 were able to do the ZOO TV tour again today, so many things would be different - and that would include the set pieces. The trabant seems especially dated considering it is a relic from old East Berlin. So both the technology and many themes of ZOO TV aren't quite as relevant today. Consumerism still is and, if anything, the mindless media coverage of topics is worse now than it was then. But some topics aren't and that also gives it a dated feel.
But at the time, ZOO TV was indeed outstanding. I recall seeing a show in Chicago in late March 1992. After the concert, I told my friends that if I died now I would feel complete. I enjoyed the concert that much.
Axver is clearly not a big fan of AB's music (e.g., his loating of "One"). While I can't relate directly, I comprehend Axver's comments because I feel the same way about most of JT. I find the songs on JT sound way too similar (they all blend into each other) and the few exceptions ("Bullet" and "Trip") are crap on the album (I think "Trip" is crap no matter what). There are some masterpieces on JT though, but I'm not as big a fan of the album as I am of other U2 albums. As a result, I find some of the JT tours to be especially dated. I find the preaching of Bono to be a bit annoying and condescending. I feel U2 are trying WAY too hard in that era to be this "righteous, heart-on-their sleeve" band. I find their image to be this "tough guy" yet "holier than thou" to be a bit much at times. I have this Love Town era poster right above me. And it reminds me of how infrequently U2 were photographed actually smiling during that time. One would think the guys were pissed non-stop and trying to tackle the problems of the world each and every second. We all know that isn't true (perhaps this is why the video for "Still Haven't Found" is a bit refreshing because at least Bono and Adam are seen smiling and having a bit of fun).
My point is that I can understand someone's comments about AB and ZOO TV, even if I can't relate to them. To me, AB and ZOO TV were a welcome and refreshing change. I was so happy to see U2 throw off the "burdens" they had acquired during the 80's, especially from JT on. Back then, Bono talked about destroying the "myth" of U2 - and I think ZOO TV was instrumental in doing that. People had U2 on some pedastal, and falsely so.
One has to recall the time (1991/92). U2 had just come off the JT and LoveTown tours with the image I described above. The only reason U2 mixed up the setlists so much on the LoveTown tour was because they were going insane singing those songs night after night, with that image. They tried to breathe some life into performing live again. I think this is why we hear Edge going into these riffs on "Desire" or Bono wailing away (ruining his voice).
ZOO TV and AB was U2's break from all of that - and it was a key step in not only U2's career but in music. So many of the new rock bands I hear today (Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, etc.) sound like AB-era U2 (IMO): short, fun, rocking songs, that aren't all fluff. Grunge may have dominated 1992, but other than early Pearl Jam and Nirvana, what has really survived? It is even arguable that Nirvana's fame continues because of Cobain's death. In contrast, AB continues on as a powerful influence.
ZOO TV was needed. Another JT-ish tour wouldn't have driven home the point of AB and I don't think U2 would have "survived" it. R&H, despite being half-live, was almost a JT-Part 2. Had U2 done another JT style album or tour, I doubt U2 would be around today. That major transformation brought U2 into the 90's. It revolutionized U2's image, concerts and touring. No, U2 were not the first to incorporate video into their concerts or make fun, yet significant rock songs, but it's this combination that worked - and more importantly, this contrast from their 80's image that really sold it. U2 still very much so had a message - often it was the same message. But now, U2 were seen smiling. Now they were "fun". And that made their message easier to accept. The weight of the world was gone - U2 proved that one can have fun while still making a difference.
The U2 we see today, IMO, is about the most "real" we are going to get. These are guys that are joking and having fun, but still preaching. But there's no condescension. Furthermore, instead of just preaching, there's action - and that's infinitely more important. Protesting a nuclear plant off the Irish Sea is great, but what does it really do? Talking about apartheid is fantastic, but did it solve anything? Getting rid of debt for African nations is far more powerful than any words in a concert or any protests. And I think it's the current U2 exists because of the transformation they made in ZOO TV.
ZOO TV might seem a bit more like this because the technology used in 1992 is nothing like the technology of 2006. If U2 were able to do the ZOO TV tour again today, so many things would be different - and that would include the set pieces. The trabant seems especially dated considering it is a relic from old East Berlin. So both the technology and many themes of ZOO TV aren't quite as relevant today. Consumerism still is and, if anything, the mindless media coverage of topics is worse now than it was then. But some topics aren't and that also gives it a dated feel.
But at the time, ZOO TV was indeed outstanding. I recall seeing a show in Chicago in late March 1992. After the concert, I told my friends that if I died now I would feel complete. I enjoyed the concert that much.
Axver is clearly not a big fan of AB's music (e.g., his loating of "One"). While I can't relate directly, I comprehend Axver's comments because I feel the same way about most of JT. I find the songs on JT sound way too similar (they all blend into each other) and the few exceptions ("Bullet" and "Trip") are crap on the album (I think "Trip" is crap no matter what). There are some masterpieces on JT though, but I'm not as big a fan of the album as I am of other U2 albums. As a result, I find some of the JT tours to be especially dated. I find the preaching of Bono to be a bit annoying and condescending. I feel U2 are trying WAY too hard in that era to be this "righteous, heart-on-their sleeve" band. I find their image to be this "tough guy" yet "holier than thou" to be a bit much at times. I have this Love Town era poster right above me. And it reminds me of how infrequently U2 were photographed actually smiling during that time. One would think the guys were pissed non-stop and trying to tackle the problems of the world each and every second. We all know that isn't true (perhaps this is why the video for "Still Haven't Found" is a bit refreshing because at least Bono and Adam are seen smiling and having a bit of fun).
My point is that I can understand someone's comments about AB and ZOO TV, even if I can't relate to them. To me, AB and ZOO TV were a welcome and refreshing change. I was so happy to see U2 throw off the "burdens" they had acquired during the 80's, especially from JT on. Back then, Bono talked about destroying the "myth" of U2 - and I think ZOO TV was instrumental in doing that. People had U2 on some pedastal, and falsely so.
One has to recall the time (1991/92). U2 had just come off the JT and LoveTown tours with the image I described above. The only reason U2 mixed up the setlists so much on the LoveTown tour was because they were going insane singing those songs night after night, with that image. They tried to breathe some life into performing live again. I think this is why we hear Edge going into these riffs on "Desire" or Bono wailing away (ruining his voice).
ZOO TV and AB was U2's break from all of that - and it was a key step in not only U2's career but in music. So many of the new rock bands I hear today (Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, etc.) sound like AB-era U2 (IMO): short, fun, rocking songs, that aren't all fluff. Grunge may have dominated 1992, but other than early Pearl Jam and Nirvana, what has really survived? It is even arguable that Nirvana's fame continues because of Cobain's death. In contrast, AB continues on as a powerful influence.
ZOO TV was needed. Another JT-ish tour wouldn't have driven home the point of AB and I don't think U2 would have "survived" it. R&H, despite being half-live, was almost a JT-Part 2. Had U2 done another JT style album or tour, I doubt U2 would be around today. That major transformation brought U2 into the 90's. It revolutionized U2's image, concerts and touring. No, U2 were not the first to incorporate video into their concerts or make fun, yet significant rock songs, but it's this combination that worked - and more importantly, this contrast from their 80's image that really sold it. U2 still very much so had a message - often it was the same message. But now, U2 were seen smiling. Now they were "fun". And that made their message easier to accept. The weight of the world was gone - U2 proved that one can have fun while still making a difference.
The U2 we see today, IMO, is about the most "real" we are going to get. These are guys that are joking and having fun, but still preaching. But there's no condescension. Furthermore, instead of just preaching, there's action - and that's infinitely more important. Protesting a nuclear plant off the Irish Sea is great, but what does it really do? Talking about apartheid is fantastic, but did it solve anything? Getting rid of debt for African nations is far more powerful than any words in a concert or any protests. And I think it's the current U2 exists because of the transformation they made in ZOO TV.
Last edited:
Aygo said:
Sunday Bloody Sunday was played forty times on ZooTV - on the third and fourth legs, it rotated with Bad before Bullet. In fact, only one ZooTV show did not open with Zoo Station - the 7 August 1992 public rehearsal in Hershey was opened by Sunday Bloody Sunday.
I want to make it clear that I am not complaining about the setlist being static (you didn't say that but the point swirled around a bit in other posts). Arguments about static sets have been had before and while I do have that quarrel with ZooTV, I don't want to bring it up here. The quarrel I am bringing up is the songs that were chosen and the way U2 structured the order. I don't like the way they only played hits from the past - either material from JT (their biggest hit album) or hits from initially only two other albums. When I go to see any band, I'd like to think that they'll play some more obscure past material from the vault, for a bit of spice. Stuff I wouldn't hear if I flicked on the radio. If I want to hear hits and new material, I'll just listen to the radio and not bother buying a concert ticket.
Necessary? Somehow, I don't think ZooTV was remotely that pivotal. Music history would have continued just fine without ZooTV.
Mirrorball Man and MacPhisto were excellent and employed satire incredibly well. I hated the way Bono acted at the start of the shows too, the whole sleazy rockstar act. I preferred Bono of the eighties where he actually stood for something important. I realise he was acting on ZooTV but I think it was a poor act and pointless. We all know what a stereotypical rockstar is, Bono. I think he proved nothing, while Mirrorball Man and MacPhisto made very serious points.
Nube Gris said:
1. How does it matter? Really, I think this question is completely redundant. If someone makes positive comments about a tour, no-one asks if they went. I don't see you asking the ZooTV fans on this thread if they actually even saw the tour. But as soon as someone says something negative, whether or not they went is of high importance! Talk about inconsistency. No, I didn't see U2 on ZooTV and if I were given the chance to go back in time and see a ZooTV show, I would turn that chance down because the tour has very few aspects I like. It would be a waste of time. Funnily enough, my opinion of the Vertigo Tour before I saw a Vertigo show was exactly the same as my opinion after I saw three. But I'm not some rabid U2 obsessive person who thinks Bono's God.
2. How have I been arrogant? I have explained MY OPINION about why I dislike ZooTV as people have often expressed bewilderment at how I could dislike the tour. How on earth is that arrogant? I think it may serve you well to look up the definition of 'arrogant'.
love_u2_adam said:
at #3. If you ask me, ZooTV was boring, not having fun, so if I used your logic, I could say "anyone who doesn't like ZooTV doesn't like being bored". See how silly your logic is? It ignores the fact people have different tastes and enjoy different things.Personally, I think Lovetown was a whole lot more fun. Edge's shredding solo on Desire lasted less than a minute but I think it was more fun than half a ZooTV concert.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Axver said:
O.K., I have to take issue with this.
Yes, that solo was great. But Edge has done so much more since that is outstanding. I love the extended ending of "Mysteriouis Ways" on the ZOO tour. The version in the Sydney show is fantastic - belly dancer or not - Edge rocks! And he really tears it up with "The Fly" and "Until the End of the World". So that's three songs where Edge soars from the new material on the ZOO Tour.
Subsequent tours are just as great. I love the way U2 "funked" up (and yes, I do mean "funk") "Bullet" on the PopMart tour. FINALLY I actually liked this song in concert. "Mofo" was brilliant. And on the Elevation tour, "Until the End..." was even better than on the AB tour! It's little wonder why audiences were estactic over that performance - it was arguably more crowd-pleasing than "Streets"! When I saw "Until the End..." on this Vertigo Tour, I couldn't help but be disappointed by the lack of that "bullfight", which gave the song life, IMO. It made it mean so much more (the battle of Jesus vs. Judas/ good vs. evil).
So while I love "Desire" off the LoveTown tour, I think focusing on that one item and saying it doesn't get better is erroneous. Also, you pointed out "One Tree Hill". I know that version too - and I believe U2 have done it better. Bono's vocals are brilliant in a version they did in Texas in 1987. Yes, U2 really did perform "One Tree Hill" on the JT tour (despite rumors to the contrary). Still, hearing a token "One Tree Hill" here and there is nothing like hearing Bono belt out "Miss Sarajevo" night after night - to me, that's far more impressive.
So overall, I think U2 has done much better since their supposed JT "hey day", even though there were plenty of highlights then.
mirrorballman
Refugee
Blasphemy! 
It does sound cliche, but I guess you "really had to be there" to like ZooTV! I started being a fan around that time and ZooTV just blew me away. The concept (like no other beginning 90's), the radical change of U2, the sarcasm, the statements...zoo confession
As to setlist rotation, U2 never have been good at that since the JT Tour. ZooTV and Popmart didn't have any. Elevation and Vertigo barely.
Still ZooTV was, in my opinion, the best tour. Starting off with 8 songs from your new album (Zoo/Fly/EBTTRT/MW/One/UTEOTW/Horses/TTTYAATW) is incredible and needs balls cuz you run the risk of boring the audience with stuff they don't know. Yet it worked perfectly.
Looking at Sydney specifically now (lots changed during that leg):
9 songs from AB
5 songs from Zooropa
---
7 "old" hits (NYD, Angel of Harlem, Bullet, RTSS, Streets, Pride, WOWY)
Their back catalogue wasn't big back then, songs like "Angel of Harlem", "Running to stand still" and "Bullet the blue sky" where not nearly the "best of hits" they were back then than they are now. That was stuff from their last album(s), what else should they play? By that time I'd say only NYD, Streets, Pride and WOWY had "hits" status...
I don't know, that argument sounds fishy to me. But lets not start a setlist discussion here, cuz its not really the point.
Overall I thought ZooTV had a great, unique concept (and it had a point). Many critisize Popmart, which I don't understand cuz I also thought it was a good show. But the argument is valid that U2 tried to top their extravaganza from ZooTV...and it didn't happen!
Elevation was a new concept again, which was great! After I left those shows I was thinking "maybe their best tour?"...because it was something new again.
Vertigo 1st leg was a complete rip-off of Elevation, there is nothing to argue there. The stage had a different shape and the screens above their head were put together, thats about it!
(on a funny note, doesnt anybody think they should have switched the colors? Vertigo stage was white, but red/black would have fitted. Viceversa for Elevation obviously)
ZooTV? Genius!
It does sound cliche, but I guess you "really had to be there" to like ZooTV! I started being a fan around that time and ZooTV just blew me away. The concept (like no other beginning 90's), the radical change of U2, the sarcasm, the statements...zoo confession
As to setlist rotation, U2 never have been good at that since the JT Tour. ZooTV and Popmart didn't have any. Elevation and Vertigo barely.
Still ZooTV was, in my opinion, the best tour. Starting off with 8 songs from your new album (Zoo/Fly/EBTTRT/MW/One/UTEOTW/Horses/TTTYAATW) is incredible and needs balls cuz you run the risk of boring the audience with stuff they don't know. Yet it worked perfectly.
Looking at Sydney specifically now (lots changed during that leg):
9 songs from AB
5 songs from Zooropa
---
7 "old" hits (NYD, Angel of Harlem, Bullet, RTSS, Streets, Pride, WOWY)
Their back catalogue wasn't big back then, songs like "Angel of Harlem", "Running to stand still" and "Bullet the blue sky" where not nearly the "best of hits" they were back then than they are now. That was stuff from their last album(s), what else should they play? By that time I'd say only NYD, Streets, Pride and WOWY had "hits" status...
I don't know, that argument sounds fishy to me. But lets not start a setlist discussion here, cuz its not really the point.
Overall I thought ZooTV had a great, unique concept (and it had a point). Many critisize Popmart, which I don't understand cuz I also thought it was a good show. But the argument is valid that U2 tried to top their extravaganza from ZooTV...and it didn't happen!
Elevation was a new concept again, which was great! After I left those shows I was thinking "maybe their best tour?"...because it was something new again.
Vertigo 1st leg was a complete rip-off of Elevation, there is nothing to argue there. The stage had a different shape and the screens above their head were put together, thats about it!
(on a funny note, doesnt anybody think they should have switched the colors? Vertigo stage was white, but red/black would have fitted. Viceversa for Elevation obviously)
ZooTV? Genius!
doctorwho said:
Well, as I said, I think the Desire shredding solo is better than HALF a ZooTV show. Let's assume the average length of a show is 22 songs (first couple of legs, it was only 20, later legs, 24 or so). I think the Desire shredding solo was better than the following songs:
- Zoo Station
- Even Better Than The Real Thing
- Mysterious Ways (the added live solo is good but it can't beat the Desire shredding solo)
- One
- Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
- TTTYAATW
- Angel Of Harlem acoustic
- Satellite Of Love
- Pride
- I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
- Ultra Violet
There's eleven songs, or half of 22. I could go on with other songs too, but I've already proven my point that I think the Desire shredding solo was better than half of a ZooTV show.
Never argued that, though I could make some really controversial statements about the Elevation Tour if you want me to.
mirrorballman said:
No, you didn't. Using that argument is just like the lame "you don't get it" argument some people make about certain bands/songs when they can't believe someone has a differing opinion.
That's rot, and it's totally off-topic too.
Lame, if you ask me.
Wasn't big?! Pre-AB, U2 had SIX albums under their belts. A lot of bands don't even record that many, and U2 hasn't released as many albums since AB!
Uh, Bullet and RTSS were pretty well known. JT sold 10 million copies by ZooTV (by the end of 1987 even, maybe?). And Angel Of Harlem was one of RAH's hits. Playing it on Zoo is like playing Elevation or Stuck In A Moment on Vertigo.
mirrorballman
Refugee
Axver said:
Mate im not trying to attack you here, its just what i think. It's different watching it on TV or actually being there, you relate to it on another level. Fair enough I might not be very objective because it was the first concert. But doesn't everybody say "their concert/tour" was the best?
Axver said:
I'll go with the off-topic, but we bitched alot about Vertigo setlists in the past year! But again, I said the 90's were worse!
Axver said:
That's your opinion. And most likely because you don't like AB (which, as a result, won't make you the biggest ZooTV fan).
Axver said:
U2's breakthrough was the JT album, and you can't count as many "hits" (that are publicly actually well known) before the JT album (4 albums Boy/October/War/UF) as there were after!
I'm thinking: I will follow, Sunday bloody Sunday, New year's day, Pride. That's about it.
JT: With or without you, Streets, ISHFWILF (and no, i really don't count "running to stand still" and "bullet" hits back then. who would have known that they'll play bullet nearly 20 years later on every single tour???)
Rattle & Hum: Desire, All I want is you
You see 4 hits from 4 possible albums and 5 from 2 albums.
And to me, it's normal playing more tunes from your more recent albums (especially when they were such big hits)
Axver said:
As I mentioned above, I don't think "Bullet" and "RTSS" had the position "Elevation" and "Stuck" have. At least for me they didn't! Obviously nowadays you'll have to count them as "Best of"'s, but 14 years ago they were "tunes from the last album".
Last edited:
mirrorballman
Refugee
Axver said:
Mate I find that hard to believe that you would pass a chance on any U2 concert. If you're not a "U2 obsessive person" you wouldn't fly down from down under to catch 3 Boston. And certainly 1 or 2 shows in Australia would be enough, why the whole Sydney//Melbourne//Auckland package?
And if God would give you a time-machine and tell you to go back to the year '93, you would definetly go to the ZooTV concerts
Good luck with that though...
fly so high!
Refugee
The_acrobat said:
I hate PEAS!!!!...... SO!!!!
mirrorballman said:
Mate im not trying to attack you here, its just what i think. It's different watching it on TV or actually being there, you relate to it on another level. Fair enough I might not be very objective because it was the first concert. But doesn't everybody say "their concert/tour" was the best?
Fair enough, I'll agree to disagree. I do think I enjoy concerts a bit differently to how other people here enjoy them. Despite how much I enjoyed myself in Boston, I still think Lovetown and some JT and War shows were better. Though interestingly, I think my Boston gigs were better than Lovetown Wellington, despite the fact I can be hopelessly biased towards Wellington and the gig was U2's only at the now-gone Athletic Park (RIP
).Yeah, there's been plenty of bitching and I've done my fair share, but I don't think it's accurate to say they had barely any variation. Compare 2005-03-28, San Diego with 2005-10-25, Detroit: only 10 songs (less than half of both sets) are the same at both shows. (Before anyone tries to compare ZooTV's first show with one on the fourth or fifth legs after Zooropa was released, tell me what album U2 released between March and October last year.)
Well, yeah. But I just don't like the idea of opening with eight straight songs from the same album in most cases. I wouldn't even do that with UF, though I would like to hear it played in full in the middle of a set. I must say, I also find it quite funny when people talk about how daring and ballsy it was for U2 to open with eight new songs when Dream Theater did some shows opening with an entire new album, the Scenes From A Memory concept album that's almost 80 minutes long. I actually liked that. Before anyone calls me out as a hypocrite, note above I said "I don't like [this] ... in most cases" and this isn't 'most cases'!
I agree with you on most of this. From RAH, though, I'd definitely add Angel Of Harlem and When Love Comes To Town too. Maybe my perspective is a bit skewed as RAH was so successful here, though. WLCTT is one of the earliest U2 songs I can remember hearing and it was played a lot on the radio until the late nineties. Until I got the Best Of 1980-1990 when I was eleven, I thought BB King was Edge!
JT sold massive amounts, though, so anyone who had listened beyond the Holy Trinity would've been quite familiar with Bullet/RTSS. It's not like War, where not many people would've known much besides SBS/NYD. No other album has equalled JT's figures. I'd imagine most people who see U2 live have a copy of JT.
mirrorballman said:Mate I find that hard to believe that you would pass a chance on any U2 concert. If you're not a "U2 obsessive person" you wouldn't fly down from down under to catch 3 Boston. And certainly 1 or 2 shows in Australia would be enough, why the whole Sydney//Melbourne//Auckland package?
ZooTV really isn't for me (nor are parts of Elevation). I really love the Vertigo Tour, though, and this may just be my only chance to ever see U2, so I'm taking full advantage of seeing them now. Come the next tour or two, I'll be a cash-strapped student who certainly won't be able to afford to travel outside of Australia/NZ!
(And for the record, as important as seeing U2 was, my primary reason for coming to the US was to see my girlfriend. Kate > U2.)
And if God would give you a time-machine and tell you to go back to the year '93, you would definetly go to the ZooTV concerts
I'd definitely go if I were guaranteed a GPA of 7.
If you don't get irony and have no humour then maybe some of the visuals, Bono's characters and the rehearsed actions might grate with you, but IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC MAAAAAAAN!
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC!!!!!
You wouldn't get 25,000 fans turning up at a U2 faux-art exhibition, would ya!
The tour stands on the music, but is remembered for the visuals.
Personally, I really enjoyed all the 'fun' of the visuals - using car's headlights as spotlights and mirrorballs was excellent and visually brilliant.
Yeh, you could say that it was "too much" at times, but like with anything, you either love it or hate it.
But listen to the music, man - not the audience bootlegs because they never really captured the essence of the shows and are mainly 'flat' in sound - listen to the famous Dublin 93 boot or the Outside Broadcast show, these sound incredible, powerful and full-on.
IMO One sounded the best ever on this tour, and everyone knows about the amazing Bullet>Running>Streets segue - WOW!
And it IS true that you had to be there because you had to witness all that 'madness' at first hand - how can you judge a tour sitting in your room watching it on a television screen?
Answer - you can't!
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC!!!!!
You wouldn't get 25,000 fans turning up at a U2 faux-art exhibition, would ya!
The tour stands on the music, but is remembered for the visuals.
Personally, I really enjoyed all the 'fun' of the visuals - using car's headlights as spotlights and mirrorballs was excellent and visually brilliant.
Yeh, you could say that it was "too much" at times, but like with anything, you either love it or hate it.
But listen to the music, man - not the audience bootlegs because they never really captured the essence of the shows and are mainly 'flat' in sound - listen to the famous Dublin 93 boot or the Outside Broadcast show, these sound incredible, powerful and full-on.
IMO One sounded the best ever on this tour, and everyone knows about the amazing Bullet>Running>Streets segue - WOW!
And it IS true that you had to be there because you had to witness all that 'madness' at first hand - how can you judge a tour sitting in your room watching it on a television screen?
Answer - you can't!
mirrorballman
Refugee
@axver: glad we cleared this
and for the record: im not taking anything away from the brilliance that the lovetown tour stood for. it had brilliant setlists and was just about the music. just that nowadays the aspect of the "show" comes with the music, and it's hard to decide which one to focus on...
and for the record: im not taking anything away from the brilliance that the lovetown tour stood for. it had brilliant setlists and was just about the music. just that nowadays the aspect of the "show" comes with the music, and it's hard to decide which one to focus on...
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Axver said:
Well, as I said, I think the Desire shredding solo is better than HALF a ZooTV show. Let's assume the average length of a show is 22 songs (first couple of legs, it was only 20, later legs, 24 or so). I think the Desire shredding solo was better than the following songs:
- Zoo Station
- Even Better Than The Real Thing
- Mysterious Ways (the added live solo is good but it can't beat the Desire shredding solo)
- One
- Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
- TTTYAATW
- Angel Of Harlem acoustic
- Satellite Of Love
- Pride
- I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
- Ultra Violet
There's eleven songs, or half of 22. I could go on with other songs too, but I've already proven my point that I think the Desire shredding solo was better than half of a ZooTV show.
Never argued that, though I could make some really controversial statements about the Elevation Tour if you want me to.
But by your logic, Axver, I would then counter that the "Desire" shredding solo was better than WELL more than half - say 90% of the JT or LoveTown songs. Edge rarely ripped like that (perhaps a bit in "Bullet") on songs in those tours. So really, "Desire" stands out - and it wasn't something he did all the time either.
Similar threads
