OK: who out there did NOT like ZooTV?

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

Zoocoustic

War Child
Joined
Oct 10, 2000
Messages
970
Location
Seattle, WA
Alright, I know there are a few of you individuals out there who did NOT like ZooTV.

If you had any level of dislike for this tour, I am curious to know why. It is extremely intruiging to me, a HUGE ZooTV fan, how anyone could NOT like it.
 
Didnt hate it, but its nowhere near my favorite U2 tour. I saw 8 Zoo shows (indoor and outdoor) and for ME (I know many will disagree with me) the music got lost in the shuffle with the production. That is the part I did not care for. It still was great though, but I preferred The Joshua Tree, Elevation and even Popmart tours more.
 
I think ZooTV and Popmart were quite easily U2's worst tours. The technology was too restrictive and not only could they not shuffle setlists (like on Lovetown, the preceding tour), they couldn't even improvise much. Forget 15 minute renditions of Bad, it doesn't fit in with the stupid technology!

Look, we're not going to see a light and visuals show, we're going to see a rock concert. I don't give a shit what's on stage as long as the music's good. However, ZooTV had a horrible sameness from show to show. Now go look at Lovetown, that's how a tour's done - no two shows were the same.
 
I loved the ZooTV set, and Mirrorball Man/Macphisto, but i hated the setlists. too predictable. i'm looking around to download some new ZooTV bootlegs, but they're all the same!
 
The common misconception of ZOO TV was that U2 was turning into an arrogant band -- but that was false. They did ZOO TV as a parody of themselves, taking themselves too seriously in the 80s and all the commercialization and pop culture that the 90s brought. That people would rather watch MTV than CNN, that music mattered more than news. That sex was within a reach without feeling, and everyone was following a certain cool -- everything U2 did was to be uncool, and that's what made ZOO TV cool, ZOO TV was a parody of popular culture.
 
ZooTV was in my mind not only the best and most creative tour by U2 but the most creative tour in the history of rock music.

"We arent playing in the back of a muddy field in the 70's anymore, people are expecting more". Although that was said about Popmart the premise exists with ZooTV as well and technology is the only way to make a stadium tour truely interesting and thats exactly what was done.
 
POPMART was all about the future... because the techno/rock that U2 decided to take on was the next wave in Europe and thought it would catch on here in America, so U2 went with a whole "Updated technology" theme with their songs and stage setups... it was more about the future.
 
To respond to a couple odd posts: Ehmmm, yeah in retrospect ZooTV shows are a lot alike, so are Popmart shows. But REMEMBER, in 92-93, people didn't have the internet to look up setlists like we do now, and most people only go to 1 show. Even in '97 most people didn't have the internet to look up setlists...so to say that because the bootlegs are the same or whatever doesn't say say a freakin thing about the actual tour back when it was actually happening.

Axver, you say "forget the 15 minute rendition of bad, that doesn't fit in with the stupid technology!" If you've ever watched the boot dvd's from ZooTV and Popmart, you'd get a pretty good picture that they could do a 15 minute rendition if they wanted to. ZooTV and Popmart, during the classics(pre-Achtung stuff), had very basic visuals that could be modified to the song. For example, tonight I watched ZooTV Stockholm and saw a 7 and a half minute rendition of bad/all I want is you snippet---it could have been stretched as long as the band wanted....also TTTYAATW was at least double length as on the album.


To answer the original question, yes I think ZooTV is probably U2's most impressive tour. The stage, the technology, the songs, the alter egos---complete artwork and creatively above any 80's tour or the Elevation Tour. Popmart is also up there with ZooTV, but U2 weren't competely redefining themselves like with ZooTV.

I dig ZooTV/Popmart because the band has more attitude--so when they drop the act it makes their humanity shine all the brighter.
 
Last edited:
in my opinion, Bono was sooo cheesy on the ZooTV tour. the video of the sydney concert makes me laugh everytime... amazing music though.
 
Excuse me for not reading all the posts. I'm shithoused.

No, I did not like ZOO TV. It was amazing to look at, but U2 were gassed on booze when they played Tampa (my only show), and frankly I was too, but still, they only played for 90 minutes. I had to sit through Public Enemy and I dig not hip-hop.

Pop Mart was fantastic. That one I LOVED.
 
Yahweh said:
ZooTV was in my mind not only the best and most creative tour by U2 but the most creative tour in the history of rock music.

"We arent playing in the back of a muddy field in the 70's anymore, people are expecting more". Although that was said about Popmart the premise exists with ZooTV as well and technology is the only way to make a stadium tour truely interesting and thats exactly what was done.

that is just soooo true!!!!
 
I saw zoo tv at Leeds in 93 when the tour had changed into Zooropa and I can remember walking away being a little dissapointed with the show.

I have just looked at the setlist for the show on U2 tours.com they played 12 new songs from Achtung Baby & Zooropa 3 cover versions and 9 old songs,2 of which were acoustic.
The set list I read says they played Bad but I can remember being gutted it wasnt played, Im sure Lemon or Dirty day replaced it.

I think the tour was far too new song heavy especially at start of the show.There were some great hightlights though the running to stand still into streets combo, the Lou Reed and MLK video links and the crazy spotlights during the end of Untill the end of the world.

The worst bit for me though was the whole Macphisto thing and the Zooropa material (Stay not included obviously) which I just didnt like much at the time.And the ending of the show with an Elvis song was very dull.Im sure some people thought it was great though.

I have listened to a few bootlegs of the Zoo tv tour and I dont think the material was great live,The Fly for example I thought was much better on the Elevation tour.

But Zooropa was untill June this year the only time I have seen them so I still have some great memories.
 
Looking back, ZooTV was pretty cool, but at the time...Zoo was my first U2 show, and I'd have much preferred a rock show like Lovetown or JT. I agree also with Blue Room, that the technology overshadowed the music to an extent. I'm curious to see what the Vertigo shows will be...I don't expect anything like Zoo or PopMart, but will they just be like Elevation shows, but with different tracks?
 
I was so blown away when I saw ZooTV. It was my 1st rock concert. It was so full on. The music and the visuals. I just thought to myself this isn't the U2 I knew. I liked the idea they played 7-9 songs from the get go. It showcased change and was a bold move by U2. Both ZooTV and Popmart were the ultimate theme tours by any band. U2 is the only band that can get away with doing such a thing. I'll be kind of bummed if U2 didn't do anything like ZooTV or Popmart ever again. It was so original and fresh. Plus tickets were only $50!!!!
 
If you're judging it against some good ol' rock and roll show, it might not hold up. You have to think of it more like seeing a musical on Broadway, or a performance art piece.

That's what makes it so important--they were blending mediums in a way that hadn't been done often before. They took what Pink Floyd started and used it comment on our culture and obsession with technology.

Did the music suffer? It may not have been as personal as Elevation, for instance, but the bootlegs sound pretty great to me. That ZooEuropa Dublin stuff is one of the best U2 bootlegs I've ever heard.

Ultimately, you have to consider the intent before anything else. They wanted to blow your mind, and I'd say on that level it's not only a success, but a milestone in music.


laz
 
I never really got into the whole concept or atmosphere of Achtung Baby and I think the same goes for ZooTV. I don't DISlike it, but I much MUCH prefer PopMart and Elevation, which are my favorites for very different reasons. If I could travel back in time to any tour, it would be PopMart.
 
I'm curious, of those of you on this thread that said you think Zoo was the best that did NOT state whether you saw it in person. Did you? Makes a big difference IMO. Watching it on a video does not give you the same feeling, at all.
 
Just out of curiosity, how many 15 minute versions of Bad are there? It's not like U2 is a jam band. They rarely stretch songs too much anyway.
 
If you don't you are on crack, and not the blue kind...can't see how that is possible, just not even an aspect my brain can handel.
 
adb280z said:
Just out of curiosity, how many 15 minute versions of Bad are there? It's not like U2 is a jam band. They rarely stretch songs too much anyway.

U2 often extend songs live. I don't have exact figures on Bad, but on most eighties bootlegs I have, it usually goes past 10 minutes or at least 8. UF Tour performances were particularly long - the longest is 16:16.

But come the nineties, all the versions feel short. And so many ZooTV songs sound the same from gig to gig. Roughly the same length, in exactly the same order, over and over again.

It wouldn't have hurt to replace Pride with In God's Country a few nights or I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For with All I Want Is You or Even Better Than The Real Thing with The Cry/The Electric Co.

Though Popmart's setlists were even more boring than ZooTV. Both tours were snoozefests in that regard. I love both of them, but U2 have done so much better. Lovetown is the standard to which all U2 tours should aspire on musical and setlist levels.
 
Blue Room said:
I'm curious, of those of you on this thread that said you think Zoo was the best that did NOT state whether you saw it in person. Did you? Makes a big difference IMO. Watching it on a video does not give you the same feeling, at all.


Yes! March 26, 1992. Cleveland, Ohio. First leg of the tour.

And my first U2 concert. Also the best. Hands down. Never to be duplicated. No show I have seen since then has come close to the brilliance of Zoo TV. No show ever will.
 
Ah, see, first show will always have a special place. It would regardless of the tour. I always list JT tour because that was my first U2 show. Crappy seats, and I only saw one show, but it always ranks up there because it was my first U2 experience live.
 
Axver said:

Lovetown is the standard to which all U2 tours should aspire on musical and setlist levels.

I find it interesting you always quote lovetown as the standard for U2 live when in reality, Lovetown is what nearly tore U2 apart and directly led U2 to destroy their image and rebuild it into what we saw with ZooTV. The band was at the time quoted to feeling that Lovetown was the most draining and creatively void time in their history of touring. The reason the band changed the setlist around so much was because they got so bored with the music they were playing that it wasn't fun anymore. Even Larry was quoted to say that if they continued to be the human jukeboxes that U2 turned into in the late 80's, he'd quit the band.

Thank goodness or Lovetown because it made U2 realize they were on the wrong path and moved them into the most incredible phase of their career in the 90's. :wink:
 
Last edited:
I agree with Axver in that musically speaking, Lovetown was one of U2's best tours. The fact that everything wasnt so happy go lucky actually made for some intense performances IMO. I guess I dont get the point. For U2 to be happy the setlist needs to be static??? :lol: Actually, you may be onto something there! :lol:

Zoo was a great tour, its just not my personal favorite by any means.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom