U2: Showmanship or Musicality?

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

jick said:
He also had a long winding speech ("fuck the revolution") in the R&H version of Sunday Bloody Sunday. Bono sure makes long pointless speeches but at least he delivers with short catchy punchlines ("Fuck the revolution", "this is out tribe") that just begs for the crowd to scream and react.

The "fuck the Revolution" speech is long-winded and pointless? That has to be one of the most exciting U2 moments for me. That's a classic speech. And if you think it's pointless, you obviously haven't listened to the bit on RAH just before SBS where the band is talking.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: U2: Showmanship or Musicality?

Axver said:


The "fuck the Revolution" speech is long-winded and pointless? That has to be one of the most exciting U2 moments for me. That's a classic speech. And if you think it's pointless, you obviously haven't listened to the bit on RAH just before SBS where the band is talking.

The "tribe" speech was more interesting, at least Bono injected a little bit of band trivia to the audience. After all, the concert is about the band. But the "fuck the revolution" speech was pointless - what's the business of a rock band giving long winding speeches about bombings? Sure you can write about bombings in your songs to make it artistic, but to make it into a speech incorporated into a song? I'd rather read the news reports. In the meantime, Bono has wasted a few precious seconds of our lives - the time he used to say that speech could have been used in the film instead to add the unsung line of Van Diemen's Land, or the fade out of Angel of Harlem. Or for concert purposes, that wasted time could have been an extra stars verse for WOWY or yet another snippet in Bad. I don't know about you guys, but I dig U2 for the music and not for the speeches. Hell, I don't even have an mp3 of Bono's Harvard speech. U2 are musicians, they should be about the music. I have no qualms with a little showboating, and crowd-connecting - but if the tradeoff means less songs will be played then I have qualms. Also, another major issue which hasn't been tackled in this thread so far is the fact that U2 has "ghost musicians" playing backstage. If they are indeed a four-piece band, then write songs and play songs as a four-piece band - don't pretend to be something you aren't or write lines for non-members to play backstage. Besides, Bono can play the piano or a little rhythm guitar (however his guitar is never plugged in, I don't know why).

Cheers,

J
 
I dislike long winded speeches by self righteous U2 fans defending long winded speeches at concerts :rolleyes: Look, it's a concert. People pay to hear music, not be preached to. Oh I know, the self righteous types will go "if he reaches one person or saves one life it was worth it! :cute: :angel:" :eyebrow: There is a time and place for everything, and most concertgoers are either too stoned or too hyper to even let it sink in. I have nothing against Bono's speeches personally, and actually enjoy them. It's just the holier than thou preachy fan types that irritate me.:yawn:
 
Last edited:
Leeloo said:
I dislike long winded speeches by self righteous U2 fans defending long winded speeches at concerts :rolleyes: Look, it's a concert. People pay to hear music, not be preached to. Oh I know, the self righteous types will go "if he reaches one person or saves one life it was worth it! :cute: :angel:" :eyebrow: There is a time and place for everything, and most concertgoers are either too stoned or too hyper to even let it sink in. I have nothing against Bono's speeches personally, and actually enjoy them. It's just the holier than thou preachy fan types that irritate me.:yawn:

AMEM BROTHAH!

Cheers,

J
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U2: Showmanship or Musicality?

jick said:
Or for concert purposes, that wasted time could have been an extra stars verse for WOWY or yet another snippet in Bad. I don't know about you guys, but I dig U2 for the music and not for the speeches. Hell, I don't even have an mp3 of Bono's Harvard speech. U2 are musicians, they should be about the music. I have no qualms with a little showboating, and crowd-connecting - but if the tradeoff means less songs will be played then I have qualms.

Do you honestly believe the "extra" verse at the end of WOWY means U2 will not have enough time to play another song? Besides, I've always been under the impression that that verse was always part of the song, but was omitted from the studio recordings.

Also, another major issue which hasn't been tackled in this thread so far is the fact that U2 has "ghost musicians" playing backstage.

Probably b/c people don't really care.
 
These days, music concerts have a part of show and glitz in them, if nothing else there's the lightshow, costum changes, additional dancers - music alone rarely does it. (some bands rely on that, but some don't)
It'd be boring if a singer/band would just stood there, sung and went off stage.

I like Bono's interactions with fans and I like his speeches - it's a part of who they are. I like it they (ok, him) speak out openly about causes they care about, whether it's with world leaders or their stage.
("long speech about nothing" during OUC was a moving memory reference to Bono's father and the band's beginnings which only added to the meaning of the song- their first single, just like the SBS speech and the explosion it referred added relevance to the song. there's always the fast forward button if it's really that hard for you to bear those moments)

*edit* I'm not an expert and I don't really care if they hit a wrong note sometimes - they're only human. And I really am too much into the bootleg or a TV performance to care that someone is playing the organ intro to Where the streets have no name, or hitting a piano or a guitar chord now and then.
 
Last edited:
Therte's an important part of the equation that's been missing here -- it's called SHOW BUSINESS for a reason. Give 'em a show. And if you have to do that by having Bono run around, giving speeches, pulling people up into the audience, or by having an instrumental for 40,000 Brazillians chant to, or have the band come out on stage with socks on their naughties, so be it!

People pay money, they pay GOOD MONEY, they want to be entertained. The 7 times I've seen U2 live, I've been entertained every single time. I've gone to see other bands I've loved and walked away bored senseless.

Show business, baby!
 
martha said:
Apparently, jick has never seen Bruce Springsteen perform live. He's really the king of long-winded speeches and stories.

:up: indeed... and his political speaches are a hell of a lot more controversial than saying "support the fight against AIDS." who the hell doesn't want to end aids? everyone does... does everyone hate george bush with all their might? of course not... that didn't stop springsteen or eddie vedder talk about their own hatred at three different shows i attended. did i agree with what htey said? not at all... but it's their show they can say what they'd like :shrug:

bono is mild compared to other "political" lead singers.
 
Last edited:
martha said:
Apparently, jick has never seen Bruce Springsteen perform live. He's really the king of long-winded speeches and stories.

Yes, I have not seen any Bruce shows. I am not a fan of his music and I am not a big fan of his opportunistic behavior to sell 9/11 down people's throats and take advantage of the tragedy with his The Rising album.

However, I acknowledge Bruce has lots of fans and I heard through the grapevine that he puts a great energetic live show. But the most important point I heard in the rumor mill is that Bruce's shows run close to three hours, while U2's shows hardly hit two hours.

If U2 can give us three hour shows, then by all means Bono can take all his sweet time giving long winding speeches. But U2 always gives a show as if they are pressed for time. So why waste people's precious time? I believe Bruce has earned the right to give his pointless rants because his shows are long to being with, but U2's aren't. There is a world of difference in that.

Cheers,

J
 
jick said:
Yes, I have not seen any Bruce shows. I am not a fan of his music and I am not a big fan of his opportunistic behavior to sell 9/11 down people's throats and take advantage of the tragedy with his The Rising album.

FYI "My City of Ruin" was written before September 11.
 
I am a big Bruce fan and at least for the most recent Denver concerts he had no opening act. U2 did have an opening act which takes up, at least from my experience, a couple hours. I don't mind it but it would be a long night for some people and so that I think is why they don't play three hours. I know they could do it though.
 
nick_u2 said:
I am a big Bruce fan and at least for the most recent Denver concerts he had no opening act. U2 did have an opening act which takes up, at least from my experience, a couple hours. I don't mind it but it would be a long night for some people and so that I think is why they don't play three hours. I know they could do it though.

Larry and his fabricated back problems, Adam and his waiting groupies, Bono and his prima donna attitude ---- do you actually think U2 will ever play a 3 hour set? Never have, never will, I can GUARANTEE you that.

Cheers,

J
 
3 hours is just fine and dandy if it's done right...

i'm completely with martha on this one... if no one told you that "the rising" was "9/11 themed," ya wouldn't be able to figure that one out. city of ruins was written about asbury park prior to 9/11... it just happened to fit the tragedy as well. empty sky, into the fire... yea, clearly about 9/11... but if you didn't know that, you could just as easily decipher them in your own way. he didn't throw 9/11 down our throats just to sell albums, unlike, say, alan jackson did. mary's place? waiting on a sunny day? oh yeah... big time 9/11 songs... come on now. listen to the album, don't just read what's written in a report. yea he's really trying to play off of 9/11 to make money by playing "41 shots" when he was at shea stadium.

if ya really don't like bono's speaches... fine. here's some advice based on what i did at the springsteen shows i've gone to. when bruce would start talkin' about impeaching bush and how great al franken's new book is... i went to the pisser and got another beer. that way bruce is happy for saying his peace, and i'm happy 'cause not only did i not have to listen to it, i also got a beer and a pee break out of it. it's the best of both worlds... freedom of speach upheld, beer for me. woo friggin ha.
 
Maybe the reason Bruce sings three hours every night and Bono doesn't is their differing vocal styles. Hitting high notes like Bono does puts a real strain on the vocal cords. I'd hate to hear what the B-man sounded like toward the end of a tour if U2 did Bruce-style marathon length concerts. :eyebrow:

Oh, and anyone who claims Bruce was trying to "cash in" on 9/11 with The Rising but at the same time admits they aren't that familiar with the man and his music shouldn't be trying to speculate on motives in the first place. :(
 
david said:
The fact that U2 mess up, and the fact that Bono talks to the crowd gives off the impression that they're human and that their live shows are more organic and natural rather than feeling mechanical and too predictable. I'd rather a band try to sound totally different live, rather than just trying to reproduce their CDs live note for note. Often, U2 songs took on a whole different direction and sounded way better live than their album versions, songs like Bad for example.

I agree. A U2 show is "alive". It's not rote, technical perfection. It's creativity, four human beings *creating* sound, creating vibes, creating emotions, doing everything human, from the ridiculous to the sublime, and making every single person a part of it. If I wanted rote, technical perfection I'd be studying Renaissance art in the classical wing of the art museum (I'm a visual artist, not a musician, so that's how I relate). Perfect form, perfect technique, and, depending on your taste, anything from sublime beauty to absolute, utter boredom. It's pretty but leaves me rather cold.
 
Leeloo said:
So don't drink anything an hour before you go in. You may be thirsty but avoiding arena bathrooms is worth it!

Haha, I good friend of mine peed in her sister's pants at the Notre Dame concert :lol:
 
verte76 said:


I agree. A U2 show is "alive". It's not rote, technical perfection. It's creativity, four human beings *creating* sound, creating vibes, creating emotions, doing everything human, from the ridiculous to the sublime, and making every single person a part of it. If I wanted rote, technical perfection I'd be studying Renaissance art in the classical wing of the art museum (I'm a visual artist, not a musician, so that's how I relate). Perfect form, perfect technique, and, depending on your taste, anything from sublime beauty to absolute, utter boredom. It's pretty but leaves me rather cold.

It's not about technical perfection. It's about integrity. I personally find a band wanting in integrity when ghost musicians play some parts backstage - let them step up to the stage for cryin' out loud. Also, while a band does not have to be note perfect to the album track, they should at least avoid hitting sour notes and play like a cohesive unit. They owe it to the fans and to their professionalism to at least rehearse and prepare before each gig. Do the U2 members even warm up before a gig? I'm not sure what their pre-gig routines are, but I know the great bands and piano players warm up backstage before stepping in, and they reproduce the performance in their mind - visualizing it backstage, so they are prepared to take on the audience. Some concerts, U2 doesn't look prepared.

Cheers,

J
 
jick said:
Also, while a band does not have to be note perfect to the album track, they should at least avoid hitting sour notes and play like a cohesive unit.

And you're saying they don't play like a cohesive unit? Seriously, mate, you're just being ridiculous. Do you go to a concert and sit there, listening for them to do something wrong, or do you go there and get into the music? You do the latter of course, and probably don't notice any wrong notes. Honestly, I couldn't tell you any instances where U2's played a wrong note because I SIMPLY DON'T CARE. They make bloody incredible music, and if Edge plays one insignificant sour note in the middle of an otherwise incredible solo, I couldn't care less. Every boot of them that I have sounds incredible the way it is. You're just harping on about such petty stuff that it completely crosses the line of pedantic.
 
Back
Top Bottom