Maybe U2 isn't a great live band anymore

[Silence]

beg 2 diffa!

The advantage RH has that U2 does not have, of course, is that they have 5 competent musicians whereas U2 only has 3. (I'm looking at you, Bono!)

His voice is his instrument!

 

[HyperU2]

The only song in 1984 that required a backing track was "Bad."

And The Unforgettable Fire, and A Sort Of Homecoming. Etc.

 

[digitize]

The advantage RH has that U2 does not have, of course, is that they have 5 competent musicians whereas U2 only has 3. (I'm looking at you, Bono!

Are you serious?

 

[BB Mac]

pudgie child if your a musician then youll understand technology moves
with the times and so does U2.they have played there songs without BT
or xtra musicians in the early days.i dont think its a big deal using sequenced
parts or session keyboard player its all part of a package to deliver the best
they can. i dont think edge wants to try and play guitar and piano at the
same time on these new songs.you cant compare radiohead to U2 either
Radiohead are a great band but i find after 15mins im bored and most of
there stuff tends to be downbeat.i play in 2 bands and @ 39 i find it hard
going sumtimes so bono and co @ 47 and still touring i take my hats off
to them. your right though there not just a great live band anymore
they are simply a Awesome live band dont take the small shows to
serious there is more better to come

 

[Blue Room]

I think I have been spoiled by recent Radiohead shows I've been too. RH's songs are more complicated musically than U2's songs, but everything live is done on stage. RH uses sequencers and keyboards as well, but everything is triggered or manipulated on stage by band members and not by a roadie below or behind the stage.

The advantage RH has that U2 does not have, of course, is that they have 5 competent musicians whereas U2 only has 3. (I'm looking at you, Bono!)

By the way, we didn't see the piano player on stage last night which means that the piano and string parts in "Breathe" were either from a backing track or someone was playing the keyboards out of view.

Like was mentioned by someone else in this thread, I would prefer that anyone contributing to the sound in a performance be on stage when they are doing it. I'm not opposed to additional players on tour.

Obviously you are not that familiar with U2 live. On tour Terry Lawless plays the sequencers and keyboards underneath the stage with the band and has since Zoo TV. On occasion he even played the piano on Original Of The Species on stage during the Vertigo tour and on Please during the Elevation tour.

I find it hard to really take much merit in what your saying because of your Radiohead analogy. Radiohead for me is YAWN live and on CD. Different strokes for different folks. I would suggest as I always have when these type of threads appear. Skip them live if you think they have lost it. The rest of us will have a great time and enjoy your ticket!

 

[daygloeyes2]

And The Unforgettable Fire, and A Sort Of Homecoming. Etc.

O.T., but you need to post moar here.

 

[pudgie_child]

Obviously you are not that familiar with U2 live. On tour Terry Lawless plays the sequencers and keyboards underneath the stage with the band and has since Zoo TV. On occasion he even played the piano on Original Of The Species on stage during the Vertigo tour and on Please during the Elevation tour.

I find it hard to really take much merit in what your saying because of your Radiohead analogy. Radiohead for me is YAWN live and on CD. Different strokes for different folks. I would suggest as I always have when these type of threads appear. Skip them live if you think they have lost it. The rest of us will have a great time and enjoy your ticket!

Why can't Terry Lawless play on stage? I haven't heard a compelling reason as to why he has to be underneath the stage.

 

[BVS]

I think I have been spoiled by recent Radiohead shows I've been too. RH's songs are more complicated musically than U2's songs, but everything live is done on stage. RH uses sequencers and keyboards as well, but everything is triggered or manipulated on stage by band members and not by a roadie below or behind the stage.

The advantage RH has that U2 does not have, of course, is that they have 5 competent musicians whereas U2 only has 3. (I'm looking at you, Bono!)

By the way, we didn't see the piano player on stage last night which means that the piano and string parts in "Breathe" were either from a backing track or someone was playing the keyboards out of view.

Like was mentioned by someone else in this thread, I would prefer that anyone contributing to the sound in a performance be on stage when they are doing it. I'm not opposed to additional players on tour.

This is so fucking weak...

Hey guys, Radiohead is better because the guys on the stage push the buttons to trigger the sequencers, it doesn't matter if they are canned.

THEY PUSH THE BUTTONS THEMSELVES.

I'm so tired of people saying that writing melodies, lyrics, and singing isn't a real musician.

It just invalidates all of your other whining...

 

[subnet]

edge has keyboards on the floor

he kicks a key on the floor to start the piano sequence in breathe and they use ear monitors to hear the cues

so they are progressing the art of the ear monitor

 

[macfesto]

these topics are dull

 

[pudgie_child]

This is so fucking weak...

Hey guys, Radiohead is better because the guys on the stage push the buttons to trigger the sequencers, it doesn't matter if they are canned.

THEY PUSH THE BUTTONS THEMSELVES.

I'm so tired of people saying that writing melodies, lyrics, and singing isn't a real musician.

It just invalidates all of your other whining...

Not really. Radiohead uses sequencers, but they are used by band members as an instrument on-stage (Johnny, for instance, will loop Thom's vocals as he is singing "Everything In It's Right Place").

This is my problem with recent U2 appearances:

So much of the sound appears to be pre-recorded. Granted, these were just promotional appearances, but it seems to me that if the band is just playing along to a pre-recorded song, then they shouldn't be making promotional appearances yet. To their credit, the performance of "Breathe" on Letterman was not as egregious (there were some piano and strings either pre-recorded or played off-camera by a tech). It wasn't nearly as horrific as early performances of GOYB or Magnificent.

And why the hell are they using canned backing vocals for some songs? I know that they've been doing this since the Popmart days, but I still find it incredibly cheesy.

 

[pudgie_child]

"Magnificent" looked and sounded pretty good tonight. Still not thrilled about the canned synthesizer strings and hand claps, but it was definitely better than the BBC performance.

 

[HyperU2]

O.T., but you need to post moar here.

I will try my best.

 

[Galeongirl]

Why can't Terry Lawless play on stage? I haven't heard a compelling reason as to why he has to be underneath the stage.

Because it's a U2 show and they are a 4 piece band? That reasoning we could also put Dallas onstage for sometimes playing additional guitar under the stage and who knows who else!

Your point is completely ridiculous man. Have you even SEEN U2 live?

 

[HyperU2]

And why can't they have Paul McGuinness sat at a desk on stage as well?

 

[maycocksean]

And why can't they have Paul McGuinness sat at a desk on stage as well?

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Because it's a U2 show and they are a 4 piece band? That reasoning we could also put Dallas onstage for sometimes playing additional guitar under the stage and who knows who else!

Your point is completely ridiculous man. Have you even SEEN U2 live?

REM is a 3, was a 4 piece, band. They've had Scott McCaughey play on stage with them adding guitar for donkey's years. I'm a tad bemused why U2 can't do the same. Unless Terry Lawless is really, really ugly....

 

[BVS]

Not really. Radiohead uses sequencers, but they are used by band members as an instrument on-stage (Johnny, for instance, will loop Thom's vocals as he is singing "Everything In It's Right Place").

This is my problem with recent U2 appearances:

So much of the sound appears to be pre-recorded. Granted, these were just promotional appearances, but it seems to me that if the band is just playing along to a pre-recorded song, then they shouldn't be making promotional appearances yet. To their credit, the performance of "Breathe" on Letterman was not as egregious (there were some piano and strings either pre-recorded or played off-camera by a tech). It wasn't nearly as horrific as early performances of GOYB or Magnificent.

And why the hell are they using canned backing vocals for some songs? I know that they've been doing this since the Popmart days, but I still find it incredibly cheesy.

Even Radiohead has played with playback for promo performances, that's just how it is... Go on YouTube and look up Nirvana on Top of the Pops and you'll see the fact that they make fun of the fact that they have to play to a backing track. This is an industry wide thing. I don't know why you keep saying "recent performances" this is how it's been for a long while...

I'm sorry but you don't really seem all that informed, especially when you say Bono is not a competant musician or that what Radiohead does is different just because they do the activation of the sequences themselves.

The Letterman performances are closer to what you'll be getting at a concert for these are proper venues and set ups...

and as far as backing vocals go I really think they are just trying to get it closer to the album sound as possible and whereas Edge has a good voice it doesn't have the most power to it, and since no one else can't properly sing they decide to go with "canned" back up vocals, doesn't bother me any...

 

[BVS]

Still not thrilled about the canned synthesizer strings and hand claps, but it was definitely better than the BBC performance.

You're either one of those fans from the early 80's that thinks U2 sold out with JT or you're pretty new to music and U2...

The last U2 performance you were happy with was probably War am I correct?

 

[Blue Room]

Why can't Terry Lawless play on stage? I haven't heard a compelling reason as to why he has to be underneath the stage.

How on earth would that improve the live performance on the past tours if he was on stage?? Why would it suddenly change for this tour?? Your whole point was that U2 have now lost it live. I dont understand how Terry playing on stage with them would suddenly make them a great live act again??

I think the simple reason he doesn't play on stage is because he is primarily setting the sequencers and helping keep time through the bands click track. That doesn't warrant him on stage. Typically when he does add keyboard or piano underneath its low in the mix (I'm talking actually playing the keys and not setting a piano sequencer) an example of this would be 40 on Vertigo. When it has been primary in the mix (for the most part) that is when he has typically appeared on stage with them.

I'm really not sure how much of a fan you are by your responses. I think you probably have liked U2 but are primarily a Radiohead fan and you are looking for a debate. I just don't think your arguments have much merit in regards to the upcoming tour that hasn't even been announced yet.

 

[Silence]

I read that under the stage the techs have a duplicate of the boards up top and out on the floor so as to ensure / present a seamless performance given any technical diffuculties. I think this again shows the dedication the band (which includes the tech crew) have to giving the fans a "show to remember" every night.

As for the performance, ie, the showmenship, that belongs to those 4 lads and they need not clutter the stage show with support musicians, we know they are part of the experience and many times the boys give credit to these underground and outback folks!

 

[pudgie_child]

You're either one of those fans from the early 80's that thinks U2 sold out with JT or you're pretty new to music and U2...

The last U2 performance you were happy with was probably War am I correct?

Holy f*ck, how old do you think I am? My name is Pudgie Child for a reason, suckah!

Actually, the first U2 show I saw was in 1992, and I've seen then them on every tour since then.

Looking back, the problems I had with the BBC performance may have been in the poor mix. The pre-recorded portion overwhelmed the sound of the band playing live. The Letterman performance was an improvement in this regard.

As someone who goes to a fair share of concerts, I'm still not OK with hidden musicians or canned vocals, no matter how many of you try to convince me that it's cool.

U2 is still a good live band, but they're no longer the gold standard. I'll still see them at the L.A. Coliseum, of course, but I just won't have high expectations.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

How on earth would that improve the live performance on the past tours if he was on stage?? Why would it suddenly change for this tour?? Your whole point was that U2 have now lost it live. I dont understand how Terry playing on stage with them would suddenly make them a great live act again??

I think the simple reason he doesn't play on stage is because he is primarily setting the sequencers and helping keep time through the bands click track. That doesn't warrant him on stage. Typically when he does add keyboard or piano underneath its low in the mix (I'm talking actually playing the keys and not setting a piano sequencer) an example of this would be 40 on Vertigo. When it has been primary in the mix (for the most part) that is when he has typically appeared on stage with them.

However, why should this differ from what a band like REM do, which is have 2 guitarists and I'm sure I've seen a keyboard player as well, on stage with them? I don't find the presence of the other musos distracting from Michael's antics. I do find it bemusing that U2 acknowledge that they need the other musicians and/or backing tracks to replicate their CD sound on stage but don't want them ON stage with them. Granted, with something like Pop, lots of musos would have cluttered the stage and interfered with the visuals, but with the last 2 tours, it's not as if the visual message was the most important.

 

[subnet]

 

[digitize]

However, why should this differ from what a band like REM do, which is have 2 guitarists and I'm sure I've seen a keyboard player as well, on stage with them? I don't find the presence of the other musos distracting from Michael's antics. I do find it bemusing that U2 acknowledge that they need the other musicians and/or backing tracks to replicate their CD sound on stage but don't want them ON stage with them. Granted, with something like Pop, lots of musos would have cluttered the stage and interfered with the visuals, but with the last 2 tours, it's not as if the visual message was the most important.

Because it fits R.E.M.'s music more that it would fit U2's music? Especially during the 90s, when the shows were as much theatrical productions as they were concerts.

 

[Blue Room]

Because it fits R.E.M.'s music more that it would fit U2's music? Especially during the 90s, when the shows were as much theatrical productions as they were concerts.

This is about what I was going to respond with.

U2 are not REM. Its pretty much that simple. They do what they want and what they feel works best for them. I think they have earned the right. If some fans on a message board don't care for it. Move along and don't go to the show. If its THAT big of a deal to you.

 

[pudgie_child]

I think the simple reason he doesn't play on stage is because he is primarily setting the sequencers and helping keep time through the bands click track. That doesn't warrant him on stage. Typically when he does add keyboard or piano underneath its low in the mix (I'm talking actually playing the keys and not setting a piano sequencer) an example of this would be 40 on Vertigo. When it has been primary in the mix (for the most part) that is when he has typically appeared on stage with them.

I wish I could agree with you that the keyboards are "low in the mix," but during the Vertigo tour, the synthesizers (performed by hidden musicians) were dominant in a number of songs, most significantly "One" and "Mysterious Ways."

I still admire the band and intend to see them live again; however, I don't think their live performances are as good they used to be, and I think the band relies too much on sounds that are not being created by the performers on stage.

I appreciate that there are a lot of people here who disagree with me, but it is comforting to know that there are some people here who feel the same way as me.

 

[indra]

Unless Terry Lawless is really, really ugly....

Or he could be so very charismatic that all eyes would focus only on him.

 

[digitize]

I wish I could agree with you that the keyboards are "low in the mix," but during the Vertigo tour, the synthesizers (performed by hidden musicians) were dominant in a number of songs, most significantly "One" and "Mysterious Ways."

I still admire the band and intend to see them live again; however, I don't think their live performances are as good they used to be, and I think the band relies too much on sounds that are not being created by the performers on stage.

I appreciate that there are a lot of people here who disagree with me, but it is comforting to know that there are some people here who feel the same way as me.

Actually, to help cheer you up, a lot of those synths were just sequenced in by Des Broadbery's computers.

 

[subnet]