Is this tour frustrating you?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Room said:
Staging and production wise the 360 tour blows away the last two tours.
Click to expand...

Yes, but who cares about this? I want to go to a concert, listen to my favourite band live. And if it is on an 'intelligent' stage, that does underline the music and does not kill the spontaneity, even better. But 360 is way too much on the technical aspect, and so much less on the art of music...:down:
 
BVS said:
I would love to live in the world of those that think COL would work live, it would be fun for a day or two...
Click to expand...
Again: It would work. As did IYWTVD. A reflective moment of beauty – underlined with screen images/movies – so that those of you, who only want to watch TV have something to do ...
 
ramblin rose said:
Except there are no Nights 1 2 and 3. Everything since NY is a Night 1.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have put City 1, City 2 etc, instead of Nights 1 - 3. It's just an example of shaking things up, but understandably I think if there was this much variation, fans would be jealous of other city's setlists...Still hopefully you catch my drift..
 
Responding to the thread topic directly. If someone really is personally "frustrated" by any tour then I think they need to go outside and get some fresh air.

That being said though, this is a discussion board about something we are very passionate about. So things can or seem to get a bit heated about topics that really are not all that important in the grand scheme of things. I think for most of us this is a hobby that we love. But like anything there are things you would change if you could or preferences that are different from others. That is what a good discussion and debate is all about, different perspectives on things and I think its why we are here.

I do not think the band are above criticism either. There is nothing wrong with fans being critical of something they don't care for or understand. I guess its sort of a fine line. I think the term "frustration" though is the wrong term when it comes to this.
 
ZOOTVTOURist said:
Yes, but who cares about this? I want to go to a concert, listen to my favourite band live. And if it is on an 'intelligent' stage, that does underline the music and does not kill the spontaneity, even better. But 360 is way too much on the technical aspect, and so much less on the art of music...:down:
Click to expand...

The irony is not lost on your user name. The tour that was all about production as the focal point. :wink:

Actually I care, I think when you are playing stadiums the production is important. It is part of the overall experience when you are there. The 360 stage is just cool and it helps eccentuate the music IMO. :shrug:
 
Blue Room said:
Responding to the thread topic directly. If someone really is personally "frustrated" by any tour then I think they need to go outside and get some fresh air.

That being said though, this is a discussion board about something we are very passionate about. So things can or seem to get a bit heated about topics that really are not all that important in the grand scheme of things. I think for most of us this is a hobby that we love. But like anything there are things you would change if you could or preferences that are different from others. That is what a good discussion and debate is all about, different perspectives on things and I think its why we are here.

I do not think the band are above criticism either. There is nothing wrong with fans being critical of something they don't care for or understand. I guess its sort of a fine line. I think the term "frustration" though is the wrong term when it comes to this.
Click to expand...

"Pissed" does not make it better.:D There are people here celebrating the band, whatever they do. Some simply are happy to see their favourite band. Some of them do not have the experience of having attended more, different tours and so they celebrate 360, of course. Others really love big stadiums, big productions. Then we have people here, who critizze everything, they do not like anything by U2, are only retro or whatever. There you may ask: Why not go for another band?
And then there are people trying to compare, search for the pros & cons, the high and the low – and, yes, like me they do estimate the tour as the weakest U2 tour, they have witnessed so far, Not as a miserable tour at all, but as the weakest so far ...:wink:
 
ZOOTVTOURist said:
Yes, but who cares about this? I want to go to a concert, listen to my favourite band live. And if it is on an 'intelligent' stage, that does underline the music and does not kill the spontaneity, even better. But 360 is way too much on the technical aspect, and so much less on the art of music...:down:
Click to expand...

I love irony :lol:
 
Blue Room said:
The irony is not lost on your user name. The tour that was all about production as the focal point. :wink:
Click to expand...

Actually you are completely wrong:wave: Sorry, but ZOO TV was not all about production at all. It was all about the performance and the songs. This tour was innovative, energetic, classic, intellectual, funny, serious and spontaneous on every night. With a stage underlining the songs in a complementary way, being a stage for the band and the acting B-man.
From the first bunch of songs, mainly from AB (what a strong tour album compared to NLOTH!) with the beautiful reflection of UM or SAMTM after "One". Then to the change of the 'old' U2 on the B-stage varying the tunes to be played to the centre songs Bad/SBS-BTBS-RTSS-WTSHNN-Pride-ISHFWILF – a sequence never to be matched again, performed with pure conviction, aggression and feeling. Only to land then in the encore, that deserved its name, as the Mirrorball Man or the devil on platform shoes, singing songs of lust, love, despair, frustration and hope. U2 believed in their stuff back then, something they obviously do not do anymore today on the same level ...
 
From the first bunch of songs, mainly from AB (what a strong tour album compared to NLOTH!) with the beautiful reflection of UM or SAMTM after "One". Then to the change of the 'old' U2 on the B-stage varying the tunes to be played to the centre songs Bad/SBS-BTBS-RTSS-WTSHNN-Pride-ISHFWILF – a sequence never to be matched again, performed with pure conviction, aggression and feeling. Only to land then in the encore, that deserved its name, as the Mirrorball Man or the devil on platform shoes, singing songs of lust, love, despair, frustration and hope

Night after night after night after night...until a few Zooropa songs came along. Which of course was still better than the other setlist-crazy 90's tour.
 
ZooTV and PopMart were all about production and effects for me. I feel the music is much more in the center of the present tour.
 
ZOOTVTOURist said:
Actually you are completely wrong:wave: Sorry, but ZOO TV was not all about production at all. It was all about the performance and the songs. This tour was innovative, energetic, classic, intellectual, funny, serious and spontaneous on every night. With a stage underlining the songs in a complementary way, being a stage for the band and the acting B-man.
From the first bunch of songs, mainly from AB (what a strong tour album compared to NLOTH!) with the beautiful reflection of UM or SAMTM after "One". Then to the change of the 'old' U2 on the B-stage varying the tunes to be played to the centre songs Bad/SBS-BTBS-RTSS-WTSHNN-Pride-ISHFWILF – a sequence never to be matched again, performed with pure conviction, aggression and feeling. Only to land then in the encore, that deserved its name, as the Mirrorball Man or the devil on platform shoes, singing songs of lust, love, despair, frustration and hope. U2 believed in their stuff back then, something they obviously do not do anymore today on the same level ...
Click to expand...

Well, I would respectfully disagree. I loved ZooTV, I saw 8 shows. But what I didn't care for was that the music felt secondary to the production. It really did to me. I didnt have a problem with it because the music was still great. But it really felt like the staging and production concept is what pushed that tour along, not fantastic setlists.

I would also argue that half of what you argue as not being the production is part of it really. When I say production I'm including the theming and design as it is part of it. :shrug: Bono has even said the Zoo TV staging/production was WAY over the top.
 
ZOOTVTOURist said:
Yes, but who cares about this? I want to go to a concert, listen to my favourite band live. And if it is on an 'intelligent' stage, that does underline the music and does not kill the spontaneity, even better. But 360 is way too much on the technical aspect, and so much less on the art of music...:down:
Click to expand...

Though this is clearly a matter of taste and perspective, I tend to agree. I'm 100% certain that, if I were to go to a 360 show, it would absolutely blow me away and leave me speechless for days, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't go to concerts for big screens and pretty lights. I spend the money to see U2 so I can hear music that helped contribute to the positive aspects of my life. When that element is obscured by the visual side of the performance (and I'm similarly certain that it has been, as evidenced by the lazy, repetitive setlists), something is horribly wrong. I don't need a huge fucking yellow arch or some spideresque architectural structure to connect with the band. I merely need the band to give a damn.

I think this performance is as gripping as any video I've seen from the tour itself:

YouTube - U2 - No Line On The Horizon Live in Dublin [HD - High Quality]

Now, on the topic of the amount of NLOTH being showcased nightly, I think it has been satisfactory. Though I long for the days when the band would perform 10 songs a night from the new album (a la ZooTV leg 1), I think 6-7 songs a night is reasonable. My issue is that those 6-7 songs never rotate in the slightest, and two potentially strong live tracks (Fez and SUC) have been left on the shelf to rot. And while I realize Cedars probably would never work, if they want to avoid the momentum-killers, why the hell are they playing In A Little While? Fit WAS into that slot once or twice and see what happens. I doubt the fans will throw a riot, more likely the opposite.
 
LemonMelon said:
Though this is clearly a matter of taste and perspective, I tend to agree. I'm 100% certain that, if I were to go to a 360 show, it would absolutely blow me away and leave me speechless for days, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't go to concerts for big screens and pretty lights. I spend the money to see U2 so I can hear music that helped contribute to the positive aspects of my life. When that element is obscured by the visual side of the performance (and I'm similarly certain that it has been, as evidenced by the lazy, repetitive setlists), something is horribly wrong. I don't need a huge fucking yellow arch or some spideresque architectural structure to connect with the band.

Hell, I think this performance is as gripping as any video I've seen from the tour itself:

YouTube - U2 - No Line On The Horizon Live in Dublin [HD - High Quality]

Now, on the topic of the amount of NLOTH being showcased nightly, I think it has been satisfactory. Though I long for the days when the band would perform 10 songs a night from the new album (a la ZooTV leg 1), I think 6-7 songs a night is reasonable. My issue is that those 6-7 songs never rotate in the slightest, and two potentially strong live tracks (Fez and SUC) have been left on the shelf to rot. And while I realize Cedars probably would never work, if they want to avoid the momentum-killers, why the hell are they playing In A Little While? Fit WAS into that slot once or twice and see what happens. I doubt the fans will throw a riot, more likely the opposite.
Click to expand...

:up: 100% agreed
 
BVS said:
Um, yeah, OK :huh:
Click to expand...

If you want to show, you have better arguments – then please try to respond a bit more elaborate. I tried so, too. One sentence answers you might find funny, but it is a bit poor in a discussion that complex.:wave:
 
People at last nights show were pretty stand still during Breathe but starting to get going during Boots. Boots should have been the opener with Bono doing some kind of intro/march of sort.
 
zoopop said:
People at last nights show were pretty stand still during Breathe but starting to get going during Boots. Boots should have been the opener with Bono doing some kind of intro/march of sort.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what also came to my mind, when seen the first show. A longer intro, then the screens, the anthem of the country, where you play - and then 'boom' you rock in. But, hey, who are we?:D
 
zoopop said:
People at last nights show were pretty stand still during Breathe but starting to get going during Boots. Boots should have been the opener with Bono doing some kind of intro/march of sort.
Click to expand...

Or how about, I dunno, opening with a song not from NLOTH? This concept got lost when U2 decided to dream it all up again. They have about 150 other songs to choose from....
 
LemonMelon said:
Or how about, I dunno, opening with a song not from NLOTH? This concept got lost when U2 decided to dream it all up again. They have about 150 other songs to choose from....
Click to expand...

Well then start with "God Part II" – not many people know it, but –if performed right – it would blow the stadium ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
273
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
291
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
826
zoo skis
Z
N
Hello!
Replies
2
Views
828
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom