How much involved is a band in a DVD release?
I've always made myself this question.
It seems, in the case of U2, that the band don't take seriously the DVD subject at all, I mean, how come they release average concerts as Vertigo Chicago, Elevation Boston, etc, etc having performed much better concerts from those tours?
I simply can't understand that. I agree Milan blow Chicago on the water, so why did they released Chicago ?????. Also I'd love to point out that the Buenos Aires concert filmed for IMAX was in vain. Bono's voice wasn't his best, cracking several times, and the crowd was lazy, asleep, like if they knew they were been filmed and they didn't give a d*** !. You can even notice Edge annoyed by the crappy performance and boring crowd. They didn't even come on stage to say goodbye with champagne (as they did it in Chile) and they didn't play Love Is Blindness as it was planned. They just wanted to finish the contractual gig and go to the hotel. With Popmart VHS was the same thing. I think the only ones really great concerts officially released have been Red Rocks 1983 and Sydney 1993, that's all
It seems they must release a US gig on DVD due marketing policy, and all we know that U2 haven't performed their best concerts from each tour in the states since Joshua Tree days
So who's really behind those average concerts on DVD?. Management or the band?. Do the band take seriously the job and are actually involved in the process?. Do the guys really work hard in choosing between several gigs to release a DVD trying to select the really best filmed night?, or is that they pick up a dozen cameras, film 3 nights at a random place and that's all, no matter how crap the concerts were, it will be a DVD anyway