gvox
Ghost of Love
I guess not.
You know what? I'm going to reread your post, because you usually write good shit. Give me a sec, I must have missed it in Semantical World War XXVI
I guess not.
You know what? I'm going to reread your post, because you usually write good shit. Give me a sec, I must have missed it in Semantical World War XXVI
Golly gee, I'm so glad you popped in. I'd hate to think I had ascribed an incorrect meaning to your entire sentence!
and that's why I can't fully agree with this being a legitimate gripe
basically the band is treating the 90s like they treat the 80s
they play the biggest hits + 1 or 2 live favourite rockers and maybe 1 random song
Was there any doubt that dan smee would come to your rescue?
I think that lacking confidence *may* have something to do with it. Before people pounce on me, just let me say that I've been reading U2 by U2 lately, and the one thing that jumped out at me is the way they seem to minimize their abilities as musicians. They focus a lot on their shortcomings. Whether they really feel that way, or it's more of a show of humility, who knows. But the one thing that's certain is that they really don't seem to give themselves enough credit, at least in that one book. So, in that sense, I think that they might be extremely uncomfortable in jumping into unrehearsed numbers, at least more so than PJ and Bruce.*
Another factor could be that they also pride themselves on putting on a very professional, polished show, and that's why they vary the setlists less - they're much more comfortable performing songs that they're rehearsed heavily and have perfected (in their view). I've heard them rehearse. They don't run through each song a few times to reacquaint themselves with it and call it a day, they go through them ad nauseum. In 2 1/2 hours, they literally only rehearsed two songs (Discotheque and Mofo), and then only ended up playing Discotheque - they obviously weren't happy with Mofo.
I'd also like to add that the reason Pearl Jam gets away with playing so many rarities and such a diverse setlist is because I think their audiences are made up of a much higher percentage of die hards than are U2's audiences. PJ have made themselves into the biggest little cult band around, and so that style of performing suits them and their audience better. Springsteen? I haven't quite got that one figured out...
*Eta - I should add that I also think that along with those reasons, the added complexity of their staging cues and sequencing as compared to PJ and Bruce has a lot to do with it, too. Their stage shows just don't lend themselves to being all loosey-goosey with their setlist, there's a certain amount of planning that needs to be done.
So you knew that dan smee would come in and basically prove you wrong?
Why all the arguing in the meantime then?
what I noticed most about U2 by U2 is that they're definitely not the biggest fan of their own back cataloguejust let me say that I've been reading U2 by U2 lately, and the one thing that jumped out at me is the way they seem to minimize their abilities as musicians.
Rotate the songs in the shrinking window
Do you agree? They could do some of this and not necessarily at the expense of the spectacle...
So you knew that dan smee would come in and basically prove you wrong?
Why all the arguing in the meantime then?
what I noticed most about U2 by U2 is that they're definitely not the biggest fan of their own back catalogue
they are very, very critical
they seem to mostly hear missed opportunities
which might also explain why they go for songs they actually are proud of
Really complex? Serious? Do you play?The Smashing Pumpkins played about 60 different songs over two nights in the fall tour. They had a repetoire of about 130. And the arrangements are all really complex now.
Bono's voice is dead? 60% of their songs?I think that the reason U2 don't do this is because Bono's voice is dead and he can't sing about 60% of their songs, and wouldn't be able to remember the words. And the musicians aren't good enough to switch it up quickly. As glourious and original as they are, they are pretty average musicians.
for everyone else, sorry to carry this on... But this person just won't let it go and posts very arrogantly.
All I'm saying is that it is completely predictable that dan smee, with whom I've had a recent disagreement, would come in and blindly join the cause of gvox.
All I'm saying is that it is completely predictable that dan smee, with whom I've had a recent disagreement, would come in and blindly join the cause of gvox.
Yep
This was one of the posts that made page 1 great. I think people tend to forget that none of them were all that great in terms of musicianship when they started out. That can be a dangerous thing for a musician when they rise to the top as did U2, especially with the way they did it vis a vis gruelling touring schedules in the 80s etc. It doesn't leave alot of time for personal improvement as a musician. I'm not making an excuse, it's just the reality of being on the road all the time.
Another good point - their self confidence. People see Bono as this egotistical guy who thinks he rules the world. I see him completely differently. I've never really said this before but even watching him live and just reading bits and pieces - esp, as you say, U2 by U2 - I've come to the conclusion that he is probably the least confident or arrogant of anyone in the band. I even wonder if he struggles with something that can be clinically defined like anxiety or maybe even worse. When I've run into him after shows he gives off this vibe that he just wants to go crawl into a corner of his room for a while and chill whereas before a show or on the street he's been friendly. I'M NOT SAYING THIS JUDGEMENTALLY (I couldn't, and not be a hypocrite). But for people who are challenged by some diagnoses, in many cases they find safety in structure. I learned this the hard way with a former bandmate. If I mixed a song up say wanted to play it earlier in the set, he would literally have a nervous breakdown. He needed a setlist 1-2 days before a show, and we could not deviate from it, especially during the show. We could possibly propose something different in the dressing room before, but after a while I told the others not to do that because you could see him visibly tank and lose all self-confidence and just be a bundle of nerves. Now I'm not saying this goes on in U2...but all it takes is one band member with a condition like that, and if you're good friends who care about each other, you work within that.
Your point about being perfectionists is bang on. They are self-admitted perfectionists and about as far away from 'jam band' as you can possibly get. I like jam bands once in a while, but not all the time, and not when I'm paying big bucks.
Sorry I didn't respond earlier VP, it was a great post
what I noticed most about U2 by U2 is that they're definitely not the biggest fan of their own back catalogue
they are very, very critical
they seem to mostly hear missed opportunities
which might also explain why they go for songs they actually are proud of
Everyone else fully understood what dan was saying, yet zoo chose to focus on one word and twist it to suit his desire to engage us in pages of semantical bs.
The entire sentence is a contradiction of terms. I overlooked it and focused on the main point of the sentence
The thing is the word "aside" is very, very clear. You even admitted so by labelling the sentence a contradiction in terms (according to you, "add" was clear, "aside" had to go). This is what you had to say about the sentence:
So:
Does dan smee know how to use the word "aside"? I think he does. I think he's being a bit revisionist here...
Did "everyone else" realize what you supposedly realized? I don't think so. I think people gave the words their normal meanings and used the context, where necessary, as an aid.
-----
Could it be that he used it properly and that you're guilty of the behaviour of which you accuse me?
-----
This is how I see your recent behaviour.
1. You take the word "aside" as having its normal meaning... because the sentence would result in a "contradiction in terms" (assuming you read "add" in your way), you have to ignore it (the word "aside"). Doesn't say much about dan smee's ability to use "aside", but anyway...
2. I tell you "add" can have different meanings (which you didn't realize), it doesn't necessarily result in a contradiction. This gives dan smee credit, he used the word properly... the sentence also makes sense given the context. Facts to be considered in and of themselves, from the angle of U2 Stats.
3. Most recently, you're challenging the themes idea of "aside" (which you had no problem with initially... it was all about "add", remember?).
I'd just like to state for the record that dan_smee and I have a fundamental dislike for each other that runs deep to the core of our very beings, we're sworn enemies, and we'll be staging a fight to the death this Friday night - check your local cable provider for listings, if anyone's interested.
I've yet to see you yield any ground to anyone disagreeing with you.
Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.
Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.
Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.