I don’t believe in love-ins, and I don’t believe in most of the silliness that has been going on in this forum. This forum is about the Vertigo tour in general, and this is a very relevant topic since most of the creative team behind U2 (the band who could do no wrong) and the Stones. The idea that there are no original ideas out there is absurd, and I will not listen to anyone who tries to defend this theory. Yes there are people (you are reading one of them) who will criticize whatever the band comes up with and again, that is because it is our favorite band, and we expect them to do things at a level higher than the rest (who are few and far between in this level of performance.) Bigger does not always mean better and there are many precedents to prove this (look at acts like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Massive Attack), acts who prove that with forced limited resources amazing things can be done. Hell, if you have not seen it, try to get some images from Madonna’s re-invention tour. That was, in my opinion the most high-tech, and well done indoor stage production I have seen in years.
I am tired of these threads being hijacked by one or two people who have to state that opinions are invalid in reference to critical assessments of what U2 has done this year. Not only are they valid, but if the design team behind the band wanted ‘real’ input to their work, they would read some of this, rather than just the magazines who praise their work regardless.
What can be done differently?
Well, take a look at today’s stadium tours – mainly U2 and the Stones. There are three main elements that the show requires, lighting, sound, and video. It seems to me, the new trend is how these three things are applied to a steel frame. No longer are these elements integral to the show, but they are applied to a black steel frame similar to a curtainwall system for a building (the windows that are applied to the outside of a glass tower.) This is the modern day version of a theatrical setpiece. Gone are the days of Steel Wheels, gone are the days of The Wall. Now it is build the frame, hang the stuff, start the show.
So what can be done?
Well, going back to the indoor stage for a moment, I think more energy is being put on the technology of the show versus the experience. How much money is going into LED’s, wireless communications, IMAG video projection, and video editing? Tons. Back to Madonna for a second. Yes, she had the LED video walls, but they moved, They circled the stage and for each song were not just lit up with useless graphics, but were placed into positions that changed the environment of the stage. Now besides the people she had swinging from the lighting rig, and the catwalk suspended from the arena roof that lowered over the crowd, the entire stage was a plexiglass turntable that spun, lowered, and raised to completely change the shape and dimension of the stage. Aside from all of that – there was a conveyor belt at the front of the stage, where the sound FOH position was located, a move that had never been done before.
Most of the things in that design were ‘never done before’ and as I was critical of the show – it was one of the best I have ever seen, and I am not really a Madonna fan.
Could U2’s team pull off something in the league of this stage? Yes. Have they? Yes – ZOO TV was one of the most innovative outdoor sets of its time. What I would like to see at a U2 show is more automation. I could give back some of the very expensive LED’s to see something happen to a stage while the band performs. Yes, we all know there will be a video screen, but does it have to be stagnant? The Stones proved you can break up a huge screen and get it moving on 40 Licks. Pink Floyd proved you could move a screen years ago. To have a screen simply to have a screen does not make sense to me. We are in the time where the screen better damn well do something other than show images, or someone is going to say something about it. The indoor ‘screen’ for Radiohead was amazing, shit, even Britany Spears’ team did some creative things with the LED’s on her last show.
Now – I think one of the main reasons for criticism is the fact that the indoor Vertigo show was so similar to Elevation (even the design team admits this was one of their goals) that when you couple the design with the setlist (of about 50% of the same songs as Elevation) there is reason to say something. Tag a $100+ price to see this and there you go.
I really, really thought this time around the band was going to pull out the stops and go fully in the round (as Chizip) suggests inside. I thought they would have a round stage with at least a minimal amount of automation.
One of my biggest criticisms now is the ‘four screens’ that continuously show the band. I think they are a huge distraction and take something away from going to a live gig. Why do I want to go and watch what is happening in front of me on TV as it is happeneing?
I like the fact that Willie has the latest and greatest video editing software and on the fly he can change what we see, but I think the disconnect lies in the fact that 90% of the people there do not know he is doing this. They could save the money on his toys and put it into a more novel stage design. I think the fans are hungry for it, and Vertigo can be seen as a good tour, which could have been great. The problem I have with that is that I do not know how many more tours we are going to see.