U2Man said:
Yeah, like you never post anything silly in here, right?
Yet another good post from ouizy
only when im
U2Man said:
Yeah, like you never post anything silly in here, right?
Yet another good post from ouizy
Chizip said:
only when im
Chizip said:
ouizy said: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.
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.
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?
so what your trying to tell me and everyone else who likes the stage, that were not allowed to? that were not allowed to think its great? we can only think its good? because as you said you wont have anyone defending it, so were all meant to think the same things you think and not think the stage is greatouizy said: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.
Popmartijn said:Well, Chizip asked for some responses, so here's mine.
This is something I don't see/understand. What do you mean when you say they're no longer integral to the show? Is it just that many lights are put on the sides or do you mean something else? Because I thought U2 still used incorporated lighting in the design. Yes, some lights are just mounted on a frame and hung up high in the arena so to provide an uncluttered view for everyone in the building. But in the arena shows they did also have lights in the stage and the curtain was a light curtain as well as a video curtain. For the outside leg, the lighting was in/behind the screen, making it an integral part of the design.
Well, I'm not really enthusiastic for this concept. I have to say I haven't seen the Madonna show, so I don't really know how it looks like. But to me, it seems a bit too much, too distracting. Will it really support the music, or is it just a gimmick?
The outdoor screen was moving. (although only between songs, not during songs)
And what is the function of a screen? Isn't it to show images? Why should it do anything else? I think it's more important what is shown on the screen than whether or not it can move.
I completely disagree with you here. I think those four screens are great! You always need to show what's going on on stage for those at the back, the side and the rear. They don't always have these perfect viewpoints where they can see what each bandmember is doing, what emotions they go through, etc. You need a screen to show it, or else there will be a huge storm of criticism of people who say they can't see a thing at all.
And instead of having a director making decisions what to be shown on those screens (which would be Bono for probably 95% of the time) they decided to show all members during the whole concert. This way the audience can decide what to watch. I think it's great.
And are they really that much of a distraction? Those screens are situated out of direct viewing lines, so you don't have to watch them.
I think this point also contradicts your earlier arguments. First you say that a screen should be dynamic, should more, should be an integral part of the design. And now you say a screen is distracting and take away from the live show. So what do you want? Do you want to have screens at large concerts (arena and up)? Or do you want to have no screens?
i am 20 years of age, and why would you want to know that? seriously am i not allowed to think the new U2 stage is great? am i not allowed to go aganist your wisdom and intellegence?ouizy said:KUEF,
Before I reply can I ask you a serious question?
How old are you?
Thanks,
Ouizy
well its true in this case, quizy has basically just told me i am wrong for thinking its great? what else would you want me to say?yimou said:KUEF.. Do you want people to reply to these kinds of threads and try to have a normal discussion ?. If yes, then why do you always start with the -- So i am not allowed to think that the stage is great -- Or the -- I am not allowed to love U2 and the Vertigo tour
KUEFC09U2 said:i am 20 years of age, and why would you want to know that? seriously am i not allowed to think the new U2 stage is great? am i not allowed to go aganist your wisdom and intellegence?
p.s. i dont really fancy being subjected to ageism, so if you dont mind, thanks
Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 theirs really very little U2 could do now were people wouldnt be accusing them of copying themselves
Originally posted by Ouizy 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.
Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 so what your trying to tell me and everyone else who likes the stage, that were not allowed to? that were not allowed to think its great? we can only think its good? because as you said you wont have anyone defending it, so were all meant to think the same things you think and not think the stage is great
Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 ok goes against everything i have been thinking for the last5 months, and i agree the stage is now completley crap, i would much rather have a britney esque stage than what U2 are doing
infact i think i shall protest, or petition them
Originally posted by KUEFC09U2 seriously am i not allowed to think the new U2 stage is great? am i not allowed to go aganist your wisdom and intellegence?
Doppelgang said:Jumpin Jack Flash its just about cash cash cash! and who seriously gives a fuck about the stones' stage any how and if you do why post on a U2 website?
Hewson said:
It'll be interesting to see how they stage the arena portion of the tour.
Hewson said:
Good show, but ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous. The seating area at Fenway is awful for a concert (plus 2 huge light towers the band set up made many seats obstructed), the only decent seats are field seats which ran $453.00, a high percentage of the remaining tix cost $163.00 and they were all a long way from the stage.
Even if they were front seats; 400 USD is just insane! They should be ashamed to ask these kind of prices!kellyahern said:I thought about seeing them in Tampa, but when I checked, the only seats left were the $400 ones (now it's sold out).
I saw them about 6 years ago and they put on a good show .
These onstage seats are up on the stage right? So they allow you to get pissed and puke over the Stones...Infinitum98 said:The onstage seats are $453, but guesss what, you get an open bar all night.
ouizy said: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.
The onstage seats are $250.00, the field seating was $453.00, including the back sections of the field.Infinitum98 said:The onstage seats are $453, but guesss what, you get an open bar all night.