"U2 confirm 2013 album"

[Von Schloopen]

I don't understand why everyone jumps to defend studio Gone so vigorously.

I love the fact the lazer guitar is prominent in the studio version and not relegated to background, tape status. I love the chords, but that lazer beam is where it's at. Total torch song. And I haven't heard a live version yet that goes as deep as the bass on the studio recording. Love the live version, really love it.

But that studio version is special. Plus, it has a guitar solo that I haven't heard a live version match.

I spell lazer with a z.

 

[dan_smee]

I love the fact the lazer guitar is prominent in the studio version and not relegated to background, tape status. I love the chords, but that lazer beam is where it's at. Total torch song. And I haven't heard a live version yet that goes as deep as the bass on the studio recording. Love the live version, really love it.

But that studio version is special. Plus, it has a guitar solo that I haven't heard a live version match.

I spell lazer with a z.

New studio / live has the pass through notes in the verses ( think between while singing "then you find that feeling just won't go away")

This alone makes them superior. It adds texture and interest. If it had been in the original it would win hands down

 

[Nick66]

I spell lazer with a z.

I spell laser with a z also.

 

[Von Schloopen]

New studio / live has the pass through notes in the verses ( think between while singing "then you find that feeling just won't go away")

This alone makes them superior. It adds texture and interest. If it had been in the original it would win hands down

To each their own.

Though I'm rather confident that people who prefer the album cut aren't being absurd or beyond understanding.

It's fanfuckingtastic.

Rather an embarrassment of riches. No?

Brilliant studio and live versions?

It's a brilliant song.

Good work U2.

 

[Streets613]

They lose subtlety and texture and melodies that were more interesting when used sparsely are extended for a more obvious effect

I think of their studio production a sort of sonic impressionism, where you can't really hear the melody, but it's there, and if someone were to play it, you'd go "oh, that song." I rather enjoy that there's a deference in arrangement between their studio material and live performances. It clearly works, and is pretty common

 

[trevgreg]

I rather enjoy that there's a deference in arrangement between their studio material and live performances. It clearly works, and is pretty common

I was going to ask... don't most live arrangements lose at least something from its studio version anyway? That being said, I'd hate to hear a copycat performance anyway.

 

[doctorwho]

Outside of the hardcore U2 fanbase on message boards like this one,the "Average Joe" u2 fans (which represent the vast majority of the fanbase)aren't categorize Pop as great record....Quite the opposite,actually.

I agree with you, BUT... is this conversation between "average Joe" U2 fans or the die-hard fanbase on this site? Given the circumstances, I stand by my original thoughts.

I was going to ask... don't most live arrangements lose at least something from its studio version anyway? That being said, I'd hate to hear a copycat performance anyway.

I guess it depends on what you consider an "arrangement". If you mean that the live version has all of the nuances of the studio performance, then you are right. It's difficult to replicate the multiple layers a studio performance can provide. However, a live performance - especially by a group as talented as U2 - can bring new additional layers. So what's lost in nuance is gained in energy or added lyrics or more "rock" sound, etc.

Speaking of "copycat performances", years ago I saw Rush in concert (OMG! He KNOWZ not to discuss RUSH and he's doing it anyway!). Yeah, deal with a tiny bit of Rush for a moment. Regardless of what you think of them, they are very talented musicians. As great as the concert was, I was a bit disappointed - they sounded EXACTLY like their studio versions. I felt I could have just played a record. So while seeing them perform the songs was great, I think U2 have it right. A concert should be more than just a band performing their songs - it should be an event. Visual imagery plays a big role in a live setting, so why not capitalize on it?

 

[Niceman]

I agree with you, BUT... is this conversation between "average Joe" U2 fans or the die-hard fanbase on this site? Given the circumstances, I stand by my original thoughts.



I guess it depends on what you consider an "arrangement". If you mean that the live version has all of the nuances of the studio performance, then you are right. It's difficult to replicate the multiple layers a studio performance can provide. However, a live performance - especially by a group as talented as U2 - can bring new additional layers. So what's lost in nuance is gained in energy or added lyrics or more "rock" sound, etc.

Speaking of "copycat performances", years ago I saw Rush in concert (OMG! He KNOWZ not to discuss RUSH and he's doing it anyway!). Yeah, deal with a tiny bit of Rush for a moment. Regardless of what you think of them, they are very talented musicians. As great as the concert was, I was a bit disappointed - they sounded EXACTLY like their studio versions. I felt I could have just played a record. So while seeing them perform the songs was great, I think U2 have it right. A concert should be more than just a band performing their songs - it should be an event. Visual imagery plays a big role in a live setting, so why not capitalize on it?

What's a Rush?

 

[trevgreg]

I guess it depends on what you consider an "arrangement". If you mean that the live version has all of the nuances of the studio performance, then you are right. It's difficult to replicate the multiple layers a studio performance can provide. However, a live performance - especially by a group as talented as U2 - can bring new additional layers. So what's lost in nuance is gained in energy or added lyrics or more "rock" sound, etc.

Speaking of "copycat performances", years ago I saw Rush in concert (OMG! He KNOWZ not to discuss RUSH and he's doing it anyway!). Yeah, deal with a tiny bit of Rush for a moment. Regardless of what you think of them, they are very talented musicians. As great as the concert was, I was a bit disappointed - they sounded EXACTLY like their studio versions. I felt I could have just played a record. So while seeing them perform the songs was great, I think U2 have it right. A concert should be more than just a band performing their songs - it should be an event. Visual imagery plays a big role in a live setting, so why not capitalize on it?

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant. Now that I think about it, I can remember hearing somewhere that Billy Corgan once put 120 different guitar tracks on one Smashing Pumpkins song. Geez! I can only imagine how difficult it would be to play any other song that has even a fraction of the instruments some of these songs can have. Unless it's really stripped down, there's bound to be at least some differences in a live setting.

I guess I'm confused as to why Gone inspires such live vs. album debates, unlike other U2 songs. Can't we just enjoy all the versions like they're supposed to be? I definitely wouldn't want to have what you experienced at that show where they apparently just stuck to playing something similar to the album versions of songs. Not that I want a key/tuning change or extended jam every time, but the live outlet gives the band a chance for some creativity. And even if it's playing a simple chord over some jazzy line that was on the album, who says that can't sound good either?

 

[silkensky]

To be honest I think Bad makes for a better comparison when talking about live vs. studio U2. Almost everything about the song is different live, from little nuances added by each member from performance to performance (even within the same tour), the backing sequencer being much more prominent, and most of all Edge's additional riff that he plays during the climax of the song, which to me is one of his most brilliant moments. I love both versions equally but for different reasons. The studio version is such a haunting and magical world all unto itself, and live it's just on a completely different level, but they're both amazing in their own way. I have heard so many different renditions of Bad, and it's the one U2 song that varies the most in the live setting. No two performances ever sound the same to me.

 

[Von Schloopen]

To be honest I think Bad makes for a better comparison when talking about live vs. studio U2. Almost everything about the song is different live, from little nuances added by each member from performance to performance (even within the same tour), the backing sequencer being much more prominent, and most of all Edge's additional riff that he plays during the climax of the song, which to me is one of his most brilliant moments. I love both versions equally but for different reasons. The studio version is such a haunting and magical world all unto itself, and live it's just on a completely different level, but they're both amazing in their own way. I have heard so many different renditions of Bad, and it's the one U2 song that varies the most in the live setting. No two performances ever sound the same to me.

The kicker for me is the studio version, when Larry puts down the brushes and picks up the sticks. Holy crap. What a change. Complete lift. It's one of my favorite drum parts ever.

 

[doctorwho]

I spell laser with a z also.

Unless it's a name brand, it should be with an "s". And it's not a British vs. US thing. The word "laser" is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

As for the version of "Gone" - I like the one on the single.

 

[Registered Dude]

Unless it's a name brand, it should be with an "s". And it's not a British vs. US thing. The word "laser" is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

As for the version of "Gone" - I like the one on the single.

Doctorwho. You're a swell guy.

 

[Blue Room]

Unless it's a name brand, it should be with an "s". And it's not a British vs. US thing. The word "laser" is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

As for the version of "Gone" - I like the one on the single.

You just named the new album U2 "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation" followed by the "Laser tour" in 2014!!

I heard its going to sound like classic rock on Neptune this time vs punk rock on Venus. Lots of piano and acoustic songs.

 

[bonocomet]

You just named the new album U2 "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation" followed by the "Laser tour" in 2014!!

I heard its going to sound like classic rock on Neptune this time vs punk rock on Venus. Lots of piano and acoustic songs.

 

[LemonMelon]

The suit of lights will make its return

And they'll actually play Gone

Acoustically

With lasers shooting out of the guitar

 

[powerhour24]

And risk being called rip-offs of Matt Bellamy??

In all seriousness though, not playing Gone when Bono was wearing a literal suit of lights was a huge missed opportunity.

 

[mama cass]

nooo it would have been incredibly cheesy...

 

[gvox]

"Lights up Bruce..and, oh? That jacket? The one I hung on the suspended steering wheel and then waved good bye to? You can keep that too. Get it, guys? 'keep the suit of lights?' Ok Edge, play the blues..or at least that weird distortion loop backing track thingy - Hutch!!?11?1 this is Gone"

 

[LemonMelon]

You guys wouldn't have wanted Bono to have worn the suit of lights during the song that inspired it? One of the band's greatest rockers? Alright.

 

[LadySpinHead]

As it was, the 'suit of lights' was a unique part of the light show. If they had played Gone while Bono was wearing it, it would have become a prop for the song- and a blatantly obvious one, too. I'd guess it was thought about, but purposely not played. I agree with the cheese factor on this one- however I still wish they had figured out a way to work Gone into the set list somehow.

 

[LemonMelon]

I have no clue why 360 didn't rock harder than it did. At least they got it straightened out somewhat during the last leg. But boy, you'd think they could find more fitting tunes for a giant metal claw than North Star and In A Little While.

 

[gvox]

You guys wouldn't have wanted Bono to have worn the suit of lights during the song that inspired it? One of the band's greatest rockers? Alright.

I was only being half serious in my sarcasm, but am I the only one who thought that Bono hanging the light jacket on the mic stand and letting it drift on up into the Claw was, in fact, a blatantly symbolic reference to Gone? It certainly was to me, it was unmistakeable imo. Therefore, no need to play the song (altho, I would have liked it very very much!)

 

[Globo14]

I have no clue why 360 didn't rock harder than it did. At least they got it straightened out somewhat during the last leg. But boy, you'd think they could find more fitting tunes for a giant metal claw than North Star and In A Little While.

This. Stuff like Electric Co, Discotheque, Bullet (if in ZooTV style), or Gone would've been lovely under the claw.

 

[mama cass]

technically, it was a jacket of lights, not a suit of lights - i didn't see any lasers on the trousers, hence the Gone references are irrelevant

 

[gvox]

technically, MLK Jr (RIP) was not shot early on the morning of April 4, either...

 

[Blue Room]

This. Stuff like Electric Co, Discotheque, Bullet (if in ZooTV style), or Gone would've been lovely under the claw.

-Bullet needed a rest for a tour, in any form
-They just did Electric Co after an 18 year hiatus, love it, but wasn't going to happen on 360 as a result. Rumor I have heard is they were tired of playing it and did not think it was connecting with the audience during the 3rd leg of Vertigo. So maybe never again. Which would be sad.
- Gone they could have done but its more a mid tempo unknown for the average stadium concert goer, off an album they do not have a great deal of love for currently. At least they played it on Elevation. Which is/was sort of surprising in retrospect.
- Discotheque at least there was a snippet eventually. I do agree though, it would have worked with the claw.

A few of my picks would have been partly rocking and personal favorites.

-God Part II this song NEEDS to be done again, would be great with any production. I think it will happen eventually.
-Mofo (probably wont happen again, and was not even considered for 360, although they were rehearsing it for Vertigo) but they could have come up with some cool lighting with the claw for it.
-In God's Country (full band), fast paced, rocks, from one of their most popular albums obviously but still a deeper cut than normal, they could have put JT footage on the screen and bathed the claw in white light for the versus and Edge solo, dim back lighting spots for the chorus (thats how I envision it anyway).
-Exit (see above, JT deeper cut) imagine the lighting when Edge kicks in the guitar barrage on the 360 stage.

 

[bonocomet]

I'd LOVE to see God Part II and In God's Country. And yeah both could happen, as God Part II is someone in the crews wish (Dallas or Willie? I forget.) And Bono snippeted In God's Country in Vegas and the Rose Bowl. So they are at least a blip on the radar.

I'd love Exit too.

 

[lemonfly]

Dirty Day under the Claw woulda been awesome. Ditto Mofo, D-Tech, Exit, Bullet...they had the most intimidating stage design EVAR and they decided instead to roll our their sappiest tunes. Mystifying.

 

[gvox]

DYFL would have been the single most awesome track U2 could have played with the Claw.