Glastonbury-3 Years on!

[mama cass]

Just out of interest could the band see the massive balloon tax protest thing from the stage?

I couldnt see it from were i was cause i didnt really look behind me but looking at the footage of it, it didnt seem like it was to far back.


Boing Boing Baggies Baggies

maybe that was it - he probably thought everyone would sling mud at him if he went too near, proper Glastonbury style

 

[domo-kun]

Just out of interest could the band see the massive balloon tax protest thing from the stage?

I couldnt see it from were i was cause i didnt really look behind me but looking at the footage of it, it didnt seem like it was to far back.


Boing Boing Baggies Baggies

It was too far back in the field, and only half inflated before it was taken down again by the security.
Tried to keep an eye out for it during the set. To have a laugh at the poor souls, putting it but nobody saw it.

They didnt get their 15 minutes of fame and they cried for the next few weeks .

 

[rennowba]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D2hBGtQtDzA

Great video of the opening from the pit. People down the front were really into it.

 

[SBU2]

The obvious reasons aside that of course effected the performance, does anybody agree it was simply a matter of them performing 10 years too late?

Roll back to 2000-2001. ATYCLB was a huge success commercially, especially Beautiful Day, and the band seemed to be as relevant as they'd ever been. I'd absolutely guarantee if they'd had headlined in 2001, they'd have smashed it. The Slane Castle performance assures me of that. Huge field, 80,000 people... Similar environment to Glastonbury, all be it the Slane Castle performance was of course a U2 audience, in Ireland.

I maybe alone in this, but it just felt like the band didn't have the fight or confidence to smash back three years back. The protests etc of course didn't help, and the fact they were completely out of their comfort zone probably explained the lack of confidence. I'm not even sure confidence is the right word to use, but all the signs were there that they themselves knew they were up against it. You had Bono glancing down to his left for the lyrics at least once on 50% of the songs, which even by Bono's standards for remembering lyrics, was a sign of just how nervous he was. None of the band looked comfortable at any stage of the show, and it appeared to transmit to portions of the audience, both on the field and on TV, myself included.

I remember wondering after the show finished whether it was just myself who shared the opinion that it was a messy performance, however before I had chance to observe, the band were admitting it themselves in a back-stage interview, to their credit.

It is a shame they didn't smash it. Some will disagree, in the sense that 'who cares if they didn't', but I remember before the show having that sense of 'Come on lads, show the world and everybody watching once again exactly why you're the best of the best', and they simply didn't/couldn't, unfortunately.

Weather issues, sound issues, protests issues aside, I still believe it was 10 years too late...

 

[lemonfly]

U2 is clearly well known for not caring what people think. To suggest they might start that now is ... naive at best.

They altered the entire trajectory of their career, not once but twice because they cared what people thought of them. I'm struggling to think of another mainstream band that need public acceptance and approval as much as U2 do. They just can't get enough of that lovey dovey stuff.

 

[gareth brown]

excellent post SBU2, you're definitely right saying U2 playing the festival in 2001 would have been something else entirely. it definitely is a shame that it never happened because back then they were at yet another fantastic stage in their career with ATYCLB, which they haven't managed to match and probably never will again, sadly.

I was 12/13 at the time of that tour and remember being religiously into the band so it may be rose tinted specs or just being young and not aware but I don't really remember when the 'hatred' of U2 got quite so strong between that album and HTDAAB, so it feels to me like that was the last chance they could have played it without quite such a strong opposition to it. any headliner gets people moaning but the response to U2 was just something else, that's just what they get these days.

it doesn't matter that the 360 was one of the best they've ever done, after that last great peak in 2000-2001 any time they'd end up playing glastonbury they'd find everything stacked against them. Bono irks a lot of people, the tax thing certainly pissed a lot of people off and if you want to be really uncharitable you can argue the last two albums just aren't that great or at least didn't grab people the way ATYCLB did. so, combined with shit weather, a small minority baying for blood and a spooked band, they never really stood a chance!

however, I enjoyed a lot of it, even if I had sunstroke, felt like shit and, from the moment they fucked up Real Thing at the very start, knew it wasn't going to be pretty bad on the whole. it was great to see them at my favourite festival but yeah it just wasn't good enough for various reasons and had they done it sooner it would have been a whole different story. we can say 'what if?' til the cows come home but part of me genuinely hopes they'll come back to 'put things right'. unlikely though.

 

[BVS]

Why stop there? We could play the what if they played it in ______ game.

And fill in the blank with 87, 91, 97, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[bono_man2002]

I'll play the before the Vertigo Tour card. Like a one off show in 2003 or something.

 

[U2387]

excellent post SBU2, you're definitely right saying U2 playing the festival in 2001 would have been something else entirely. it definitely is a shame that it never happened because back then they were at yet another fantastic stage in their career with ATYCLB, which they haven't managed to match and probably never will again, sadly.

I was 12/13 at the time of that tour and remember being religiously into the band so it may be rose tinted specs or just being young and not aware but I don't really remember when the 'hatred' of U2 got quite so strong between that album and HTDAAB, so it feels to me like that was the last chance they could have played it without quite such a strong opposition to it. any headliner gets people moaning but the response to U2 was just something else, that's just what they get these days.

it doesn't matter that the 360 was one of the best they've ever done, after that last great peak in 2000-2001 any time they'd end up playing glastonbury they'd find everything stacked against them. Bono irks a lot of people, the tax thing certainly pissed a lot of people off and if you want to be really uncharitable you can argue the last two albums just aren't that great or at least didn't grab people the way ATYCLB did. so, combined with shit weather, a small minority baying for blood and a spooked band, they never really stood a chance!

however, I enjoyed a lot of it, even if I had sunstroke, felt like shit and, from the moment they fucked up Real Thing at the very start, knew it wasn't going to be pretty bad on the whole. it was great to see them at my favourite festival but yeah it just wasn't good enough for various reasons and had they done it sooner it would have been a whole different story. we can say 'what if?' til the cows come home but part of me genuinely hopes they'll come back to 'put things right'. unlikely though.

GREAT POSTS, YOU AND SBU2!!

This probably depends on geographic location and a number of other factors, but I wasn't aware of any kind of U2 backlash until the fall of 2006.

I live in the Boston area and started school in Burlington, VT in Fall 2005. That October, I saw my first U2 show, Vertigo in Boston. I remember all of the kids I went to school with being jealous of the fact that I was going to see U2. U2 seemed so popular, on the heels of ATYCLB and then HTDAAB, which was a huge commercial success too, of course. I just took it as Gospel, didn't question it. And of course, I always loved them and did even more so after seeing them live.

I distinctly remember U2 being on Conan O'Brien a few days after that Vertigo show in Boston and a girl who my roomate and I knew stopped by to talk. I told her casually that U2 were going to be on Conan in a few minutes and I was waiting for that to start. Her response "I don't really like U2." I was floored- I had honestly never heard anyone say they didn't like U2.

Then came the summer of 2006 and the grumblings about "tax evasion." Bullshit charge, but a discussion I've exhausted here for years and won't entertain again. I remember the Fall of 2006 there was a full blown backlash. Suddenly, I knew a lot of people who disliked U2.

Now of course, I and I am sure many others here, feel like a minority as U2 fans.

Hope the tables turn sometime soon.

But that won't happen until, as others have pointed out, U2 regain the confidence they used to have in themselves.

 

[rennowba]

I do think the band would have gone down better as a whole in 2001 as the u2 hate camp hadnt started and all this anti bono thing was at its minimum

But this is u2 were talking about some of the 360 shows were amazing, they still have it. They should of nailed it in my opinion

The rolling stones did it in 2013 and blew everyone away,macca did it in 2004 and was brilliant,stevie wonder did it, the boss did it and this year metallica. All these artists are around the same age or alot older and they were all excellent.

I think they missed a chance with this show( in the uk anyway) like i said it wasnt bad it was good,it just didnt live up to expectations.

 

[digitize]

It probably didn't help matters that Glastonbury was right in the middle of a tour leg on the other side of the Atlantic, and there was probably a bit of jetlag going on.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So U2 are not as good when they are out of their element. It's the band's biggest fault. It's one if the reasons why this album is taking so long. It's why they'll never have a rotating set list.

They need to feel comfortable. When they aren't, they aren't as good... especially as they get further along into their careers.

It's okay to say U2 have faults. They don't have to be the greatest at everything.

As for the "well it sounded good on TV" thing... Yea, it did. But it may have looked and sounded better on TV, because, ya know, TV. Springsteen finished Twist and Shout with McCartney on TV during Hard Rock Live (it was pouring there, too... didn't seem to effect the show). In reality the sound was cut off mid song. TV and live use different mixes.

 

[rennowba]

I have a glasto bootleg cd and apart from ebttrt and the begining of streets ( which was also cocked up) it sounds really good. Bono's voice sounded fantastic aswell.

It came across well on tv aswell i thought.

The lads i stood next to at the gig were blown away by them.all they kept saying was "wow,wow,wow" and all the way through they debated if u2 were better then muse live. U2 won with them.

Some lads i know who watched it on tv were also blown away. My one friend who i grew up with never liked u2 that much but he couldnt stop going on about how good they was.

So some people thought it was excellent.

 

[Moser]

I thought it was great, and it's one of my favorite performances to re-watch.

 

[domo-kun]

The director and camera team did an amazing job in capturing the gig, especially in the shite conditions. It captured the gig better than anyone up front could actually see.
Hence it gives one the feeling that that everything was better on the broadcast. (It WAS!)

Mainly because of the rain, aaaand the ginormous gap between front row and the stage. ( First time I've seen such a distance between the crowd and a stage.. This , my guess, bothered the band as well.

Needles to say I loved to be there, the visuals Damian hirst made fot EBTTRT where mindboggling.
The Fly, was one of my favorite performances ever. And finally seeing Out of Control live made it special for me.

^ Yes I know, might not be very special seeing OOC live. But I've only been seeing U2 since 360. Never got it in the EU gigs I attended.

 

[Irvine511]

It's okay to say U2 have faults. They don't have to be the greatest at everything.

 

[gareth brown]

Why stop there? We could play the what if they played it in ______ game.

And fill in the blank with 87, 91, 97, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

heh. i see what you're trying to do but it's not completely outrageous to suggest 2001 would have been a better time for the band to play the festival.
And despite that, who's to say they would have even wanted to?? It's not until the last decade or so that the festival's really gone after (or managed to convince) the BIG headliners. As in top of the heap in terms of "legacy" etc.

I know all the headliners of the 80s and 90s are big names but they're certainly not up there with McCartney, Springsteen, The Who, Stones etc. All huge, dare I say, 'heritage' acts that I doubt would have played any time before the last decade when the festival was incredibly popular (with a bit more "indie cred" than today) but doesn't seem to have had the clout to get someone like (again) McCartney to come and play.

Bowie's a bit of a different story for obvious reasons but it's not until sometime into the 2000's that you started getting all these 'heavyweight' acts turning up to headline the festival. The festival's a lot different to what it used to be (to some people's understandable fury ) there's no denying that the festival's certainly a lot more gentrified and "middle class" than it was in 15-20 years ago, and now it seems like a shrewd business move for an act like The Rolling Stones or U2 to come and play as much as it is a case of them going "oh yeah we ALWAYS wanted to play here...!"

I mean, even with the festivals Greenpeace/CND links etc and that, I really doubt you'd have seen them wanting to pop to worthy farm in 1992 during Zoo TV to headline alongside Carter USM, Shakespeare's Sister and Youssou N'Dour and fucking awesome as it would have been, a Popmart stop-off at Glastonbury in 97 wouldn't have worked either, it's not unfair to say they were still pretty out of the band's league.

why do I type so much? and that's a rhetorical question!!

 

[rennowba]

heh. i see what you're trying to do but it's not completely outrageous to suggest 2001 would have been a better time for the band to play the festival.
And despite that, who's to say they would have even wanted to?? It's not until the last decade or so that the festival's really gone after (or managed to convince) the BIG headliners. As in top of the heap in terms of "legacy" etc.

I know all the headliners of the 80s and 90s are big names but they're certainly not up there with McCartney, Springsteen, The Who, Stones etc. All huge, dare I say, 'heritage' acts that I doubt would have played any time before the last decade when the festival was incredibly popular (with a bit more "indie cred" than today) but doesn't seem to have had the clout to get someone like (again) McCartney to come and play.

Bowie's a bit of a different story for obvious reasons but it's not until sometime into the 2000's that you started getting all these 'heavyweight' acts turning up to headline the festival. The festival's a lot different to what it used to be (to some people's understandable fury ) there's no denying that the festival's certainly a lot more gentrified and "middle class" than it was in 15-20 years ago, and now it seems like a shrewd business move for an act like The Rolling Stones or U2 to come and play as much as it is a case of them going "oh yeah we ALWAYS wanted to play here...!"

I mean, even with the festivals Greenpeace/CND links etc and that, I really doubt you'd have seen them wanting to pop to worthy farm in 1992 during Zoo TV to headline alongside Carter USM, Shakespeare's Sister and Youssou N'Dour and fucking awesome as it would have been, a Popmart stop-off at Glastonbury in 97 wouldn't have worked either, it's not unfair to say they were still pretty out of the band's league.

why do I type so much? and that's a rhetorical question!!

Great points mate,glastonbury has 100% changed since they put the big wall up.

Glastonbury in the 90's was an indie/dance/hippy fesitval which the mainstream didnt really look at.

Now its the "in thing"to be seen at glastonbury and the headliners are huge house hold names. The media are all over it and getting tickets is like winning the lotto.

U2 wouldnt have fitted in at glastonbury in the 1990's. Infact come to think of it with the people that use to go to the festival back then (mainly people who just walked in)they would have gone down alot worse then they did in 2011.

There wasnt a festival in 2001 but the headliners in 2002 were the sterephonics,coldplay and rod stewart. In 2003 its was rem,radiohead and moby. So i think they could of pulled it off in those years.

Still a special place though,i first went in 2004 and i went in 07/08/11. Im going try and go next year i think. If anybodys thinking about doing it "do it"

 

[BVS]

heh. i see what you're trying to do but it's not completely outrageous to suggest 2001 would have been a better time for the band to play the festival.
And despite that, who's to say they would have even wanted to?? It's not until the last decade or so that the festival's really gone after (or managed to convince) the BIG headliners. As in top of the heap in terms of "legacy" etc.

I know all the headliners of the 80s and 90s are big names but they're certainly not up there with McCartney, Springsteen, The Who, Stones etc. All huge, dare I say, 'heritage' acts that I doubt would have played any time before the last decade when the festival was incredibly popular (with a bit more "indie cred" than today) but doesn't seem to have had the clout to get someone like (again) McCartney to come and play.

Bowie's a bit of a different story for obvious reasons but it's not until sometime into the 2000's that you started getting all these 'heavyweight' acts turning up to headline the festival. The festival's a lot different to what it used to be (to some people's understandable fury ) there's no denying that the festival's certainly a lot more gentrified and "middle class" than it was in 15-20 years ago, and now it seems like a shrewd business move for an act like The Rolling Stones or U2 to come and play as much as it is a case of them going "oh yeah we ALWAYS wanted to play here...!"

I mean, even with the festivals Greenpeace/CND links etc and that, I really doubt you'd have seen them wanting to pop to worthy farm in 1992 during Zoo TV to headline alongside Carter USM, Shakespeare's Sister and Youssou N'Dour and fucking awesome as it would have been, a Popmart stop-off at Glastonbury in 97 wouldn't have worked either, it's not unfair to say they were still pretty out of the band's league.

why do I type so much? and that's a rhetorical question!!

No, my point is why play the revisionist history game? I guess I just don't get it. It's like saying don't you think Jordan would have brought home the title if he played in 94? Who knows when a player, a band, a comedian, or a racer is going to have a bad night? Every band and superstar athlete has had one, we can't predict them. So it just seemed odd to me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[gareth brown]

it's only speculation. anything could have gone wrong in 2001 just as it arguably did in 2011. I just think it's an interesting thing to discuss, like how well it may or may not have gone down in 2010 if they'd made it. it may be a bit pointless yeah, the gig's been and gone (doesn't feel like 3 years!!) but I still think it's an interesting point SBU2 brought up.

revisionist history can be found in the credits of From The Sky Down with the Real Thing cock-up fixed and the gig looking like it's off to a flying start

 

[KEVIN051269]

I went to Glasto in 1995, it seemed a lot smaller back then, were U2 'too big' at that time to headline? Possibly? Were they too 'uncool'? I'm not so sure? The pyramid stage had The Cure, Simple Minds, Page and Plant, Black Crowes to name but a few and this was at the height of Brit Pop.

I'm not really sure of the timeline. But did the emergence of the the big hitters headlining coincide with the extended coverage on the BBC?

revisionist history can be found in the credits of From The Sky Down with the Real Thing cock-up fixed and the gig looking like it's off to a flying start

They also edited out the bit where the bands helicopter was guided in by your beaming bonce

 

[rennowba]

I went to Glasto in 1995, it seemed a lot smaller back then, were U2 'too big' at that time to headline? Possibly? Were they too 'uncool'? I'm not so sure? The pyramid stage had The Cure, Simple Minds, Page and Plant, Black Crowes to name but a few and this was at the height of Brit Pop.



I'm not really sure of the timeline. But did the emergence of the the big hitters headlining coincide with the extended coverage on the BBC?











They also edited out the bit where the bands helicopter was guided in by your beaming bonce

Well in 2003 it was rem,radiohead and moby but in 2004 it was oasis,muse and Paul McCartney

I think it was the Paul McCartney gig that started the ball rolling for the big hitters. 2005 was coldplay and kylie( had to cancel) 2007 the who 2008 the big jay z headline show 2009 neil young,the boss and blur, 2010 stevie wonder (should of been u2) muse 2011 u2 coldplay beyonce 2013 rolling stones 2014 metallica (prince pulled out at the last minute)

 

[popacrobat]

It's okay to say U2 have faults. They don't have to be the greatest at everything

 

[SBU2]

Nice to see my post has brought up some really good and interesting points amongst use.

Also worth noting, had they headlined in the early 2000's, the setlist would likely have been stronger too, with the assumption they would have chosen a similar setlist to the Elevation tour. Imagine Elevation opening Glastonbury, followed by Beautiful Day & then Until The End Of The World. It would have been a solid epic opening to the show. Not to forget Bad/All I Want Is You transitioning into Streets, & Walk On (when it was played with two gutairs & actual passion) closing the show. Fair enough, Bono's voice ten years ago wasn't in great condition, but the band as a whole seemed in such solid consistent form. There was also that sense of, you could have thrown them into any unfamiliar environment back then, and they'd have smashed it. Superbowl being an example. Like I previously said, I always look to the Slane Castle show and think 'This is what U2 headlining Glastonbury could/should have been'...

Though I agree the band still 'has it', as the 360 tour shown, I do believe it was always a risk them headlining Glastonbury now their past their peak, which is fair to say. I say this with the hope of avoiding comparisons, but you seen the following night three years ago with Coldplay, a band who were right at their peak, completely smashing it. Though of course it's worth mentioning they've played at Glastonbury a fair few times now however. Not to forget too, as mentioned by a few others, acts past their peak have headlined and still nailed it aswell, so maybe my point isn't that valid.

It's just a bloody shame the bands performance three years ago was so below par, and almost misleading as to what the band are capable of live. It's far from a performance that will define their career though, we know that, and maybe such criticism is only coming from the die-hard fans like ourselves who know their capable of better. I'm hoping and assuming to the majority watching, it was an enjoyable and relatively solid performance.

I would like to see them headline again, but at the same time, they aren't get any younger either, which makes the chances of them smashing it, possibly slimmer. There was a time and place for U2 to headline Glastonbury, sadly it wasn't 2011, instead, probably the early 2000's...

 

[gareth brown]

They also edited out the bit where the bands helicopter was guided in by your beaming bonce

hahahaha you bastard, I was thinking about you guys earlier actually, I couldn't remember the usernames of anyone i met in person so thanks for that...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I wipe my ass with the phrase "heritage act"

 

[digitize]

Everyone deserves to be reminded of how amazing this is:

Muse - Where The Streets Have No Name (feat. The Edge) live @ Glastonbury 2010 - YouTube

 

[jeevey]

Edge. Rocking it like a boss.

 

[LemonMelon]

It's okay to say U2 have faults. They don't have to be the greatest at everything.

Great. Now U2 is going to get all insecure and eat themselves to oblivion.

 

[djerdap]

Or not release a new album for 5+ years.

Oh wait.