Glastonbury performance disappointing because of Bono's shoes?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Cactus Annie said:
How can such a smart person fall for one of U2's best PR stunt's over the last 10 years? Bono had that same back injury for 9 years and he tried everything, including seeking the help of a crank doctor from Germany. However, as witnessed by a few fans late in 2009, it was obvious that it wasn't working. Then the first 6 months of 2010 the band went an unexplained 6 month break, and no one knows why. Why didn't Bono seek medical surgery for his back then? What was he doing, knitting 30 pairs of mittens?

No. I reckon that people such as Benji and Acrobat are right to be suspicious. Yes, he had a poorly back, all right. But he also had a game plan which was to delay the next leg scheduled from June 2010 until the following year so that it coincided with the remastered version of Actung Baby.

Benji said that their would have been no risk from the fragments within the spinal cord canal, only he deflated his argument by becoming increasingly hysterical as the post went on.



Don't get me wrong. I do like Bono very much. But it that doesn't exclude him from being cunning. Michael Eavis no doubt knew this deep down because he's no wally, he's a very shrewd businessman. I met Mr Eavis in August this year when he came to reopen our Oxfam shop. He's paying for the shops rental for a year.

If Bono just had his medical procedure in January of last year and played Glastonbury 6 months latter like U2 (deceitfully) said they would, then they would have stood a better chance. It was dry and sunny last year!

Maybe Glastonbury would be a lesson to U2 that stupid game planning doesn't always succeed.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this belong in The Onion?

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: I have it on good authority the name "Bono" is no where to be found on Bono's birth certificate. Why don't you demand to see it!
 
Everybody, including U2, places WAY too much importance on Glastonbury. I thought their Glasto performance was pretty good, but 2 days later they played the best show I've ever seen them do in East Lansing. Glastonbury was one gig, and while it might not have been their best, they certainly performed well. He's just giving an excuse, like how they said POP was "unfinished", but only after everyone started hating it. U2 seems to have a very difficult time in the UK. Critics and the general public really seem to hate U2 there, and were probably orgasming at the possibility that U2 might not deliver the greatest performance anybody ever saw anybody do.

Also, regarding Terry. U2 have had additional musicians under the stage since the 80s, in some capacity. Des Broadberry did what Terry does now during Zoo TV and Popmart. I personally like the fact that it's still just the 4 of them onstage, the same way it's been since 1978 when Dick quit. I'm sure Terry doesn't mind, as he probably makes a very handsome paycheck to sit under the stage and play keyboards. During the Rosebowl dvd he did get a 30 second shot on the screen, however, with Bono awknowledging him and everything!
 
Nick66 said:
Doesn't this belong in The Onion?

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: I have it on good authority the name "Bono" is no where to be found on Bono's birth certificate. Why don't you demand to see it!
Click to expand...

He must be from KENYA!!!
 
MikeyJB said:
What I don't understand is why Bono didn't, after 4 of 5 songs realising that his shoes were wrong for the stage, speak to someone off-stage and get them to run and find him some different ones, or even wellies! Surely Bono didn't travel to Glastonbury with just one pair of stage shoes?!
Click to expand...

It's all the fans' fault. We complained about Bono's monstrous creepers for years and years until he finally threw all the creepers he had away and started to wear proper shoes. Unfortunately, these shoes turned out to be a little slippery on a wet stage. Where are these damn creepers if you need them?

:wink:


Seriously, I also don't understand why Bono didn't change his shoes, I mean, he's done it before, publicly, on a stage.
 
Back to the orginal topic,if they had to improve the set list what would you have done?they did 20 songs so heres my 20

1 where the streets have no name
2 i will follow
3 new years day
4 until the end of the world
5 mysterious ways
6 still havent found what im looking for
7 beautiful day
8 vertigo
9 desire
10 angel of harlem
11 pride
12 all i want is you
13 sunday bloody suday
14 discotheque
15 hold me thrill me kiss me kill me
16 bad
17 with or without you

Encore

18 even better then the real thing remix
19 the fly
20 one
 
I think the performance was fine (I've got it on DVD). Reviews were generally very good (even the traditionally sceptical uk press had to recognise it was a good concert).

The band are just very self-critical (it's a bit like when you read their opinions on the old albums on U2 by U2 - on every single record there's something that niggles at them) and Q magazine was blowing the issue up for drama. It think it is part of the preparing the back story for the next album.

So we shouldn't obsess about it
 
This thread confuses me, because, except for three minor musical errors, I loved the Glastonbury show.
 
toe+sneakers.jpg
 
I think that the setlist was pretty good, but I'd have done this:

1 - Even Better Than The Real Thing
2 - The Fly
3 - Mysterious Ways
4 - One
5 - Until The End of the World
6 - New Year's Day
7 - Out of Control
8 - Beautiful Day
9 - Stay (Faraway So Close)
10 - Angel of Harlem
11 - All I Want Is You
12 - Where The Streets Have No Name
13 - I Will Follow
14 - I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
15 - Get On Your Boots
16 - Vertigo
17 - Sunday Bloody Sunday
--ENCORE--
18 - Bad
19 - Pride
20 - With or Without
21 - "40"
 
santiago said:
I think the performance was fine (I've got it on DVD). Reviews were generally very good (even the traditionally sceptical uk press had to recognise it was a good concert).

The band are just very self-critical (it's a bit like when you read their opinions on the old albums on U2 by U2 - on every single record there's something that niggles at them) and Q magazine was blowing the issue up for drama. It think it is part of the preparing the back story for the next album.

So we shouldn't obsess about it
Click to expand...

I don't believe for one minute that Q have some separate agenda.

I was there and while it looked good on TV, at the event the sounds was taken away with the wind and it just wasn't very good.. I couldn't even stay to the end (this is from somebody who has travelled continents to see U2). it was a combination of things in and out of their control but it was definitely a disappointment particularly when there are so many other bands that pulled off a great performance - particularly when the sun was out! it was heartbreaking to see live. I'm sure at the front it was a blast but I was a third way up the field and it was not.
 
Of course other bands would do better if U2 have all the elements and almost everything else against them. It's unfair to compair their performance with the other ones.

I also agree that the Q writer is trying to blow this stuff up beyond proportion which is very cynical after hyping U2's Glastonbury performance for over a year. They are stirring up drama, just because the band is their old critical self, which is good, but Q is up their asses so much that they don't dare to say anything against it.

I think the whole Glastonbury thing is totally overblown. They had an amazing tour with extraordinary shows and everyone is just talking about this single performance. U2 are not a festival band, they had a lot of pressure (most of it coming from themselves), they had a lot of stress from travelling back and forth in the middle of a tough tour schedule, the weather was shitty, the audience over-critical and most of all: Not their audience, and U2 is always as good as their audience, the crowd was too far from and stage and so on and so on. I don't think there was any other band at that festival that had so many factors working against them.

I somehow wish that Glastonbury thing would never have taken place and U2 would have concentrated on their tour, because it's a shame that so many concentrate on that one performance gone wrong. Festivals are overrated anyway and U2 just aren't a festival band.
 
I think the biggest bummer about the gig is that the band cared and care so much about it. FTSD's use of it as bookends makes it seem as if it were their big coming out party, when in actuality it was just another gig, albeit to a crowd that wasn't fully their own. Perhaps I just don't fully appreciate the history or importance of Glastonbury. :shrug:

In all honesty, though, it may be good if the band feels a little disappointed. I want them to come out on the next album with a chip on their shoulder, feeling like they've got something to prove. It worked for Achtung, some on here may say it worked for ATYCLB. Of course, they'll never (hopefully) be in the same conditions that conspired to craft Achtung, so it's silly to hope that we'll ever get a second AB.

As much as I want them to crank out a new album pretty much now, I also want them to feel like they have a reason to make a killer album.
 
I was somewhat puzzled by Q's remarks about Glastonbury, but then I shouldn't be surprised really. This is also the magazine that rated POP quite highly when it was first released, and then years later marked it down considerably.
 
Fly-2000 said:
I was somewhat puzzled by Q's remarks about Glastonbury, but then I shouldn't be surprised really. This is also the magazine that rated POP quite highly when it was first released, and then years later marked it down considerably.
Click to expand...

Q also gave the glastonbury gig a 4 out of 5 rating in the official q glastonbury review. With coldplay getting a 5/5 rating

In all fairness though q are that far up u2's arse its unreal.it doesnt matter who the articles about in that mag u2 end up getting a mention
 
Saying that Glastonbury was disappointing because of Bono's shoes is like saying that some of the performances on Vertigo where Bono's voice was shot was because he was wearing the wrong glasses.
 
TheEdge25 said:
Saying that Glastonbury was disappointing because of Bono's shoes is like saying that some of the performances on Vertigo where Bono's voice was shot was because he was wearing the wrong glasses.
Click to expand...

actually, bono's vocal performance was poor because his glasses were too dark and he couldn't read the teleprompter :wink:
 
rennowba said:
Q also gave the glastonbury gig a 4 out of 5 rating in the official q glastonbury review. With coldplay getting a 5/5 rating

In all fairness though q are that far up u2's arse its unreal.it doesnt matter who the articles about in that mag u2 end up getting a mention
Click to expand...

Maybe Q is so far up U2's asses that they believe everything the band says? Bono expressed disappointment with Glasto, so Q echos it back to them. Yeah, I agree with Q writer-worshipping U2. They should rename themselves so U2 gets a namesake mag (just like the Rolling Stones :D)

This kinda makes the Q Award for Best Band of 25 years a little less sweet, huh? (but that's for another thread)

i'm getting better on calling Bono's bluff, but he did genuinely bring up his wrong shoes and 'rooted to the ice rink' issue in the immediate post-Glasto interview with Jo Whiley and Zane Lowe (this was before any of the reviews came out), so...:hmm:. Definitely was not the most comfortable performance for him, so he couldn't perform optimally, and he must have know that even before any reviews come out.
 
last unicorn said:
:up:

I think the whole conspiracy theory is just ridiculous beyond belief.

IMO, Bono would be the LAST person to cancel a show, let alone a whole tour leg because of health reasons if he feels he can do it. That alone should be prove that he was really in a lot of trouble. We should be glad he recovered well enough to actually pull the rest of the tour through instead of throwing around with theories like these. I expect U2 haters to come up with these ideas, not fans.
Click to expand...

He must be very thick indeed to put off a medical surgery for 6 months and not do anything about it. Think about it. No, I agree with what Mr Acrobat said, about the band postponing the leg of the tour until necessary. No wonder Mr Benji was suspicious. Sometimes legs have to be postponed for a very good reason. Bono choose not to have his surgery at the beginning of 2010, so when is he going to have it?

And it was minor surgery not major surgery. Major surgery is anything over 2 hours and A Stor told me that it probably took 1 hour. Major surgery permanently effects the heart and that's why I'm very nervous of it.

Can someone please tell me what the band were doing between Jan 2010 and May 2010?
 
Cactus Annie said:
Can someone please tell me what the band were doing between Jan 2010 and May 2010?
Click to expand...

They were in Xanadu where Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree: where Alph, the sacred river ran through caverns measureless to man down to a sunless sea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheWanderer
2022 subscriber gift: Achtung Baby 30 Live
3 4 5
Replies
148
Views
16K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
New U2 Stamps
Replies
7
Views
714
david
david
W
They need to use more Autotune on Bono's vocals
Replies
2
Views
2K
Weatherman
W
DaveC
Pious plonker or just misunderstood: why we should all lay off Bono
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
Axver
I'm disappointed in every tour U2 have ever done
Replies
23
Views
2K
redhill
redhill

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom