Lovetown: what a tour it must've been!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I was at acouple of the Dutch shows, they were incredible. Only wish I'd been at some of the Oz shows where they played Hawkmoon 1st!
 
Some great setlists on this tour. Plus, it is one of the few tours where U2 were actually playing at their best at the beginning of a tour. Typically they take a month to really get rolling but not the case here.

One of their most popular tours from a fan perspective. It is interesting that the band themselves were miserable on this tour. I think it fueled some aggressive performances as a result.
 
One of their most popular tours from a fan perspective. It is interesting that the band themselves were miserable on this tour. I think it fueled some aggressive performances as a result.

It seems to me that U2 typically do their best work when they're either miserable or have their backs against the wall.

Meanwhile, when they're comfortable, we get HTDAAB.
 
It is interesting that the band themselves were miserable on this tour.
I personally don't believe the band's mild revisionism of their history as much as you do. I'm sure they had a great time on tour in 1989. They were probably a bit directionless, music-wise, and were slightly aware of it, but overall I would bet they had a lot of fun in '89.
 
I personally don't believe the band's mild revisionism of their history as much as you do. I'm sure they had a great time on tour in 1989. They were probably a bit directionless, music-wise, and were slightly aware of it, but overall I would bet they had a lot of fun in '89.

Facts:
Edge going through a divorce
Bono having the worst vocal problems of his career
Adam coming off a drug bust where he was lucky he got a passport for the tour
Larry unhappy with being a greatest hits "jukebox" at the time (this is a funny comment now) but this was an interview back in 1989, I remember reading it.

Sounds like a party! Maybe not miserable, but one of the bands least enjoyable tours. How is that? I dont think that is revisionist history. I'm going on what they said back at the time and say now and what was going on with each band member personally at the time. I love how fans, think they know more than the band about how they were feeling when the band says this is how it was. Seriously?
 
It seems to me that U2 typically do their best work when they're either miserable or have their backs against the wall.

Meanwhile, when they're comfortable, we get HTDAAB.

Well, there's also JT when it was none of the above.
It has more to do with how inspired the songwriters are; in which case Bono stepped up with NLOTH while Edge has been rehashing his past on the past two albums.

HTDAAB had two band members vetoing the Thomas sessions. Comfortable ? :shrug:
 
Well, there's also JT when it was none of the above.

Look up the definition of "typically" compared to "always" and get back to me.

On second thoughts, don't get back to me. But check those definitions.
 
And of course, there's a difference between being comfortable in their musical explorations and being comfortable with recording the songs. I'm gonna go out on a limb and state you were thinking of the former.
 
Amazing videos indeed! Emotion, rawness, a band on fire: it has it all!
 
About time we get some official video from this era!

Ironic that we love this tour to bits but the band were unhappy. Just take all your setlist dreams and flush them down the toilet...
 
who still says U2 live now in 2012 is better than 89????

blind or deaf for sure....:reject:

I do. More songs I like, band sure don't look much like hobo's anymore, and the bstages are pretty damn nice too.

Last time I checked my sight and hearing were still above average.
 
Which leg of 360 had a B stage? ;) The hobo look rocks!! :wink:

Well the outside rail, catwalk, walkway whatever you want to call it is essentially a b-stage. A way to get closer to the crowd, to be in the crowd. That whole idea is brilliant. Sure, they had a smaller sorta b-stage thing on JT and LT tours, but nowhere this brilliant. You reach out to so many more people this way.
 
I do. More songs I like, band sure don't look much like hobo's anymore, and the bstages are pretty damn nice too.

Two out of three of these have nothing to do with music. Quite telling actually.
 
How do they not?

Isn't it about the whole experience, rather than just the music? To me, the experience got better, and to actually have the 90s music is a rather large improvement to me. In fact, if I had to pick a decade of U2 and only be able to listen to that decade, it'd be the 90s.
 
Meh. I couldn't care less about all the technology. The best shows I've been to have been smaller shows where the bands played really well on their own and didn't rely on visuals and gimmickry. I'd take 1989 U2 live in a small club with zero of that in whatever they want to wear over now. Easy. No contest. Because in the end, it's about music. Or there'd be no U2. And U2 was at the top of its game musically in the late 80s. Bono was his most passionate. Edge played the hell out of songs and didn't rely on wonky effects (just overdrive, delay, and reverb mostly).
 
the tourist said:
Meh. I couldn't care less about all the technology. The best shows I've been to have been smaller shows where the bands played really well on their own and didn't rely on visuals and gimmickry. I'd take 1989 U2 live in a small club with zero of that in whatever they want to wear over now. Easy. No contest. Because in the end, it's about music. Or there'd be no U2. And U2 was at the top of its game musically in the late 80s. Bono was his most passionate. Edge played the hell out of songs and didn't rely on wonky effects (just overdrive, delay, and reverb mostly).

Well obviously you weren't looking at Bono's pants often enough.
 
Meh. I couldn't care less about all the technology. The best shows I've been to have been smaller shows where the bands played really well on their own and didn't rely on visuals and gimmickry. I'd take 1989 U2 live in a small club with zero of that in whatever they want to wear over now. Easy. No contest. Because in the end, it's about music. Or there'd be no U2. And U2 was at the top of its game musically in the late 80s. Bono was his most passionate. Edge played the hell out of songs and didn't rely on wonky effects (just overdrive, delay, and reverb mostly).

I could not agree with this more.
 
Well the outside rail, catwalk, walkway whatever you want to call it is essentially a b-stage. A way to get closer to the crowd, to be in the crowd. That whole idea is brilliant. Sure, they had a smaller sorta b-stage thing on JT and LT tours, but nowhere this brilliant. You reach out to so many more people this way.

Actually JT and LT did not have any type of B stage. That started for U2 on the indoor Zoo tour in 92. The Lovetown stage was even smaller than the JT stage actually. They eliminated the back stage ramp and riser that was there for JT. Bono had walkways/catwalks out to the sides of the PA stacks for the JT and LT stadium shows, but there was no B stage.

;) I was sort of joking with you anyway about the 360 B stage comment, I knew what you meant.
 
Hmmm,

Option A:


3274196d.jpg


a6f101f9.jpg


Option B

U2_360_tour_stage_Zagreb_2.jpg



While option B is cool I think I would pick option A if push came to shove. Although it is really apples to oranges.
 
Back
Top Bottom