MERGED->Bad reviews of U2's concert in Chicago+Chicago dinosaur writers rip u2,again

[wizard2c]

reply

I'd have been thrilled just to be there.

Same here.

Of course, if I were there..I'd be generating some of my own special magic

 

[markoajda]

They play an average of 7 songs of 22 from two Best Of compilations.

Yes sure it's a Best Of tour.

 

[blake]

Yeah, I'm kind of in agreement with most people here. I think what strikes me most is how they are going for a rock show this time out, and not a greatest hits show. Good to see the critics are able to see that.

 

[kakvox]

Frankly, I don't care what the reviews say. I'm not even reading them. I had an amazing time Saturday night, and it doesn't matter if one person or one thousand say the show sucked. To me it was incredible, and nothing anyone says will take that away from me.

You know, what you say is very true. I was starting to feel bad about loving the u2 show on saturday. I don't think another show could top that one for me because of my front row ellipse seats. Sure, they didn't pull out any surprises, but fuck it, did I have an amazing time............

 

[If you shout...]

Sure, they didn't pull out any surprises, but fuck it, did I have an amazing time............

That's the most important thing, regardless of the reviews (of either critics or fans). I happened to agree with the negative reviews for the most part, but that doesn't mean that nobody else is entitled to like or love the show. I'm glad that people still had a great time. Saturday night was not my favorite show by a looooong shot, but it had its moments even for my grumpy ass. I'm still wicked excited about the next few nights. If nothing else, a negative review means that things can only (hopefully, at least) get better. But if you loved it, then love it--there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[japes4]

I think when people compare Chicago 1 to some of the other shows there's bound to be some let down. People's expectations go through the roof when it comes to U2 (I'm just as guilty as anyone). Everyone, however, is entitled to an off-night once in a while.

I went to the Albany show on the 1st leg of Elevation and it turned out to be one of the worst shows on the tour (the worst I had seen at least). One bad show sure didn't stop me from seeing them at MSG in the fall (one of their best ever, IMO).

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I don't worry about other's reviews anymore...it's kinda pointless. If I liked the show, that's what's important to me nowadays!! And I loved both shows I saw in April!!!

 

[MsMofoGone]

Originally posted by Aardvark747
People will think what they wanna - i'm just gonna enjoy MY gig next month.

Well said Aardvark ... go ahead, and take a for that one !!
The critics and the news reporters really disgust me with their pointless criticism in their reviews ... This is why I only save the concert photos in the newspaper ... and do NOT keep the actual newspaper article. Makes no sense why ... even when it's a spectacular show, the news critics "blast" the shows half of the time anyway !! Truthfully, I did hear some slight distortion during the Chicago 1 show ... but I would NOT criticize U2 !! The only thing that matters to me is that I enjoyed the overall concert performance and thought it was a pretty GOOD show !!

 

[U2MaNaIcWeIdO]

I think that the Chicago Critics are one of the pickest group of people in the world....they will bash anything they don't like and praise tenfold anything they do like...or they end up hugely dissapointed if something bad happens....that's what I think....not that I'm a picky Chicagoian.

 

[Bono's shades]

I read the three media reviews of the show posted at the U2 Tours site. I think everyone is over-reacting. The Des Moines Register Review was very positive, the Chicago Tribune one was somewhat mixed (the reviewer liked some parts of the show, but not all of it). Only the Sun-Times one was overly negative, and that particular writer has been very hard on U2 ever since ATYCLB. It's not like everyone is panning the show. Relax.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

So when a reviewer says a show is bad/ soso, then it always means the writer has a negative U2 agenda or hates U2? Gotcha.

 

[MsMofoGone]

Originally posted by Bono's shades
the Chicago Tribune was somewhat mixed (the reviewer liked some parts of the show, but not all of it).
It's not like everyone is panning the show.

Well, all I can say is ... "Give the Tribune time" ... as those news
reporters are usually the first to criticize rock music performances,
(and U2 is not an exception either) I would say The Sun-Times review was "no surprise" either ... I just read about half of the first paragraph while here at work, then threw the newspaper down on the lunchroom table !! Why the news reporters criticize overall, is totally beyond me !! I think they don't really care and want to stir up friction with bad press issues for anything
regarding music ... What a bunch of bull that is too !!

 

[MrBrau1]

So when a reviewer says a show is bad/ soso, then it always means the writer has a negative U2 agenda or hates U2? Gotcha.

You get it!

 

[WinnieThePoo]

maybe it was bad , after all , they are real people ,
are they ?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[indra]

I saw a band (not U2) play five shows in five nights last year and being a big fan of the band I enjoyed every single show. That said, not every one of those shows was stellar. Two were fantastic -- every band member having a great night and really playing off each other and the crowd wonderfully. One was very good, but had a few problems and didn't quite have the magic of the first two I mentioned (it was the first time I'd ever seen this band live, so it holds a special place for me anyway).

One show -- the last of the five I saw -- was in a poor venue with horrid sound and no sound check because the bands were late in arriving that day (a couple hundred miles of near blizzard conditions to drive through). And trust me it sounded as if they had no sound check, especially for the first several songs. They did give as good a show as they could under the circumstances, but with all the problems they had (they were all sick and very tired as well), objectively it couldn't be considered a great show.

And one show, which I enjoyed a whole lot, really couldn't objectively be called a success at all. One band member had technical difficulties throughout the night and became increasingly surly, finally walking offstage and leaving the venue. That pretty much ended that show. I enjoyed the banter from the other band members (and getting to talk to one for quite a while after the show ), but I know I would have been really disappointed if it had been my only show.

My point, however, is that with a band you adore, you can enjoy every show, even if it isn't one of their very best ones. But also as fans of these bands we have to realise that not everyone adores the bands we love, and sometimes they will notice and comment on errors/problems we are more apt to find charming.

Not every show is going to be utterly fantastic, but most shows do offer fans very enjoyable experiences. If you had a good time, don't worry what others think.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I think the honeymoon's over, and this is just the beginning of a critical backlash against U2. They are not performing to expectations, and they will be punished for this much like they were after Pop and Rattle and Hum.

 

[barrett]

I love U2 and have no personal agenda against them. That said, Nights 1 and 2 in Chicago are nowhere near as good as any of the 4 Elevation shows from the last Chicago visit. These critics were at those shows as well and I think it is only natural to compare.

 

[Miggy D]

DeRogatis routinely routinely rips the Stones, Springsteen, Who etc. If you and I were to start a band he'd say we are brilliant, until we made it big. Then he'd rip us. Billy Joel had to be restrained from killing this guy once.

Trust me, he had this review written before the show started.

I'm not sure about that. He seems like he's a true fan. He considers Zoo TV to be one of the best concerts ever staged, and let's not forget that U2 were huge superstars by that point. So I don't think he 'writes off' any band that makes it big. U2 was huge in 1992.

We're all fans here, but we can't simply ignore critical reviews and treat their writers like idiots. A negative review of the show is just as valid as a negative one, and keep in mind that ALL concert reviews are subjective with their own 'agendas.' A positive concert review is just as tinted by personal bias/experience as a negative one. Just because we happen to love U2 doesn't make a positive concert review more valid or "right."

We should listen to what people like this have to say because their opinions might hold some water. I've seen the Vertigo concert, and while I had a great time, I agree with this guy on several points. We have to consider that it is possible that not every single U2 concert is going to be of equal greatness. Not even the best can hit the bullseye every single shot, you know?

-Miggy D

 

[thrillme]

Huh, could it be the Chicago area critics? Granted, the guy who reviews music for the Los Angeles Times, seems kinda friends with Bono, but these guys...ouch.

Did the band seem "off" the night of those reviews. They got better reviews from their first few gigs.

 

[sv]

I must say that last night's show was a lot better than 5/7 and 3/28 (of course I was in GA last night so it's hard to compare). Bono did try to connect a bit more with the audience, although he's still much more internally focused (at the band rather than the audience) than he was during Elevation. He's also probably not in quite as good physical shape, but given that he's 45 today that's forgiveable. Everyone can't be Bruce Springsteen.

But I do feel that 5/9 still missed exactly what Kot said about 5/7: enough faith in their new music or a new concept to FEATURE it during the show. Although they played 7 new songs, it's quite clear that what they're excited about NOW is playing their old songs for a new generation audience. And rehashing old live concepts: the word barrage during Zoo Station, etc. And that, as Kot says, is the first step in the slippery slope of becoming the Rolling Stones jukebox. By no means are U2 there yet, but for the very first time I see a lack of innovation.

 

[kellyahern]

But I do feel that 5/9 still missed exactly what Kot said about 5/7: enough faith in their new music or a new concept to FEATURE it during the show. Although they played 7 new songs, it's quite clear that what they're excited about NOW is playing their old songs for a new generation audience.

I think they feature the new songs quite well (LAPOE on the ellipse with Bono and Larry, then Bono on the drums, that's a great moment, imho). Vertigo has great energy, SYMIOYO is very moving, ABOY re-energizes the crowd for the encore. I don't sense that they're more excited for the old songs vs. the new songs

 

[Flying FuManchu]

You get it!

Good. I don't want to cause any waves.

 

[AMYLU2]

Ever notice how some people have names that describe their personalities?

DEROGATIS sounds a lot like DEROGATORY in this case. I'm willing to bet this guy's good reviews are few and far between.

 

[ayearwome]

I love U2 and have no personal agenda against them. That said, Nights 1 and 2 in Chicago are nowhere near as good as any of the 4 Elevation shows from the last Chicago visit. These critics were at those shows as well and I think it is only natural to compare.

I was at all of the Elevation shows in Chicago and the 2 so far in Chicago on this tour.

These 2 shows were better by a significant margin!

 

[tilen]

I agree with Kot to a large degree. The shows are U2 shows, which only a handful of artists in rock history can match. But U2 comes way short of achieving its potential in these shows.

I preface by saying that I've now seen 2 Vertigo shows (including Chicago 5/7) and a total of 40 shows including prior tours.

On a technical level, the songs are brilliantly played and the three instrumentalists are very tight. But a few things are missing:

1. The band are not selling us anything new, and the new songs do not seem "exciting" or sonically "new" enough to truly inspire the band. This IS a greatest-hits set, minus With or Without You and I Still Haven't Found, sprinkled with a few new songs.

2. Bono's energy seems directed internally at the band rather than at the audience. This, combined with the absence of the band's traditional acoustic "B-stage" set, results in a relative lack of emotional depth to the show. At Elevation, I remember tears welling up in my eyes at several times during the shows (though I will admit that this is subjective and influenced by many factors) and there was a sincerity/vulnerability about Bono's poise that was very touching. Not enough "soul" this time around.

3. SBS sounds great musically, but the attempt to re-infuse it with political vigor does not succeed in my view. Similarly, Bullet doesn't do a thing anymore.

Again, >95% of the audience WILL love these shows because they get to hear the big songs played well. But many more discerning fans, I think, will find something missing.

Sadly, but i must agree with all 3 paragraphs....I am scared that 3 bought tickets for european shows won't be as enjoyable as Elevation tour!!
Where is Bono's connection to the audience? Yes, he's 45 today (happy b'day,bono), but Elevation is far more better in all aspects,IMO: the singing, the feelings, the sound, the playing!

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Sadly, but i must agree with all 3 paragraphs....I am scared that 3 bought tickets for european shows won't be as enjoyable as Elevation tour!!
Where is Bono's connection to the audience? Yes, he's 45 today (happy b'day,bono), but Elevation is far more better in all aspects,IMO: the singing, the feelings, the sound, the playing!

lol you class bono's voice better during the elevation tour than this current tour?, of course your entitled to your opinion, but thats one thing most people have to agree on is that he is actually SINGING this time around, and now just shouting, but hey each to his own, if you guys wanna be critical and let it spoil your experience rather than just go with no thoughts at all and have a good time then thats upto you,


if your worried just sell your tickets to someone that was locked out? simple

 

[tilen]

hey all i'm saying u2 is like a myth to me, and if that fails---don't know what!HTDAAB has higher notes, you're right, but the songs will never be remembered as JT's or the 80's period!But we have to live in presence, right?!

 

[mdonal01]

Chicago May 9 IMO...

It was a great show but not "religious" like my experiences at Fall Chicago Elevation show and my first show in 1985. Admittedly, I was next to the stage for both shows versus excellent seats for this one.

Here are some of my thoughts:
* Elevation Fall 2001 was right after 9/11. We NEEDED U2 and you could feel that in the show (esp during scrolling of victim names)
* I suspect there was a higher energy level in the Elevation heart because you had to wait 12+ hours to "prove" your worthiness to be there. The elipse looked a little subdued...but I was not in there.
* RTSS was an odd dedication to troops. I found the rendition flat compared to the previous tours. I like it acoustic and Bono's overly dramatic "shooting up." It usually gives me chills.
* I really missed Bono running around the heart during WTSHNN. That was so awesome.
* The light curtains were distracting from side seats.
* Personally, I prefer the acoustic Fly version
* Audience was lame on 40 (me included)
* I LOVED hearing An Cat Dubh live!!! A highlight of my U2 experiences.
* I would have liked to have heard Kite, Stuck, Walk On instead of some of the older songs that get played every tour.

Can't wait for my Fall GA experiences. I am sure the set list will be changed by then.

 

[tilen]

Re: Chicago May 9 IMO...

It was a great show but not "religious" like my experiences at Fall Chicago Elevation show and my first show in 1985. Admittedly, I was next to the stage for both shows versus excellent seats for this one.

Here are some of my thoughts:
* Elevation Fall 2001 was right after 9/11. We NEEDED U2 and you could feel that in the show (esp during scrolling of victim names)
* I suspect there was a higher energy level in the Elevation heart because you had to wait 12+ hours to "prove" your worthiness to be there. The elipse looked a little subdued...but I was not in there.
* RTSS was an odd dedication to troops. I found the rendition flat compared to the previous tours. I like it acoustic and Bono's overly dramatic "shooting up." It usually gives me chills.
* I really missed Bono running around the heart during WTSHNN. That was so awesome.
* The light curtains were distracting from side seats.
* Personally, I prefer the acoustic Fly version
* Audience was lame on 40 (me included)
* I LOVED hearing An Cat Dubh live!!! A highlight of my U2 experiences.
* I would have liked to have heard Kite, Stuck, Walk On instead of some of the older songs that get played every tour.

Can't wait for my Fall GA experiences. I am sure the set list will be changed by then.

i would also much rather hear Kite,Stay,Walk On,WOWY and Bono showing a bit more energy on WTSHNN! Those songs are soooo sparkling...

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Re: Re: Chicago May 9 IMO...

i would also much rather hear Kite,Stay,Walk On,WOWY and Bono showing a bit more energy on WTSHNN! Those songs are soooo sparkling...

yep lets make the setlist the same as elevation? you would be happy then right?