Has the Internet taken away from the live experience?

[zonelistener]

So...I have recently started reading the setlist threads...

I am under the impression that it is really easy for people to judge a show by the setlist, when in reality it could be U2's BEST SHOW EVER...but you would never know from the whining in these threads.

Back in the old days...before theInternet and cell phones with text messaging, you would have NO clue that U2 was playing a similar set list (if not the same one) every night. You would go to the concert...and think: "This is AMAZING. I just saw my all time favorite band. Sure, I wish they would have played Exit or TripThuYourWires...but what an amazing experience."

Now, we go to the show expecting something "special" - something that the last three cities didn't have.

So, my question is...has the technology of the moment degraded the concert experience?

 

[VertigoGal]

I havent seen a U2 concert yet, but I'd have to say yes. You'd probably appreciate it the most if you had no idea what was coming next or what they played in every other city. But it's not enough that'd I'd give up the blue crack.

 

[discothequeLP]

knowing the setlist. I was at Anaheim 1 earlier this year, and even though it was just the 3rd night of the tour, and the setlist was mixed up a bit, i still had a pretty good idea of what was going to be played, and I was really dissapointed not to see Electric Co. or An Cat Dubh/Into the Heart, which I knew had been played in San Diego.



but i did get the boot a couple days later

 

[ramblin rose]

Yeah, I think so. I remember during Elevation people were really touchy about even having spoilers in the thread titles. I think for this tour everyone was just so excited to have U2 on tour that the thought of waiting for your show to find out they were playing went out the window.

I've had absolutely no self control. I had promised myself that I would not read the rehearsal setlist before SD 1. I lasted about an hour.

 

[oktobergirl]

This answer can be so convoluted. I voted yes, but you know, it's so weird. Before i was on the internet, I had only seen one U2 show per tour. I think if you allow yourself to come back and look at each nights' setlist, what the show is like, before your show, then yeah, it takes away from it.

I've been looking so far this 3rd leg, but I fly to NY next week for the Sat night show, and I've told myself I'm NOT going to peek from now until then.
And that is going to be torture!

 

[unosdostres14]

Yeah like all of the crazy political stunts and stuff that Bono does would be so much more shocking if we didn't hear about them or see them before.

Like the whole COEXIST stuff would be absolutely mind-blowing

 

[JOFO]

without a doubt; the internet is great for alot of things......but it was 1000% better when there wasn't one and you saw your favorite band live after not seeing them for a few years for the first time without setlist parties, mp3's, setlists, etc. etc.



bring back 1989!!!!!!!

 

[arw]

So...I have recently started reading the setlist threads...

I am under the impression that it is really easy for people to judge a show by the setlist, when in reality it could be U2's BEST SHOW EVER...but you would never know from the whining in these threads.

Back in the old days...before theInternet and cell phones with text messaging, you would have NO clue that U2 was playing a similar set list (if not the same one) every night. You would go to the concert...and think: "This is AMAZING. I just saw my all time favorite band. Sure, I wish they would have played Exit or TripThuYourWires...but what an amazing experience."

Now, we go to the show expecting something "special" - something that the last three cities didn't have.

So, my question is...has the technology of the moment degraded the concert experience?

I'm tired of all of the complaining comments. The "this setlist sucks" comments. I've personally never been to a U2 show that sucked. No matter what they play I'm going to enjoy myself.

This weekend I went to 2 shows. Minneapolis: Electric Co- The Edge was on fire during that song. He was completely freaking out on ellipse. I've never seen him get that animated at a show that I've been to during that song. Miss Sarajevo-Bono's voice gave me chills and I almost had to sit down to compose myself.

Milwaukee: Sunday Bloody Sunday-some comments about news Northern Ireland was made by Bono. He took an Irish Flag from the audience and explained what he used to do with it. The energy in that song was so different because he changed his comments from "coexist" to Ireland. That tiny little change completely changed the tone of the song for me as it's become over the last few months and made it even more awesome than it is. Where the Streets Have No Name-the entire crowd in my area was freaking out. It was just an awesome performance and probably my favorite of the tour.

I basically got the same setlist both nights, with the exception of hearing Crumbs for the one and only time so far, and I had the time of my life both shows. I didn't have the same feelings for Electric Co and Miss Sarajevo last night that I had on Friday but I'm still glad they played both songs last night because I like both of them.

 

[u2wedge]

I voted 'No'. I was just thinking about this the other day. Back in the JT days, they could have gone a whole tour and there would have been few pictures or even readily available ways to get a running list of setlists, etc. There was no internet, magazines came out once a month (still do I guess...), etc. I saw the October JT Syracuse show with no idea of what to expect even though it was in the middle of leg 3 of the tour. Now we're in leg 3 of the Vertigo Tour and what DON'T I know... probably something , but the availability of fan recordings and dvd's has really made the live experience something to be more involved with than a spectator of. I mean, how empty would some of our evenings be without these setlist parties? To me the live experience is more than the concert itself. It's talking about the setlist, Bono's antics, etc. The internet and the technology surrounding it makes that conversation a lot easier to have with people all over the world. I mean, because of the internet, I now have people sending me pictures of my blog logo from shows all over the world. That's just too cool in my book and makes the live experience available on more levels than just being at a show.

And are you also talking about the technology used DURING the concert? Hands down technology enhances the live experience in that regard.

 

[Blue Room]

@ U2wedge, but back in the Joshua Tree days there was no setlist bitching on a nightly basis. In fact, there wasnt even much during the Zoo tour which was about as static as it gets. The internet is great for alot of things. But I think the point of this thread is that it ruins the concert experience for some knowing the basic structure of the setlist. Just because the setlist isnt different or unique in some way does not mean it wasnt a great show. People commenting about a show not being good based on the setlist only is a problem because there is no way they could know. U2 could mix up the setlist, turn it upside down. But if they played terrible and were in fowl moods it wouldnt be that great of show. Compared to when they are just ON. When they are ON it doesnt matter what the setlist is, its just a great experience and one you cant judge unless you are actually there.

I will give an example. Last tour, the first show on the first leg at MSG was regarded by the band and their crew as one of the best they have EVER done. Check out the setlist for that show. It was the standard for Elevation.

 

[u2wedge]

@ U2wedge, but back in the Joshua Tree days there was no setlist bitching on a nightly basis. In fact, there wasnt even much during the Zoo tour which was about as static as it gets. The internet is great for alot of things. But I think the point of this thread is that it ruins the concert experience for some knowing the basic structure of the setlist. Just because the setlist isnt different or unique in some way does not mean it wasnt a great show. People commenting about a show not being good based on the setlist only is a problem because there is no way they could know. U2 could mix up the setlist, turn it upside down. But if they played terrible and were in fowl moods it wouldnt be that great of show. Compared to when they are just ON. When they are ON it doesnt matter what the setlist is, its just a great experience and one you cant judge unless you are actually there.

I will give an example. Last tour, the first show on the first leg at MSG was regarded by the band and their crew as one of the best they have EVER done. Check out the setlist for that show. It was the standard for Elevation.

Yes, but that's not technology taking away from the experience, that's just people not being cool about it. I mean c'mon, I've never heard anyone walk out of a U2 show with the opinions that I read in these forums. It's easy to bitch when you're not there.

So I agree with you that there is an element that tarnishes the experience that can be had 'electronically', but overall there is much more of U2 'Live' to experience due to technology than there was without it.

You're right though, there is a sort of a nostalgic idea about going back to the days of box stages and a simple spotlight.

I mean, back in 1987 the only thing I had was my JT cassette tape for the entire tour. It's fantastic to be able to enjoy just about any show on demand due to technology, granted they're recordings of the live experience though...

 

[Axver]

For me, it's very simple. I closely followed U2's setlists before Boston, looked at the pictures, downloaded the bootlegs, et cetera. In July, I saw the Finn Brothers in Brisbane - I think they're just a cut below U2 but I hadn't followed their tour at all, almost everything was a surprise. What live experience was better? U2. The entire feel of my U2 shows was so great that it didn't matter that I knew what was coming. In fact, sometimes that made it a bit more exciting.

End of the day, I just don't think it matters. Both U2 and the Finns blew my mind with no concern for the Internet, and that's what's important.

 

[Blue Room]

For me, it's very simple. I closely followed U2's setlists before Boston, looked at the pictures, downloaded the bootlegs, et cetera. In July, I saw the Finn Brothers in Brisbane - I think they're just a cut below U2 but I hadn't followed their tour at all, almost everything was a surprise. What live experience was better? U2. The entire feel of my U2 shows was so great that it didn't matter that I knew what was coming. In fact, sometimes that made it a bit more exciting.

End of the day, I just don't think it matters. Both U2 and the Finns blew my mind with no concern for the Internet, and that's what's important.

Seems to matter here. When people are commenting that a show is sub par that didnt even go. I think that is the point of the thread. Maybe it should have been worded differently.

Do you think the internet is making some U2 fans unrealistic and jaded when it comes to setlists and how good the shows are? I would say 100% YES!

 

[u2wedge]

Seems to matter here. When people are commenting that a show is sub par that didnt even go. I think that is the point of the thread. Maybe it should have been worded.

Do you think the internet is making some U2 fans unrealistic and jaded when it comes to setlists and how good the shows are? I would say 100% YES!

Right. I mean was there this MOFO fascination during the Elevation tour? I don't ever recall that, but I wasn't on this board then.

 

[zonelistener]

Seems to matter here. When people are commenting that a show is sub par that didnt even go. I think that is the point of the thread. Maybe it should have been worded differently.

Do you think the internet is making some U2 fans unrealistic and jaded when it comes to setlists and how good the shows are? I would say 100% YES!

This IS the point of the thread. thank you!

It IS about the people you may be connected to with the technology potentially ruining the concert-going experience.

I voted Yes because I feel you truly can't judge a show with a setlist! they could have played Dirty Day and MOFO, and they could truly SCREW the songs up...would the fact that they "played" Mofo and Dirty Day make it a good show? I doubt it. Bono could be just going through the motions like he has done at some shows.

 

[Chizip]

it only takes away from the live experience if you let it

 

[U2dork]

You know, it's funny. I actually remember A LOT of bitching during the ZooTv days.
The internet was in it's very early stages back then but I clearly remember being worried about what the mood was gonna be like during the outdoor shows based on what some fans were saying. Sure, it wasn't a total surprise when they put Sunday, Bloody Sunday back in the mix, but I still had goose bumps when I heard Larry's drums kick in. I guess I've learned to take what I read on message boards with a grain of salt and I've also learned how to have selective reading skills where I block out the super whiney posts.

 

[Blue Room]

You know, it's funny. I actually remember A LOT of bitching during the ZooTv days.
The internet was in it's very early stages back then but I clearly remember being worried about what the mood was gonna be like during the outdoor shows based on what some fans were saying. Sure, it wasn't a total surprise when they put Sunday, Bloody Sunday back in the mix, but I still had goose bumps when I heard Larry's drums kick in. I guess I've learned to take what I read on message boards with a grain of salt and I've also learned how to have selective reading skills where I block out the super whiney posts.

How big of an internet fan base was there in 1992? Not much, had to have been a very small group of fans. Yes there were a few fans that didnt care for during Zoo. But MOST didnt care or even know. Now with the internet these fans broadcast it on a daily basis. I dont even think its close to the same comparison at all.

 

[Axver]

Seems to matter here. When people are commenting that a show is sub par that didnt even go. I think that is the point of the thread. Maybe it should have been worded differently.

Do you think the internet is making some U2 fans unrealistic and jaded when it comes to setlists and how good the shows are? I would say 100% YES!

I definitely would agree it's made some people unrealistic and cynical, and that has dragged down the experiences of others in the process. I don't think it's affected my own experience, which is really all I can talk from. I think it's kind of sad if the whining of some overly demanding people on a message board can destroy the atmosphere of a concert. It's not what U2 play, it's how they play it, and the Internet only affects your perception of that if you let it.

 

[U2dork]

It wasn't just the internet back then. It was at the shows where I heard most of the bitching.

Anyway, my point is the same as what Chizip posted above.

it only takes away from the live experience if you let it

I think people need to learn to think for themselves and not make judgements based on what someone else says, whether they read it in print or on the internet.

 

[u2wedge]

I definitely would agree it's made some people unrealistic and cynical, and that has dragged down the experiences of others in the process. I don't think it's affected my own experience, which is really all I can talk from. I think it's kind of sad if the whining of some overly demanding people on a message board can destroy the atmosphere of a concert. It's not what U2 play, it's how they play it, and the Internet only affects your perception of that if you let it.

Ok, Mr. "I Wish They Didn't play Walk On and I'll Post it 50 times to make my point" Axver...

 

[U2dork]

 

[Chizip]

Ok, Mr. "I Wish They Didn't play Walk On and I'll Post it 50 times to make my point" Axver...

you should have seen him the first time they played vertigo x2

 

[timothius]

In July, I saw the Finn Brothers in Brisbane - I think they're just a cut below U2

The internet has enough information on any subject to make anyone deeply cynical about anything.

 

[Blue Room]

I definitely would agree it's made some people unrealistic and cynical, and that has dragged down the experiences of others in the process. I don't think it's affected my own experience, which is really all I can talk from. I think it's kind of sad if the whining of some overly demanding people on a message board can destroy the atmosphere of a concert. It's not what U2 play, it's how they play it, and the Internet only affects your perception of that if you let it.

Oh, I dont let it effect my experience. I think its bad overall for the board though and in particular the tour forum. There is just so much negativity here over something that should be one of the greatest U2 experiences you could have. People ripping on shows they didnt even see is just ridiculous IMO. I guess I'm the only one that thinks that based on your response and some other responses. Each their own.

 

[Axver]

Ok, Mr. "I Wish They Didn't play Walk On and I'll Post it 50 times to make my point" Axver...

I love Walk On.

I hate In A Little While and I don't think it should be played live. I also don't like Vertigo x2 but that's on principle of it shouldn't be played twice. Sure, U2 may've played it excellently (did both times at Boston III), but it doesn't change the fact it should've only been played once.

 

[Blue Room]

It wasn't just the internet back then. It was at the shows where I heard most of the bitching.

Really? WOW, I never heard a word from most fans I knew back then. I went to 8 shows on Zoo and most of the fans I ran into were just happy to see them. It had been 5 years since they had played the U.S. and tickets were an absolute bitch to get, especially the indoor leg. Most I knew were just happy they were in the building.

Was there even a U2 website of any kind in 1992?

 

[Axver]

The internet has enough information on any subject to make anyone deeply cynical about anything.

Hey, I said they're JUST a cut below. I still rate anything Finn above all else!

And Six Months In A Leaky Boat and I Got You were about as good as half of what I saw in Boston.

 

[timothius]

Hey, I said they're JUST a cut below. I still rate anything Finn above all else!

And Six Months In A Leaky Boat and I Got You were about as good as half of what I saw in Boston.

You've been on the Frenz forum too much and have become too cynical about them. It detracted away from the experience.

 

[u2wedge]

I love Walk On.

I hate In A Little While and I don't think it should be played live. I also don't like Vertigo x2 but that's on principle of it shouldn't be played twice. Sure, U2 may've played it excellently (did both times at Boston III), but it doesn't change the fact it should've only been played once.

Oops... I meant 'In a Little While'...

And I'm just joking with you...