Do you think U2 will be remembered more as a studio or as a live band?

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
HelloAngel said:
Both. They've mastered both areas equally and beautifully.
Click to expand...

While they've mastered both areas very well, I think they'll be remembered more as a live band.
 
Live

attachment.php
 
I would say to the average person on the street, they would say both ...

But ... I think for us "die-hards" we will remember them as a live band. There is nothing better than a U2 concert ...

I was listeing to JT on the drive to work this morning and when BTBS came on I thought ... boy, this sounds a whole lot better live... expecially when Bono goes into the whole rant thing

Not that the studio version isn't great, but it does't grab you by the shirt collar and throw you up against the wall.
 
I think they'll be remembered as a live band, because of stuff like Live-Aid and ZooTV.
 
Both. They've put out great album and done great shows. But I think they will be remembered a bit more as a live band because they are so damn unbelievable live.
 
This question doesn't even need to be asked. Live. It's where they excelled, its how the reached us, its how they grew, its how they became U2.
 
They will definitely be remembered as a live band. Last year when they were touring, that was all this forum would talk about- how they can have thousands and thousands of people together in one place and each and everybody comes out feeling like they had an individual show. It's the way that they connect with their fans, and that's what seperates the men from the boys.
 
they will be remembered as a studio band
the number of people who have heard their album work on the radio/bought one of their albums etc is far bigger than the number of people who have seen them live/bought the live video's
 
Salome said:
they will be remembered as a studio band
the number of people who have heard their album work on the radio/bought one of their albums etc is far bigger than the number of people who have seen them live/bought the live video's
Click to expand...

Well, there are the shows that have been shown on TV. Granted, seeing a show on TV isn't like seeing them live. But neither is a video. They blow me away even on TV, so they will be known for their live shows. They may be better known as a studio band by the mass public, anyway.
 
Unquestionably a live band.

They've always been known for their great live shows, since the early 80's at least. I've seen and known several people - casual fans at best - who were just completely blown away by the live show.
 
Salome said:
they will be remembered as a studio band
the number of people who have heard their album work on the radio/bought one of their albums etc is far bigger than the number of people who have seen them live/bought the live video's
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Studio, because that is what will remain after the tours and the band itself are over for good. I would argue that albums like Joshua, Achtung and ATYCLB will have more of an impact in the long run than the memories of tours like ZooTV and Elevation. And yes, I think this is probably true for almost all bands. Led Zeppelin was reportedly an unbelievable live act--I saw Page and Plant a few years ago, and that was plenty amazing enough--but do people go on more about the '71 tour (or whatever) or Led Zeppelin IV?
 
scatteroflight said:
Studio, because that is what will remain after the tours and the band itself are over for good. I would argue that albums like Joshua, Achtung and ATYCLB will have more of an impact in the long run than the memories of tours like ZooTV and Elevation. And yes, I think this is probably true for almost all bands. Led Zeppelin was reportedly an unbelievable live act--I saw Page and Plant a few years ago, and that was plenty amazing enough--but do people go on more about the '71 tour (or whatever) or Led Zeppelin IV?
Click to expand...


You've got a point. The live shows last two or so hours, the tours end.....I mean, hell, I didn't know what kind of live band Zeppelin was because I never saw them live. But they made some kick butt music and that's still there for us to hear. Ditto with any other band. Still, I think any really good books about any of these bands will have plenty of live pictures of them. They're not exactly going to leave that out.
 
verte76 said:



You've got a point. The live shows last two or so hours, the tours end.....I mean, hell, I didn't know what kind of live band Zeppelin was because I never saw them live. But they made some kick butt music and that's still there for us to hear. Ditto with any other band. Still, I think any really good books about any of these bands will have plenty of live pictures of them. They're not exactly going to leave that out.
Click to expand...

No, not at all--they should go down as one of the great live bands. But I think people are more likely to say "The Joshua Tree, there's an album for the ages" than "ZooTV, that was a defining moment of the twentieth century." ;) Though some people will certainly say both!
 
As a studio band, of course. With the possible exceptions of James Brown and the Grateful Dead, no pop artist has ever been remembered primarily for their live work.

Hey, it's happened to the best of them -- Bob Dylan, the Velvet Underground, and even Springsteen (all superior live acts to U2). In every case, the recorded work will live longer than the live legend.

Besides, to fully know what a great live band U2 is (was), you'd have to chase down bootlegs, and -- fanatics (and Interferencers)aside -- people are not willing to do this.

As I insisted in an earlier thread (and got a bunch of blank stares over it), U2 is an utterly awesome studio band, truly world-class record makers, so it's fine by me if they're remembered chiefly for their records.
 
I'm going to settle on both. While various people are going to have opinions on just who the heck was best live there are enough people, and have been for twenty-plus years, who've made note and commentated on U2's live shows. I remember even in the early days we used to claim that as good as the records were you hadn't lived until you'd seen them live. Reputations last, even if the shows themselves end. The Elevation shows were so amazing that I cannot imagine them just slipping off into obscurity. Of course they'll be known for their studio work as well, for reasons we've already mentioned.
 
I would have to say more studio than live. When I first heard them in '82, I was too young to be able to go to a concert at a club that they performed in. Most of the kids my age - listened to the album and watched MTV.

While live they are awesome, the cd's are what really makes me quiver. :kiss:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
729
lazarus
lazarus
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
729
rosephile
R
The Panther
The Joshua Tree vs. Achtung Baby -- Which do you prefer?
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
DomCobb
DomCobb

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom