U2: Showmanship or Musicality?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
jick said:


I disagree. Using your statement, what makes a live song different from the album version is that it isn't note-perfect and this is what you *like*.

I think what makes the live version different is that the band would use a different arrangement, and the song will have a different feel to it. To me, the band should always strive for note perfection, even on the live recordings. And even if they are note perfect and without mistakes, it won't make me like them any less --- maybe you won't like them as much because note-botching seems to be what you like in live recordings.

Cheers,

J


for heaven's sakes jick- all you are doing here is trying to wind people up. Numerous people here have made incredibly good points, which you won't even pause to consider as valid, and numerous other people have asked you direct questions which you fail to address. And now you make the totally illogical ASSumptoin that Joshua tree hugger *wants* botched versions simply because he doesn't obsess over them the way you do. Are you really so bored or attention starved that you continuously, in any thread I've ever seen you in at least, make derogatory remarks about U2. And LivLuv gave you an excellent reason for playing A Sort of Homecoming- as playing Slane WAS a homecoming for them- but you've totally ignored any reasonable answers that come your way, prefering instead to carry on with your own jickicisms.
 
LCK said:



for heaven's sakes jick- all you are doing here is trying to wind people up. Numerous people here have made incredibly good points, which you won't even pause to consider as valid, and numerous other people have asked you direct questions which you fail to address. And now you make the totally illogical ASSumptoin that Joshua tree hugger *wants* botched versions simply because he doesn't obsess over them the way you do. Are you really so bored or attention starved that you continuously, in any thread I've ever seen you in at least, make derogatory remarks about U2. And LivLuv gave you an excellent reason for playing A Sort of Homecoming- as playing Slane WAS a homecoming for them- but you've totally ignored any reasonable answers that come your way, prefering instead to carry on with your own jickicisms.

My sentiments exactly.

Jick I can see you get a laugh out of winding certain people up but it's not going to work for me. I happen to think your quite sad - sitting in front of your computer all day and stirring cr?p.

And instead of replying to my comment you just picked on my use of asterix's to emphasise the word "like". That's something I would expect from a child.

I'm calling for a boycott on jick threads and replies. I'm certainly going to ignore him from now on. The attention seeker shall be robbed of his attention!
 
i don't agree with his/her posts, but boycotting is silly... jick still has the right to say what he/she wants. maybe he/she's trying to get attention, or maybe he/she actually believes what he's writing. it's not for us to judge that... if ya don't like reading his/her posts? don't read 'em yourself... there's no need for a interference wide boycott, a closing of a thread, or a banishment or anything like that.
 
I didn't call for a banishing or a closing of thread! All I said was that I planned to avoid his replies and threads because all he does is criticise to provoke people's reactions.
 
Even tho I like to yank jick's chain once in awhile, I certainly don't agree with a site wide boycott which amounts to a mob-mentality kind of shunning, seems a bit medieval. I told jick in my post what I thought of his post, but that's as far as it goes really. I don't have any animosity toward him or anyone else here, even tho I can speak my mind rather bluntly on occasion. If I thought the matter warranted more serious action, which I don't really, I'd talk to a mod about it.
 
LCK said:



for heaven's sakes jick- all you are doing here is trying to wind people up. Numerous people here have made incredibly good points, which you won't even pause to consider as valid, and numerous other people have asked you direct questions which you fail to address. And now you make the totally illogical ASSumptoin that Joshua tree hugger *wants* botched versions simply because he doesn't obsess over them the way you do. Are you really so bored or attention starved that you continuously, in any thread I've ever seen you in at least, make derogatory remarks about U2. And LivLuv gave you an excellent reason for playing A Sort of Homecoming- as playing Slane WAS a homecoming for them- but you've totally ignored any reasonable answers that come your way, prefering instead to carry on with your own jickicisms.

I just ignore points that are not worth arguing. I assumed it is already common knowledge among U2 fans that A Sort Of Homecoming does not deal with travels on the road and the character coming home. The song is tied in with the nuclear holocaust, similar in theme to the Unforgettable Fire. The song wasn't a big hit in Dublin also, and the fact it was recorded in Slane is still no excuse because they could have done Pride. When they decide to revive an old song, at least clean the cobwebs from it and play a prepared version. U2 are capable of that - 11 O Clock Tick Tock in Irving Plaza was great and was well-prepared for, ditto for their Won't Get Fooled Again. And that is also the reason for taking a few tour stops before they played Kite. Let me say this - U2 are generally and in most cases a well-prepared band otherwise they couldn't have pulled off massive successful tours like Popmart and Zoo TV. But they just have their momentary lapses of pulling a curveball out of the hat unprepared and disguising it as spontaneity -- and it is in these rare instances that they sacrifice their integrity and professionalism.

Cheers,

J
 
key phrase = "RARE INSTANCES"

now if only your criticism of such instances were rare instances themselves...
 
I don't think I should have to mention it, but they are Irish, (okay 2 weren't born there, they were young when they moved, and hence raised in that culture).

From what I've read, and found out for myself, there is a kind of laid back Irish attitude towards things.

A flubbed entrance, and what's the reaction, Larry and Adam shrug it off, and Bono kinda smiles, and they restart. The toilet paper being thrown, Bono laughs about it.

An elder Irishman in a pub, went on a longwinded ramble about Bush, ignorance on the part of some Americans, then some thing about Dances with Wolves, when I was in Dublin.

The bombings in Ireland/N. Ireland, not so meaningless to Irish/Irish descended people, (notice the intro, "well here we are the Irish in America...."

It's obvious, goes without saying, the culture you're born in to, does effect how you do things, even being in a band.
 
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents' worth on here-I've been a U2 fan for 15 years but have never gotten the opportunity to see them live:sad: , so my comments are based on merely watching their concert videos/dvds. But...I would much rather see four men playing on stage as humans-errors & all-and as friends rather than as perfect music-making machines. I think it's great that they can laugh at/with each other when they screw up! After watching Slane 5 or 6 times, I finally figured out that A&L really did mess up "Angel"(yeah, I'm kinda slow sometimes!)-but the look on Bono's face when he turns around & counts out to them made it ok. You can tell that they were having a great time no matter what. You can't help but wonder how much Bono teased them about it afterwards-in a funny, loving manner of course!:p
Sure they messed up, but messing make just makes them *real* and that's what I want to see-not some processed, commercialized band with no sponteneity or spirit. As far as I'm concerned, if they can laugh about it & then move on, so can I!
 
Back
Top Bottom