jick
Refugee
I just watched the Rush In Rio DVD. 40,000 screaming Brazilians singing to a non-single instrumental Rush song - that sure is something. All of them were singing to Rush's songs. But Rush is an opposite to U2 in many ways. Their concerts usually concentrate on being note-perfect and they have no long winding speeches (like Bono does). Rush also plays all their sounds onstage (despite being a 3-man band, Geddy Lee plays bass, bass pedals and synths onstage).
Bono on the other hand is the consumate showman. He runs around the stage (Streets), he gives long winding speeches to egg on the crowd ("this is our tribe!"), or sings snippets of songs of artists from the city they are playing on just to work out the crowd (REM snippets). Meanwhile, U2 is not note perfect. The Slane DVD reveals Adam and Larry bothcing their entry to Angel Of Harlem, or Edge hitting the wrong chord in Staring At The Sun. Even in the Popmart Mexico, Edge hits a sour note in I Still Haven't Found, and Bono sings way off key in his La Bamba bit in Desire. The other issue with U2 is that there are musicians backstage playing instruments (some keyboards to In A Little While, guitars during Edge's solo in Love Is Blindness) or some pre-programmed sounds not actually played live (intro to Streets, sequencer in Bad, drum loop in New York and Beautiful Day).
Sure, U2 puts on a great show. They are great showmen, but do they have to do this at the expense of musical integrity? Where's the integrity when the songs have essential sounds and harmonies not actually played onstage by the U2 members (like the wailing sound of Gone)? Is the tradeoff too big? Can't U2 add a little musical integrity to their set? I mean if Rush can do it and still get 40,000 people get into it (and sing to their unpopular non radio-friendly songs), why can't U2? Why does U2 resort to showmanship tactics to work out the crowd and not rely on musicality?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying U2 isn't capable of musicality. Check out their UABRS video where everything was played by them onstage, they were a tight band, and there were not too many long speeches to entice the crowd. U2 still put on hell of a show.
Cheers,
J
Bono on the other hand is the consumate showman. He runs around the stage (Streets), he gives long winding speeches to egg on the crowd ("this is our tribe!"), or sings snippets of songs of artists from the city they are playing on just to work out the crowd (REM snippets). Meanwhile, U2 is not note perfect. The Slane DVD reveals Adam and Larry bothcing their entry to Angel Of Harlem, or Edge hitting the wrong chord in Staring At The Sun. Even in the Popmart Mexico, Edge hits a sour note in I Still Haven't Found, and Bono sings way off key in his La Bamba bit in Desire. The other issue with U2 is that there are musicians backstage playing instruments (some keyboards to In A Little While, guitars during Edge's solo in Love Is Blindness) or some pre-programmed sounds not actually played live (intro to Streets, sequencer in Bad, drum loop in New York and Beautiful Day).
Sure, U2 puts on a great show. They are great showmen, but do they have to do this at the expense of musical integrity? Where's the integrity when the songs have essential sounds and harmonies not actually played onstage by the U2 members (like the wailing sound of Gone)? Is the tradeoff too big? Can't U2 add a little musical integrity to their set? I mean if Rush can do it and still get 40,000 people get into it (and sing to their unpopular non radio-friendly songs), why can't U2? Why does U2 resort to showmanship tactics to work out the crowd and not rely on musicality?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying U2 isn't capable of musicality. Check out their UABRS video where everything was played by them onstage, they were a tight band, and there were not too many long speeches to entice the crowd. U2 still put on hell of a show.
Cheers,
J
