Would you support a series of live Concert CDs?

[Skwege]

One thing that always bothered me with U2 is the complete lack of good official live material on CD.
Anyhow I was perusing my local Silver Platters when I noticed how many concerts Phish has released in their live series. This got me to thinking. U2 is definitely one of the best live bands bar none. So why haven't they done something similar? Release at least one full concert from each major tour (or a few from ZooTV).
I do own quite a few pressed bootlegs, but would much rather have an official release.
So here is my question for the fans. Would you support a live series, and what concerts would you want to see released?

My Personal picks

The War Tour: Complete Red Rocks. Though I do own The Concert bootleg, I would love to see this digitally remastered.

The Unforgettable Fire Tour: Chicago March 21, 1985.

The Joshua Tree Tour: Chicago April 29, 1987

Lovetown Tour: Dublin December 26, 1989

ZooTV:
Indoor: Milan May 22, 1992
Outdoor 1: Dublin August 28, 1993
Outdoor 2: Sydney November 27, 1993

Popmart: Seattle December 12, 1997

 

[typhoon]

God yes.

All of them.

 

[Schmeg]

Pearl Jam has released their entire North American tour, and probably more, I was just looking for the show I saw. When I found the site the first thing I thought was, "U2 should SO do this." A clean, complete recording of every show...I'd be broke but happy.

 

[U2Lynne]

Your picks are all great, but you are picking concerts that allready have a great sounding 'release' (through a taper) . If U2 were going to release some live shows, they would release shows where *they* were awesome (that is what they have always done - that's why they mixed Elevation).

 

[Skwege]

Your picks are all great, but you are picking concerts that allready have a great sounding 'release' (through a taper) . If U2 were going to release some live shows, they would release shows where *they* were awesome (that is what they have always done - that's why they mixed Elevation).

Actually im gonna have to heavily disagree. Besides Red Rocks and Dublin 89 and 93. All the others I listed have dreadful bootlegs. Most are lousy audience recordings, and Sydney is a dreadfully mixed soundboard recording (Well the complete version, the Westwood One broadcast is better).
Most of my selections like Chicago 85 & 87, Milan 92, etc are lousy audience recordings of fantastic concerts.

 

[U2Lynne]

I wrote and rewrote my reply, but I guess the ultimate response is 'fine, whatever'.

(Yeah, I almost replied, but I didn't!)

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Uh, Chicago '87 (which I own) is a great recording. One of the finest bootlegged, audience recordings I've ever heard. So I agree with Lynne.....well at least on that recording.

 

[Skwege]

Uh, Chicago '87 (which I own) is a great recording. One of the finest bootlegged, audience recordings I've ever heard. So I agree with Lynne.....well at least on that recording.

With all due respect, audience bootlegs are still bad.
Now I hope im misinterpreting what you are saying, as I don't mean to put you down. However the impression I get from some people is "Well I got a bootleg, so I dont need an official release."

 

[U2Lynne]

Swege, not all of us think audience bootlegs are bad. You need to listen to them before you diss them.

So sorry you haven't listened to a bunch of the recentely released (since Elevation (and before)) shows, cuz they are some of the best live shows you have ever heard! Your loss.

 

[Skwege]

Swege, not all of us think audience bootlegs are bad. You need to listen to them before you diss them.

So sorry you haven't listened to a bunch of the recentely released (since Elevation (and before)) shows, cuz they are some of the best live shows you have ever heard! Your loss.

I have heard them, and I still think they're bad.

 

[bono_man2002]

i would like to have an offical release of both melbourne zoo tv concerts, they would be great to have....
but even if they released other shows...i would support it

 

[jick]

It's pointless to have a series of live concert cd's.

The early era was captured in UABRS, at least the songs that count are on the album. The not so essential tracks are for the hardcore fanatics and they surely have a vid and bootlegs from the era anyway.

The glory days of U2 was captured in the R&H album and the film. So why do you need another bootleg? Sure the album or film did not show New Years' Day or 40, but then you can check back UABRS to see it. The versions were similar anyway.

The Zoo TV era is captured by the Sydney video. It is not necessary for a live CD because it was more of a visual art than an aural pleasure. Putting the Zoo TV tour to just a concert CD would not do it justice. An accompanying video is a must to capture the essence. Same thing with the Popmart Tour and the Popmart Mexico video takes care of business. The hardcore people have the Hasta La Vista cd anyway.

The Elevation Era is captured in the Boston DVD. If ever Slane will be released, it will just be redundant but still a welcome addition.

In this day of DVD's and 5.1 surround sound, a concert CD has virtually no chance of making it big anymore. Just add a couple of more dollars and you got a DVD already so what's the point in getting the CD? If you think of it, the Best of 1990-2000 DVD was actually better and more comprehensive than the CD version!

So Pearl Jam did release all their concerts, but was it worth it? This is the mp3 age so it will surely be a losing venture. This is a video age, audio just won't cut it. Besides, Pearl Jam mixes up their setlist more than U2, so it works a little bit more for them.

In short, a series of live concert CD's for U2 would be marketing suicide. It would be the dumbest thing they'd ever do in their entire history. I am sure U2 aren't that dumb, so surely a series of previous live concert releases would never happen. And to answer the original question, its a resounding NO, I WON'T SUPPORT SUCH A RELEASE. People who want these things to be released are selfish fans who want to have everything in a silver platter. They fail to see the bigger picture and whether it is marketable and financially sound and wise for U2 to do.

Cheers,

J

 

[Skwege]

wah wah wah

It's pointless to have a series of live concert cd's.

The early era was captured in UABRS, at least the songs that count are on the album. The not so essential tracks are for the hardcore fanatics and they surely have a vid and bootlegs from the era anyway.

The glory days of U2 was captured in the R&H album and the film. So why do you need another bootleg? Sure the album or film did not show New Years' Day or 40, but then you can check back UABRS to see it. The versions were similar anyway.

The Zoo TV era is captured by the Sydney video. It is not necessary for a live CD because it was more of a visual art than an aural pleasure. Putting the Zoo TV tour to just a concert CD would not do it justice. An accompanying video is a must to capture the essence. Same thing with the Popmart Tour and the Popmart Mexico video takes care of business. The hardcore people have the Hasta La Vista cd anyway.

The Elevation Era is captured in the Boston DVD. If ever Slane will be released, it will just be redundant but still a welcome addition.

In this day of DVD's and 5.1 surround sound, a concert CD has virtually no chance of making it big anymore. Just add a couple of more dollars and you got a DVD already so what's the point in getting the CD? If you think of it, the Best of 1990-2000 DVD was actually better and more comprehensive than the CD version!

So Pearl Jam did release all their concerts, but was it worth it? This is the mp3 age so it will surely be a losing venture. This is a video age, audio just won't cut it. Besides, Pearl Jam mixes up their setlist more than U2, so it works a little bit more for them.

In short, a series of live concert CD's for U2 would be marketing suicide. It would be the dumbest thing they'd ever do in their entire history. I am sure U2 aren't that dumb, so surely a series of previous live concert releases would never happen. And to answer the original question, its a resounding NO, I WON'T SUPPORT SUCH A RELEASE. People who want these things to be released are selfish fans who want to have everything in a silver platter. They fail to see the bigger picture and whether it is marketable and financially sound and wise for U2 to do.

Cheers,

J

 

[Bono's shades]

In short, a series of live concert CD's for U2 would be marketing suicide. It would be the dumbest thing they'd ever do in their entire history. I am sure U2 aren't that dumb, so surely a series of previous live concert releases would never happen. And to answer the original question, its a resounding NO, I WON'T SUPPORT SUCH A RELEASE. People who want these things to be released are selfish fans who want to have everything in a silver platter. They fail to see the bigger picture and whether it is marketable and financially sound and wise for U2 to do.

Cheers,

J

I don't see how a series of live concert CDs would be "marketing suicide." Granted, not a whole lot of people would probably buy them except the die-hard fans, but just how many people bought stuff like the Best of 1990-2000 DVD? Probably not a whole lot of people other than fanatics like us. But the band still did it, and I'm very happy they did. As for bootlegs of tons of concerts already being available, believe it or not some fans would rather get an official release and be guaranteed of good audio quality rather than take their chances on a bootleg. I don't think we are being "selfish" fans. It's not like we are demanding U2 do this. We just think it would be a good idea.

 

[wolfwill23]

HELL *&%^(*(*&%)(*^&)(*&^&(*ING YEAH I WOULD SUPPORT A CONCERT SERIES!!!!

 

[U2girl]

Yes, of course.

 

[Blue Room]

I also fail to see how releasing live recordings would be marketing suicide especially when U2 are generally regarded as one of the best live acts out there. Now from an artistic point of view alot of people would actually see it as more of a "cashing in" venture. Pearl Jam and a few other major artists (IE The Who and Peter Gabriel) have gone to releasing every single show officially. Which is a great idea from many perspectives. They are cheap CD's to make, it is a source of revenue that they were not making (bootleggers made this money, essentially would eliminate professional bootlegging), and is a much better concert momento than an overpriced T shirt. All three of these artists have done this and are doing it with great success (actually The Who donated the profits to charity). Clear Channel is trying to convince their artists to do this. So there must be money to be made there and if you think that U2 would not make money doing it, I think you are just flat out wrong.

Now will they do this, doubdtful. They are perfectionists and I think the idea of an official recording with any major mistakes on it would drive them nuts. But you never know, I thought the semi static setlists would be another reason, but The Who's setlists were near identical and they did it.

Personally, I dont like the official live CD's that are released as much as a great aud recording or a raw soundboard (such as UABRS and Mexico City, these are WAY over mixed). They have been overproduced and the sound is nowhere near what the natural raw feel of the concert was like. Sometimes they sound like a studio recording with an audience crowd noise track laid underneath. Thats why the official bootleg idea is great IMO, very little to no re-mastering, basically the raw feed from the soundboard. THAT is the ultimate type of recording IMO.

I disagree about all audience recordings being crap. Thats absolutely ridiculous. Some aud. recording are very clean and capture the sound of the actual concert better than a polished up official soundboard.

My choices for live CD's would be shows that no recording has ever surfaced of in the trading community (or a full version of the show)

1983 Honolulu
1985 Honolulu
9-21-89 Perth
9-9-92 Detroit
9-15-92 Chicago
11-20-93 Brisbane
9-?-97 Thessalinki Greece

 

[Chrisedge]

You can look at bands like, The Who, Duran Duran and Peter Gabriel as examples of bands releasing their shows and it's not "marketing suicide"

None of the above bands fit into that Pearl Jam type boot fanatic and they have released their shows on themusic.com for purchase.

It could be done low key. Even PJ didn't release this years tour the same way as last tour. (I think I have seen 1 show in the store for this tour, as oppose to all the shows last year)

 

[Skwege]

One thing is that U2 has such a deep archive of recorded live material. If I remember correctly almost every concert since 1987 was recorded and archived. Seems a shame to just let them sit and waste in the vault. Its a very inexpensive endeavour. They could even release them through their website, so they can avoid typical label distribution. They could even let the fans vote on what concerts we would like to see released. Lot of different ways they could approach this. Under a Blood Red Sky could also be easily remastered and rereleased as the entire concert. I have the old Buccaneer Bootleg titled "The Concert" which is the complete broadcast of the Red Rocks show. Sounds even better than the official LP. No reason why that cant be released in its entirety as it would require little work to do so. Cheap Trick did something similar when they reissued "At Budokan" remastered on CD in its entirety.
I'll die a happy man when I get an official recording that has "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses" live Milan was a pick of mine as it is only available as an audience bootleg(one of the more tolerable ones) and also had So Cruel, another rare live performance. Not to mention it had such a great Italian crowd who were really into the concert. It is right up there with the Sydney and Dublin shows as the best from the tour.
Live albums rule, and thats where U2 really shines. Not to mention the Unforgettable Fire tour was so poorly documented outside the two live tracks on the Wide Awake EP.

 

[Blue Room]

Actually they have taped and archived every show and soundcheck since 1982 and have filmed every show since 1992. They also filmed the entire 3rd leg of the Joshua Tree tour.

99.9 % of it will never see the light of day. They do it for documentation purposes and to listen or see what improvements they can make in the show. I would love if they did release some of them, but it will never happen. The most we can probebly hope for is that some tracks from shows will make a box set someday and that they go to the official live CD of all shows going forward.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Definitely.

 

[Skwege]

Next time The Edge does an online chat someone should ask him about this.

 

[sue4u2]

I would LOVE!! Who's Gonna Ride your Wild Horses and So Cruel on DVD, live. You may be right that they'll never see the light of day, but, no offense, God I hope you're wrong.

 

[jick]

I don't see how a series of live concert CDs would be "marketing suicide." Granted, not a whole lot of people would probably buy them except the die-hard fans, but just how many people bought stuff like the Best of 1990-2000 DVD? Probably not a whole lot of people other than fanatics like us. But the band still did it, and I'm very happy they did. As for bootlegs of tons of concerts already being available, believe it or not some fans would rather get an official release and be guaranteed of good audio quality rather than take their chances on a bootleg. I don't think we are being "selfish" fans. It's not like we are demanding U2 do this. We just think it would be a good idea.

The Best of 1990-2000 DVD was an essential accompaniment to the CD release. Nowadays, bands just can't release greatest hits albums without matching DVD's that have those hits on video. As I said, this is the DVD generation.

A U2 concert series CD release from the pre-Zoo TV era will probably have no video to go with it anyway so the CD will be a big failure. I don't think people still release live albums now without videos, and when people think concerts - they already think concert DVDs with accompanying videos.

I would rather have U2 start making their officially released vids into DVD format before even thinking of releasing other concerts. They should know what to prioritize. Release UABRS, Zoo TV Sydney, Best Of 1980-1990, and Popmart Mexico in DVD formats first.

Cheers,

J

 

[david]

I agree with Jick. That's why I think every time U2 want to release something "live" they just release it on video.. Because it's one thing to just hear the band, it's another to see and hear them at the same time.

 

[Bono's shades]

I would rather have U2 start making their officially released vids into DVD format before even thinking of releasing other concerts. They should know what to prioritize. Release UABRS, Zoo TV Sydney, Best Of 1980-1990, and Popmart Mexico in DVD formats first.

Cheers,

J

Here's something I might actually agree with you on. I was really hoping Red Rocks might be re-released on DVD this year to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the concert. That would have been sweet!

 

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

FWIW, *marketing* is not the reason why these bands are releasing sets/ complete tours. PJ did it because one of them was in a local record shop and saw what their fans were paying for crappy bootlegs of their shows. They decided to do something about it. $12.98 for a 2 disc show from this year's tour-- not too shabby!


The Who sold their's for charity, as mentioned above. NOTE TO BONO: AIDS/Africa situation on one hand, tons of rabid U2 fans willing to spend $$$ on "Official Boots" on the other. Do we need to draw a map??



Now where can I get Peter Gabriel boots??

 

[jick]

FWIW, *marketing* is not the reason why these bands are releasing sets/ complete tours. PJ did it because one of them was in a local record shop and saw what their fans were paying for crappy bootlegs of their shows. They decided to do something about it. $12.98 for a 2 disc show from this year's tour-- not too shabby!


The Who sold their's for charity, as mentioned above. NOTE TO BONO: AIDS/Africa situation on one hand, tons of rabid U2 fans willing to spend $$$ on "Official Boots" on the other. Do we need to draw a map??



Now where can I get Peter Gabriel boots??

Even PJ's boots have inconsistent sound quality and definitely a hurried job by the sound engineers. U2 would never do this because they are bigger than Pearl Jam and having bad quality official live stuff would be catastrophic to their image.

As for charity work, U2 have minimized that already. Fewer benefit concerts if they still do. Thank god they did not even bother with the SARS benefit show. Bono has said many times, he is more into talking to politicians now because it has a better effect than benefit concerts or cds after he realized all the Live Aid hoopla was only one week worth of African debt. Bono is now more big picture oriented and he knows benefit cds won't really be a big help.

As for Peter Gabriel boots, you should always remember that this is a U2 forum.

Cheers,

J

 

[Blue Room]

jick, I agree that U2 will never do it. But its not for ANY of the reasons you outlined. #1, U2 does not have the same sound engineer as PJ. They have one of the best in the business in Joe O. #2 PJ's bootlegs are not that inconsistant, that is a gross exagerration to try to prove your point of view. 99% of the PJ's official bootlegs are better than ANY audience recording. Also, there must be a way to do it better even if you are right. I have heard the official boots of both The Who and Peter Gabriel and they are great. So U2 would employ the same technique or technology to make sure this wouldnt be an issue. #3 The whole point was that their fans were being ripped by inferrior quality bootlegs and being charged $40 to $50 for them.

The point is that if U2 did this it would basically end professional bootlegging. The money that went to bootleggers could then be put to better use (ie a charity) OR could go to cutting down ticket prices, or could actually go to the artist who should be the one compensated anyway.

You are sort of right though, they wont do it because they dont want what they feel are inferior shows getting out (IE mistakes THEY make live). It has nothing to do with the quality of the recording though. Its the performance aspect of it that would bug them to much. That being said, its not an impossibility that they will do official bootlegs, but its also not very likely.

I honestly cant imagine why a U2 fan would be against U2 releasing any type of material, Live, boxset, b sides, etc. It honestly looks like some of you are trying to push some weird personal agenda over what most of the fans would want.

I think we can all agree that U2 probebly wont do this. I think we can also agree that MOST fans would absolutely love it if they did.

 

[Zooropa]

I never thought it would make sense for U2 to follow in the vain of Pearl Jam by releasing every show of a tour for a reason that has been stated several times, they don;t vary there setlists enough. But, after seeing The Who release their last tour on disc, with essentially the same set list everynight, It appears that its not a bad idea. I purchased the two shows I went to and enjoy them immensily. They are simply a raw mix from the soundboard, thats all, not very expensive or time consuming to produce. Pearl Jam's lastest Concert series, is probably the best way to go. All of the shows are available to purchase through download from their website the day after the show, after purchasing/downloading, you will have the mp3's and in about a month they mail the show in CD/mastered form to your house. A select few will be released to the public in record stores and what not as well. There is no reason U2 can't follow suit and do the same.