Live or Memorex ?

[cardosino]

Given how many overdubs and how "produced" the new album is, will U2 use yet more tapes and/or under-stage musicians than they already do ? They're already up to a 6-piece + tapes on a lot of songs.

 

[If you shout...]

I think so, yeah. From even the limited live or pseudo-live recordings which we've already heard, it seems to me like there are a LOT more than four people playing the songs, you know? I'm still not sure how I feel about this...but yeah. I think that we're gonna' be WELL beyond just the four boys, this time out. The album is a studio-friendly album through and through...not, unfortunately, a live-minded album.

 

[ADecentMelody]

Regarding extra musicians...both of you, prove it.

 

[If you shout...]

Well, I suppose that I can't give you CONCRETE proof....

Although I read numerous interviews with various band members during the last tour in which they admitted to playing with tape accompaniments during songs...hell, "Bad" uses a sequencer...!

But with the extra musicians, I know somebody (or knew, at least) who tried out to be the under-the-stage keyboardist during the show. The band typically has locations scouted out ahead of time and people can try to get a gig doing a bit of down-under work, as far as I understand the whole matter. I'm pretty sure that they don't use extra guitarists or anything like that, but (I mean, listen to your versions of "One" on boots, for God's sake...!!!!!!!) there's obviously someone helpin' 'em out on at least keyboards. The Edge isn't doing all that shit with his feet, I'll tell you that...!

 

[Axver]

I'm starting to wonder if U2 shows are losing their spontaneity. Pre-UF boots are amazing because it's just four men on a stage and different performances stand out for different reasons. However, I feel a lot of post-1991 shows have had a sameness to them.

 

[ADecentMelody]

I'll have to listen to the One boots, but I'm pretty sure no one's playing keyboards. There may be a sequencer, but no keyboards.

I'm definitely not discounting accompaniments, I just don't think they would have extra musicians playing (except for when they have guest stage appearances).

 

[cardosino]

Regarding extra musicians...both of you, prove it.

Look carefully......if you own the DVD's you'll see them. Also, listen carefully, you'll HEAR the extra parts too. Sometimes it's taped, sometimes it's the keyboards. You think all the keyboards clearly seen through the grilles at the edges of the ramps are there as paperweights or something ?

This is no secret by the way, I was just wondering if we felt there would be MORE rather than less this time around because of the new album.

 

[chocky]

We SAW the extra under-stage musicians on the ZooTV documentary so there's the PROOF!!

I agree that post R&H the concerts have lost their spontaneity. Apart from the b-stage stuff, most songs follow exactly the same path at each concert - and they're almost the same length wherever/whenever played with no ad-lib. Seen one, seen 'em all.

Just compare Red Rocks to Popmart.

 

[neutral]

I'm starting to wonder if U2 shows are losing their spontaneity. Pre-UF boots are amazing because it's just four men on a stage and different performances stand out for different reasons. However, I feel a lot of post-1991 shows have had a sameness to them.

This is one of the reasons I don't have a lot of Elevation boots. There are still some great ones, I love the Slane DVD show for example, but meh.

Topic? I guess I'll have a better idea when I actually listen to the new album and hear the songs, but I wouldn't doubt that they had an even bigger crew for this tour, from what I've read about some of the recordings.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Regarding extra musicians...both of you, prove it.

Read "U2: At The End Of The World" by Bill Flannagan.

 

[If you shout...]

Read "U2: At The End Of The World" by Bill Flannagan.

Good call; I was just leafing through my copy this morning...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Good call; I was just leafing through my copy this morning...

Yeah, there's plenty in there about the extra backing and even Dallas playing extra parts from under the stage.

 

[ADecentMelody]

We SAW the extra under-stage musicians on the ZooTV documentary so there's the PROOF!!

No, that guy under the stage was tuning the guitar for the next song. It was explained by Dallas (I believe) in an interview.

He wasn't playing the guitar.

 

[Axver]

Honestly, I can't help but lose a little bit of respect for U2 when I think about this topic. I absolutely love the spontaneous nature of the pre-Zoo shows where Bad and 40 could go for over fifteen minutes, 11 O'clock Tick Tock could have a third solo, or the band could come back out after the final encore to play I Will Follow again. We may have some spontaneity in the acoustic sets, but that means nothing to me because I don't like the acoustic set.

Spontaneity is what made U2's live shows great. I know I'm going to attend every show on the next tour for which I can get tickets and I will LOVE it, but ... I hope they cut back on pre-recorded sounds and instruments played by people backstage. Whatever happened to four men on a stage?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I dunno... IMO they use extra musicians... I think Walk On comes to mind but I probably have to re-watch the DVD again. Obviously, Gone but thats probably a backing track at the least.

I think U2 would change the new songs up in order to play them live given the layers of guitars.

IMO a song like Beautiful Day which has two guitars playing wasn't that hard to make into a one guitar song. Same with Elevation (though I thought there might have been two guitars in that song live, but not sure). I don't see why that wouldn't be the case with a song like OOTS or Vertigo.

However, some songs just need two or three guitars (In a Little While or Wild Honey) for them to sound good. I've always felt the sound of In a Little While was weak live cause its just Edge playing by himself with little flourish.

 

[ADecentMelody]

For me, the excitement of a live version comes from its simplicity. They pick a layer or layers that they want out of what's been recorded in the studio. This makes the song become more alive for me because its true elements/guts come out.

And if the next moment I want to hear the layerings, I go back to the studio version.

 

[cardosino]

Honestly, I can't help but lose a little bit of respect for U2 when I think about this topic. I absolutely love the spontaneous nature of the pre-Zoo shows where Bad and 40 could go for over fifteen minutes, 11 O'clock Tick Tock could have a third solo, or the band could come back out after the final encore to play I Will Follow again. We may have some spontaneity in the acoustic sets, but that means nothing to me because I don't like the acoustic set.

Spontaneity is what made U2's live shows great. I know I'm going to attend every show on the next tour for which I can get tickets and I will LOVE it, but ... I hope they cut back on pre-recorded sounds and instruments played by people backstage. Whatever happened to four men on a stage?

thsi kinda ties in a bit with other threads about greatest bands.

Led Zeppelin were as produced as u2 in the latter years, (Page's studio brilliance exceeded Edge's by a long shot), but live they were TOTALLT spontaneous. Their shows could change by a full hour night to night.

JPJ would play keyboard and bass pedals at the same time, they would improvise solos and tempos, etc.

Remember reading how one memorable night in LA they played a 3 and a half hour show, next night in Long Beach they collectively decided to play everything in a slightly faster tempo to finish the show earlier so that they could get back to Hollywood to party longer .

The last time U2 played a full show without extra players or tapes was on the War tour. Oh well, I'll still go see them.

 

[Folkelig]

Listen to songs like UF and Bad from the UF tour. They played to backing tapes back then too. When it comes to songs sounding the same, and having the exact same lenght througout a tour, it's the most reasonable thing to do really, for many reasons. First of all, playing to a backing track will insure that things go reasonable well, even on a day where the lads have a bad day, or if for some reason one of them stops playing, have a technical problem or whatever. In such cases the others will be able to make it through the songs anyway. Secondly, it's the only way to program everything to match the songs, lights, video, and vocal effects. What most bands will do, and I believe U2 do this as well, is to have two third of the show planned with these kind of songs, and the rest with songs they actually play just the four of them. Thus making the show somewhat dynamic.

 

[mkdominatr]

I think it would be incredible if they toured with a 40 piece orchestra like some artist try out like clapton. hell metallica even did it. it would fit very nice because a lot of their music has a violin like one, or some of the new stuff.

 

[cardosino]

Listen to songs like UF and Bad from the UF tour. They played to backing tapes back then too. When it comes to songs sounding the same, and having the exact same lenght througout a tour, it's the most reasonable thing to do really, for many reasons. First of all, playing to a backing track will insure that things go reasonable well, even on a day where the lads have a bad day, or if for some reason one of them stops playing, have a technical problem or whatever. In such cases the others will be able to make it through the songs anyway. Secondly, it's the only way to program everything to match the songs, lights, video, and vocal effects. What most bands will do, and I believe U2 do this as well, is to have two third of the show planned with these kind of songs, and the rest with songs they actually play just the four of them. Thus making the show somewhat dynamic.

And yet the likes of Pearl Jam and springsteen can do the exact opposite and play shows which are >60% different night to night.

It CAN be done, but U2 will just never be that type of band, to expect it is to set up for disappointment.

 

[Folkelig]

Springsteen and Pearl Jam are both great, but with all do respect, their liveshows are not nearly as complex as fx ZooTV and Popmart. Springsteen has a much bigger band with him on stage as well.

 

[cardosino]

Springsteen and Pearl Jam are both great, but with all do respect, their liveshows are not nearly as complex as fx ZooTV and Popmart. Springsteen has a much bigger band with him on stage as well.

Elevation tour didn't fall into that category though. It's just u2's way, we should all know that by now.

 

[joaoricardo]

get a alife you all

 

[Axver]

I don't see why U2 feel the need to put on all these high-tech shows. Sure, they're great, but we're not going to see a Hollywood movie, we're going to see a LIVE BAND. Note the word 'live'. We don't want pre-recorded sounds or someone hiding backstage, we want to see four men on a stage doing what they do best. U2 do like routine, that's clear, but you can easily keep routine without adding manufactured noises (just look at the static sets on most of the first leg of the War Tour, for example).

Some may argue U2 need these sounds to complete their songs, but U2 should have thought of that when they made the bloody songs! Why would you record a song in the studio that is too complex to perform live?

I love U2's live shows, but they need to return to the pre-UF days when the show was four men on a stage. Even just pre-Zoo will satisfy me. Sure, there were manufactured sounds on Lovetown, but there weren't so many that they couldn't mess with the setlist or drag out performances.

 

[The Sage]

I think U2 should do whatever is necessary to make their songs sound as good as they can make them live.

 

[Mullen-Girl]

In Bill F's book it says absolutely NOTHING about Dallas playing guitar. It does say he may pump a wah-wah pedal when Edge is away from his pedal board. Pumping a wah-wah pedal is NOT playing guitar!!!

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Pumping a wah-wah is part of playinig the guitar though

 

[ADecentMelody]

Pumping a wah-wah is part of playinig the guitar though

I really doubt (and need to be corrected here if I'm wrong) that Dallas would pump the wah wah for The Edge while he's playing the guitar. It's actually harder to have someone pumping that for you timing-wise than to just do it yourself.

How often does The Edge use a wah wah? Bullet...what else? Having someone do your wah wah is like having someone move the stick while you're stepping on the clutch. It's just not done.

 

[medmo]

I remember reading At the End of the World, and it did mention that Dallas worked the wah during Mysterious Ways so that Edge could move freely around the stage.

 

[JOFO]

But with the extra musicians, I know somebody (or knew, at least) who tried out to be the under-the-stage keyboardist during the show. The band typically has locations scouted out ahead of time and people can try to get a gig doing a bit of down-under work, as far as I understand the whole matter. I'll tell you that...!

This sounds a bit far-fetched to me. If U2 use somebody to play some keyboards, it's gonna be one of the guys they bring on the road with them, not some nobody from town to town.

I want everyone to understand what a sequencer is: it's an electronic device, in the same category as instruments, that plays back pre-played keyboard parts and sounds.

Some bands that have used sequencers:
The Police
Peter Gabriel
Rush
Radiohead
Tori Amos
Seal
and I'm sure there's alot more.

also a common thing to do is use a CD player to play back the keyboard tracks. it's the same as using a sequencer, but alot easier. this doesn't mean that they play to a CD with all the instruments and vocals.

Also, as I've said before, I can't think of 1 instance where they've had dallas or anyone else play guitar backstage.