corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Good point. We should recruit more fans into our top tier and shift that balance.
corianderstem said:
No, that was ATYCLB.
djerdap said:Nothing is wrong. The negative reviews from U2tours.com are far from objective. They are written by men who had been to 20+ shows who have expectations so high they expect the Second Coming.
Maybe, just maybe, the ever-increasing number of bad (or slightly disappointed) reviews on U2 sites is indicative that there are problems with the tour
corianderstem said:But all the arguing (and not from you, but what I've been seeing in general) about what fans think they should be doing isn't going to change anything. They're going to do what they feel they want to do. Once a bands stops doing what it wants to do, they get bored. I don't think any of us want that.
I certainly wouldn't mind if they wanted to try something more along experimental lines again, but I have to admit that I'm really glad I like the newer stuff along with the older stuff
martha said:You know, those of you who insist on living in the past are really annoying as fuck.
"Oh, the band is old now and they suck." "The band doesn't have the passion they used to have when they were 25 and so was I."
Whatta load of horseshit. Bands evolve and change. I'm not saying that they're good for a bunch of 45-year-olds, either. I'm saying they're GOOD, godammit. I am so sick of people wanting U2 to be like they used to be. Well, they're not. Fucking deal with it. You're not like you used to be either. Or maybe you still are and that's the problem. Maybe you haven't grown any in the last 20 years; maybe you're still stuck in the past.
Jesus. The man's daughter is sick with a disease that could be fatal. So they're a tad distracted. It's still a great show full of incredible music. You voluntarily paid too much money for your tickets. If you think the shows you've seen so far suck, then sell
your fucking tickets on ebay and stew at home, listening to your old bootlegs of when they used to be good.
martha said:Jesus. The man's daughter is sick with a disease that could be fatal.
starvinmarvin said:
5) You seem to be upset because other fans are not willing to lower their expectations as you have so obviously done. Some of us don't want the band to turn into a MOR nostalgia act, like The Who or Stones.
shocking, i bet you cant sleep after that? lolramblin rose said:Maybe he's decided to make it a permanent change.
I still haven't gotten over the fact that he continues to say "sparkle" in instead of "twinkle" during Vertigo.
KUEFC09U2 said:shocking, i bet you cant sleep after that? lol
Hawkfire said:The only thing "wrong" with the Vertigo tour is that it inevitably is going to go head to head with U2's previous tours and sadly, the comparison isn't a good one for Vertigo.
The fact is U2 is touring behind a AOR adult-contemporary made-for-radio soccer-mom friendly mid-tempo middle-age mass consumer album. The music on HTDAAB is capable and competent, but the U2 of 1980-1998 wouldn't have put out product that was merely capable and competent, it also had to be CHALLENGING and expanding the band's own BOUNDARIES. The worse offender on HTDAAB is the trite cliche and deliberately vague lyrics that read as if Bono wrote them in about 2 weeks time.
So when you have a show bogged down with 7 or 8 tunes like this, the pace/energy invariably lags (need proof? witness the "Beer Rush" during Miracle Drug). The decision to include some real oldies I very much enjoy, but the "warhorses" portion of the set (Bullet/Pride/SBS/and amazingly even Streets) are all very tired and don't have anything on their previous incarnations this go around. Listen to the Bullet on the Stay single for what Bullet sounded like when it MEANT something. Watch UABRS again at Red Rocks when SBS wasn't just a sing-along. Any incarnation of the incomparable Streets was THE high point of a U2 show, I was shocked how limp the Vertigo version is. If the band is going to put absolutely no effort into these songs, they should just put them out of their misery and retire them.
The heavy-handed preachiness and awkward "United Nations"/cell phone crap further undermines the band and that whole segment is contrived and appears self-serving.
Thankfully, last Thursday after all the above U2 came out for encores and absolutely ROCKED and played like they CARED (Zoo set, WOWY, epic version of BAD) that totally salvaged the show for this viewer.
I was at Slane, I have seen the band countless times in many venues, and yeah you're darn right I have SUPER HIGH expectations every time U2 takes the stage. They didn't fully meet those expectations, and I don't think my expectations are unreasonable. I hold U2 to a very high standard - a standard they themselves have set.
Vertigo simply doesn't meet those standards. Does it mean its a bad show or one not worth seeing? Absolutely not. But are we on the slippery slope toward the Rolling Stones, part II??? I fear very much we are.