U2: Band in Crisis?

[U2387]

Seems more like 500%. Cannot fathom how you would rather hear inferior songs just because they haven't done them before.





This is the same bloke who said he enjoyed The Fray but said Interpol suck. I told him the other day there's a musket trained at his forehead.

Backwater was a little harsh.

Small media market with little going on.

How does that sound???

As for The Fray and Interpol, it's taste. No need to cast aspersions on people who say they enjoyed one more than the other.

The Fray, to my ears, at least know how to write a song, build intensity and perform well.

Interpol, to my ears was painful.

My head hasn't been blown apart yet....

 

[Niceman]

Seems more like 500%. Cannot fathom how you would rather hear inferior songs just because they haven't done them before.

And I can't imagine anyone who would want the band to go out and play One, Pride, Streets, rinse & repeat over and over again for the next 20 years instead of doing something new.

 

[BoMac]

And I can't imagine anyone who would want the band to go out and play One, Pride, Streets, rinse & repeat over and over again for the next 20 years instead of doing something new.

The vast minority majority of people who only see them once a tour or casual fans would say otherwise.

I really can't think of any major band (save Radiohead re: Creep) that don't have live staples that they trot out every time because they're crowd pleasers. Like it or not, it's what most people want to hear. Not only that, but I know there are bands that play these songs as appreciation because without those big hits, they wouldn't have been as successful.

I actually saw a show during the Elevation Tour where they didn't play With or Without You. While I didn't miss the song at all, and thought it was a very good show overall, there were a lot of people complaining through various mediums that they would have liked to hear that song.

 

[doctorwho]

And I can't imagine anyone who would want the band to go out and play One, Pride, Streets, rinse & repeat over and over again for the next 20 years instead of doing something new.

I do agree with this part. I love hearing some of those songs, but I don't mind U2 mixing up the "giants" with other songs between nights and/or cities. They'll never please everyone, but mixing in some giants with some rarities is appreciated.

The trick with rarities, though, is that they still have to be crowd-pleasing. For example, "Bad" and "Until the End..." works fantastic in a live-setting, even though neither song was released as a single. However, playing "An Cat Dubh" can be a bit much for a general audience. Fans love it, but will everyone? Therefore, I say stay with strong but lesser known tracks, like "Out of Control", "Electico Co", "Gloria", "A Sort of a Homecoming", "Two Hearts Beat As One", "Hawkmoon 269", "Love Rescue Me", FULL BAND "Angel of Harlem", "In God's Country" (or more "One Tree Hill" and "Exit" please!), "Who's Gonna Ride", "Lemon" (or more "Zooropa"), "Dirty Day", "Mofo" (which I actually think would have worked brilliantly on this tour), etc. These older tracks are enjoyed by the audience, but give U2 a chance to mix as well.

 

[LemonMelon]

As for The Fray and Interpol, it's taste. No need to cast aspersions on people who say they enjoyed one more than the other.

The Fray, to my ears, at least know how to write a song, build intensity and perform well.

Interpol, to my ears was painful.

The Fray know how to write a completely imperceptible song. I know a Fray song is on when I can sense something is playing on the radio, but can't pick out melody or emotion of any kind from it. They're like aural saltines.

People who don't care for opening bands would like The Fray. Theirs is the most inoffensive shit in the world. Perfect magazine-reading music.

 

[Niceman]

I do agree with this part. I love hearing some of those songs, but I don't mind U2 mixing up the "giants" with other songs between nights and/or cities. They'll never please everyone, but mixing in some giants with some rarities is appreciated.

The trick with rarities, though, is that they still have to be crowd-pleasing. For example, "Bad" and "Until the End..." works fantastic in a live-setting, even though neither song was released as a single. However, playing "An Cat Dubh" can be a bit much for a general audience. Fans love it, but will everyone? Therefore, I say stay with strong but lesser known tracks, like "Out of Control", "Electico Co", "Gloria", "A Sort of a Homecoming", "Two Hearts Beat As One", "Hawkmoon 269", "Love Rescue Me", FULL BAND "Angel of Harlem", "In God's Country" (or more "One Tree Hill" and "Exit" please!), "Who's Gonna Ride", "Lemon" (or more "Zooropa"), "Dirty Day", "Mofo" (which I actually think would have worked brilliantly on this tour), etc. These older tracks are enjoyed by the audience, but give U2 a chance to mix as well.

Well, Until the End of the World isn't a rarity. I don't think I've ever seen them NOT play it. I agree with you that they should mix up the old hits and the old rarities..... but you know where I'm coming from. I'd still rather have new material than rarities in most cases.

BUT let's not think I'm advocating an extreme. I'm okay with them playing an old warhorse or two. (I wouldn't mind never hearing One again.) and some cool unexpected old songs can be awesome. Out of 21-24 songs they can play 1/3 new material, 1/3 big hits and still have space for some unexpected treasures. I think I'd be happy with 10 new, 10 big hits, and 4 rare old surprises.

 

[Niceman]

The vast minority majority of people who only see them once a tour or casual fans would say otherwise.

It's a shame that u2 care so much about the casual fan, because the casual fan doesn't care about them.

 

[Utoo]

Well, it's a tricky thing when you think about who actually sees them. In any given stadium on this tour, 60,000-80,000 people attended each show. Any given GA line was lucky to hit 500 people by 5pm. They're probably lucky if even 20% of the ticket sales for a stadium gig are diehards.

 

[BVS]

It's a shame that u2 care so much about the casual fan, because the casual fan doesn't care about them.

This is a fairly narcissistic approach don't you think? Do you really think Bono can tell the difference from the stage in a stadium? At that moment they care about the energy, and very little else.

 

[Niceman]

This is a fairly narcissistic approach don't you think? Do you really think Bono can tell the difference from the stage in a stadium? At that moment they care about the energy, and very little else.

Narcissistic? No.... it's not about U2 loving themselves. It's about U2 worrying overmuch about the people who don't actually buy their albums rather than those who do.

And yeah, I think they can tell who's into it. The casual fans are less so. They're the ones taking bathroom breaks every time they play something which wasn't a single. They're the ones whose jaws don't drop open in amazement during YBR. I'm not saying they shouldn't play any singles, but maybe the people who are only there because of someone else shouldn't be the main concern?

 

[BVS]

Narcissistic? No.... it's not about U2 loving themselves. It's about U2 worrying overmuch about the people who don't actually buy their albums rather than those who do.

And yeah, I think they can tell who's into it. The casual fans are less so. They're the ones taking bathroom breaks every time they play something which wasn't a single. They're the ones whose jaws don't drop open in amazement during YBR. I'm not saying they shouldn't play any singles, but maybe the people who are only there because of someone else shouldn't be the main concern?

I meant narcissistic on your part, thinking that somehow you knowing YBR makes a difference at that particular point. If they were playing a theater full of interference type of fans MAYBE you would have a point.

 

[popacrobat]

It's a shame that u2 care so much about the casual fan, because the casual fan doesn't care about them.

why are you better or worse than a casual fan? my friend who is probably more than a casual fan now finally saw U2 for the first time last week in Philadelphia. he's my age (24), and what was his favorite song of the night?

elevation.

he thought the show was 100% amazing and his mind was blown, but it just goes to show you that the crowd pleasers - even elevation - do serve a huge purpose.

 

[tpsreports2424]

As a diehard U2 fan who doesn't even enjoying hearing One as a song, it is a MUST in a U2 concert. I'm sorry but id rather be singing along to songs with everyone in the audience than being the only one around enjoying a song while others are taking a piss break. There is nothing worse than going to a concert where a band plays an obscure song and everyone is just looking around waiting for a popular one to come next. It is absolutely the worst part of the show and even the band feels it, especially the casual fans who are more than likely 70-80% of the 60,000 fans that show up to a stadium show.

Its not that U2 cares more about the casual fan, its that they dont want to be playing an obscure set and making MAJORITY pissed off. There is a reason why songs are popular and look at the Rolling Stones. They toured only playing obscure songs and if i remember correctly, they played in theaters, not arenas and not stadiums.

If you want to listen to obscure songs, turn your ipod on. Concerts are for everyone to sing along to and enjoy. And by the way Your Blue Room sucks live. And people also say U2 looks tired and how they hate performing With or Without You but they have to... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is false because they're just old and tired after a show. I dont see any passion lacking during Sunday Bloody Sunday.

 

[Utoo]

^I think the deal with WOWY is the interpretation Bono's currently conveying. The original performance on the album and early shows was of tension & angst--"I can't live with or without you." There was tension and steaminess. For the last few tours, the performance is of a man who is more or less resigned to that fact---"I can't live with or without you"---rather than still struggling with it. Hence, the spent, slow, lower energy performance. In a sense, it's the difference between a 27-year-old singing the song and a 51-year-old. At least that's my take on it.

 

[Niceman]

I meant narcissistic on your part, thinking that somehow you knowing YBR makes a difference at that particular point. If they were playing a theater full of interference type of fans MAYBE you would have a point.

I don't think you understand the word, "narcissistic." It means someone who is in love with their own face. My thinking that both fans and die-hards probably love the performance of that song, as opposed to the "casual fans" who just want to hear One, has nothing to do with any affection I mean feel for myself...

Really you meant to say, "I disagree with you."

 

[Niceman]

why are you better or worse than a casual fan? my friend who is probably more than a casual fan now finally saw U2 for the first time last week in Philadelphia. he's my age (24), and what was his favorite song of the night?

elevation.

he thought the show was 100% amazing and his mind was blown, but it just goes to show you that the crowd pleasers - even elevation - do serve a huge purpose.

Better or worse has nothing to do with it. If someone dragged me to a Rolling Stones show I would hope the show wouldn't be tailored to me. I'm not into the band. I only know a dozen or more of their songs. I have never delved into their body of work nor wanted to. As far as I'm concerned, they should just play a 30 minute version of Paint it Black and call it a night.

But again, in which post did I say u2 shouldn't play any singles???????

I understand why they play Elevation, and I understand why they play One (even if I'd like them to never play it again.) My point was never that they shouldn't play fun, popular, or sing-along songs. My point was always: The show should be about the new album.

And I'll repeat it again: I don't mind them doing a nostalgic tour this time out, as long as this isn't what they do for the rest of their career.

 

[blackhawksjon]

We have a few years to argue this point.....at their artistic output rate.

 

[BVS]

I don't think you understand the word, "narcissistic." It means someone who is in love with their own face. My thinking that both fans and die-hards probably love the performance of that song, as opposed to the "casual fans" who just want to hear One, has nothing to do with any affection I mean feel for myself...

Really you meant to say, "I disagree with you."

That's a fairly narrow definition.

Like I said before it's not about catering or caring for one fan over the other, it's about what will get the energy...

 

[Niceman]

That's a fairly narrow definition.

Are you familiar of the story of Narcissus?

Here are a few dictionaries on the matter. They all say the same thing. I guess their definitions are a little more narrow than yours:

narcissist - definition of narcissist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Urban Dictionary: Narcissist

Narcissism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narcissism | Define Narcissism at Dictionary.com

 

[Niceman]

We have a few years to argue this point.....at their artistic output rate.

Sadly so. And things will only get worse as the fanbase gets more frustrated....

 

[Jive Turkey]

Are you familiar of the story of Narcissus?

Here are a few dictionaries on the matter. They all say the same thing. I guess their definitions are a little more narrow than yours:

narcissist - definition of narcissist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Urban Dictionary: Narcissist

Narcissism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narcissism | Define Narcissism at Dictionary.com

"Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness."

Did you even read the definitions that you posted? If you can't figure out how that fits into what BVS was trying to say, there are probably a few other personality disorders we can add to your CV

 

[tpsreports2424]

My point was always: The show should be about the new album.

If that was the case, im pretty sure 40-60% of the audience wouldn't of bought tickets.

If you like the Rolling Stones or not along with bands like Kiss, the Who, Guns N Roses and so forth, you dont want to see these bands play new stuff. They only have a few more tours left in them, why waste time on not seeing the stuff everyone loves and sings a long to.

and urban dictionary isnt a good sourse

 

[Niceman]

"Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness."

Did you even read the definitions that you posted? If you can't figure out how that fits into what BVS was trying to say, there are probably a few other personality disorders we can add to your CV

Yeah, I read them pretty well, thank you. Was I being accused of suffering from a pathological condition? I sure didn't understand that....

nar·cis·sism
   [nahr-suh-siz-em] Show IPA
–noun
1.
inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2.
Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

Narcissist 340 up, 35 down

1.Excessive love or admiration of oneself.
2.A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
3.Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.

nar·cis·sism (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm)
n.
1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits.

You quoted the Wikipedia article (intentionally omitting the 3 professional sources.) I won't past the whole thing. It talks about the pathological condition at some length. Was the suggestion that I suffer from that? I didn't understand that I was being accused of having a pathological condition simply because I think they should play a size-able portion of new songs on future tours..... If so, talk about an extreme exaggeration....

 

[corianderstem]

Sadly so. And things will only get worse as the fanbase gets more frustrated....

So ... have you already given up that they're not going to do anything that the fanbase ... I mean that you like?

That reads like you've already written them off.

 

[Niceman]

If that was the case, im pretty sure 40-60% of the audience wouldn't of bought tickets.

If you like the Rolling Stones or not along with bands like Kiss, the Who, Guns N Roses and so forth, you dont want to see these bands play new stuff. They only have a few more tours left in them, why waste time on not seeing the stuff everyone loves and sings a long to.

Really? Because ZOOTV was primarily about the album. So was TJT, and ALL of U2's tours up until... hmm..... I guess I'd even say that on Elevation and Vertigo the tours were ABOUT the new albums... So, I guess by your logic U2 shouldn't have made much money on any of their tours up until now?

 

[theedgeu2]

But those albums didn't tank.

 

[Niceman]

So ... have you already given up that they're not going to do anything that the fanbase ... I mean that you like?

That reads like you've already written them off.

No, as far as I'm concerned I may be one of the few people in this forum who hasn't written the band off!

Who else is saying that the band will have a better future than their past? Those who say the band couldn't sell tickets if they played more new material are the ones who have written them off.

I understand that for those of us who love the band enough to post on a forum like this we can feel the need to protect them. But please, consider that I'm the one defending them against a slew of those who just want them to play One, Pride, and Streets for decades more.

I'm the one on their side, not those who want them to become static, not those who want me to accept that it's okay if U2 turns into the Stones....

 

[Niceman]

But those albums didn't tank.

Neither did NLOTH. For 2009, it did very well - critically and as far as sales.

 

[PhilsFan]

^I think the deal with WOWY is the interpretation Bono's currently conveying. The original performance on the album and early shows was of tension & angst--"I can't live with or without you." There was tension and steaminess. For the last few tours, the performance is of a man who is more or less resigned to that fact---"I can't live with or without you"---rather than still struggling with it. Hence, the spent, slow, lower energy performance. In a sense, it's the difference between a 27-year-old singing the song and a 51-year-old. At least that's my take on it.

Yeah, this is exactly it. It's not that people are tired of With or Without You. Rather, it's that Bono seems tired of With or Without You.

 

[PhilsFan]

Neither did NLOTH. For 2009, it did very well - critically and as far as sales.

Technically. But that's not the perception, and in this case, the perception is reality.