Author Topic: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour  (Read 30211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline U2-obsessed and proud

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 24,667
  • Let The Rain come down, make a brand new ground
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2011, 06:59:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree wholeheartedly.

Zoo TV was revolutionary for U2 and for touring in general, but I think in terms of setlists and the efficiency of the band on stage, 360 wins.

I didn't see Zoo TV live though, so what do I know *waits for the elitist U2 fans to attack*

Im not going to attack you, but I do think if you had witnessed Zoo TV, you might have thought differently.

You know what I think of WOWY. Well it was EPIC on Zoo TV. The BTBS/RTSS/Streets segment was completely mind blowing.

Indoors, Zoo TV was monumental.

I believe that Zoo TV was monumental, insane, amazing, and all those other adjectives.  That being said, The Claw is an unprecedented marvel of futuristic technology and I believe U2 used it to perfection.

 Secondly, it's the songs that make the concert after all.  We all know that the 2000's material is the material I love the most.  During my two U2360 shows, I've seen 13 songs performed from the 2000's, more than 90's material and 80's material.  So I got to see 13 of my all time favorite songs performed as well as songs I've always adored and had prayed I'd one day see live.  (I Will Follow, UTEOTW, Zooropa, Ultraviolet, TUF, Miss Sarajevo to name a few).  I feel like these setlists over the last few weeks had a perfect balance, as opposed to the Zoo TV shows that featured up to four covers, multiple songs from Achtung Baby I don't care for, as well as a few others like When Love Comes To Town and Slow Dancing, songs I really don't like.  

U2 played more to my liking on 360 so obviously I feel like it would have been a better tour for me personally as opposed to Zoo TV.  But the real reason I feel that 360 was better was because it was just four friends on stage playing.  The Claw was spectacular, but the band overshadowed it night after night.  There was no ironic, satirizing theme to the set, nor were there any silly characters Bono played.  It was just Bono, just the band, just the songs.  The same reason why I feel like the Elevation Tour was probably their best overall tour

Offline Gavin Tuesday

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 474
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2011, 07:09:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree wholeheartedly.

Zoo TV was revolutionary for U2 and for touring in general, but I think in terms of setlists and the efficiency of the band on stage, 360 wins.

I didn't see Zoo TV live though, so what do I know *waits for the elitist U2 fans to attack*

Im not going to attack you, but I do think if you had witnessed Zoo TV, you might have thought differently.

You know what I think of WOWY. Well it was EPIC on Zoo TV. The BTBS/RTSS/Streets segment was completely mind blowing.

Indoors, Zoo TV was monumental.

I believe that Zoo TV was monumental, insane, amazing, and all those other adjectives.  That being said, The Claw is an unprecedented marvel of futuristic technology and I believe U2 used it to perfection.

 Secondly, it's the songs that make the concert after all.  We all know that the 2000's material is the material I love the most.  During my two U2360 shows, I've seen 13 songs performed from the 2000's, more than 90's material and 80's material.  So I got to see 13 of my all time favorite songs performed as well as songs I've always adored and had prayed I'd one day see live.  (I Will Follow, UTEOTW, Zooropa, Ultraviolet, TUF, Miss Sarajevo to name a few).  I feel like these setlists over the last few weeks had a perfect balance, as opposed to the Zoo TV shows that featured up to four covers, multiple songs from Achtung Baby I don't care for, as well as a few others like When Love Comes To Town and Slow Dancing, songs I really don't like.  

U2 played more to my liking on 360 so obviously I feel like it would have been a better tour for me personally as opposed to Zoo TV.  But the real reason I feel that 360 was better was because it was just four friends on stage playing.  The Claw was spectacular, but the band overshadowed it night after night.  There was no ironic, satirizing theme to the set, nor were there any silly characters Bono played.  It was just Bono, just the band, just the songs.  The same reason why I feel like the Elevation Tour was probably their best overall tour

Listen man, I'm sorry, but it's not "elitist" to say you should have actually, um, attended the concert, if you're going to start doing these kind of comparisons.  It's cool that you love 360, I respect that.  But since you didn't actually go to a ZOO TV show, you really have nothing to base your comparison on (and no, seeing the DVD doesn't count).

Offline U2-obsessed and proud

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 24,667
  • Let The Rain come down, make a brand new ground
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2011, 07:13:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree wholeheartedly.

Zoo TV was revolutionary for U2 and for touring in general, but I think in terms of setlists and the efficiency of the band on stage, 360 wins.

I didn't see Zoo TV live though, so what do I know *waits for the elitist U2 fans to attack*

Im not going to attack you, but I do think if you had witnessed Zoo TV, you might have thought differently.

You know what I think of WOWY. Well it was EPIC on Zoo TV. The BTBS/RTSS/Streets segment was completely mind blowing.

Indoors, Zoo TV was monumental.

I believe that Zoo TV was monumental, insane, amazing, and all those other adjectives.  That being said, The Claw is an unprecedented marvel of futuristic technology and I believe U2 used it to perfection.

 Secondly, it's the songs that make the concert after all.  We all know that the 2000's material is the material I love the most.  During my two U2360 shows, I've seen 13 songs performed from the 2000's, more than 90's material and 80's material.  So I got to see 13 of my all time favorite songs performed as well as songs I've always adored and had prayed I'd one day see live.  (I Will Follow, UTEOTW, Zooropa, Ultraviolet, TUF, Miss Sarajevo to name a few).  I feel like these setlists over the last few weeks had a perfect balance, as opposed to the Zoo TV shows that featured up to four covers, multiple songs from Achtung Baby I don't care for, as well as a few others like When Love Comes To Town and Slow Dancing, songs I really don't like.  

U2 played more to my liking on 360 so obviously I feel like it would have been a better tour for me personally as opposed to Zoo TV.  But the real reason I feel that 360 was better was because it was just four friends on stage playing.  The Claw was spectacular, but the band overshadowed it night after night.  There was no ironic, satirizing theme to the set, nor were there any silly characters Bono played.  It was just Bono, just the band, just the songs.  The same reason why I feel like the Elevation Tour was probably their best overall tour

Listen man, I'm sorry, but it's not "elitist" to say you should have actually, um, attended the concert, if you're going to start doing these kind of comparisons.  It's cool that you love 360, I respect that.  But since you didn't actually go to a ZOO TV show, you really have nothing to base your comparison on (and no, seeing the DVD doesn't count).

When I go to a concert, I want to see the band performing.  I don't want to see all these in depth themes and characters, that goes for U2 as well as any other musical artist in the world.  I'm not into those things.  I just wanna see the band members perform their songs without any distracting trimmings.  I don't need to have seen Zoo TV to say that.  I can guarantee that, if I saw a Zoo TV show, I would not have liked it as much as 360

The Grave

  • Guest
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2011, 07:38:33 PM »
I agree with you about the whole character thing. I think it would be fine it B just was the fly then went back to his normal self.

I personally don't really like Macphisto.. I don't like my idol walking around with makeup and lipstick

Offline U2-obsessed and proud

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 24,667
  • Let The Rain come down, make a brand new ground
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2011, 08:18:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


When I go to a concert, I want to see the band performing.  I don't want to see all these in depth themes and characters, that goes for U2 as well as any other musical artist in the world.  I'm not into those things.  I just wanna see the band members perform their songs without any distracting trimmings.  I don't need to have seen Zoo TV to say that.  I can guarantee that, if I saw a Zoo TV show, I would not have liked it as much as 360

It has nothing to do with the "theme" or "characters". Forget all that. I merely pointing out absurdity of coming on here saying that 360 is "the best U2 tour/era", and authoritatively declaring better than ZOO TV, when you weren't even at ZOO TV.  Of course, it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it might be more accurate for you to merely state that 360 is the best U2 tour you've seen and leave it at that.  Because I think you'll find if you polled 100 U2 fans who'd seen both shows, a large majority would say they preferred ZOO TV.  And, no matter what you say, if you were actually at the concert, you might feel differently.  Because you weren't, you can't know. There's an energy, a vibe at a concert that you have to be there to feel, and for each tour it's unique.  But you need to be there to feel it.  You were at a 360 show...compare that to watching the Rose Bowl DVD and you'll know what I mean.

Finally, I can't help but point out the irony in someone who loves 360 all that tech so much saying that they "wanna see the band members perform their songs without any distracting trimmings."  Because unless you had very good seats, you barely saw the band...you saw four tiny figures on a stage, a claw and a giant video screen.  I'm pretty sure that gigantic claw could be called a "distracting trimming." If just the band and the music are your criteria for a great show, then I'd suggest you have a look at the Elevation tour.

I've never seen Babe Ruth play, so that means I can't say he was the best baseball player of all time?
I wasn't alive during Lincoln's, FDR's, or Washington's presidencies, so that means I can't say they were the best presidents of all time?
I didn't see Zoo TV, so I can't say that a tour was better than it?

To say my opinion is wrong because I wasn't around during Zoo TV is absurd. 

But you're right in terms of polling people about Zoo TV.  Most people who saw Zoo TV became fans around the Achtung Baby era, so there is a deep emotional connection to it, inherently creating bias.  It was All That You Can't Leave Behind that made me a fan, not No Line on the Horizon before you try to turn that argument against me  ;)

The Claw is not a distractive trimming, as like I said, the star of a 360 show is clearly the band as the band has played with an energy and cohesiveness that even the staunchest of Zoo TV supporters couldn't deny.

And you don't have to think as you look at The Claw.  It's just there to enhance the songs and create more space for fans.  I feel like you had to think about the meaning of Bono's characters/speeches during Zoo TV.  One shouldn't have to think at a concert.

The Professor

  • Guest
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2011, 08:23:15 PM »
GavinTuesday, I wasn't there for D-Day or Gettysburg but I can safely draw conclusions from the history books enough to state that they were both epic, terrible battles.  I agree that it's hard to judge what it was LIKE to be at a particular event without having been there, but I don't think this invalidates someone's opinions or analysis.

Also, there are MANY U2 fans on this site who missed the Boy, October, War, TUF, TJT, ZOO TV, PopMart, etc. tours, and probably some who saw U2 live for the first time during the 360 Tour.  There's plenty of information and rock and roll history out there to be researched that would allow one to come to a conclusion to base their opinion on. 

I'm not saying they would necessarily be right, but they would still be able to make valid observations and conclusions.



 

 


Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,286
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2011, 08:34:18 PM »
Saw them both.

Not even close.

Zoo by miles and miles.

Technology is better on 360 ? Yeah, so what ? That's like preferring Phantom Menace over Return of the Jedi because it had better CGI.

And the songs were played and sang much better back then.

360 is probably the worst tours of u2 I've seen in person, and I've seen them all bar Lovetown.






Archie_bronson

  • Guest
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2011, 02:20:30 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Saw them both.

Not even close.

Zoo by miles and miles.

Technology is better on 360 ? Yeah, so what ? That's like preferring Phantom Menace over Return of the Jedi because it had better CGI.

And the songs were played and sang much better back then.

360 is probably the worst tours of u2 I've seen in person, and I've seen them all bar Lovetown.







Agreed - 360 is just big and not much else. Zoo had some amazing ideas and concepts. 360 is the worst tour they've done IMO, worse even than Vertigo.
Elevation was great though

Offline Gavin Tuesday

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 474
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2011, 05:13:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
GavinTuesday, I wasn't there for D-Day or Gettysburg but I can safely draw conclusions from the history books enough to state that they were both epic, terrible battles.  I agree that it's hard to judge what it was LIKE to be at a particular event without having been there, but I don't think this invalidates someone's opinions or analysis.

Also, there are MANY U2 fans on this site who missed the Boy, October, War, TUF, TJT, ZOO TV, PopMart, etc. tours, and probably some who saw U2 live for the first time during the 360 Tour.  There's plenty of information and rock and roll history out there to be researched that would allow one to come to a conclusion to base their opinion on.  

I'm not saying they would necessarily be right, but they would still be able to make valid observations and conclusions.



 

  



Prof, I didn't say it "invalidated" their opinion (or that the opinion was "wrong")..but I am saying that it undermines (I'll use your word here) the credibility of the opinion, because it's not based on all the facts. There are degrees of "validity".  I said multiple times that what we think of all their music and tours is all just opinion.  In this case, however, I just think it's a bit smug to authoritatively declare 360 better not even having been to the ZOO TV show.  Yes, one who hasn't been to both shows can make "conclusions and observations"...but not doesn't necessarily mean their valid.  I'd never question the opinion of someone who'd been to both shows and just preferred 360, that would be ridiculous, give me some credit.  But in order for me to really give that opinion any weight, I'd expect the person to have, um, actually been at both shows.

I think you know your historical examples really don't hold up.  Saying you know what the ZOO TV tour is all about because you've seen the DVD is kind of like saying you know what it's like to be in war because you've seen Saving Private Ryan, or even actual news reel footage...or that you know what the horror of Gettysburg is like because you've read a book or seen the movie.  Imagine someone who fought in Iraq telling someone who fought in  Vietnam that Iraq was "worse" because, even though he wasn't in Vietnam, he saw Platoon and watched news footage and knew what it was like.  Extreme examples, yes, but you brought up the history analogies, and the point is there's nothing like the real thing.  If watching the DVD was anywhere close to the same experience we'd all just buy DVD's, skip the traffic and watch the concerts with a front row seat in the comfort of our own homes.

Or what about travel?  We've all seen pictures of the Grand Canyon...but have you been there?  Until you've actually seen it, you just can't understand what it's like to see that spectacular natural wonder laid out before you.  We've all seen movies and pictures with Red Square, but until I stepped into it the first time I had no idea how massive it is. What would you think if someone who had been to Yosemite but had only seen pictures of the Grand Canyon declared Yosemite to be more spectacular? What if they said "I've seen the pics, and Grand Canyon is just a big hole in the ground, I'm not into holes" What would you say to that person?  Would you perhaps say you really need to see it for yourself to judge?  

I'm sorry, some opinions are indeed more "valid" than others.  If you were trying to decide whether to go to the beaches of Tahiti or Fiji, and you ask two of your friends, whose opinion is more "valid"...someone who's actually been to both places, or someone who's been to Tahiti but only seen pics and video of Fiji? Both are entitled to their opinions, of course, but are you going to give equal weight to those opinions?  What if the person who'd only seen pics of Fiji declared Tahiti to be better?  What would you say to that person? If seeing videos and pics were an accurate, and whole, representation of the experience we'd get actually going there no one would ever leave their living room and the travel industry would go bust overnight.  There's a reason travel guides are written by people who have actually been there.

What about art?  I'm sure you've seen pictures of the Mona Lisa...have you been to see it in the Louvre?  Is it the same?  Almost every painting you can find in a museum you can also find in a book or online...does that mean you don't go to the museum?  Is the experience of seeing a picture of a painting the same as seeing the real thing?  Can you see every detail of the brush strokes, the texture, the subtlety in lightning, as well as you could see them in a picture?  Ask anyone who's really into art about their emotional reaction seeing a favorite painting in person for the first time.

I've been to Tahiti, and Fiji, and the Grand Canyon, and Yosemite, and Red Square, and the Louvre.  I can tell you, no picture or video of any of those places does them justice.  I haven't, however, been to the Bahamas, so I wouldn't presume to say that the beaches in Fiji are better than those in the Caribbean, even  though I've seen pics, videos and Pirates of the Caribbean.   I could, of course, make an opinion based on my incomplete experience...but how "valid" (again, to use your word) would that be?

How much validity would you give to a critic who reviewed the 360 Rose Bowl show but only watched the internet simulcast?  

Really, the list of examples are endless.  Contrary to the last line in your post, there really aren't "right" opinions (or wrong ones), merely degrees of how informed those opinions are by fact, education and experience. And this isn't about what I think of either tour. If someone who didn't see 360 told me ZOOTV was better I'd say the same thing.

Now what you can do is compare the Sydney ZOO TV DVD and the 360 Rose Bowl DVD and make an educated comparison, and I'd have no problem with that. But when you compare seeing 360 LIVE with ZOO TV on DVD....it's apples and oranges and of course you're going to like 360 better.  Again, I'm not saying the opinion is "wrong".  Someone can say Transformers has more literary merit than Hamlet and their opinion is not "wrong". I would say, however, that opinion would be suspect.

In this case, watching concerts on DVD is not necessarily better than the real thing.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 09:58:01 AM by Gavin Tuesday »

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2011, 06:26:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with you about the whole character thing. I think it would be fine it B just was the fly then went back to his normal self.

I personally don't really like Macphisto.. I don't like my idol walking around with makeup and lipstick

You'll get over it. You don't like the Berlin video of One either I presume, or the Achtung Baby sleeve photographs.

The Professor

  • Guest
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2011, 10:15:04 AM »
Yes, I've seen the Mona Lisa and, to be honest, I thought it looked much better in art books, plus it was extremely hot the day I was there and very crowded and my feet hurt from walking all day.

Offline Gavin Tuesday

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 474
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2011, 10:33:36 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I've seen the Mona Lisa and, to be honest, I thought it looked much better in art books, plus it was extremely hot the day I was there and very crowded and my feet hurt from walking all day.

Perhaps you should stay home more then. :)

At least you've actually seen the original Mona Lisa, and had a basis for comparison, then decided you liked it better in the "art books".   Thanks for proving my point. :)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 11:17:25 AM by Gavin Tuesday »

The Professor

  • Guest
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2011, 11:36:16 AM »
Gavin, you really are a Phantom Menace.  You've proven nothing.  For example, if I had to decide today which was "better," the virtual GavinTuesday or the real GavinTuesday, I'd have to say I prefer the virtual version even though I've never met and know nothing about the real GavinTuesday.  So thank you for helping ME prove MY point. :P

It would be easier and more effective if the person who started this thread broke it down into two different categories of opinion: those based on having experienced both tours firsthand and those who didn't.  But regardless, the arguments about WHY one is better than the other will most likely be the same.  The things I loved about ZOO TV are the same things written about the tour in magazines and interviews with the band about what they were trying to do with the whole thing.  360 was a vehicle for entertainment, pure and simple and this came across in all of the interviews I read or saw with the band as well as articles about the tour. 

One needn't have attended either show to be able to make these type of deductions, but they would have to have done their research.

I wasn't able to go to the Elevation Tour due to a last minute emergency, the only tour show I missed, but I'm quite certain that ZOO TV was the superior tour based on what I'd read about it and watched online or from watching the tour DVD.  There might be a few fans on here who preferred Elevation to ZOO TV, but I doubt there are many. Regardless, if my conclusion about which was better holds some weight, even without providing support evidence, why couldn't someone else make the same conclusion about 360 vs. ZOO TV?

They'd be wrong, of course, but their opinion would be valid all the same.


Offline U2BROTHR

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2011, 11:41:23 AM »
I saw them both.  Zoo TV all the way.  Yes, technology is better now..... 360 Tour is incredible.

But Zoo TV changed the game for the music industry.  It flipped U2 in another category with their reinvention of themselves.

Bono had characters.

Zoo TV - make no mistake about it.

Offline Gavin Tuesday

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 474
Re: To all those who think Zoo TV is U2's best era/tour
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2011, 11:57:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gavin, you really are a Phantom Menace.  You've proven nothing.  For example, if I had to decide today which was "better," the virtual GavinTuesday or the real GavinTuesday, I'd have to say I prefer the virtual version even though I've never met and know nothing about the real GavinTuesday.  So thank you for helping ME prove MY point. :P

It would be easier and more effective if the person who started this thread broke it down into two different categories of opinion: those based on having experienced both tours firsthand and those who didn't.  But regardless, the arguments about WHY one is better than the other will most likely be the same.  The things I loved about ZOO TV are the same things written about the tour in magazines and interviews with the band about what they were trying to do with the whole thing.  360 was a vehicle for entertainment, pure and simple and this came across in all of the interviews I read or saw with the band as well as articles about the tour. 

One needn't have attended either show to be able to make these type of deductions, but they would have to have done their research.

I wasn't able to go to the Elevation Tour due to a last minute emergency, the only tour show I missed, but I'm quite certain that ZOO TV was the superior tour based on what I'd read about it and watched online or from watching the tour DVD.  There might be a few fans on here who preferred Elevation to ZOO TV, but I doubt there are many. Regardless, if my conclusion about which was better holds some weight, even without providing support evidence, why couldn't someone else make the same conclusion about 360 vs. ZOO TV?

They'd be wrong, of course, but their opinion would be valid all the same.




I've actually more than proven my point…you just don't want to see it.  If someone asked you whether you prefer the "real" Gavin or the "virtual" one, the only legitimate answer is..."I don't know, I've never met the real one". 

Your opinion about Elevation vs. ZOOTV is yours and you're entitled to, but I'm not going to give as much validity, or weight, to that opinion as if you'd actually seen Elevation yourself, plain and simple. I have no problem with someone saying "360 is the best U2 tour I've seen".  But saying "360 is the best U2 tour ever", without having seen the other shows, I'm sorry, is absurd.

It's one thing to say "I liked 360 set list better than the ZOOTV one", even if you hadn't attended ZOOTV.  You can read the set list without having seen either show and make that call. But to come on here and say that the 360 show was "better" or "superior" without actually having been at ZOOTV, is of course ridiculous.  Again, it's your opinion, but as I've established in example after example after example, second hand knowledge is no substitute for the real thing.

You said you missed the Elevation tour (which I actually preferred to ZOOTV, but that's beside the point).  But I'm sure you've seen the DVD's from that, so I guess, by your criteria, you can say you've "seen" the Elevation tour.

We're just not going to agree on this one, no matter how many real-world examples I give you. However, might I suggest, in the future, since seeing the DVD is, apparently, even better than the real thing, you save yourself some money and traffic hassles and wait for the video for future tours….after all, it's just like being there yourself, right?