Author Topic: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?  (Read 42778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #495 on: January 10, 2013, 11:35:41 AM »
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And they don't need an army of additional players on stage like some bands.

Because they don't play entirely live.

R.E.M wouldn't have needed other musicians on stage if they didn't play entirely live, either.






Nothing they've ever played needs an army of 20 or so musicians. In terms of live, U2 has exactly the same output as that certain band they get so many comparisons with...and in fact any 4 piece band.

REM pretty much needed a new drummer, although I wasn't talking about them.


Even with a drummer, if R.E.M played without any additional musicians, then like U2 they wouldn't be playing entirely live.  Which is why they take a keyboard player, an additional guitarist and sometimes even a violinist to perform with them on stage.  Bands like R.E.M, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd etc, have a natural live sound which needs additional real musicians playing real instruments to create, and they have enough respect for those musicians that they allow them to perfrom on stage with the rest of the band, instead of being hidden away from sight like trolls in the underworld.  In comparison, U2 have more of an artificial electronic live sound, which can be easily prerecorded and mixed in with the basic live band on stage. 



Pink Floyd aren't really a band not known for studio experimental sound. Stones are a cabaret, and have been for a while, with an army of extra players. There's a difference between having an extra guitar player/keyboard player/ being forced to get a new player and hiring hordes of extra players. E street band is a better example of a band with a natural live sound.

Plenty of stuff can be, yes, pre-recorded and mixed in with the live performance. What does it take away from U2 members performing live ? Or any band that uses pre-recorded sound for that matter ? Terry Lawless doesn't seem to mind (and has been acknowledged on the DVD credits).

Pink Floyd aren't really know as an experimental studio band? Is this in some bizarro world? They've always been known as one of the most experimental bands around.

Hence the sarcasm in my post.

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #496 on: January 10, 2013, 11:38:01 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Beware the double negative.

Another Example. It's not true that the 360 tour didnt end up being a nostalgia tour due to casual fan apathy towards the new material.



It had to do with Glastonbury and AB remaster.

That said, 7 new songs in the early legs and 6 brand new songs in 2010 doesn't qualify as a nostalgia tour.

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #497 on: January 10, 2013, 11:51:48 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pink Floyd aren't really a band not known for studio experimental sound. Stones are a cabaret, and have been for a while, with an army of extra players. There's a difference between having an extra guitar player/keyboard player/ being forced to get a new player and hiring hordes of extra players. E street band is a better example of a band with a natural live sound.

It all depends on what arrangements an artist wants for their live sound.  Artists with studio sounds such as those produced by Springsteen, the Stones, Pink Floyd, or Prince, will therefore need more musicians and backing singers to recreate that sound live.  If the Stones' touring band is a 'cabaret' then certainly Springsteen's is as well.  Basically, if an artist wants brass arrangements because a lot of their songs require them to do the songs justice in a live setting, i.e The Stones and Springsteen, then you have to have a brass section, or at the very least a sax player.

Quote
Plenty of stuff can be, yes, pre-recorded and mixed in with the live performance. What does it take away from U2 members performing live ? Or any band that uses pre-recorded sound for that matter ? Terry Lawless doesn't seem to mind (and has been acknowledged on the DVD credits).

So basically, U2 don't play entirely live.  Strip out the prerecorded sounds and all you have a rhythm section and an effects expert.  And I don't think Terry Lawless has much choice where he plays as he's just a hired musician, but I'm sure he'd welcome getting to play up on stage with the rest of the band, instead of being hidden away like a troll.



How is the E street band a cabaret ? It's the exact same lineup that plays on the records...barring a horn section I believe added on this tour.

Lead guitar, bass, drums, vocals/occasional acoustic from the singer. All live. Sonds like most rock bands.  Terry Lawless seems to be comfortable in this position, or he'd leave. Certainly U2 feels confident in crediting him on the DVDs, though I really don't care if someone plays the synths or if they are indeed mixed in.

As for the GH tour notions, it's interesting Bullet, one of their biggest live hits, was completely gone. Desire was rarely played, as were Bad, AIWIY and AOH. Plenty of U2 tours have played these far more often than 360, including less airplay than usual for IWF and NYD.

Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,286
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #498 on: January 10, 2013, 11:53:17 AM »
It's the 360 tour. You say it's to do with Glastonbury. I say it's to do with trying to get the casual fan crowds into the show.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22,131
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #499 on: January 10, 2013, 12:08:17 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
Pink Floyd aren't really a band not known for studio experimental sound. Stones are a cabaret, and have been for a while, with an army of extra players. There's a difference between having an extra guitar player/keyboard player/ being forced to get a new player and hiring hordes of extra players. E street band is a better example of a band with a natural live sound.

It all depends on what arrangements an artist wants for their live sound.  Artists with studio sounds such as those produced by Springsteen, the Stones, Pink Floyd, or Prince, will therefore need more musicians and backing singers to recreate that sound live.  If the Stones' touring band is a 'cabaret' then certainly Springsteen's is as well.  Basically, if an artist wants brass arrangements because a lot of their songs require them to do the songs justice in a live setting, i.e The Stones and Springsteen, then you have to have a brass section, or at the very least a sax player.

Quote
Plenty of stuff can be, yes, pre-recorded and mixed in with the live performance. What does it take away from U2 members performing live ? Or any band that uses pre-recorded sound for that matter ? Terry Lawless doesn't seem to mind (and has been acknowledged on the DVD credits).

So basically, U2 don't play entirely live.  Strip out the prerecorded sounds and all you have a rhythm section and an effects expert.  And I don't think Terry Lawless has much choice where he plays as he's just a hired musician, but I'm sure he'd welcome getting to play up on stage with the rest of the band, instead of being hidden away like a troll.



How is the E street band a cabaret ? It's the exact same lineup that plays on the records...barring a horn section I believe added on this tour.

The Rolling Stones tour with the same musicians that play/sing on their albums, except some brass players.  So, if the Stones are a cabaret, according to you, then so are Bruce and the E Street Band. 

And U2 don't play entirely live, unlike the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, R.E.M, Pink Floyd, etc etc etc etc...


Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22,131
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #500 on: January 10, 2013, 12:20:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lead guitar, bass, drums, vocals/occasional acoustic from the singer.

Like I said, a rhythm section and an effects man + a keyboardist hidden like a troll in the underworld.

Quote
As for the GH tour notions, it's interesting Bullet, one of their biggest live hits, was completely gone. Desire was rarely played, as were Bad, AIWIY and AOH. Plenty of U2 tours have played these far more often than 360, including less airplay than usual for IWF and NYD.

When an artist has so many hits and warhorses to choose from, they can afford to rest a few every now and again because they've got plenty more to play, and boy did U2 play them on 360.  Still a greatest hits/back catalogue show after U2 started dropping their new songs.


Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #501 on: January 10, 2013, 03:50:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
bethere, you don't make sense.

1980's U2 is not their only music that can be considered nostalgia. In 1997 U2 were only 7 years on from the 80's; in 2009 they were 19 years on from the '80s and had 3 more albums after Pop that they played music from, so of course there may not have been as many songs from the '80's on 360

             With nostalgia, your talking about older songs that were hits or became very well recognized over time.

            Just look at the difference in sales of the Greatest Hits 1980-1990 VS. 1990-2000. 1980-1990 has done 4 million in the USA, while 1990-2000 has only done 1 million. Naturally the 80s has some U2 staples that are very hard for other U2 era's to compete with:

80s U2 era most played songs:
I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Years Day
Pride
Where The Streets Have No Name
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
With Or Without You
Desire.

                          80s U2, with half of the bands albums, tends to have hold on what ever nostalgia market there is. But the band did not cater to it on 360. They easily could have, but they didn't, which is more proof showing that 360 was not a nostalgia tour. The "so called general public" that you so often refer to would find a larger number of songs from U2's 80s catalog that they were familiar with. Because of that, you should be looking to see how many songs from the 80s U2 is playing. At similar points in both tours, they were playing nearly double the number of 80s songs on POPMART than they were on 360. But both tours actually started out with only 6 songs being played from the 80s. That POPMART figure of 80s songs quickly went from 6 to 10, while the 360 figure stayed at six.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #502 on: January 10, 2013, 03:59:19 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Beware the double negative.

Another Example. It's not true that the 360 tour didnt end up being a nostalgia tour due to casual fan apathy towards the new material.

            If that were the case then you could lable every U2 tour a nostalgia tour. Both the UF and War tours only played 6 songs from their respective albums while the 360 tour played 7 songs from NLOTH.

For half the tour, 360 didn't have seven songs from NLOTH.  It had considerably fewer.  A larger portion of a War or TUF show was made up of new songs than 360 was, even before the cull.  360 didn't start out simply as a nostalgia show, although it was the nostalgia element which attracted most of the fans, but it evolved into a greatest hits/back catalogue show, so that by the end they were playing more songs from an album released twenty years earlier than they were from their latest album that you say they were supposedly 'promoting.'

Quote
            The POPMART TOUR had more hits from the 80s than the 360 tour did![/u][/i][/b]

FACTually wrong!

             The point remains though that they played more songs from NLOTH on 360 than they played from UF or War on their respective tours. The video of the Red Rocks show, Under A Blood Red Sky has less songs from war, than U2 360 at the Rose Bowl does from NLOTH.

           The early UF tour shows in fact had less than 6 songs from the UF album. Also, both tours, War and UF, finished within 10 months of the release of the album, which is why there were no major changes in the number of songs played from each respective album. The biggest changes to the 360 tour occured 29 months after the release of the album largely because of the 12 month delay in one of the tour legs. The end of the promotion period for the album plus the 20th anniversry of Achtung Baby led to those set list changes. With WAR and UF tours though, your dealing with tours that were completed within 10 months of the release of the album.

            60% of the songs played at the Rose Bowl were songs released after the year 2000. That is the opposite of a nostalgia tour.



Quote
FACTually wrong!

Well lets look at the Rose Bowl 360 VS Mexico City POPMART:

Rose Bowl 2009 80s songs:
Sunday Bloody Sunday
MLK
Unforgettable Fire
I Still Haven't Found...
With Or Without You
Where The Streets Have No Name

POPMART Mexico City 80s songs:
Desire
All I Want Is You
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Years Day
Pride
Bullet The Blue Sky
I Will Follow
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
Where The Streets Have No Name
With Or With Out You

             So, just songs from the 80s thats 10 to 6 in favor of POPMART. In terms of hits its 9 to 5 at best.
Bottom line things have got to change this tour.  No matter how many new songs they sing even if it is the whole album it will seem to be nostalgic if they keep relying on the usual staples as this article would suggest You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  People are tired of them.  Take the time to learn how to play some new songs from your back catalog.  Have faith in it, because if they continue with the same old same old no matter how fancy they make the production and how many new songs they sing from the new album it will just feel dull and lifeless.  Hopefully they will inject some new life and some freshness to the setlist.  I think the last line in the article really says it all: At this stage in U2's career, it might be tempting to just keep flogging the same old hits in stadiums for enormous sums of money. They need to resist that temptation at all costs.

Read more: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 I have seen U2 19 times myself and that is similar to how I personally feel. The most exciting thing about a new tour for me is the new songs, not songs from the past. But someone who has only seen U2 4 or 5 times, or never will probably feel very differently about what they would like to see the band play. The U2 audience is very large and possibly very diverse. I think the band feel best when they  accomplish three things with the setlist:

1. Promote the new album
2. Play some of their classic hits
3. Play a few songs that perhaps their more dedicated fans would love.

            In my view, they accomplished all three on the 360 tour. The bone that they threw to their more dedicated fans would be playing Ultraviolet and the Unforgettable Fire. Ultimately though, this is very hard for them or anyone to judge, and naturally there will always be fans who come away disappointed for whatever reason. They just have to do the best they can, and I think they succeeded with the 360 tour.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #503 on: January 10, 2013, 04:02:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's the 360 tour. You say it's to do with Glastonbury. I say it's to do with trying to get the casual fan crowds into the show.

            Remember, nearly all those tickets for the 2011 leg were sold back in late 2009.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #504 on: January 10, 2013, 04:03:48 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
Pink Floyd aren't really a band not known for studio experimental sound. Stones are a cabaret, and have been for a while, with an army of extra players. There's a difference between having an extra guitar player/keyboard player/ being forced to get a new player and hiring hordes of extra players. E street band is a better example of a band with a natural live sound.

It all depends on what arrangements an artist wants for their live sound.  Artists with studio sounds such as those produced by Springsteen, the Stones, Pink Floyd, or Prince, will therefore need more musicians and backing singers to recreate that sound live.  If the Stones' touring band is a 'cabaret' then certainly Springsteen's is as well.  Basically, if an artist wants brass arrangements because a lot of their songs require them to do the songs justice in a live setting, i.e The Stones and Springsteen, then you have to have a brass section, or at the very least a sax player.

Quote
Plenty of stuff can be, yes, pre-recorded and mixed in with the live performance. What does it take away from U2 members performing live ? Or any band that uses pre-recorded sound for that matter ? Terry Lawless doesn't seem to mind (and has been acknowledged on the DVD credits).

So basically, U2 don't play entirely live.  Strip out the prerecorded sounds and all you have a rhythm section and an effects expert.  And I don't think Terry Lawless has much choice where he plays as he's just a hired musician, but I'm sure he'd welcome getting to play up on stage with the rest of the band, instead of being hidden away like a troll.



How is the E street band a cabaret ? It's the exact same lineup that plays on the records...barring a horn section I believe added on this tour.

 

And U2 don't play entirely live, unlike the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, R.E.M, Pink Floyd, etc etc etc etc...

       And U2 is also better live than the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, R.E.M., Pink Floyd, etc, etc, etc....

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #505 on: January 10, 2013, 04:09:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lead guitar, bass, drums, vocals/occasional acoustic from the singer.

Like I said, a rhythm section and an effects man + a keyboardist hidden like a troll in the underworld.

Quote
As for the GH tour notions, it's interesting Bullet, one of their biggest live hits, was completely gone. Desire was rarely played, as were Bad, AIWIY and AOH. Plenty of U2 tours have played these far more often than 360, including less airplay than usual for IWF and NYD.

When an artist has so many hits and warhorses to choose from, they can afford to rest a few every now and again because they've got plenty more to play, and boy did U2 play them on 360.  Still a greatest hits/back catalogue show after U2 started dropping their new songs.

Rose Bowl 360 had 6 songs from the 80s

Mexico City POPMART had 10 songs from the 80s

New Years Day, Desire, and Pride were not played at the Rose Bowl 360, but they were played at POPMART Mexico City.

              So U2 in fact did what you wished they would do. They shelved some of their big staple hits to play newer songs that were not hits or older songs that were not hits but go album cuts.

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #506 on: January 10, 2013, 04:31:27 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Beware the double negative.

Another Example. It's not true that the 360 tour didnt end up being a nostalgia tour due to casual fan apathy towards the new material.

            If that were the case then you could lable every U2 tour a nostalgia tour. Both the UF and War tours only played 6 songs from their respective albums while the 360 tour played 7 songs from NLOTH.

For half the tour, 360 didn't have seven songs from NLOTH.  It had considerably fewer.  A larger portion of a War or TUF show was made up of new songs than 360 was, even before the cull.  360 didn't start out simply as a nostalgia show, although it was the nostalgia element which attracted most of the fans, but it evolved into a greatest hits/back catalogue show, so that by the end they were playing more songs from an album released twenty years earlier than they were from their latest album that you say they were supposedly 'promoting.'

Quote
            The POPMART TOUR had more hits from the 80s than the 360 tour did![/u][/i][/b]

FACTually wrong!

             The point remains though that they played more songs from NLOTH on 360 than they played from UF or War on their respective tours. The video of the Red Rocks show, Under A Blood Red Sky has less songs from war, than U2 360 at the Rose Bowl does from NLOTH.

           The early UF tour shows in fact had less than 6 songs from the UF album. Also, both tours, War and UF, finished within 10 months of the release of the album, which is why there were no major changes in the number of songs played from each respective album. The biggest changes to the 360 tour occured 29 months after the release of the album largely because of the 12 month delay in one of the tour legs. The end of the promotion period for the album plus the 20th anniversry of Achtung Baby led to those set list changes. With WAR and UF tours though, your dealing with tours that were completed within 10 months of the release of the album.

            60% of the songs played at the Rose Bowl were songs released after the year 2000. That is the opposite of a nostalgia tour.



Quote
FACTually wrong!

Well lets look at the Rose Bowl 360 VS Mexico City POPMART:

Rose Bowl 2009 80s songs:
Sunday Bloody Sunday
MLK
Unforgettable Fire
I Still Haven't Found...
With Or Without You
Where The Streets Have No Name

POPMART Mexico City 80s songs:
Desire
All I Want Is You
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Years Day
Pride
Bullet The Blue Sky
I Will Follow
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
Where The Streets Have No Name
With Or With Out You

             So, just songs from the 80s thats 10 to 6 in favor of POPMART. In terms of hits its 9 to 5 at best.
Bottom line things have got to change this tour.  No matter how many new songs they sing even if it is the whole album it will seem to be nostalgic if they keep relying on the usual staples as this article would suggest You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  People are tired of them.  Take the time to learn how to play some new songs from your back catalog.  Have faith in it, because if they continue with the same old same old no matter how fancy they make the production and how many new songs they sing from the new album it will just feel dull and lifeless.  Hopefully they will inject some new life and some freshness to the setlist.  I think the last line in the article really says it all: At this stage in U2's career, it might be tempting to just keep flogging the same old hits in stadiums for enormous sums of money. They need to resist that temptation at all costs.

Read more: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 I have seen U2 19 times myself and that is similar to how I personally feel. The most exciting thing about a new tour for me is the new songs, not songs from the past. But someone who has only seen U2 4 or 5 times, or never will probably feel very differently about what they would like to see the band play. The U2 audience is very large and possibly very diverse. I think the band feel best when they  accomplish three things with the setlist:

1. Promote the new album
2. Play some of their classic hits
3. Play a few songs that perhaps their more dedicated fans would love.

            In my view, they accomplished all three on the 360 tour. The bone that they threw to their more dedicated fans would be playing Ultraviolet and the Unforgettable Fire. Ultimately though, this is very hard for them or anyone to judge, and naturally there will always be fans who come away disappointed for whatever reason. They just have to do the best they can, and I think they succeeded with the 360 tour.
I too am excited about hearing the new songs and that is not my complaint.  It's what makes the rest of the set that kills it for me.  You seen U2 19 times, imagine my frustration seeing them over 40 times going back to the UF tour in '84 and hearing the same old tunes when they have so many other songs to choose from.  I'm sure there are fans out there who have seen them even more times than myself.   It is pretty simple formula to have every one walking out of the concert happy.  Play 24 songs-8 new tunes, 8 staples hits, and most importantly 8 rarities for the hardcore dedicated fans rather than the usual 2 they throw each tour.   If they do this I'm sure there will be no complaints and it is fair compromise between the casuals and the hardcore fans.  But in all honesty what I would really like to see and can live with is a set that didn't include the following songs: IWF, SBS, NYD, Pride, ISHFWILF, WOWY, Desire, Angel of Harlem, MW, One, Elevation, Stuck, Walk On, IALW,  Cobl.  Now that would make me happy.  I understand U2 need to play Street, Beautiful Day, and Vertigo, but other than that everything else should go with a fresh new batch of songs from their back catalog to go along with fresh new songs from their new album.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 04:04:04 AM by boom boom »

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Should U2 not try to outdo the 360 tour?
« Reply #507 on: January 17, 2013, 09:47:01 AM »
I now think that on the next tour they will try to be a little more conservative. Not as conservative as Elevation, as I think they will still play some stadiums. If they tour in 2014 after releasing the album at the end of 2013, I think will see a tour that takes in only North America and Europe. I'd say probably 100 shows, 30 in stadiums, 70 in arenas. All 100 shows will be completed quickly prior to the end of 2014.  I think they will do 10 stadiums in North America plus 40 arena's. In Europe it will be 20 stadiums, plus 30 arena's. The UK and Ireland this time out will be all arena shows.

              What this tour accomplishes is that it promotes the album and the band but does not play to the full audience which increases demand for the next time they tour. The stadiums are used in very high demand markets to limit fan anger and disappointment about ticket availability. Attendance in Ireland and the United Kingdom actually declined from Vertigo Tour to the 360 tour which is why I think they will go with an all arena run for those two countries in order to prime the pump for the next tour.

                Then, a new album in late 2016, followed by a massive world tour in 2017 that will attempt to top the 360 tour in every respect.