Author Topic: Have U2 become all about the money?  (Read 12031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #150 on: July 01, 2015, 10:11:59 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
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
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

My own take: I've been a fan and concert goer since Zoo TV.  Vertigo was probably the last U2 album/tour I really felt passionate about.  Part of this might be their declining powers--in particular, I found NLOTH to be the worst thing they'd ever done.  Part of this might just be me getting older, a little jaded, a little less impressed with stadium and arena concert flash.  I saw 360 early in the tour, and while I was happy to see it, it was my least favorite show of theirs.  It left me disinclined to see them on the return leg, which was a first for me.  I+E is an improvement like the new material more--but there is a weird distance I feel that makes it impossible to enjoy it the same way I used to.  The high ticket costs and diminishing returns mean I likely won't see another show on the return leg for this, either.
The band basically acknowledged this by turning the show into a heritage act to save the latter part of the tour. Maybe if I had not that much to compare it to, I may have liked 360 better but no dice. I'm glad some people liked that tour but for me, it never cut it. I think SOI is their best (good to approaching very good) output in 2000. I'm hoping MSG will once again bring the magic fully back for me!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,027
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #151 on: July 01, 2015, 10:17:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #152 on: July 01, 2015, 10:22:40 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
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
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

My own take: I've been a fan and concert goer since Zoo TV.  Vertigo was probably the last U2 album/tour I really felt passionate about.  Part of this might be their declining powers--in particular, I found NLOTH to be the worst thing they'd ever done.  Part of this might just be me getting older, a little jaded, a little less impressed with stadium and arena concert flash.  I saw 360 early in the tour, and while I was happy to see it, it was my least favorite show of theirs.  It left me disinclined to see them on the return leg, which was a first for me.  I+E is an improvement like the new material more--but there is a weird distance I feel that makes it impossible to enjoy it the same way I used to.  The high ticket costs and diminishing returns mean I likely won't see another show on the return leg for this, either.
The band basically acknowledged this by turning the show into a heritage act to save the latter part of the tour. Maybe if I had not that much to compare it to, I may have liked 360 better but no dice. I'm glad some people liked that tour but for me, it never cut it. I think SOI is their best (good to approaching very good) output in 2000. I'm hoping MSG will once again bring the magic fully back for me!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

I pretty much described in my post why I think they aren't as good live now. They don't take their great songs to higher place like they used to. I even gave a few examples. Listen to Mysterious Ways from the last 2 tours. It's a bare bones version, it's nice and sounds fine, but is it like the 92 or 97 version with the Edge going off at the end? Not even close. Just listen to One from Tacoma 92 or With or Without You from Paris 92 that I posted a bit ago. That is what I miss from U2 in the last decade or so.

The version of Gloria they did in Chicago was pretty good, and i'm glad they added it to the set. Great song.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #153 on: July 01, 2015, 10:24:48 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?

Offline Mr. Red

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #154 on: July 01, 2015, 10:30:47 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
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?

I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #155 on: July 01, 2015, 10:30:51 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
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?
He sings the song fine, but is it better then '81? No way.

And that's 1 song! Look over the last 10 years. There's not to many people who are gonna say Bono's voice is as good now as it was in his prime. Even Bono himself said in an interview a few years back he can't take off and make the songs "soar" like he used to. He has to protect his voice.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #156 on: July 01, 2015, 10:32:09 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
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
The bigger struggle with U2 has been staying a fan DESPITE their post-Pop output. Vertigo and 360 were poor tours in support of poor albums 9it's all relative of course), SOI has redeemed them to some degree. The recent shows I saw in LA were definitely better than their previous 2 tours, but still way too many warhorses and possibly the worst encores of any recent tour.

I loved the Vertigo and 360 tours. I thought the 360 tour was the best thing they had ever done in terms of overall stage design, performance and songs played. HTDAAB is my 3rd favorite U2 album after Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. HTDAAB is also the winner of 9 Grammy awards including Album Of The Year. No other album has won more Grammy awards than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

My own take: I've been a fan and concert goer since Zoo TV.  Vertigo was probably the last U2 album/tour I really felt passionate about.  Part of this might be their declining powers--in particular, I found NLOTH to be the worst thing they'd ever done.  Part of this might just be me getting older, a little jaded, a little less impressed with stadium and arena concert flash.  I saw 360 early in the tour, and while I was happy to see it, it was my least favorite show of theirs.  It left me disinclined to see them on the return leg, which was a first for me.  I+E is an improvement like the new material more--but there is a weird distance I feel that makes it impossible to enjoy it the same way I used to.  The high ticket costs and diminishing returns mean I likely won't see another show on the return leg for this, either.
The band basically acknowledged this by turning the show into a heritage act to save the latter part of the tour. Maybe if I had not that much to compare it to, I may have liked 360 better but no dice. I'm glad some people liked that tour but for me, it never cut it. I think SOI is their best (good to approaching very good) output in 2000. I'm hoping MSG will once again bring the magic fully back for me!!

           Tour did not need to be saved. It is the highest grossing, highest attended tour in the history of music. Over $736 million grossed and 7.3 million tickets sold at 110 shows setting records everywhere. The last American leg was delayed by a year because of Bono's back injury, but the tickets were purchased in December 2009 by over 90% of the fans based on the set list from the first American leg which had the majority of the songs come from their post 2000 work, far from being a heritage show. The last leg was reconfigured and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Achtung Baby. No Line On The Horizon was over two years old by that point anyway.

          Check out the Rose Bowl 360 setlist. That is far from being a "heritage set list" for U2. U2 has never been more in demand or popular as a concert attraction on the 360 tour. No artist has ever been that successful on the road.

Once again Wolf, you are wonderful at pulling out numbers whether it's U2's number of Grammys, how much they grossed last tour etc. We already know they are in high demand. As someone else mentioned, those things are unimportant. .
               Well, the band have always considered it important and I'm happy to see the music I love be so successful.

Quote

You pulled one paragraph from my text which takes the entire thought out of context. I was speaking from a fans perspective who has been with the band for 30+ years. You don't need to site the history, I'm well aware of it. It seems to me that you may have not been to shows pre 2000?? When comparing 360 with other tours in my experience, it was subpar. Much like all of their post 2000 work with the exception of some tunes which I sited.

I have been a U2 fan since 1987. I saw ZOO TV 5 times in 1992, Philadelphia March 10 Spectrum, Hershey Park Stadium August 8, R.F.K. Stadium August 16 Washington D.C. and September 2, 3, 1992 at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. I listened to them rehearse every night outside Hershey Park Stadium in the first week of August 1992.

Popmart I saw two shows at Giants Stadium and one show at Franklin Field Philadelphia for a total of 3. So I have seen 9 shows Pre-2000 for your information.

Elevation Tour - 6 shows

Vertigo Tour 5 shows including one stadium show in Dublin

360 tour 3 shows.

I didn't get to see the Joshua Tree Tour in 1987 although I came close. I'm unsure if I even new who U2 were in 1984. But I have been a fan for 28 years and seen over 20 shows.

Quote
NLOTH was a failure with no identity (especially live) and the band has fully acknowledged that.

Well, for your information, NLOTH was 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. In the United States alone it was the 22nd biggest selling album. How is that a failure?

Quote
You can believe that they "reconfigured" the show for whatever reason but that's not true. They were forced to pull out the greatest hits setlist and abandoned the NLOTH tunes to keep the causal fans happy BECAUSE the tickets were already sold and the new tunes failed live.

Really, and how do YOU know that is not true? How was the Rose Bowl setlist a failure? Please explain that to us? What do you think all the U2 fans who purchased tickets for the 2nd leg were buying tickets for? They were buying tickets for the show that was played in 2009 and the Rose Bowl show everyone saw on youtube where the band played more songs post 2000! What the band played in 2009 and what fans knew they were buying tickets for in December 2009 are indisputable facts.

It was a SURPRISE to EVERYONE when the band opened the last shows of the tour with a setlist that was heavy on Achtung Baby and light on NLOTH. That is not what people were expecting to see though nor what they had actually purchased tickets for back in December 2009.

        If the new tunes failed live as you say, why is the Rose Bowl show the one that was filmed and sold as a prime example of the tour?

No one forced U2 to play the old songs from Achtung Baby on the last 25 shows of the tour. In fact, on the second leg in 2010, the band played unreleased songs like Stingray Guitar which opened the 2010 shows, Glastonberry, North Star, Every Breaking Wave, and Mercy. No greatest hits performance at all with those shows. The idea that the 360 tour on the whole was a greatest hits tour is a MYTH. There were 110 shows on the tour, and only the last 25 could even be debated as falling under that definition.

Ok..but again, you miss the point. And again, you get defensive with all these ridiculous numbers, facts, etc. When I talk about the band, it's relative to their own output... period... and my feelings about their music (not the masses) That's what I'm comparing to. Not other bands because U2 holds such a higher standard for me. So, tell us why the 360 tour resonated so much for you compared to all the other shows,  other than the band "walking" around you. What's your feelings about there music? Do you feel they have been fresh and innovative post 2000? Take down your defenses and contribute to the forum in a thoughtful way. We don't need to be reminded about grammys, bono's back surgery, their gross profits, etc. We can go to Wikipedia for that. C'mom, give it a whirl!!

Let me give you a little example: When I say NLOTH had no identity that's my feeling about that record. MOS is the only song that resonates with me. Your response is... NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album in 2009.....how is that a failure?  Well, ok. To be expected from the biggest band on the planet. Of course people bought the record no matter what. That does not counter the opinion that it was a failure for U2 standards and the songs were dropped during the tour because of it. They were terrible live. Even the band in retrospect doesn't support the record. So, the 7th biggest selling album holds zero meaning.

Very good post Mr. Red, and you hold very similar opinions to mine. I saw 360 2x (Vancouver 1st leg and Seattle last leg). The show was good, but it wasn't great like previous U2 tours and wasn't even close to Zoo TV or Popmart. There was a magic to U2 in their prime live. Bono could take those songs to a different place and make them soar. The last couple of tours they basically play a pretty bare version of the songs and don't take them "higher". 

Boots from Lovetown or Zoo TV or any of the earlier tours blow the boots I have from 360 or from the SOI concerts. For me it's a night & day difference. Bono used to live inside those songs. He looked like a man possessed at times. That just isn't the case now. It's not to say I blame them or that they are bad live; they are good, but not all-time great like they were in their prime. We all get old.

So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

I pretty much described in my post why I think they aren't as good live now. They don't take their great songs to higher place like they used to. I even gave a few examples. Listen to Mysterious Ways from the last 2 tours. It's a bare bones version, it's nice and sounds fine, but is it like the 92 or 97 version with the Edge going off at the end? Not even close. Just listen to One from Tacoma 92 or With or Without You from Paris 92 that I posted a bit ago. That is what I miss from U2 in the last decade or so.

The version of Gloria they did in Chicago was pretty good, and i'm glad they added it to the set. Great song.

Well, maybe the band thinks the bare bones version is better. I'm sure the Edge could still play a note for note version of whatever ZOO TV Mysterious Ways or Popmart version you like. He chooses not to. The Edge plays different things but he prefers minimalism more than anything and has since day 1. This minimalism is a U2 guitar trademark and what makes them so special.

In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?

Offline Mr. Red

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #157 on: July 01, 2015, 10:34:35 AM »
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #158 on: July 01, 2015, 10:35:16 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
So you think U2 are not as good now because they are "old". Playing music is not a sport. You don't necessarily decrease In performance ability simply because you get older. Many people get better! Again, check out Gloria played in 2015 vs Gloria played in 1981. Enough people have gotten past their age bias to admit the 2015 version is better, and that is saying something because it is a high energy song unlike One or With Or With Out You.

Patently false.  Ask Pavoratti, or any vocalist.  Powers wane as you get older--particular vocals.

Then why does Bono sound better on Gloria in 2015 than he did in 1981?
He sings the song fine, but is it better then '81? No way.

And that's 1 song! Look over the last 10 years. There's not to many people who are gonna say Bono's voice is as good now as it was in his prime. Even Bono himself said in an interview a few years back he can't take off and make the songs "soar" like he used to. He has to protect his voice.

He sings the song great. The 1981 vocal performance by Bono is slightly substandard. Lots of mistakes by Edge. Larry is not as energetic. Only Adam does a better or equal job in his performance from 1981. Despite the tendancy to overworship the past, many people can see that the 2015 performance is better and have voted accordingly.

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #159 on: July 01, 2015, 10:36:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 10:38:08 AM by wolf »

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #160 on: July 01, 2015, 10:38:15 AM »
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

Offline Mr. Red

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #161 on: July 01, 2015, 10:39:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why.

I simply mentioned it was important to keep in mind when FORMULATING an opinion. I thought we were making progress here Wolf. No regression my friend......stay the course....no sarcasm...it's unbecoming my fan of the 2000's friend

Offline wolf

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #162 on: July 01, 2015, 10:40:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"In any event, if I thought the difference between the band live in 1992 and today was night and day, I certainly would not bother seeing them so many times are paying increased prices. I don't see why anyone would bother with the band if they think they have decreased so dramatically in their performance capability. Why would anyone pay good money for what they regard as a substandard performance?"

Maybe because they are still my favorite band ever and I enjoy SOI?

Just 'cause they are my favorite band ever doesn't mean I unconditionally love every single thing they do. I'm objective and if I don't think they are as good live as they once were, I will say it. If I think some of the stuff they've done in the last decade is mediocre, I will say it. It's a U2 message board. I will also say that I do love some of their 2000's output (Mercy, In A Little While, Sleep Like a Baby, The Troubles, Kite)

If I thought it was a NIGHT and DAY difference, I would not be interested in going. Something tells me you really don't believe that the difference is that extreme.

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #163 on: July 01, 2015, 10:41:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

So you're using 1 song as an example? And by the way, the vote right now is equal, so there's no overwhelming response that 2015 is better or any "proof".  Same old arguments BeThere kept going on about.

Offline Mr. Red

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 312
Re: Have U2 become all about the money?
« Reply #164 on: July 01, 2015, 10:43:13 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think it may be important to keep in mind the amazing quality of the 2015 version in terms of sound and video done by paper dolling films as well as the overall technology then verses now. As far as Bono's voice, in my opinion, it was much stronger in 1981 but it comes across less so for the aforementioned reasons.

Ah, so the 2015 version is better, but here is why. Again, youth is not an advantage and in this case it could be argued was a disadvantage. The idea that U2 can't play like they did when they were "young" is false, and this proves it.

Once again, always looking to "prove" your stance.  This may be a lost cause. Very unbecoming
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 10:46:03 AM by Mr. Red »