Author Topic: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in  (Read 11077 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Edges Cat

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,101
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2016, 04:59:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I just watched Invisible from that DVD last night, and I had the same WTF moment.  Might have been a moment where Bono would've played the rhythm guitar, had he been able to.  I've always thought U2 could benefit from having an auxillary musician on stage with them.  Somebody that would play rhythm guitar, keyboards (while not taking Terry's job), doing some extra backing vocals, etc.

A man named Dallas...

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,781
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #61 on: November 17, 2016, 06:03:18 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
Add in them bringing their own extra screens and walkway - the ridiculous set up time, they were at it all day even during morrisseys set and I heard runours it caused problems (why is it other bands could just plug and play) the accident where their computer rig was crashed into backstage and the ultimately meh reaction to them has in my view turned them off doing another.

Never heard about this before, but that is insane. They never should have brought their own stuff (beyond the instruments/amps etc.). Completely goes against the idea of doing a festival where other artists play before/after you and where everything has been setup by the staff days in advance in such a way that it accommodates all the artists.

I'm sure this gave them a bit of a bad reputation for festivals, too. Deservedly so.

I can't speak to how good they sounded/played at Glastonbury (although I do remember seeing the setlist and not caring for it), but the one thing that did blow me away is that something like a day and a half later, they played a great gig in Michigan (all that travel, playing a huge festival, and then playing a really good set less than 2 days later).

If Glastonbury is how they will approach future festivals, then I'd agree, festivals definitely aren't their thing. Maybe they'll learn from it, figure out how to craft a festival format setlist that honors their whole career, and for gods sake, leave the extra equipment at home. You don't want to appear even more pretentious than people already view you as being.

Wasn't the setlist largely what they were playing at the time on the tour...? All the technical wizadry, myriad of back up tracks, pre recorded parts etc would be all set up for that...

u2 have long since stopped being a plug and play band - be great if they were.

I feel like there might have been a bit of variance in the set, but honestly it's been 5 years so my memory could very well be a little fuzzy. I do know the terrific live recording of "The Fly" that appeared on their live compilation was recorded at that show.

From what I could tell, save for the pre-recorded segments, the rest was live or at least appeared that way. I can't speak to the rest of the tour, but if they are using a lot of pre-records/backing tracks, then that's really unfortunate. I've heard them play stuff live acoustically, they sounded good (some vocal deterioration of course) so I don't understand why they would need to bother with that nonsense. But I guess if it's something they've been doing for a long time...might be a tough habit to break.

If they're relying on backing tracks, maybe it's time to consider hanging it up. Same goes for any band/artist that has lost the ability/desire to play everything live. I get wanting perfection for the live show and I understand as a bass player how tough it can be to keep rhythm live, but it's not worth it when you've got a manufactured live show.

This is why I really admire bands who play it all live, even if that means some songs that sound a little off. See: Foo Fighters for an example of this--although they do have 3 guitarists (including Grohl) so I suppose it's a little easier for them.

Although, now that I wrote the above, I just came across this article on the use of backing tracks...interesting: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I just watched Invisible from that DVD last night, and I had the same WTF moment.  Might have been a moment where Bono would've played the rhythm guitar, had he been able to.  I've always thought U2 could benefit from having an auxillary musician on stage with them.  Somebody that would play rhythm guitar, keyboards (while not taking Terry's job), doing some extra backing vocals, etc.

This has been an issue for quite a few bands with only one guitarist--either the lead singer learns to strum a few chords to supplement or they hire a rhythm guitarist for live performances or they have a guitar tech playing from off the stage or they've got an incomplete sound live.

The live performances I've seen with Bono playing rhythm guitar seem to suggest he did little more than strum the occasional chord and use the guitar as a prop--not really a full rhythm guitarist like you'd need for a song like Invisible. Even if he did still play the guitar, I'm not sure how much he'd add to the sound.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, bands like Muse and Coldplay use backing tracks too, and bring a lot of their personal elements to festivals like Glastonbury all the time.  I think U2 and U2's crew have just gotten used to doing things their own way, having not played festivals since the Unforgettable Fire era. 

Coldplay is not someone I'd use as an example.  ;) Muse maybe, but even their sound has gotten very manufactured. A better comparison might be a band like Foo Fighters: well regarded, has played festivals, and as far as they've said, do not use backing tracks live.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #62 on: November 18, 2016, 01:49:53 AM »
thing is live rock n roll shows aren't really meant to be perfect sound wise imo - mistakes, rough edges, rawness, improvisation etc  make live better for me.....the sheer joy of a band working their way into a song out the blue for example on the spot...

Someone said u2 shows are more like Broadway shows and whilst they are not bad maybe some return to a more pure sound would be a good thing

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #63 on: November 18, 2016, 01:57:38 AM »
The opening four songs on i+e sounded pretty raw to me, but I wouldn't want to see a full two hours+ U2 show like that unless it was in a theatre.


Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #64 on: November 18, 2016, 01:59:32 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I just watched Invisible from that DVD last night, and I had the same WTF moment.  Might have been a moment where Bono would've played the rhythm guitar, had he been able to.  I've always thought U2 could benefit from having an auxillary musician on stage with them.  Somebody that would play rhythm guitar, keyboards (while not taking Terry's job), doing some extra backing vocals, etc.

That would spoil the four man on stage dynamic that is and always has been U2 (with the exception of LoveTown).


Spacejunk69

  • Guest
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #65 on: November 18, 2016, 10:53:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thing is live rock n roll shows aren't really meant to be perfect sound wise imo - mistakes, rough edges, rawness, improvisation etc  make live better for me.....the sheer joy of a band working their way into a song out the blue for example on the spot...

Someone said u2 shows are more like Broadway shows and whilst they are not bad maybe some return to a more pure sound would be a good thing

Yup, agreed. Staring At The sun from opening night of PopMart is fabulous, and I'm not even kidding.

Offline xy

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,548
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #66 on: November 18, 2016, 10:57:12 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thing is live rock n roll shows aren't really meant to be perfect sound wise imo - mistakes, rough edges, rawness, improvisation etc  make live better for me.....the sheer joy of a band working their way into a song out the blue for example on the spot...

Someone said u2 shows are more like Broadway shows and whilst they are not bad maybe some return to a more pure sound would be a good thing

Yeah, U2's not that kind of band. And all the big bands are way to rehearsed for you to ever truly see a "on the spot/out of the blue" tune, trust me.

Offline bigjohn3574

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #67 on: November 18, 2016, 11:39:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thing is live rock n roll shows aren't really meant to be perfect sound wise imo - mistakes, rough edges, rawness, improvisation etc  make live better for me.....the sheer joy of a band working their way into a song out the blue for example on the spot...

Someone said u2 shows are more like Broadway shows and whilst they are not bad maybe some return to a more pure sound would be a good thing

Yeah, U2's not that kind of band. And all the big bands are way to rehearsed for you to ever truly see a "on the spot/out of the blue" tune, trust me.

Ah, Springsteen does it often..

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #68 on: November 18, 2016, 11:56:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
thing is live rock n roll shows aren't really meant to be perfect sound wise imo - mistakes, rough edges, rawness, improvisation etc  make live better for me.....the sheer joy of a band working their way into a song out the blue for example on the spot...

Someone said u2 shows are more like Broadway shows and whilst they are not bad maybe some return to a more pure sound would be a good thing

Yeah, U2's not that kind of band. And all the big bands are way to rehearsed for you to ever truly see a "on the spot/out of the blue" tune, trust me.

good job that live music isn't just about 'big bands' then isn't it.....

don't get me wrong I am not saying what they do isn't decent enough but i find myself increasingly less drawn to these highly produced shows and more drawn to a guitar, an amp and the sound of a band or an artist just playing...

Offline mrsamrocks2

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 965
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #69 on: November 18, 2016, 01:35:49 PM »
All the talk about backing track is ridiculous to be honest. U2 has used BT since TUF and always for the same purpose: Play synth parts and percussions that can't be played live because they are a four piece. Invisible is a different case because there are 2 guitar tracks in the song but only one guy who can play guitar live since Bono's accident. What do you want them to do? If you think U2 don't play live, you need your ears and your eyes checked...

Offline John Galt

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 896
  • The hands that build can also pull down.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #70 on: November 18, 2016, 01:43:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All the talk about backing track is ridiculous to be honest. U2 has used BT since TUF and always for the same purpose: Play synth parts and percussions that can't be played live because they are a four piece. Invisible is a different case because there are 2 guitar tracks in the song but only one guy who can play guitar live since Bono's accident. What do you want them to do? If you think U2 don't play live, you need your ears and your eyes checked...

Don't play Invisible.


Waffles

  • Guest
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #71 on: November 18, 2016, 02:11:05 PM »
Didn't like the way invisible was played on tour. The high school band thing is annoying. I'd like the edge to play the actual main guitar part, not the big chords. They could have easily used a BT to improve the song

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #72 on: November 18, 2016, 02:38:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All the talk about backing track is ridiculous to be honest. U2 has used BT since TUF and always for the same purpose: Play synth parts and percussions that can't be played live because they are a four piece. Invisible is a different case because there are 2 guitar tracks in the song but only one guy who can play guitar live since Bono's accident. What do you want them to do? If you think U2 don't play live, you need your ears and your eyes checked...

why is it ridiculous?

bands can strip songs down....use different arrangements.

u2 have even piped in vocals in recent years and for my money it isn't authentic - nothing ridiculous about discussing it at all.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #73 on: November 18, 2016, 06:25:38 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
Add in them bringing their own extra screens and walkway - the ridiculous set up time, they were at it all day even during morrisseys set and I heard runours it caused problems (why is it other bands could just plug and play) the accident where their computer rig was crashed into backstage and the ultimately meh reaction to them has in my view turned them off doing another.

Never heard about this before, but that is insane. They never should have brought their own stuff (beyond the instruments/amps etc.). Completely goes against the idea of doing a festival where other artists play before/after you and where everything has been setup by the staff days in advance in such a way that it accommodates all the artists.

I'm sure this gave them a bit of a bad reputation for festivals, too. Deservedly so.

I can't speak to how good they sounded/played at Glastonbury (although I do remember seeing the setlist and not caring for it), but the one thing that did blow me away is that something like a day and a half later, they played a great gig in Michigan (all that travel, playing a huge festival, and then playing a really good set less than 2 days later).

If Glastonbury is how they will approach future festivals, then I'd agree, festivals definitely aren't their thing. Maybe they'll learn from it, figure out how to craft a festival format setlist that honors their whole career, and for gods sake, leave the extra equipment at home. You don't want to appear even more pretentious than people already view you as being.

Wasn't the setlist largely what they were playing at the time on the tour...? All the technical wizadry, myriad of back up tracks, pre recorded parts etc would be all set up for that...

u2 have long since stopped being a plug and play band - be great if they were.

Yes. At that stage of the tour, they had dropped most of NLOTH and had added a bunch of AB songs for the upcoming anniversary documentary.  The "half of this is pre-recorded" version of (ironically) Even Better Than The Real Thing came from that set. 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 06:43:06 PM by This Dave »

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: U2 at Bonnaroo. According to /r/bonnaroo the rumors are flooding in
« Reply #74 on: November 18, 2016, 06:27:41 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
Add in them bringing their own extra screens and walkway - the ridiculous set up time, they were at it all day even during morrisseys set and I heard runours it caused problems (why is it other bands could just plug and play) the accident where their computer rig was crashed into backstage and the ultimately meh reaction to them has in my view turned them off doing another.

Never heard about this before, but that is insane. They never should have brought their own stuff (beyond the instruments/amps etc.). Completely goes against the idea of doing a festival where other artists play before/after you and where everything has been setup by the staff days in advance in such a way that it accommodates all the artists.

I'm sure this gave them a bit of a bad reputation for festivals, too. Deservedly so.

I can't speak to how good they sounded/played at Glastonbury (although I do remember seeing the setlist and not caring for it), but the one thing that did blow me away is that something like a day and a half later, they played a great gig in Michigan (all that travel, playing a huge festival, and then playing a really good set less than 2 days later).

If Glastonbury is how they will approach future festivals, then I'd agree, festivals definitely aren't their thing. Maybe they'll learn from it, figure out how to craft a festival format setlist that honors their whole career, and for gods sake, leave the extra equipment at home. You don't want to appear even more pretentious than people already view you as being.

Wasn't the setlist largely what they were playing at the time on the tour...? All the technical wizadry, myriad of back up tracks, pre recorded parts etc would be all set up for that...

u2 have long since stopped being a plug and play band - be great if they were.

Yes. At that stage of the tour, the had dropped most of NLOTH and had added a bunch of AB songs for the upcoming anniversary documentary.  The "half of this is pre-recorded" version of (ironically) Even Better Than The Real Thing came from that set.

i recall the 'oh real thing was ruined because the backing track was f*****' thing