@U2 Forum

U2 => General U2 Discussion => Topic started by: an tha on November 18, 2016, 05:34:15 PM

Title: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 18, 2016, 05:34:15 PM
Someone posted elsewhere in forum that U2 have played 76 live shows in the last 5 years....

Assuming this figure is true what are your thoughts about it?...
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: SlyDanner on November 18, 2016, 05:39:08 PM
I think the 76 show factoid came from U2gigs.com.  Of those shows, 18 songs were played at every single show (about 80% of the setlist static).  Wow.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 18, 2016, 06:08:50 PM
I don't think we should be criticising them on this issue: they've been in a band for 40 years, and probably energy levels are sagging regarding both recording and playing shows.  If they don't want to do more shows and put out more records that's okay with me - a band just doing stuff just because there is a demand is a band cashing in and quality is going to suffer.  It's also clear that they want to base their live shows on material they think the audience wants to hear, and mix that in with new stuff.  Even in the 80s their set list was 80% the same, probably higher.  Zoo TV and Popmart virtually 100%. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: tigerfan41 on November 18, 2016, 07:54:59 PM
That's still better than many bands who have been around 20 years, much less 40.

Also after playing the monster that was the U2 360 tour for as long as they did....can't really blame'em for scaling back.

Now if the same thing happens the next 5 years....that will be disappointing.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: Waffles on November 19, 2016, 12:07:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the 76 show factoid came from U2gigs.com.  Of those shows, 18 songs were played at every single show (about 80% of the setlist static).  Wow.

Out of a 24-25 song setlist, it's not that bad. Could be worse, they could be a greatest hits act. When part of your audience is the "common folk" there's an obligation to at least play a few hits. And u2 has too many older hits
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: riffraff on November 19, 2016, 04:29:17 AM
My answer to the OP is that they should do 77 shows. No, 78. Near me.
 'nuff said.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 19, 2016, 12:38:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Someone posted elsewhere in forum that U2 have played 76 live shows in the last 5 years....

Assuming this figure is true what are your thoughts about it?...

I think it's reasonable for a band of their age, especially if it turns out they have played something like 150 shows in the last 6 years come this time next year.  The tickets for i+e went on sale in December in the year before the tour kicked off, so I'm anticipating new dates being announced in the not-too-distant future.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: xy on November 19, 2016, 02:09:14 PM
It's actually more like 76 shows between May and December 2015. But long live fuzzy math.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: So Cruel on November 19, 2016, 02:30:16 PM
A part time job yields part time results.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: SlyDanner on November 19, 2016, 02:34:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A part time job yields part time results.

truth
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: SlyDanner on November 19, 2016, 10:56:53 PM
Best.  Thread.  Ever.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: DGordon1 on November 20, 2016, 02:36:29 AM
It's like saying in August 2014 - they've release 1 album in 10 years. We'll yes that was technically correct. But add a month either side and it's 3 al ums in 10 years.

These guys should be politicians.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 20, 2016, 02:45:34 AM
They've only done 76 shows in the past five years. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 04:51:35 AM
Quite amusing to see some (albeit a small group) people attempting to frame the thread as a criticism, or a negative...."how is this a thread" "it's actually blah, blah, blah" "long live fuzzy math" wah wah wah....

Where in the o.p. does it say "Only 76 shows" or "A mere 76" or suggest it is a poor output?

Seems those getting upset by things are the ones who think the number is low...It may be a very healthy number for a band made up of men in their mid to late 50's...or it may compare very favourably  with other artists who have been around as long as u2 have as a band....but hey don't let that get line of thought get in the way of unbalanced discussion, eh...
 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 20, 2016, 05:18:09 AM
Well you did ask "what are your thoughts on this?"

Clearly some people feel defensive about the number.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 06:06:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well you did ask "what are your thoughts on this?"

Clearly some people feel defensive about the number.

Exactly 'thoughts on the number' not making up their own numbers or questioning why it is even a thread....if people feel defensive over the number then as some have done well articulate a defence of it rather than just attacking the thread.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: Neil Young, man! on November 20, 2016, 06:17:47 AM
Most important for me is that the shows are good, and a big part of that is that they tour new material, not just greatest hits. So many staples sound tired these days. I know set lists always used to be static but I think u2 could have more fun if they changed it up a bit more. A big part of that is less choreography and less backing tracks-also good in my book. Gloria, Two Hearts and Electric Co last tour were great examples for me. They could give that same treatment to some newer songs too.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 06:33:15 AM
To be fair if you expand the date range out to say the turn of the millennium and compare the bands live output to say The Stones as a reasonably comparable heritage act (although of course The Stones are all around 15 years or so older than the members of u2) and to Bruce Springsteen (who is around 10 years older) then they stack up similarly to The Stones but much less prolific than with Springsteen...

If somebody has more accurate numbers then please do correct me..these figures are quickly and roughly cobbled together off wikipedia searches

Stones - 359
u2 - 415
Springsteen - 782
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: imaginary friend on November 20, 2016, 08:26:03 AM
That's 76 shows more than any of y'all have played.   :P
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: So Cruel on November 20, 2016, 09:17:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To be fair if you expand the date range out to say the turn of the millennium and compare the bands live output to say The Stones as a reasonably comparable heritage act (although of course The Stones are all around 15 years or so older than the members of u2) and to Bruce Springsteen (who is around 10 years older) then they stack up similarly to The Stones but much less prolific than with Springsteen...

If somebody has more accurate numbers then please do correct me..these figures are quickly and roughly cobbled together off wikipedia searches

Stones - 359
u2 - 415
Springsteen - 782

And Springsteen plays 3-4 hr shows so it's really like triple of what U2 has played. He just seems to love music more then the members of U2 do
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: DGordon1 on November 20, 2016, 11:07:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quite amusing to see some (albeit a small group) people attempting to frame the thread as a criticism, or a negative...."how is this a thread" "it's actually blah, blah, blah" "long live fuzzy math" wah wah wah....

Where in the o.p. does it say "Only 76 shows" or "A mere 76" or suggest it is a poor output?

Seems those getting upset by things are the ones who think the number is low...It may be a very healthy number for a band made up of men in their mid to late 50's...or it may compare very favourably  with other artists who have been around as long as u2 have as a band....but hey don't let that get line of thought get in the way of unbalanced discussion, eh...
 

We'll go on then, what are your thoughts?
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: MadRob360 on November 20, 2016, 11:20:56 AM
I'd say personally i think U2 could churn out an album within 3 months of starting recording, hit the road for 9 months have a year off and start again, so 2 albums and 2 tours every 4 years. They COULD do this. But just because they could doesn't mean they should, or want to. Bono in particular bangs on about being relevant with current music etc, but imo U2 are relevant anyway. They've been there and done it and got numerous t-shirts for doing so. The only real reason they should be making music and touring now is because they get great pleasure out of doing so, They've made their money, they could retire now and lock themselves away from the world never to be seen again if they wanted to. So, that said 76 shows in 5 years isn't such a bad thing. I'd love to see and hear the band more from a selfish pov i wish they'd hurry up and make records and hit the road. But i wouldn't want them to do it just to please fans, if you're leaving home for 9 months to hit the road, Like they say you need an album worthy of it (or what they feel is worthy). So i want U2 being about more because they're feeling it, feeling the music and wanting to show it off. They second guess and polish records too much in recent times sure, but the guys are in their 50s now, they're gonna want more time with family etc.

Sorry to ramble on....but basically my take on it is yes i'd love it if they'd hurry up and be more confident in themselves and play more live shows (and PLEASE lads do a roxy-style gig in the uk - would love to see U2 play in a small club!) but i'm hapy with their output in general.....would love more variation in the set in terms of songs they've thought about playing but not (drowning man etc) but they aren't a band that need to prove themselves anymore, and lets be honest the music industry on the whole was so much better in the 80's and 90's, it's pretty s***e today! So i'm just glad they still do make music and tour.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 11:57:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quite amusing to see some (albeit a small group) people attempting to frame the thread as a criticism, or a negative...."how is this a thread" "it's actually blah, blah, blah" "long live fuzzy math" wah wah wah....

Where in the o.p. does it say "Only 76 shows" or "A mere 76" or suggest it is a poor output?

Seems those getting upset by things are the ones who think the number is low...It may be a very healthy number for a band made up of men in their mid to late 50's...or it may compare very favourably  with other artists who have been around as long as u2 have as a band....but hey don't let that get line of thought get in the way of unbalanced discussion, eh...
 

We'll go on then, what are your thoughts?

Well the number itself is slightly skewed by coming off the back of a massive tour in 360...

But that said when was the last time a u2 album was over 2 years old and saw the band only play 76 shows (to date) in support of it? That question alone is probably worthy of discussion in my view..

U2 as many say owe nobody anything but for a band who have always had a 'live is where we live' outlook they do seem a little gunshy on the gig front...

Personally i would much prefer them to stop the album, tour, album circular cycle and play more regularly - it would free them from certain expectations, just go out on the road for 3 months for example playing varied set lists even road test a few new tracks, let the experience feed into the writing and recording process...

Then tour when they want to not just because there is a cycle to honour and a new record to tour...just get back to being a band, stop the 3/4 year gap between going out on tour... but that is probably unrealistic for an aged band, a part time band and a band in the twilight of their careers.....but it could be something that invigorates them and helps them extend or refresh their careers/helps their creativity.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: singnomore on November 20, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Guys - I've removed a couple of posts that don't really add to what the thread is about. So let's stick to the topic as opposed to attempting to trade glancing blows.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 20, 2016, 03:32:20 PM
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 03:49:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 20, 2016, 04:25:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 04:29:02 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 that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

You are right of course about the corporation thing and of course the livenation deal ties their hands a ....would be good to see them turn around and tell them to get lost when the current deal they inked runs out...

They have more money than they could ever hope for or need so why not just unshackle themselves from these big deals and just do things on their own terms/for their art rather than u2 inc. the brand and all the B.S. that comes with it..
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: riffraff on November 20, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
Yeah, and you guys didn't even mention purple pasties. pah.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 20, 2016, 04:33:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, and you guys didn't even mention purple pasties. pah.

PAH!
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 20, 2016, 04:39:00 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 that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: georgemccauley on November 20, 2016, 06:37:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the 76 show factoid came from U2gigs.com.  Of those shows, 18 songs were played at every single show (about 80% of the setlist static).  Wow.

Out of a 24-25 song setlist, it's not that bad. Could be worse, they could be a greatest hits act. When part of your audience is the "common folk" there's an obligation to at least play a few hits. And u2 has too many older hits

Agree, 24-25 songs on average per show is still quite impressive given that they are basically veterans. Do you see that figure increasing in 2017 to potentially 30+? Given that we presume some of the songs from SOI will remain in next years tour?
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: Hawkmoon2e on November 20, 2016, 06:45:52 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

But anyway,  I’d be okay with the band just releasing their treasure of songs on a few different albums, and turning the tour machine off for a while. Of course I want to see them live, but I’m not sure that touring inspires them like it used to. Most of all though, I really wish they’d just trust their stuff. Even the stuff they haven’t released yet. Then, they can figure out how to play it live.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 03:04:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring. 

New Adventures In Hifi by R.E.M

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 21, 2016, 06:11:15 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 21, 2016, 06:58:10 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 07:05:41 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: SlyDanner on November 21, 2016, 07:57:51 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
I think the 76 show factoid came from U2gigs.com.  Of those shows, 18 songs were played at every single show (about 80% of the setlist static).  Wow.

Out of a 24-25 song setlist, it's not that bad. Could be worse, they could be a greatest hits act. When part of your audience is the "common folk" there's an obligation to at least play a few hits. And u2 has too many older hits

Agree, 24-25 songs on average per show is still quite impressive given that they are basically veterans. Do you see that figure increasing in 2017 to potentially 30+? Given that we presume some of the songs from SOI will remain in next years tour?

they have never in their career done a tour where their average setlist was anywhere close to 30+ songs a show.  why would they start now, especially given everything we have seen from them and the kind of band they are these days. 

call me negative but until they show me otherwise I get less optimistic every day with these guys.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 08:28:40 AM
Most of the songs from SoI will be gone come the next tour.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: an tha on November 21, 2016, 08:47:39 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

Greatest sitcom ever...
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 21, 2016, 10:36:13 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.

And I agree with an tha (cue his broken clock comment) that Father Ted is the best sitcom ever.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 10:56:46 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour. 



Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 21, 2016, 11:16:06 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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 11:19:37 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 21, 2016, 11:34:29 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 11:41:20 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
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 that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

I still can't think of a better album that was partly recorded while on tour than R.E.M's New Adventures in HiFi.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 21, 2016, 12:13:55 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
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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

I still can't think of a better album that was partly recorded while on tour than R.E.M's New Adventures in HiFi.

What about Sticky Fingers by the Stones?  In fact the Stones classic early singles were recorded in the USA whilst the band were touring - e.g. "It's All Over Now".  I like New Adventures but... it's not up there with R.E.M.'s 80s output, or early 90s output for me. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 12:20:39 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
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
I agree that neither U2 nor any artist owes the public the duty to write and record songs or play shows.   Personally, I am glad they put so much effort into making a great arena show on the last tour, but time is catching up on them and I am not surprised they didn't want to take that show all over the world.  They're rich men approaching their 60s and they could just tour and print money as bands like the Stones are doing, but I appreciate their efforts to base their lives shows on new songs.

They did road-test new material on 360 and if memory serves me well it wasn't very good.

I just don't think it has to be so rigid.....it is basically a set pattern...album release, tour it for ages, silence, album release, tour it for ages and rinse and repeat.

Maybe the shorter tour after the last album is or  was intended as a step away from that but it appears they may be caught in another circle they get trapped in (the overworking things in the studio one)...

I just feel it would be refreshing if they came out and played shows 'out of the cycle' they could do shortish length tours and it wouldn't matter if they were in a period of writing, recording, or in a period where they weren't really working on anything as such...

I believe that playing and being a band (i mean being on the road and together) is a real trigger for creativity and it is my belief it is inspiration that they may be lacking these days - just playing to people a bit more regularly and being a band could help.

But as I say to ask a band who have worked a certain way for so long to change at this point of their lives and careers is probably unrealistic - other interests/priorities etc....

Alas it is pretty inevitable that it is rigid – because they’re a huge corporation now and have been for a couple of decades and longer.  They’re no longer “just a band”.  Going out on tour means involving livenation and other corporate entities.  The long silences between records and tours also reflects the fact they live ultra-rich lifestyles which I guess are a bit too comfortable to motivate great art.  Bono also has his political projects, which involve him meeting many other super-rich individuals - the people with the power, not Joe Public.  None of this helps them remain prolific and relevant to the vast majority of their audience.

Playing more regularly would perhaps help keep them in touch with ordinary folk, but not the sort of people our Nige would like: did you notice how international the audience was at the o2 last year?  Compare that to the audience we see in the Red Rocks video.  Does playing live inspire creativity?  Not sure U2 have ever really been big on writing new material while on tour - Zooropa was the last attempt?  Zooropa is a decent album but lacks the intensity of AB or Pop.

Carry on writing reasonable and nuanced posts and maybe we can both avoid more censorship  :P

Haha...i think it was one of my reasonable and nuanced posts (I think i have 3 of them in total now) that woke the button pressers from their slumber - with the unwanted side effect of our banter being censored.... :)

That's two more than I've achieved - only a matter of time till I am banned... then you'll miss me!

Trying to think of bands who have made great albums whilst touring.  Sticky Fingers by the Stones was partly recorded on tour.  The Pixies dry-ran all their material for the first few albums live.  I remember them touring Doolittle tracks before recording the album - perhaps not a great example as the Pixies stuff was all written by Charles, not written as a collective interactive process.  But I'm sure there's plenty of other examples of bands creating decent new material whilst on tour. 

Speaking of enticing purple things didn't Prince record his classic song live?
You guys have some nerve waking me from my slumber. You really have no clue of what it takes to choose the right buttons to press. But to let you in on a little secret … we only go after certain members – the chosen few, and then we really turn the screws on them. We don’t want it to be fair – we just want it to be fun. Get over it. And yes, il_capo, you’ll be missed, but you’ll just have to chalk it up to collateral damage.

Ban il_capo.....go on pleeeeeeeeeeeease, press it. I'll donate 25 notes to the charity of your choice and have a months sabbatical myself...

Anything to stop the endless PM's he sends me...

Go on you can do it!

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


At last you show us a picture of yourself - hello Father Dougal Mcguire! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skib_O_dcUg 

New Adventures is a decent album but not one of REM's best for me.  I've also been thinking that U2 really would be full of themselves if they recorded whilst on tour, getting adulation night after night.  Far better to hole up somewhere in a remote part of the planet and explore their inner demons for the next release.

The last time we got Zooropa so bring it on.

As I said earlier, Zooropa is good but it's far less intense than either AB or Pop.  Furthermore, how much of Zooropa was actually made whilst they were on tour?  From what I recall it was pretty much done when they started on the European tour in 1993, but they spent a few weeks of that tour flying back to the recording studio to put the finishing touches to it.


I don't know exactly when they recorded or mixed everything.  I know they were working on it while on tour.

Zooropa was recorded between February and May 1993, whilst the Zooropa tour began in May 1993, so it was pretty much a wrap by the time they went back on the road.  Wiki tells us they spent the first 10 days of the tour flying back to Dublin to finish it.  It also tells us that the band rehearsed for the Zooropa tour whilst recording material for the album, so there is some interplay there.  On the other hand they didn't have time to work on live arrangements of the new material, which suggests the creative process wasn't exactly a product of live jamming on the road.  It is a highly produced album like all their other 90s output.

So they could have recorded part of it during the tour for as many as ten days then?

Sounds like it was pretty much just overdubs and mixing for those 10 days.  Flood and Eno had left to work on other stuff by this stage.  Wiki says the group had to fly back to the recording studio for "about 10 days" into the tour:  "Clayton called the process "about the craziest thing you could do to yourself", while Mullen said of it, "It was mad, but it was mad good, as opposed to mad bad." McGuinness later said the band had nearly wrecked themselves in the process. The group simultaneously used three separate rooms at Windmill Lane to mix, overdub, and edit."

I hope the versions of If God Will Send His Angels and Velvet Dress appear at some stage as I'd love to hear what these songs sounded like in their infancy in 1993.

I still can't think of a better album that was partly recorded while on tour than R.E.M's New Adventures in HiFi.

What about Sticky Fingers by the Stones?  In fact the Stones classic early singles were recorded in the USA whilst the band were touring - e.g. "It's All Over Now".  I like New Adventures but... it's not up there with R.E.M.'s 80s output, or early 90s output for me.

Technically speaking, all the songs from Sticky Fingers were recorded after the tour had officially ended.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: il_capo on November 21, 2016, 12:59:05 PM
Are you sure about Sticky Fingers?  I thought much of it was recorded in a mobile recording studio whilst on tour.  Wiki again:

"Although sessions for Sticky Fingers began in earnest in March 1970, The Rolling Stones had been recording at Muscle Shoals Sound Studio in Alabama in December 1969. "Sister Morphine", cut during Let It Bleed's sessions earlier in March of that year, had been held over from this release. Much of the recording for Sticky Fingers was made with The Rolling Stones' mobile studio unit in Stargroves during the summer and autumn of 1970."

The band were on tour in December 1969, and the summer and autumn of 1970.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 01:06:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you sure about Sticky Fingers?  I thought much of it was recorded in a mobile recording studio whilst on tour.  Wiki again:

"Although sessions for Sticky Fingers began in earnest in March 1970, The Rolling Stones had been recording at Muscle Shoals Sound Studio in Alabama in December 1969. "Sister Morphine", cut during Let It Bleed's sessions earlier in March of that year, had been held over from this release. Much of the recording for Sticky Fingers was made with The Rolling Stones' mobile studio unit in Stargroves during the summer and autumn of 1970."

The band were on tour in December 1969, and the summer and autumn of 1970.

Yes, the Stones officially end their U.S. tour by headlining a festival in West Palm Beach, Florida on November 30, 1969.  They went into Muscle Shoals on December 1 and recorded Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and You Gotta Move over the next few days.

 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: The Hair of Martin Gore on November 21, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
shows, 2011- November 21, 2016.  Includes promo appearances. From setlist.fm

U2 - 136
Depeche Mode - 106
The Cure - 129 (without an album to promote)
Metallica - 145
Rush - 146
Primal Scream - 179 (two albums to promote)
Bon Jovi - 189
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 21, 2016, 01:23:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
shows, 2011- November 21, 2016.  Includes promo appearances. From setlist.fm

U2 - 136
Depeche Mode - 106
The Cure - 129 (without an album to promote)
Metallica - 145
Rush - 146
Primal Scream - 179 (two albums to promote)
Bon Jovi - 189

So basically U2 did 76 shows in the past five years.



Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on November 21, 2016, 11:08:08 PM
All it says is that U2's time is winding down and that there isn't much drive left in any of them to go out touring for another year or two. I don't blame them. That's just what having millions of dollars will do to you.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: tigerfan41 on November 22, 2016, 01:12:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All it says is that U2's time is winding down and that there isn't much drive left in any of them to go out touring for another year or two. I don't blame them. That's just what having millions of dollars will do to you.

This isn't necessarily the case, though. We're talking about a 5 year period that came off the most successful tour in music history to date, one that grossed $736 million, had 110 shows (in 1.5 years), and 7.2 million attendance overall. Compare that to the Stones who did 144 shows from 2005-2007 and only had attendance of 4.6 million (nearly 3 million LESS than U2 despite doing 34 more shows). Vertigo tour did 131 shows in 1.5 years, Elevation did 113 shows in 9 months. Then they did 76 shows in 7 months last year (roughly 11 per month). (just looked all this up on Wiki to make sure I got the numbers correct)

My point is, this 2011-2015 76 concerts data is flawed in that it includes a 4 year break period and a very limited tour that they are planning to add more legs to. I would be more interested to see how many shows they do from 2015-2020. I am guessing it'll be far more than this 5 year period we're talking about.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
shows, 2011- November 21, 2016.  Includes promo appearances. From setlist.fm

U2 - 136
Depeche Mode - 106
The Cure - 129 (without an album to promote)
Metallica - 145
Rush - 146
Primal Scream - 179 (two albums to promote)
Bon Jovi - 189


This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.

The other aspect of this is that, at least for the last several tours, U2 have had a somewhat elaborate stage setup. 360 in particular was crazy in that the setup of the stage often took several days. That limits the amount of dates a band can realistically play in week to around 2-3, depending on how many times they play the same venue. Compare that to a band with a smaller stage setup like the Foo Fighters. On their last tour, they were playing a date every other day with some occasions where they played 4 or 5 out of 7 days. Ditto for Metallica in 2014 who often did 4-5 dates a week.

So playing 76 dates on a relatively short tour is not shocking at all and is about what U2 have been doing for the last 15 years.

True that the guys are slowing down, but I don't think it's at all at a point where they're totally winding down. They're still relatively young (compared to, say, the Stones or the Who, both of whom have toured in recent years or are touring now) so if I had to guess, they've still got a good 10-15 years left unless they choose not to tour anymore. In which case, it'd suck but would be understandable.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: SlyDanner on November 22, 2016, 10:28:33 AM

This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.



tiger - this quote right here is the very essence of why people are so frustrated at times with this band.  you are supporting the basis for the criticism, not negating it....
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 22, 2016, 10:45:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.



tiger - this quote right here is the very essence of why people are so frustrated at times with this band.  you are supporting the basis for the criticism, not negating it....

Does it matter what Bono or the other members of the band get up to when they're not working, whether it be political activism or gardening?

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: tigerfan41 on November 22, 2016, 12:05:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is a decent comparison, but it is worth noting that all of these bands are known more for their music than anything else--Rush in particular are known for touring a lot. Rich? Yes, but it is still their livelihood (especially for Bon Jovi). U2 have gotten to a point where they are known for more than just their music--Bono in particular seems to be pulled in many directions, which I am assuming would make it a bit difficult to a) get into the studio to make new music and b) tour.



tiger - this quote right here is the very essence of why people are so frustrated at times with this band.  you are supporting the basis for the criticism, not negating it....

Acknowledging it I would say and contrasting that with other bands. Not trying to negate it at all, but trying to explain why 76 shows in 5 years (given the flawed data of 4.5 of those being a break time) really doesn't surprise or concern me.

I'm a relatively newcomer to the fan base--only liked these guys since 2004, only really liked them since 2006. I've only had the chance to see them twice so far because the I&E tour dates were so inconvenient (none in my state and the ones 4 hours away happened to fall on a holiday weekend that I always spend with family). Being one of my favorite bands, if anyone's disappointed in the lack of tour dates, it's me. I know their time is finite and I'd like to take in as many concerts as I can while they're still putting on good shows.

Still, I'm a realist and realize that I can't really compare them to other bands and their touring habits. Not when the lead singer is more of a humanitarian than anything else these days (nothing wrong with that). Not when the whole band is so wealthy that they literally don't need to make music or tour ever again.

Is it frustrating? Of course, but looking at the big picture I get why things are the way they are. My biggest beef with U2 at this point is not Bono focusing on other things (because that's his right), but that when they DO make new music, they are seemingly obsessed with getting another hit rather than just making music as they used to. If they were a band like, say, Bon Jovi and truly needed another hit to "stay" relevant, I'd understand them taking so long to craft music that becomes a hit.

U2 is a band that was at its best when they just made music without thinking of getting the next hit. This is a band that was at its best when they tried new styles and got creative.

They're still relevant to an extent--maybe the youngest kids don't know them, but practically everyone else does. They're going to go down in history as one of the best bands. They're legends--definitely not on the level of the Stones or Beatles. They don't need to degrade their music all in the name of getting a pop radio hit in 2017 (and it won't happen because they're past the age of being a hit on pop radio).

Actually, there's one other thing I find annoying about U2: promising a new album by a specific time and not delivering it. And I honestly think it ties into the above. They second guess the music and whether or not it'll be a hit, and rather than releasing it, they just keep polishing it to a point where it's not great and it's also not a hit. Either deliver the album or just don't promise it by a specific date.

But anyway, I understand the frustration of the fans and also why U2 aren't touring as much. I'd say at this point, rather than getting frustrated at something we can't change, it's better to treat whatever U2 does as more of a bonus than a guaranteed thing. Listen to some younger bands, go to their shows, enjoy their music, don't bank on U2 doing what we all want them to do (which is tour more and make more albums).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Does it matter what Bono or the other members of the band get up to when they're not working, whether it be political activism or gardening?



It doesn't typically, but in this case, we're talking about a guy who probably sees himself as more of a humanitarian than anything else these days--given how much time he spends on these things. We're not talking about Geddy Lee or Jon Bon Jovi or Bruce Springsteen, all of which still see themselves as musicians primarily, even if they are political or have charities. That's the difference.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 22, 2016, 12:22:24 PM
To be fair, I never really saw Bono as a musician primarily.

I think the theory is that if Bono spent less time on his pet causes then U2 would do more tours and release more new music.  I don't think they would.  I compare U2 to a band like the Stones more than to someone like Springsteen and by their fifties they were down to album and tour every four years or so too. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: tigerfan41 on November 22, 2016, 07:26:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To be fair, I never really saw Bono as a musician primarily.

I think the theory is that if Bono spent less time on his pet causes then U2 would do more tours and release more new music.  I don't think they would.  I compare U2 to a band like the Stones more than to someone like Springsteen and by their fifties they were down to album and tour every four years or so too.

I never have either, but I also didn't become a fan til the mid-2000s and by then he was already known as the preachy guy talking about starving kids in Africa. If I had become a fan in the 90s, I'm sure I would have viewed him differently.

That's definitely the theory and you are right, it's totally possible that even if Bono weren't a humanitarian, they still would not tour. For Springsteen, he is very rich but tours because it's relief for his depression and because he really enjoys it. For the Stones, they're also rich, but probably tour more for nostalgia than anything else these days.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 23, 2016, 03:06:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To be fair, I never really saw Bono as a musician primarily.

I think the theory is that if Bono spent less time on his pet causes then U2 would do more tours and release more new music.  I don't think they would.  I compare U2 to a band like the Stones more than to someone like Springsteen and by their fifties they were down to album and tour every four years or so too.

I never have either, but I also didn't become a fan til the mid-2000s and by then he was already known as the preachy guy talking about starving kids in Africa. If I had become a fan in the 90s, I'm sure I would have viewed him differently.

That's definitely the theory and you are right, it's totally possible that even if Bono weren't a humanitarian, they still would not tour. For Springsteen, he is very rich but tours because it's relief for his depression and because he really enjoys it. For the Stones, they're also rich, but probably tour more for nostalgia than anything else these days.

No, I'm pretty sure they still do it for the money.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: The Hair of Martin Gore on November 23, 2016, 09:52:58 AM
I doubt any of the big, old bands - the Stones, Rush, U2, Depeche Mode, etc - tour for the money. They're all fantastically rich and don't need the money or to endure the work that goes into touring. The travel, rehearsal, stage design, being away from home are all taxing.  Their main motivations are probably love of playing, ego gratification, and habit. What else are they going to do? Even Bono, with all of his work outside the band, is an artist first.

U2 probably planned on playing shows this year but SOE still isn't ready. 

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: a very competitive pony! on November 23, 2016, 01:26:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I doubt any of the big, old bands - the Stones, Rush, U2, Depeche Mode, etc - tour for the money. They're all fantastically rich and don't need the money or to endure the work that goes into touring. The travel, rehearsal, stage design, being away from home are all taxing.  Their main motivations are probably love of playing, ego gratification, and habit. What else are they going to do? Even Bono, with all of his work outside the band, is an artist first.

U2 probably planned on playing shows this year but SOE still isn't ready.
Yeah, that about sums it up. They like what they're doing, and that's all they really know. That stage high must be pretty boss as well.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 23, 2016, 01:34:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I doubt any of the big, old bands - the Stones, Rush, U2, Depeche Mode, etc - tour for the money. They're all fantastically rich and don't need the money or to endure the work that goes into touring. The travel, rehearsal, stage design, being away from home are all taxing.  Their main motivations are probably love of playing, ego gratification, and habit. What else are they going to do? Even Bono, with all of his work outside the band, is an artist first.

U2 probably planned on playing shows this year but SOE still isn't ready.
Yeah, that about sums it up. They like what they're doing, and that's all they really know. That stage high must be pretty boss as well.

If that is the case one would think they would cut the ticket prices for their fans so that they're more affordable, wouldn't one?

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: The Hair of Martin Gore on November 23, 2016, 01:38:49 PM
no, because they still have large operations to support.  and of course they want to make money, but I doubt that it's close to their primary motivation. 
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 23, 2016, 01:41:01 PM
I reckon it's their primary motivation.

Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: a very competitive pony! on November 23, 2016, 01:48:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I reckon it's their primary motivation.
Seems like your mind is made up on the matter.
Title: Re: 76 shows in 5 years...
Post by: John Galt on November 23, 2016, 01:56:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I reckon it's their primary motivation.
Seems like your mind is made up on the matter.

Yeah I made it up some time ago actually.