TJT
Active topics
Joshua Tree Tour 2017
 Legs (3): Leg 1 - North America, Leg 2 - Europe, Leg 3 - The Americas
Shows: 54
  1. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    Agreed X 1000



    I actually have seen JT performed in full and in sequence, not by U2 (obviously) or a tribute band, but by the touring "Classic Albums" outfit that selects albums and does this for a living. It was actually pretty stellar, the singer was like 70% there on the tone of Bono's voice, but it was note for note JT, even the bits that U2 have never played (random little guitar parts, little keyboard parts, etc.). It was fucking awesome, and I want to see U2 do it. I need to see them do it after the tour is being marketed as such.
    My agency books Classic Albums Live, btw
  2. That's awesome! It was a pretty sweet show. It wasn't U2, but I still got goosebumps, and the audience was an audience of hardcore U2 fans and it was a really good time. They did a fantastic job hitting all the little nuances of the record. I don't even expect U2 to do that, but I expect them to do the same that you do, play it in full and in sequence.
  3. Yeah, the ads say:

    "See U2 perform the classic album - live in full - every night".

    It should say "songs from the classic album" if they're going to be weird about it. "Performing the album" to me means doing it from start to finish.
  4. Originally posted by MattG:[..]
    If they called it The Joshua Tree Tour and played 8-9 songs from the album every night, I'd be elated. It'd be exactly what they branded it as.

    I have seen countless ads selling this as "the album in its entirety every night."

    When you play a record, if you skip around all that songs on the album as you go, but by the end you've "still managed to hit every song", guess what? You haven't played the record in full. It's like reading a book out of sequence. Have you read the whole book? Well sure, technically...

    I felt completely short-changed at the Garbage concert because I've been listening to that album for 20 years, and I could see Garbage play 60% of the record in whatever order they want at any single Garbage show in the last 20 years. They advertised it as "the album in full," and they lied. Plain and simple.

    Whether or not its "good enough" is moot. It will be "good enough" because it is a U2 show. But "good enough" doesn't change the fact that playing an album out of sequence isn't what "playing an album" means at all.
    The marketing though doesn't state playing the entire album in sequence, I think I get where your coming from in that there's an experience you go through listening to an album and if you take away that running order it messes with that experience, so although I disagree with you because I'll enjoy the 11 songs as much regardless of the order, I respect where your coming from. Are you of the opinion then that the running order is perfect or do you not feel it could be improved?
  5. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    That's awesome! It was a pretty sweet show. It wasn't U2, but I still got goosebumps, and the audience was an audience of hardcore U2 fans and it was a really good time. They did a fantastic job hitting all the little nuances of the record. I don't even expect U2 to do that, but I expect them to do the same that you do, play it in full and in sequence.
    Yeah the way that whole outfit works is that there's a whole pool of CAL musicians, and they go out and tour albums like that in very small runs. So you don't always get the same album, and you don't always get the same musicians...but they're some of the most proficient people we work with. Amazingly talented.

    Every time it comes to Chicago, it's been either Ziggy Stardust, or I think they did The Wall one time. But the list of albums they choose from includes like, Led Zeppelin II, Purple Rain, Rumours, Sgt Pepper, 2112....it's an incredible list
  6. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    The marketing though doesn't state playing the entire album in sequence, I think I get where your coming from in that there's an experience you go through listening to an album and if you take away that running order it messes with that experience, so although I disagree with you because I'll enjoy the 11 songs as much regardless of the order, I respect where your coming from. Are you of the opinion then that the running order is perfect or do you not feel it could be improved?
    "Live in full" to me means "the album" in it's entirety. Is the running order perfect? Maybe, maybe not. But change it and it's just a setlist, not the Joshua Tree.
  7. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    "Live in full" to me means "the album" in it's entirety. Is the running order perfect? Maybe, maybe not. But change it and it's just a setlist, not the Joshua Tree.
    this
  8. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    The marketing though doesn't state playing the entire album in sequence, I think I get where your coming from in that there's an experience you go through listening to an album and if you take away that running order it messes with that experience, so although I disagree with you because I'll enjoy the 11 songs as much regardless of the order, I respect where your coming from. Are you of the opinion then that the running order is perfect or do you not feel it could be improved?
    The running order is perfect because it is the running order. We haven't grown up with this album for 30 years with that as a criticism.

    I go back to my last example. If I told you I was going to read you A Tale of Two Cities - in full, and in its entirety!!.....but then I read you all of the chapters out of order, wouldn't you feel cheated? As if you had not fully gained the experience you thought you would?

    A Tale of Two Cities and The Joshua Tree are both singular pieces of work that have been published and run in a certain, decided order. How that order was decided is not of my concern. I want it the way it exists.
  9. Originally posted by MattG:[..]
    The running order is perfect because it is the running order. We haven't grown up with this album for 30 years with that as a criticism.

    I go back to my last example. If I told you I was going to read you A Tale of Two Cities - in full, and in its entirety!!.....but then I read you all of the chapters out of order, wouldn't you feel cheated? As if you had not fully gained the experience you thought you would?

    A Tale of Two Cities and The Joshua Tree are both singular pieces of work that have been published and run in a certain, decided order. How that order was decided is not of my concern. I want it the way it exists.
  10. Originally posted by MattG:[..]
    The running order is perfect because it is the running order. We haven't grown up with this album for 30 years with that as a criticism.

    I go back to my last example. If I told you I was going to read you A Tale of Two Cities - in full, and in its entirety!!.....but then I read you all of the chapters out of order, wouldn't you feel cheated? As if you had not fully gained the experience you thought you would?

    A Tale of Two Cities and The Joshua Tree are both singular pieces of work that have been published and run in a certain, decided order. How that order was decided is not of my concern. I want it the way it exists.
  11. Originally posted by MattG:[..]
    The running order is perfect because it is the running order. We haven't grown up with this album for 30 years with that as a criticism.

    I go back to my last example. If I told you I was going to read you A Tale of Two Cities - in full, and in its entirety!!.....but then I read you all of the chapters out of order, wouldn't you feel cheated? As if you had not fully gained the experience you thought you would?

    A Tale of Two Cities and The Joshua Tree are both singular pieces of work that have been published and run in a certain, decided order. How that order was decided is not of my concern. I want it the way it exists.
    I don't think a book is a fair example because you can listen to the Joshua tree out of sequence and realise the ideas behind it and enjoy the music but a book out of sequence wouldn't work. The branding of the tour in its literal meaning 'playing the album in full' only states that they will play all the songs it does not mention the running order whatsoever, I know the running order and the album mean a lot to people but to play the album out of sequence would not be mis-selling anyone.
  12. just had a thought - i also would love to hear the album in order begining to end. i am ecstatic at the thought of getting streets to open the show, though would understand if they decide not to. So i am wondering how everyone feels about first batch in order to open the show, up to running to stand still. then a jaunt through what ever else they want to play in the middle of the show as long as it includes Bad. then begin the encore with the rest of JT in order, from Red Hill to mothers...and of course finish with 40?