LIV
Active topics
  3. Originally posted by germcevoy:It would appear (like others have said already) that they are either holding back for Glastonbury or polishing up this current set to play at Glastonbury. That's pretty shit for us following setlists but this is how the band works. look at the setlists that preceded the Rose Bowl show. All identical. They are just afraid of cocking up.

    Make no mistake though, the current setlist isn't exactly poor is it (Zooropa ffs) and Joe public is hardly gonna be disappointed with what he sees.

    Glastonbury is worth more to the band at the moment than the tail end of a 2 year tour.


    I dont think they're holding back all that much, the performances themselves are immense. Best of the tour for some songs (Even Better, MW, Batman, Streets). Setlist wise I think Glastonbury will have only a few changes to what we have now (which is fine I think).

    LOL Idk if its worth more, but they have a great show that makes up for the year long wait (the show seems better than ever imo)


  4. its only a little biased but he brings up some good points. All stadium shows, even 360, has an element of just watching a screen if you're far away. It happens. nothing that cant be done about it really. 360 is really an innovation though but by no means perfect


  5. Of course, a fewer percentage of the people attending will be physically close to the band, but compared to all of their other stage formats, the Claw allows the most GA attendees and therefore allows far more people to be very, very close to the band. We're talking about everyone in the inner circle and people just outside as well. That's a lot of people who get to experience the band. Also, this tour introduced cheaper price levels, allowing people who normally wouldn't pay to attend a U2 concert to do so.

    Even if the nosebleed seats only get a view of the video screens, he doesn't take into account the fact that the Claw is so large that it makes the stadium feel smaller by comparison. Additionally, those close to the stage don't get to fully appreciate the video screens, so everybody gets a unique experience.

    But the main point I disagreed with was his comment on the band being weaker compared to previous tours. The new songs are all performed very well. Even after stripping the new album representation down to 4 songs, those 4 songs are generally well accepted by the crowd. The older songs come back strong and it's clear that the band is putting forth a lot of effort to deliver.

    The "lack of variety" may be a valid point if you are a diehard U2 fan who tours with the band, but for your everyday U2 fan, the band is certainly better.
  6. The cheaper seats are subsidized by the really expensive seats (possibly the most expensive tickets for any U2 gig) so that argument can be had both ways (but it's nice to have a cheap option either way).

    I see the guys argument with the Claw but overall the claw does offer a better experience than a standard end stage setup. You may still be miles away from the actual band but at least there's a spectacle to behold in the Claw itself at a 360 gig.

    The reviewer kinda shoots himself in the foot by using the Claw as his main criticism of the gig as a detraction from the actual music. As a live music reviewer i'd be much more pissed at the amount of playback etc that the band uses.
  7. I'm with you Gerard, even if I think that guy needs to know how to apreciate an U2 concert (feel the energies etc).

    The fact that makes a little sad is this "same setlist again" feeling. I know it has the best hits and I also know they didn't show this "new" basic set in USA, but I believe they also have some other great songs to be put on the set, like New Year's Day, I Still Haven't Found, Desire, Angel Of Harlem, Stuck, Out Of Control...I'm not talking about songs they don't play in years, I'm talking about a simple rotation between songs they're used to play.

    Besides that, 360 is their best tour, in my opinion.

  8. Originally posted by AidanFormigoni:I'm with you Gerard, even if I think that guy needs to know how to apreciate an U2 concert (feel the energies etc).

    The fact that makes a little sad is this "same setlist again" feeling. I know it has the best hits and I also know they didn't show this "new" basic set in USA, but I believe they also have some other great songs to be put on the set, like New Year's Day, I Still Haven't Found, Desire, Angel Of Harlem, Stuck, Out Of Control...I'm not talking about songs they don't play in years, I'm talking about a simple rotation between songs they're used to play.

    Besides that, 360 is their best tour, in my opinion.




    Id rather not hear Desire, Angel or Stuck in my opinion >.< I have a show coming up and Im praying those songs stay away ahaha (except NYD and OoC)
  9. Just thought about the The Fly soundcheck in Seattle..it might also replace IWF, so it gets played right after EBTTRT..what do you guys think?
  10. that it's good wherever they want to play it so in that position too
    just play it
  11. Originally posted by Genaro92U2:[..]

    its only a little biased but he brings up some good points. All stadium shows, even 360, has an element of just watching a screen if you're far away. It happens. nothing that cant be done about it really. 360 is really an innovation though but by no means perfect


    I agree with this review.Hes correct IMO.As I have mentioned many times,the ARENA shows on Elevation/Vertigo tour were straight up rock shows.More intimate settings.Vertigo had so many set changes on a nightly basis.The 360 setup, hinders the band,as far as nightly changes.And no,I dont mean 1 or 2 songs.

    360 is an EVENT.And as this reviewer pointed out,if you dont have a good seat (as with any stadium show),you find yourself watching a video screen.Paul McCartney just announced he is playing Yankee Stadium, this July,here in NYC.If I dont score good tickets,there no way Im sitting in the nosebleeds,1 mile away from the stage.

    I also agree, the whole stage setup,is a distraction.It takes away from the music.As the Pop extravaganza did.Both cds (Pop/No Line) did not sell either.Is that a coincidence ??

    I have GA tix for Montreal, thank GOD.My other 2 shows, Im in the 100 sections.If I didnt have good seats,it would almost be a waste to go.......Almost.
  12. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    Of course, a fewer percentage of the people attending will be physically close to the band, but compared to all of their other stage formats, the Claw allows the most GA attendees and therefore allows far more people to be very, very close to the band. We're talking about everyone in the inner circle and people just outside as well. That's a lot of people who get to experience the band. Also, this tour introduced cheaper price levels, allowing people who normally wouldn't pay to attend a U2 concert to do so.

    Even if the nosebleed seats only get a view of the video screens, he doesn't take into account the fact that the Claw is so large that it makes the stadium feel smaller by comparison. Additionally, those close to the stage don't get to fully appreciate the video screens, so everybody gets a unique experience.

    But the main point I disagreed with was his comment on the band being weaker compared to previous tours. The new songs are all performed very well. Even after stripping the new album representation down to 4 songs, those 4 songs are generally well accepted by the crowd. The older songs come back strong and it's clear that the band is putting forth a lot of effort to deliver.

    The "lack of variety" may be a valid point if you are a diehard U2 fan who tours with the band, but for your everyday U2 fan, the band is certainly better.


    Agreed.The bands performance is very good.No question.But,you really dont "have" to see U2 more than once on a tour.Im a bit over the top in attending U2 shows,or I used to be,before I got married and had 4 kids.

    Brian Johnson (AC/DC) said the other night,some diehard fans were complaining to him, about the band playing the same songs in each city.He made a great point,he said "the average fan far outweighs the diehard, in attendance each night.We HAVE TO PLAY THE HITS".He also said,"when the band play stadium shows,the setlist is setup to coincide with the videoscreens and the massive light shows.They cant just wing it, with a song mid show,as Bruce does".I thought that was well said.

    But,then I thought to myself,why can the Dave Matthews Band, play 2 shows in Chicago's Wrigley Field without a repeat ? His band performed 40 songs, over the 2 night stand this past Sept, in front of 80,000 fans.These shows are just released on CD.