LIV
Active topics
2011-06-24 - Glastonbury
 Tour: Various Dates
Songs played: 20
Audio recordings: 1
Videos: 1
  2. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    I don't know how else to put this...

    The fact that you think U2 flat out failed Glastonbury is so far away from reality that there are only a few possibilities.

    1) You haven't been following the band for the past year
    2) You're a hater
    3) You have a poor recognition of what defines a good live performance.

    I'm leaning towards option 3, but option 1 could be true. I highly doubt you're a hater, unless you really did join a U2 fan site just to hate on the band.

    If you want "honest" discussion, you forgot to discuss the actual performance. Your talk of the band "playing the same setlist, just jumbled up," makes me think that you just looked at the Glastonbury setlist and came up with a conclusion without having actually watched/heard them perform. If you did see their performance and still believe that U2 failed Glastonbury, then no "honest" discussion can happen because I don't think you're opinion is coming from a U2 fan.


    none of your points are true
    but
    i did mention how great the performance was, and thanks for being a little more truthful and not instantly resorting to some of the other tactics. i am most definitely not a hater, i have been following the band for much more than the last year, and i know a good live performance. i said that before, and i fear im becoming a sideshow, which maybe i have self inflicted.

    as i said previously, maybe i got caught up in the hype and expected a little more. not just a little mini zootv, not just the fly. idk just how i feel. i love u2 so much and some of these silly post from others is why i keep responding. ive fueled it myself i know. but was just an opinion.
  3. I don't think it's a matter of being or not a fan.
    It's a matter of realizing "hey, I thought it was a a failure, weird that sooo many people think otherwise, maybe I may be wrong dunno"
  4. why spoil such a great night by letting this guy's opinions get to us. sure what he said might be ridiculous, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion. and with everyone ganging up on him and posting gifs and stuff mocking him just make us all look like assholes. let's just let the guy have his opinion, ignore it, and go back to celebrating our favorite band's triumph at glastonbury
  5. Originally posted by zoostation13:[..]

    as i said previously, maybe i got caught up in the hype and expected a little more. not just a little mini zootv, not just the fly. idk just how i feel. i love u2 so much and some of these silly post from others is why i keep responding. ive fueled it myself i know. but was just an opinion.


    It was a bit more than a "mini zootv." Just saying.

    But let's get back to reality. Did people honestly expect the band the play a setlist full of obscure songs and rarities for a huge festival like this? One thing to recognize is that Glastonbury is nothing like a U2 concert. Not everybody in attendance is necessarily a U2 fan. Some people are there for the other acts as well. The best way to cover the field and deliver a stellar performance is to make sure the setlist is strong and full of hits. Above all else, the biggest challenge for the band was to make sure that the performance was all about the music. U2's previous tours have been well known for their excellent visuals and and technical aspects. In the case of Glastonbury, U2 needed to show that they could deliver a stunning set without all the bells and whistles. Regarding all of these challenges, U2 definitely rose above and beyond those expectations. The setlist full of hits made the band highly accessible to the entire crowd, even those who didn't know all of the obscure songs they have been playing over the tours. Additionally, they added what I call a nice treat for long time fans. The visuals used are reminiscent of U2's prior tours, including ZooTV, Vertigo, Elevation, and the 360 Tour. The band had a stellar performance and they definitely worked well with the crowd. If you want evidence of that, just listen to the crowd singing to One and ISHFWILF. We can say that U2's Glastonbury performance was many things, but a failure it definitely was not.
  6. Originally posted by I_LIKE_U2:why spoil such a great night by letting this guy's opinions get to us. sure what he said might be ridiculous, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion. and with everyone ganging up on him and posting gifs and stuff mocking him just make us all look like assholes. let's just let the guy have his opinion, ignore it, and go back to celebrating our favorite band's triumph at glastonbury


    what quite frankly makes me mad is i had a lot more post than you originally before the old account was lost and this is looking like assholes in some ways. i opened my mouth with just a few posts and i shouldn't have.

    my mistake i guess

    last post, ill stop being that sideshow, but can't help being just a little annoyed.
    *proceeds with boots and shuts up*

    all the best
  7. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    It was a bit more than a "mini zootv." Just saying.

    But let's get back to reality. Did people honestly expect the band the play a setlist full of obscure songs and rarities for a huge festival like this? One thing to recognize is that Glastonbury is nothing like a U2 concert. Not everybody in attendance is necessarily a U2 fan. Some people are there for the other acts as well. The best way to cover the field and deliver a stellar performance is to make sure the setlist is strong and full of hits. Above all else, the biggest challenge for the band was to make sure that the performance was all about the music. U2's previous tours have been well known for their excellent visuals and and technical aspects. In the case of Glastonbury, U2 needed to show that they could deliver a stunning set without all the bells and whistles. Regarding all of these challenges, U2 definitely rose above and beyond those expectations. The setlist full of hits made the band highly accessible to the entire crowd, even those who didn't know all of the obscure songs they have been playing over the tours. Additionally, they added what I call a nice treat for long time fans. The visuals used are reminiscent of U2's prior tours, including ZooTV, Vertigo, Elevation, and the 360 Tour. The band had a stellar performance and they definitely worked well with the crowd. If you want evidence of that, just listen to the crowd singing to One and ISHFWILF. We can say that U2's Glastonbury performance was many things, but a failure it definitely was not.


    Hear hear. Anyone who expected something radically different from what we got just hasn't been paying attention. They did great with what they had to work with at Glasto and I for one am very pleased.
  8. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    It was a bit more than a "mini zootv." Just saying.

    But let's get back to reality. Did people honestly expect the band the play a setlist full of obscure songs and rarities for a huge festival like this? One thing to recognize is that Glastonbury is nothing like a U2 concert. Not everybody in attendance is necessarily a U2 fan. Some people are there for the other acts as well. The best way to cover the field and deliver a stellar performance is to make sure the setlist is strong and full of hits. Above all else, the biggest challenge for the band was to make sure that the performance was all about the music. U2's previous tours have been well known for their excellent visuals and and technical aspects. In the case of Glastonbury, U2 needed to show that they could deliver a stunning set without all the bells and whistles. Regarding all of these challenges, U2 definitely rose above and beyond those expectations. The setlist full of hits made the band highly accessible to the entire crowd, even those who didn't know all of the obscure songs they have been playing over the tours. Additionally, they added what I call a nice treat for long time fans. The visuals used are reminiscent of U2's prior tours, including ZooTV, Vertigo, Elevation, and the 360 Tour. The band had a stellar performance and they definitely worked well with the crowd. If you want evidence of that, just listen to the crowd singing to One and ISHFWILF. We can say that U2's Glastonbury performance was many things, but a failure it definitely was not.


    i lied lol

    fair enough and good point.
    cheers
  9. Instead of trying to win over a troll, might I just point out :

    Everyone (Anyone listens to) agrees U2 was a massive success.
  10. I'm still of the feeling that they did very well without blowing me away. They did exactly as they needed to and did it with gusto. They can walk away happy and so will those who attended. One was a clear high point.
  11. Originally posted by germcevoy:I'm still of the feeling that they did very well without blowing me away. They did exactly as they needed to and did it with gusto. They can walk away happy and so will those who attended. One was a clear high point.


    It was the rain that kept Bono from going all mental.
    Shoulda popped some pro-plus and grabbed some Towlettes.
  12. Originally posted by germcevoy:I'm still of the feeling that they did very well without blowing me away. They did exactly as they needed to and did it with gusto. They can walk away happy and so will those who attended. One was a clear high point.


    Same although it would have been perfect if the intro to Streets wasnt messed up the sound mix for Even Better was off too sounded much better under 360 lol the BBC got the mix wrong for some songs D:
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.