GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by kezman:[..]

    I absolutely agree,and although straying slightly off topic the 90's-2000's transition wasn't so much the giant leap of the AB era they pulled that off equally well.
    Also getting back to the original topic what do you think they meant by not having the songs for a stadium tour when reflecting on Joshua Tree? Not enough hit singles???


    Good point. Most of their anthems come from the eighties! If you played a show with IWF, SBS, NYD, Bad, UF, Pride, Streets, ISHFWILF, WOWY, etc. (and ended with 40, of course) I think you have enough material to pull of a stadium show!
  2. To learn more about the Zoo TV madness, read "U2: At The End of The World." It's an awesome read.
  3. Hello hello!
    Ive seen the movie 2 times. Its good but not great. About half of the movie went away with stuff that doesnt belong in there. They should and can explain in a few minutes why they had difficult times after "LoveTown". Too many audio and video from the time before 1990. And in the movie every song from "Achtung Baby" should be seen an heard and with stories about every song. So it seems from time to time in the movie that the movie is about telling the whole story of U2 until ZooTV.
    They have must do it better! But anyway, something is better than nothing...
  4. Originally posted by RUMMY:[..]

    Good point. Most of their anthems come from the eighties! If you played a show will IWF, SBS, NYD, Bad, UF, Pride, Streets, ISHFWILF, WOWY, etc. (and ended with 40, of course) I think you have enough material to pull of a stadium show!


    True.

    I think rather what they meant was though, is that they didn't have enough material to do a "stadium" show. Meaning that they didn't think they were pulling those huge shows off. To an extent, I somewhat agree with that. If you watch JT bootlegs, there's something odd about them, in that they'r extremely bare bones. And I don't mean that it was just them, a stage, and lighting, I mean that there was that factor missing that turns a stadium into a ballroom. They were still small at that point. ZooTV changed in that respect, even when they were still doing smaller indoor shows in 92. The band's overall presence, in their stage routine and their songs was much much bigger. The idea was much bigger. It wasn't a rock band playing their hits anymore, it was a production with a theme and specific ideals and metaphors.

    I think when they say material they really mean presence.


  5. And agreed. Best U2 book in my opinion. Really makes it feel like you get to know the band a lot better, even moreso than U2byU2 does. Awesome awesome read, I've read it like three times and everytime I put it down I want to read it again and start the Zoo adventure over again!
  6. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]

    True.

    I think rather what they meant was though, is that they didn't have enough material to do a "stadium" show. Meaning that they didn't think they were pulling those huge shows off. To an extent, I somewhat agree with that. If you watch JT bootlegs, there's something odd about them, in that they'r extremely bare bones. And I don't mean that it was just them, a stage, and lighting, I mean that there was that factor missing that turns a stadium into a ballroom. They were still small at that point. ZooTV changed in that respect, even when they were still doing smaller indoor shows in 92. The band's overall presence, in their stage routine and their songs was much much bigger. The idea was much bigger. It wasn't a rock band playing their hits anymore, it was a production with a theme and specific ideals and metaphors.

    I think when they say material they really mean presence.


    Yeah. I think to do a godd job playing a stadium in this day and age you need more than relatively traditional rock and roll songs. Both the sound of the music on Achtung Baby and the visuals of the ZooTV stage provided something that even their anthems of the 80's could not do on their own.
  7. Have you been to a 80s stadium show to say that 80s songs in itself could not carry a stadium show on that level like on later tours?
    I ask because I think it´s fault to say that on the base of DVDs, CDs, TV etc.

    I attended both 80s and later stadium tours. Yes, they differ totally but there´s no doubt that one of the early stadium show could be as intense and intimate as later ones and even more. But it was only ONLY the band who made a show great or crap. On a good day there was something special which can´t be descriped.

    Nowadays even a uninspired band can give an OK-show because much of audience attention goes to the technical side (light, stage, video).
  8. Fair enough. I was just a bit too young in 1987 to see The Joshua Tree tour so I am only basing my statements on what I have read and seen/heard on video. However, as much as I like the 1980's stuff (Streets is, and will always be, my favourite), a U2 show isn't the same for me without some AB songs...and with anything post-AB you get tend to get so much more (for better or worse) when it comes to a live performance.
  9. 4% slower everything sounds more natural. Bono's voice overs, his singing. The pitch of One, EBTTRT, etc. So I guess everything was sped up.

    Still ONE amazing version of One


  10. Beautifully haunting. I adore this; all because it's so meaningful.
  11. Originally posted by kezman:[..]
    Also getting back to the original topic what do you think they meant by not having the songs for a stadium tour when reflecting on Joshua Tree? Not enough hit singles???


    I think this was one of their misconceptions. Because, as you mentioned, they had more than enough material for a successful stadium tour with JT. However, I feel that they were under the misconception that they needed to have more new material before kicking off a stadium tour. My guess is that the logic was bigger venue = more new stuff to fill it. To be quite honest, their Denver show, which was a stadium show, was the first bootleg I had ever listened to, so it was essentially my first exposure to the band's live act in any context. To this day, I still consider that one to be the gold standard of bootlegs regarding both sound quality and band performance. There are a few Vertigo shows and Elevation shows that I now consider to be better benchmarks, but the point is that the band's stadium show at the time still managed to impress me while I was still not really a hardcore fan.

    But I really do think that Bono felt as if he had to physically do more in order to fill the stadium. Being in such a huge venue when it's just 4 guys and a backdrop is definitely intimidating, so I can totally see where the band was coming from with this sentiment. It also explains the origins of ZooTV. They filled the stadium with a larger structure with the intent of overloading the audience with media and entertainment where as during the Joshua Tree tour they felt as if their audiences were underwhelmed by their act alone.

    All in all, their intuition proved to be correct, considering how the ZooTV tour was so well received. But I also find it interesting how they often bounce back between stadiums and arenas. However, I still feel like the best shows up until 360 were all in arenas. Even with 360, there are only a few shows that can be placed on the same level as their best arena shows.
  12. Originally posted by KieranU2[YouTube Video]

    Beautifully haunting. I adore this; all because it's so meaningful.


    I want it in full (without interviews and the like) NOW.
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.