EXP
Active topics
  1. My body is ready
  2. I can imagine they'do that in the US (the 5 shows per city) but not in the EU...

  3. Nothing is official yet (we're just a few days away I guess), but it seems they're actually thinking of that name...

    EDIT: of that terrible name
  4. I just took the time to read the infamous magazine article and, despite the self-embarrasing discrediting stuff, there's some interesting stuff in there with which I agree. Specially with the acoustic/intimate analysis:

    The band have already made a move towards this idea by re-recording their new album (which they’d worked on for three years) as an entirely acoustic record (which they spent a week on). Their back catalogue would lend itself perfectly to the same treatment live – as pompous as U2 have grown, the quality of songwriting on records like ‘The Joshua Tree’ is undeniable.

    So how about they just scrap the pyrotechnic-packed stadium shows altogether? If I could grab Bono Vox’s ear, I’d tell him that people might start warming to his band more if they unplugged and reinvented themselves as a quieter, acoustic proposition. A bit of reinvention never hurt anyone, even U2.


    I can't agree more, seriously.



    And now the bit I really came here to post



    Bono agrees with you both:

  5. Let's wait and see. Afterall, it's still a rumour. Amsterdam would be nice, but if they play the Arena, I'd rather see them in Germany and Belgium.
  6. Originally posted by LikeASong:I just took the time to read the infamous magazine article and, despite the self-embarrasing discrediting stuff, there's some interesting stuff in there with which I agree. Specially with the acoustic/intimate analysis:

    The band have already made a move towards this idea by re-recording their new album (which they’d worked on for three years) as an entirely acoustic record (which they spent a week on). Their back catalogue would lend itself perfectly to the same treatment live – as pompous as U2 have grown, the quality of songwriting on records like ‘The Joshua Tree’ is undeniable.

    So how about they just scrap the pyrotechnic-packed stadium shows altogether? If I could grab Bono Vox’s ear, I’d tell him that people might start warming to his band more if they unplugged and reinvented themselves as a quieter, acoustic proposition. A bit of reinvention never hurt anyone, even U2.


    I can't agree more, seriously.



    And now the bit I really came here to post


    [..]
    [..]

    Bono agrees with you both:

    [image]

    Funnily enough I actually couldn't disagree more.

    Sure it's great to see U2 wanting to do the acoustic stuff and show that their songs hold up. But I'm not down for a folk performance. U2 is a ROCK band, and one of the last ones. I want to see a rock show. I want the chorus of Until The End of the World and Vertigo to hit me like a hammer. I want the screens showing old U2 and Bono waving to himself in a cheesy way. U2 IS bombastic and I like them that way. Am I the only one who gets bored whenever Bono and Edge bust out the acoustic? I felt as though the ZooTV version was done right, with the full band coming out and doing it. Satellite of Love wasn't bad, but even then it was a bit bumped up because Edge had effects on his acoustic and Lou Reed was there on the big screen.

    I'm not saying I wouldn't be down to go see their acoustic shows if they do this. But saying that U2 needs to step away from what they do best and do acoustic shows INSTEAD? Nope. No way. I'll take both or just the rock show.
  7. I'm all for rock n roll. And also more music. If more music means acoustic (among other things), then so be it.
  8. No no no, Alex, I'm not saying they should abandon their rock roots and play only intimate shows. But doing one and one of each is perfectly fine to me, even exciting. And you said it: it's boring when Edge and Bono belt out the acoustic interlude, but what about a full band treat, maybe with an orchestra? The possibilities open wide... Plenty of great songs that wouln't fit an all-rock show, plenty of different arrangements for the all time classics... Maybe it's just me, but I just love the perspective that opens. Anything new is always good.
  9. Originally posted by LikeASong:No no no, Alex, I'm not saying they should abandon their rock roots and play only intimate shows. But doing one and one of each is perfectly fine to me, even exciting. And you said it: it's boring when Edge and Bono belt out the acoustic interlude, but what about a full band treat, maybe with an orchestra? The possibilities open wide... Plenty of great songs that wouln't fit an all-rock show, plenty of different arrangements for the all time classics... Maybe it's just me, but I just love the perspective that opens. Anything new is always good.

    Oh, well in that case we're in full agreement
  10. I wouldn't mind them doing an "extended" intimate part of the show. They've always kind of slowed down the show halfway through. Zoo TV had Angel of Harlem- Satellite of Love. Popmart had Desire-Sunday Bloody Sunday. Elevation had In A Little While-Stay.... You guys get my point. But they only do around 3 songs to slow it down. I wouldn't mind 8-9 songs to melt my face accompanied by the crazy light show U2 is known for, then around 6-7 acoustic/stripped back songs with the house lights on, then back with 8-9 more electric songs to finish the show.
  11. ^ yeah, that would be my choice, instead of a full show of one thing and another full show of the other stuff. Or just do 12 songs one fashion and then 12 songs the other way in the same concert, 50% each... We'll see, nothing is sure yet.
  12. Yeah, I'm in the camp of them expanding their acoustic set rather than doing a full-on acoustic show followed by a traditional rock show. What I've always liked about U2 is their ability to harness the mood of the show and turn it into a living entity. I've been to many concerts where it has just felt like a group of people playing a bunch of songs. Those shows have never drawn me in and it just feels like I'm listening to a playlist with shuffle on. But U2 is smart with their setlist design because they know how the mood progresses throughout the course of the show. The acoustic set is a huge part of U2's show progression and I honestly can't imagine a U2 show without an acoustic set.

    At the same time, I can't imagine going to a U2 concert to hear just acoustic songs. I think they are at their best when they are doing both.
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.