JTUK Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yeah..not my cup of tea at all... but they had an energy and panache sadly lacking in too many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P-T-P Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 JTUK, just wondering how many U2 concerts you've been to in the last 25 years or so (not talking about Live Aid, Top of the Pops type appearances). I'm a big U2 fan and I agree with you to an extent. Glastonbury was, by their standards, a "safe" performance. They were clearly really tense at the start of the show and in comparison to their own gigs, the distance from the crowd and general stage layout didn't help. All that being said, they're in bit of a no-win situation really, to please someone looking for the kinda dynamics you are looking for would mean the risk of boring a whole host of others. With their own shows, because of the sheer size of the b®and and the weight of expectation, they are somewhat restricted as to how much they can mess around. They do/have changed things up over the years, though sometimes the changes are subtle and wouldn't be as noticed by someone who is a more casual listener. Also, because a large part of their audience is not going to accept wholesale sweeping re-workings of the songs they're paying good money to hear, they will use the production to give a different flavour rather than the music itself. The shows I saw on the 360 tour all had 6 or 7 numbers from the most recent album and about 10 post 2000 numbers all told. Each album's accompanying tour has always featured a bunch of songs from the new album and every tour since ZOO-TV has featured a section of the show where they do a stripped back version of one or two numbers (and karaoke versions on POP tour) For as long as people bill them as "the biggest band in the world" thy will be treading a line between living up to that billing and their own artistry and innevitably they will always be on the wrong side of the line for different people at different times. FWIW though, check out I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Crazy Tonight and compare the recorded version (or very early TV show live performances) with the version they do on the 360 tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='4 Strings' post='1283505' date='Jun 26 2011, 11:10 PM']Is Glasto still called a Rock Festival? Kool, Streets, Beyonce, we're rocking out! Ok, Queens of the Stoneage now[/quote] Glastonbury has never been a 'Rock Festival' it is a 'Festival of Performing Arts' I have been appalled at the BBC's coverage this year with too many interviews , too many 'look at me' presenters and a totally slewed take on the whole proceedings. Glastonbury is not the Pyramid Stage in isolation but you would think so watching the BBC. Such a shame as they could of shown a much more balanced programme. Having been there many times in the past I have seen the demographic attending shift over the years. This has been reflected in the head-liners accompanied with a bigger emphasis on popular music and the Jay Zs , Tinie Tempas and Beyonces of the music world having more exposure especially on the main stages. The first time I attended in 1997 the Prodigy , Radiohead and Ash were the head-liners, and I stood and watched them all. If it had been 1995 I would not have been at the Pyramid stage as Oasis and Pulp were headlining. In 2000 I spent the entire festival at the Jazz World Stage with on one night alone, Reprazent, Groove Armada, Moloko, The Wailers, Nitin Sawhney, and Lynden David Hall appearing. Glastonbury has something to appeal to all whether it be Paul McCartney or U2 arriving by Helicopter or perennial favourites such as I am Kloot or Herbie Tree Head entertaining on small stages. I am hoping to attend next year and long may it continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toasted Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Plan B's bass player has got some chops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzbass2000 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Bass highlights.... Mani (Primals), chap from the Kaiser Chiefs and the chap from the Eels (including the beard!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='JTUK' post='1283658' date='Jun 27 2011, 07:47 AM']Yeah..not my cup of tea at all... but they had an energy and panache sadly lacking in too many.[/quote] Having actually seen them live myself (the missus is a fan) I couldn't agree less. I wouldn't go & see them again. EDIT: One thing that blew me away was the Pierces acoustic performance. Loved it. Edited June 27, 2011 by 4000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 P-T-P Where do I start..??? IMO. They have no gears to go through which is down to the fundementals of the band. They have their classic list of songs to call on..and there are quite a few, but they do not seem to have to ability or imagination to change anything. Hence you get the same show which if it is a bit duff dynamically, through nerves, bad hair day or whatever ...all things that should be out of the loop at this lvel, IMV.. you'll have a less than sparkling performance which is what I said you got. For this reason, they can't up the game and they may have gotten away with this playing to a home crowd but with the support they should have, this shouldn't be a factor. The good thing is they were paired as a headline act with Coldplay..who have the same sort of band problems..the bad thing is Glastonbury needed a headline act and came up with a real show..who frankly blew them both away combined. But don't worry about it... it is only an opinion, not the demise of a marque..altho' they might ask that question themselves. I know I would at least be thinking we have done all we can with this ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='JTUK' post='1283994' date='Jun 27 2011, 12:45 PM']P-T-P Where do I start..??? IMO. They have no gears to go through which is down to the fundementals of the band. They have their classic list of songs to call on..and there are quite a few, but they do not seem to have to ability or imagination to change anything. Hence you get the same show which if it is a bit duff dynamically, through nerves, bad hair day or whatever ...all things that should be out of the loop at this lvel, IMV.. you'll have a less than sparkling performance which is what I said you got. For this reason, they can't up the game and they may have gotten away with this playing to a home crowd but with the support they should have, this shouldn't be a factor. The good thing is they were paired as a headline act with Coldplay..who have the same sort of band problems..the bad thing is Glastonbury needed a headline act and came up with a real show..who frankly blew them both away combined. But don't worry about it... it is only an opinion, not the demise of a marque..altho' they might ask that question themselves. I know I would at least be thinking we have done all we can with this ship.[/quote] As you state this really all is a matter of taste. The most important thing to me is songs. If you've got them and perform them well then you win. All the rest is either gravy or distraction depending on the performer and the performance. You seem obsessed with changing things about, but still haven't explained [i]why [/i] they have to change things about. That's generally a muso thing. They're not playing for musos. Many people who go and see a band like U2 or Oasis or whoever (certainly at this sort of gig) want to sing along with a bunch of songs they know and hopefully love. If it's not your bag, fine. If you think they underplayed compared to their usual performances, fine. But to criticise them for not being something that they're not seems to me to be rather peculiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevB Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='4000' post='1283981' date='Jun 27 2011, 12:40 PM']Having actually seen them live myself (the missus is a fan) I couldn't agree less. I wouldn't go & see them again. EDIT: One thing that blew me away was the Pierces acoustic performance. Loved it.[/quote] Went to see The Pierces at a small venue a few weeks back, full electric set though. Excellent value for money, solid harmonies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='KevB' post='1284010' date='Jun 27 2011, 12:56 PM']Went to see The Pierces at a small venue a few weeks back, full electric set though. Excellent value for money, solid harmonies.[/quote] Based on that one track/performance I'm jealous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The Pierces are great. I don't think I'd want to see an acoustic set by them though - the band arrangements are part of the attraction of the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linus27 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Beyonce's bass player was playing a couple of nice all white, including headstock Warwick Streamers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='4000' post='1284009' date='Jun 27 2011, 12:55 PM']As you state this really all is a matter of taste. The most important thing to me is songs. If you've got them and perform them well then you win. All the rest is either gravy or distraction depending on the performer and the performance. You seem obsessed with changing things about, but still haven't explained [i]why [/i] they have to change things about. That's generally a muso thing. They're not playing for musos. Many people who go and see a band like U2 or Oasis or whoever (certainly at this sort of gig) want to sing along with a bunch of songs they know and hopefully love. If it's not your bag, fine. If you think they underplayed compared to their usual performances, fine. But to criticise them for not being something that they're not seems to me to be rather peculiar.[/quote] How many times do I have to say the same thing..????? they have nowhere else to go with this vehicle. IMO. Plenty of bands are in the situation.. but artistically they revive things or don't depending on what they have left in the tank. This applies to all levels of musicians though..or really should, IMO.. If U2 were as good as their status suggests, they might be able to do this.. but they don't seem able...or willing. My bet is on the former but If they still sell tickets, who cares..? I guess they wont. Going round in circles here and there are too many of these types of threads to keep up with..besides, the fest is over, this is all done, I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevB Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='4000' post='1284022' date='Jun 27 2011, 01:00 PM']Based on that one track/performance I'm jealous. [/quote] They headlined a 3 act evening (supports were Delta Maid and Alice Gold) for £10 a ticket. This is the way to get folks out supporting live music. I was there fairly early so ended up about 12 feet away from them It's a bit poppier than my usual taste but most of the songs have strong melodies. They have only broken through to larger audiences more recently but have been around about 10 years so are fairly experienced performers. I wasn't aware of them until the latest album came out this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P-T-P Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='JTUK' post='1284098' date='Jun 27 2011, 01:58 PM']How many times do I have to say the same thing..????? they have nowhere else to go with this vehicle. IMO. Plenty of bands are in the situation.. but artistically they revive things or don't depending on what they have left in the tank. This applies to all levels of musicians though..or really should, IMO.. If U2 were as good as their status suggests, they might be able to do this.. but they don't seem able...or willing. My bet is on the former but If they still sell tickets, who cares..? I guess they wont. Going round in circles here and there are too many of these types of threads to keep up with..besides, the fest is over, this is all done, I'm out.[/quote] Just from my PoV, not having a go at you personally, just interesting to discuss. I'll be honest and say I'm not entirely sure what you're saying though. I mean, I get the words, just missing the point I suppose. First, the nerves thing... yeah, at that level you'd expect them to overcome it - and I think they did to a large extent and would have been much better with more favourable weather - but it's been 20+ years since they played a full set for a non-partisan audience and they came into it with a huge weight of expectation from both the supporters and detractors. They already knew that whatever they did, there would be people falling over themselves to pick them apart. If they were to do Glastonbury in a couple of years or perhaps a few other festivals, the nerves would be less forgivable. I think they're capable of changing things up, they've done so several times in their career - compare War to the Joshua Tree to Achtung Baby to POP to No Line on the Horizon - and there's some very different material going on. I think the last album was, for many, not enough of a change from it's predecessors for some people. Or too different depending on who you ask. I think it's true that they are not a slick, fluid band in a natural musician kinda way and their shows are very much a production, rather than simply a gig - but they know that and that's why something like Glastonbury puts them outside their comfort zone. I disagree there's nowhere artistically for them to go, I just think for them it comes about through new songs and looking for a new sounds rather than reworking old songs. If an old song stops working, they have a ton of others to choose from. I can see how it would be far more interesting to them to juggle the set-list and work on new songs than to spend that creative time re-working old songs. Maybe you could cite some examples from other bands of what you feel U2 could be doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-bbb Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 was it a shergold or was it a hayman ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merello Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='steve-bbb' post='1284405' date='Jun 27 2011, 05:48 PM']was it a shergold or was it a hayman ?? [/quote] Hey man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merello Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='cycrowave' post='1283339' date='Jun 26 2011, 08:47 PM']oh come on lets argue about something FENDER BASSES SUCK U2 ARE BETTER THAN PINK FLOYD MICHAEL EAVIS IS [b]SECRETLY[/b] KILLING OFF TORIES WOMBALS ARE RACIST[/quote] Not very secret - was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanark Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='4000' post='1283981' date='Jun 27 2011, 12:40 PM']EDIT: One thing that blew me away was the Pierces acoustic performance. Loved it.[/quote] I felt sorry for the guy who had to stand 10 feet behind them in his wellies so as not to spoil the illusion of the two women doing it all on their own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-bbb Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 [quote name='merello' post='1284627' date='Jun 27 2011, 09:13 PM']Not very secret - was it? [/quote] ive told you im not going to argue unless youve paid.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransistorBassMan Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 [quote name='wateroftyne' post='1281730' date='Jun 25 2011, 12:37 AM']I just think his voice is really limited... good band, though. Modern soul? Flip knows who else is in the running... I'm so out of the loop. I do know that if he's one of the best, we're in trouble... [/quote] The voice of modern soul? Ty Taylor of Vintage Trouble! [url="http://youtu.be/5pDr7cQgTHk"]Vintage Trouble - Nobody Told Me[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.