Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kwaite

NY Times article- SPOILERS

Recommended Posts

I agree but It's difficult to determine what the Innocence Show or the Experience Show would entail.

 

Say you were seeing the band for the first time and wanted the best chance of hearing tracks from the Joshua Tree...would it be likely played more on the Innocence night because its their earlier material or Experience because it contains some of their biggest hits.

 

Or would you expect to hear SOI only on the Innocence night?

 

My examples probably aren't great and I am on your side as I bought tickets for multiple nights but I do understand the confusion. At the end of the day the vast majority of tickets they sell aren't people on forums who analyse their ideas and tour rumours to get a good idea.

 

My other half wouldn't have a clue and frankly she still doesn't when I try explain it  :P

 

Those are really great points, so maybe I didn't think it through as well as I thought I did :)

 

I guess I was thinking just the existence of two different shows would be enough, and the casual U2 fan would be happy just going to one regardless of which it was.  But that's a bit shortsighted on my part.  I had thought both shows would feature a lot of Songs Of Innocence material, and one would maybe feature more of the 80s and 90s catalogue, and another more of the 00s songs, but that probably doesn't work as cleanly as I imagine.  And when I think of other bands that have booked multiple nights for different shows, like Steely Dan for example, they announced in advance that one night they'd play their "Aja" album, another night the "Royal Scam" album, etc., etc.  But I don't know that I'd want U2 to print out two set lists ahead of time and then be stuck to them because they promised one night they'd play these exact songs, and the other night a different exact set of songs.  I can see it from their point of view.  And I can see it from a casual fan who really wants to hear "Beautiful Day" or "Where The Streets Have No Name" but doesn't care about the other nuances and just wants to be sure to get what they always expect to hear at a U2 show.

 

But it sure was a nice idea while it lasted :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the band, but sometimes they [read: Bono] over think things way too much.  I've seen Pearl Jam on consecutive nights, and on occasion there is quite literally no overlap in the set list at all.  But again, PJ charges $30, and their shows sell on the band's energy, and the promise that absolutely anything can happen on any given night.  Which often does.  Heck, they played the entire album No Code, which they had never done before (they had never played any entire album front to back before) in Molina Illinois last fall, of all places.  Then they played Yield in its entirety in Milwaukee.  (I was there for that one.)  They also played for three and one half hours. 

 

But when you spend millions on your tour staging, and charge upwards of $400 a seat, as U2 does, you can't just get on stage and "screw around," which is what often makes PJ shows so special.  They only map out the first 17 songs or so on any given night, and wing it from there.  But when you put on something of the scale U2 does, there is so much money riding on it, that it has to work.  You can't ever "let some air out of the balloon," so to speak.  You've got to play the hits, keep it safe, and not venture far from the experimentation that made you so great in the first place. 

 

I see parallels to the release of the bands latest album.  Bono is too worried about perfection, and appealing to today's pop audience, and that gets more attention than just making your art.  I'd advocate the Neil Young approach, for example.  Just keep putting stuff out there, critics be damned.  And if your albums came out a little more often, it wouldn't be hyped up so much.  Some would fail, some would be incredible successes.  But pursuing the art means that you put your art out there.  U2 has worked with so many different producers, and tinkered so much over the last six years, it feels more like a product than a work of art. (I'd kill to get my hands on what came out of the Rick Rubin sessions) Pop your own bubble and just put your art out there, critics be damned.  Who gives a fuck?  That's the rock and roll attitude. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I do like the new album.  I think the acoustic stuff on the Songs of Innocence + proves how good many of the songs are.  Personally, I would rather have had a rock and roll album than a pop album, and I hope they make one of those again some day.  If they would do their thing more often, and put out more albums, it would allow them more space to breathe and be artists.  Waiting this long between albums just makes it more of an "event" that gets overanalyzed and scrutinized  My advice to the band, which I love, would be to "pop" their own bubble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intermission might be needed for fans to decompress from the first half. (The hint of social injustice displays for the first half reminds me of their days streaming Croatia during war time during their concerts)

 

I'm surprised there was no mention of SalesForce's plans to enhance the concert experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...