U2 Experience + Innocence Tour **Discussion Only // No Ticket Sales or Requests**

RolandGoose

psychozeb wrote: »

Wasn't too keen on the last gift of the prints,took them out of the tube once.

Oh I never got the prints, I was referring to the "another time another place" vinyl, which is amazing!

I thought the prints looked cool tho, maybe framed on the wall or something.

For the above poster there was an email sent out months ago informing subscribers that they needed to log into their account and go to account settings page and click redeem in order to verify the order of the 2017 gift vinyls. I done this immediately but have still not received a dispatched email. Eeek!

Redo91

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

If you haven't done so already you need to log on to the site and essentially order it.

Ya I redeemed the gift roughly 6-8 weeks ago at this stage.

Looking forward to getting it. Don't have a vinyl player but I think it would look well framed.

secondrowgal

I logged in and it says

"The Joshua Tree Singles Vinyl Collection: 1987 & 2017

You have redeemed your gift."

I haven't received anything either...

scruff monkey

secondrowgal wrote: »

I logged in and it says

"The Joshua Tree Singles Vinyl Collection: 1987 & 2017

You have redeemed your gift."

I haven't received anything either...

Go into the shop on the site and click on Order Status. It should have details in there. Mine is actually showing as having shipped on Dec 7, 2017.

which is nice.

tritriagain

scruff monkey wrote: »

Go into the shop on the site and click on Order Status. It should have details in there. Mine is actually showing as having shipped on Dec 7, 2017.

which is nice.

Don't forget u2 on BBC at 9 tonight

dublinman1990

tritriagain wrote: »

Don't forget u2 on BBC at 9 tonight

It's on now guys. The first track is Beautiful Day.

AnneFrank

Some dyed toupee on bono

MisterAnarchy

AnneFrank wrote: »

Some dyed toupee on bono

He had a hair transplant in the early 2000's but it looks like he as topped it up again .

AnneFrank

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

He had a hair transplant in the early 2000's but it looks like he as topped it up again .

I can understand the transplant, but the dye is a bit cringe, just like Paul McCartney

johnpatrick81

Knocking it out the park on the BBC, exceptional performances!

AnneFrank

He's talking for most of the songs, wouldn't pay to see them anymore, great back log though

dublinman1990

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Knocking it out the park on the BBC, exceptional performances!

Hear hear! Absolutely spot on with that post. I literally cried happy tears when they played Light of Home earlier. It's the same version as the saint peter's strings version on the deluxe album. It felt sensational. The orchestra really gives it a kick to of all their performances in the background. They just sound absolutely fantastic.

johnpatrick81

Yep I really wasn’t expecting it to be so brilliant. There’s an extended version on the 28th I think. Beautiful stuff.

dublinman1990

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Yep I really wasn’t expecting it to be so brilliant. There’s an extended version on the 28th I think. Beautiful stuff.

Nice. Is it on BBC One again or is it on BBC Two?

EDIT - I just found out it is on BBC One again at 23:10 which excludes BBC One Northern Ireland.

BBC One Northern Ireland's broadcast is on at 00:10.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09m6cdj

It has an extra 15 minutes included in this documentary which is great stuff.

RolandGoose

scruff monkey wrote: »

Go into the shop on the site and click on Order Status. It should have details in there. Mine is actually showing as having shipped on Dec 7, 2017.

which is nice.

Thanks for that!
Mine is showing as shipped on the 07/12 too.

U2 sounded great tonight, Love is Bigger Than Anything its Way sounded impressive live. Amazing drumming from Larry! Glad he was so prominent in the mix!

Jeez Cat Deeley is annoying tho, for been friends with the band for such a long time you'd imagine she'd be composed enough to do a decent interview! I hope the full special will see the light of day, obviously All I Want Is You was omitted and the scene of Adam and Edge record shopping in Sao Paulo, very strange!

Dave Fanning said it'll be broadcast on RTE on Stephens Day. I can't find that in the listings, so maybe he was speaking non sense.

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Nice. Is it on BBC One again or is it on BBC Two?

EDIT - I just found out it is on BBC One again at 23:10 which excludes BBC One Northern Ireland.

BBC One Northern Ireland's broadcast is on at 00:10.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09m6cdj

It has an extra 15 minutes included in this documentary which is great stuff.

Seen this too late, DOH!
Hopefully All I want Is You is included, it was a incredible version!

johnpatrick81

The Nal wrote: »

People need to stop watching Star Wars. Most just seem to like 2 1/2 movies. From the originals. And hate everything else.

If you only like 2 and a half out of 9 movies, its time to stop watching.

Lads!!!! :pac: Ah the Nal! How you make me laugh!!

eviltimeban

It's a shame they took this path - in 1995, they could've gone anywhere. They went out there with the Passengers project, which delivered some amazing moments. And Pop is vastly under-rated - "Please" must rank as one of their most experimental yet emotional, powerful songs. The "Million Dollar Hotel" soundtrack hinted at further experiments in ambience ("Stateless") and while "All that you can't leave behind" (the "comeback" album) was rooted in old-U2, it had more sonic innovation than it gets credit for (thanks, Brian Eno).

The wheels came off with "How to dismantle an atomic bomb" - the first time U2 sounded like they were really trying hard to sound like "U2".

If they had taken a deep breath and continued the route of sonic exploration, innovation, and ironic-yet-emotional resonance, we could have had a series of interesting, possibly amazing albums; not the likes of vacuous and pointless "No line on the horizon". "Songs of Innocence" contained several nods to their 90s style ("The Troubles" could've sat nicely at the end of Pop), but this new album again goes back to old-U2.

It seems that as soon as the dip their toes into the deep pool of not-sounding-like-U2, they lose their bottle and go back to what's familiar. This is possibly a result of the bashing they feel Pop got (but didn't really get - it was reviewed well, sold respectably, but just wasn't a big hit in the USA).

Where they go from here is anyone's guess.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

Where they go from here is anyone's guess.

Maybe I'm wrong here but....

Maybe, they just actually love what they do? Maybe they love writing, recording and touring?
Maybe not everyone has to or want to be like Brian Eno or the two boys from Air or peak Bowie all their lives?
Maybe they like what they've written and produced?
Maybe the urge to keep going, having that feeling that the next song could be the "best ever" or the feeling 80,000 people give you in a live setting, keeps them going?

Maybe they want to keep going because of that?

I don't know. I know nothing about music or bands or the mindset of people in bands so, I could be very wrong.

johnpatrick81

yep, that interview with Dave Fanning at the weekend was very telling. They are delighted with what they are doing, and don't give a crap what people think the U2 sound "should be". Kudos to them! I really love the new album in many ways, and last night on the BBC really shocked me at how good it was. Haven't felt them that good live in years. A year or so ago I kinda wouldn't have minded them retiring, but the past month has proved to me that they've still loads to offer. For the first time in ages I am really excited about seeing them live again.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

yep, that interview with Dave Fanning at the weekend was very telling. They are delighted with what they are doing, and don't give a crap what people think the U2 sound "should be". Kudos to them! I really love the new album in many ways, and last night on the BBC really shocked me at how good it was. Haven't felt them that good live in years. A year or so ago I kinda wouldn't have minded them retiring, but the past month has proved to me that they've still loads to offer. For the first time in ages I am really excited about seeing them live again.

LIBTAIIW is going to be a monster live.

Something to be said for that interview. Wish it was longer. Really drew me in.

Performances last night were brilliant. Then again, the SOI gigs were the best I've seen them

eviltimeban

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong here but....

Maybe, they just actually love what they do? Maybe they love writing, recording and touring?
Maybe not everyone has to or want to be like Brian Eno or the two boys from Air or peak Bowie all their lives?
Maybe they like what they've written and produced?
Maybe the urge to keep going, having that feeling that the next song could be the "best ever" or the feeling 80,000 people give you in a live setting, keeps them going?

Maybe they want to keep going because of that?

I don't know. I know nothing about music or bands or the mindset of people in bands so, I could be very wrong.

I don't disagree that any or all of those points are true. I'm sure they DO love what they are doing, it just doesn't give me any satisfaction. For me, what U2 achieved in the 90s is equal to what the Beatles did in the 60s - a massive, iconic band, who changed their approach and started making music that took them in a different direction, basically rewriting the rule book about what a band could do, and their fans took that journey with them. If the Beatles hadn't changed and made Sgt Pepper, they wouldn't be revered as they are now, and if U2 hadn't changed and made Achtung Baby, neither would they.

U2 aren't that band any more, which is fine. They aren't sonic adventurers, trying make something that has never been made before, carefully not repeating themselves.

I met Bono once, in 1997 before the release of Pop, and we talked about music. He said the upcoming album consisted of "structured songs, but with an experimental sound". If they went back to that now, that would be great. It wouldn't be for everyone, and they'd lose fans. But eventually they have to call time on the massive stadium tours, unless they want to turn into the Rolling Stones.

I'd rather they were a studio band, than a touring band, just like the Beatles.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

I don't disagree that any or all of those points are true. I'm sure they DO love what they are doing, it just doesn't give me any satisfaction. For me, what U2 achieved in the 90s is equal to what the Beatles did in the 60s - a massive, iconic band, who changed their approach and started making music that took them in a different direction, basically rewriting the rule book about what a band could do, and their fans took that journey with them. If the Beatles hadn't changed and made Sgt Pepper, they wouldn't be revered as they are now, and if U2 hadn't changed and made Achtung Baby, neither would they.

U2 aren't that band any more, which is fine. They aren't sonic adventurers, trying make something that has never been made before, carefully not repeating themselves.

I met Bono once, in 1997 before the release of Pop, and we talked about music. He said the upcoming album consisted of "structured songs, but with an experimental sound". If they went back to that now, that would be great. It wouldn't be for everyone, and they'd lose fans. But eventually they have to call time on the massive stadium tours, unless they want to turn into the Rolling Stones.

I'd rather they were a studio band, than a touring band, just like the Beatles.

That's fine. That's your perception and what you want. Thing about it is, what's the point in being in a band if you're making music you're not interested in, because someone else wants you to?
I highly doubt anyone was demanding Your Blue Room from them


Keep making songs like The Little Things and The Blackout, keep producing the goods live and they have me.

Then again, they influenced me and made my life go where it's gone so they're stuck with me regardless :D

eviltimeban

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

what's the point in being in a band if you're making music you're not interested in, because someone else wants you to?

Dollar bills my friend, dollar bills.

PropJoe10

eviltimeban wrote: »

It's a shame they took this path - in 1995, they could've gone anywhere. They went out there with the Passengers project, which delivered some amazing moments. And Pop is vastly under-rated - "Please" must rank as one of their most experimental yet emotional, powerful songs. The "Million Dollar Hotel" soundtrack hinted at further experiments in ambience ("Stateless") and while "All that you can't leave behind" (the "comeback" album) was rooted in old-U2, it had more sonic innovation than it gets credit for (thanks, Brian Eno).

The wheels came off with "How to dismantle an atomic bomb" - the first time U2 sounded like they were really trying hard to sound like "U2".

If they had taken a deep breath and continued the route of sonic exploration, innovation, and ironic-yet-emotional resonance, we could have had a series of interesting, possibly amazing albums; not the likes of vacuous and pointless "No line on the horizon". "Songs of Innocence" contained several nods to their 90s style ("The Troubles" could've sat nicely at the end of Pop), but this new album again goes back to old-U2.

It seems that as soon as the dip their toes into the deep pool of not-sounding-like-U2, they lose their bottle and go back to what's familiar. This is possibly a result of the bashing they feel Pop got (but didn't really get - it was reviewed well, sold respectably, but just wasn't a big hit in the USA).

Where they go from here is anyone's guess.

I'm very much on your side of the fence when it comes to the direction they've taken since 2000, but for me, their comments on the Zooropa album from a few years ago were fairly telling.

They said that they viewed that as no more than an "interlude" and while they liked that record, they felt that the songs didn't have resonance or staying power, and there was no hit singles on that record.

Seems that the place they're in now (all nearing 60) doesn't really allow for sonic experimentation - they're much happier chasing the next big hit, and keeping their place as a massive touring act. Doing another Zooropa just wouldn't interest them at this point.

But for me, their 90s output is what separates them from the likes of Coldplay. They became a truly great band during that phase, due to being able to take such a successful turn away from their sound of the 80's. I'd love another experimental album with the likes of Eno before they retire, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on it.

EDIT: Quote from The Edge on Zooropa:

"The songs are not classics but they are more experimental and interesting than classic pop songs. This is something we don't necessarily care to do anymore. We don't go down the road with a piece of music just because it's unusual. That's not enough for us now. We want something that's potent and some of these songs are not particularly potent."

Sums it up really, for me.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm very much on your side of the fence when it comes to the direction they've taken since 2000, but for me, their comments on the Zooropa album from a few years ago were fairly telling.

They said that they viewed that as no more than an "interlude" and while they liked that record, they felt that the songs didn't have resonance or staying power, and there was no hit singles on that record.

Seems that the place they're in now (all nearing 60) doesn't really allow for sonic experimentation - they're much happier chasing the next big hit, and keeping their place as a massive touring act. Doing another Zooropa just wouldn't interest them at this point.

But for me, their 90s output is what separates them from the likes of Coldplay. They became a truly great band during that phase, due to being able to take such a successful turn away from their sound of the 80's. I'd love another experimental album with the likes of Eno before they retire, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on it.

EDIT: Quote from The Edge on Zooropa:

"The songs are not classics but they are more experimental and interesting than classic pop songs. This is something we don't necessarily care to do anymore. We don't go down the road with a piece of music just because it's unusual. That's not enough for us now. We want something that's potent and some of these songs are not particularly potent."

Sums it up really, for me.

Without a doubt, they view Stay has having staying power.

It is one of their best, if not THE best song, I've heard.

He has a point regarding some of that album....
Numb is not potent to say the least. I hate it!

Stay, Lemon, Zooropa, The First Time and The Wanderer are great though

PropJoe10

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

Without a doubt, they view Stay has having staying power.

It is one of their best, if not THE best song, I've heard.

He has a point regarding some of that album....
Numb is not potent to say the least. I hate it!

Stay, Lemon, Zooropa, The First Time and The Wanderer are great though

I'm not disagreeing with you about Stay or the other tracks you mentioned, I'm just giving U2's own thoughts on the record, which likely explains why they're not going down that sonic route with their modern stuff. I view it as a shame, because I would still say they're capable of writing more experimental stuff. But they're not into it anymore, and that's their own prerogative at the end of the day. Hard to argue with it when you see the album and ticket sales they can still achieve!

q2xv9rjei4awgb

eviltimeban wrote: »

Dollar bills my friend, dollar bills.

Not really. Makes no sense. That's a very lazy summarisation tbh. You telling me people only write, record, produce and play music only for money?
It is one of the factors but, it's certainly not the most important or only one.

Rory Gallagher wanted to play blues rock. He was offered several times to have a "hit single" produced for him. He declined. Because it's not what he wanted and he didn't want to steer away from the music he wanted to write and play.

You could say AC/DC never changed their formula because of money....No! They never changed because it was music they loved writing and playing.

U2 did not sit down, write these songs, with the mindset being, "Ugh we hate all these songs but, it'll make us loads of money so who cares"
I highly doubt Bono decided to write The Little Things because he saw dollar signs.

That's just rubbish talk. As an artist, it is the last thing that comes into it. There is an insecurity in every performer and artist, which dollars cannot fill

q2xv9rjei4awgb

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you about Stay or the other tracks you mentioned, I'm just giving U2's own thoughts on the record, which likely explains why they're not going down that sonic route with their modern stuff. I view it as a shame, because I would still say they're capable of writing more experimental stuff. But they're not into it anymore, and that's their own prerogative at the end of the day. Hard to argue with it when you see the album and ticket sales they can still achieve!

Maybe that's just the place they were in then. Obviously in a different place now.

I highly doubt they'll write another song, that has the subject matters of Electric Co, or Bad for example. Different times, different places etc

Although, subject matters of Stay and The Troubles are the same. Unfortunately, I can't see that topic ever disappearing

PropJoe10

bclar12 wrote: »

Maybe that's just the place they were in then. Obviously in a different place now.

I highly doubt they'll write another song, that has the subject matters of Electric Co, or Bad for example. Different times, different places etc

Although, subject matters of Stay and The Troubles are the same. Unfortunately, I can't see that topic ever disappearing

Indeed. It's all taste, and I know a lot of folks that didnt care for U2's 90's output at all, even Achtung Baby. It's purely my opinion, and although I've enjoyed sections of all their last few albums, I just don't get the same feeling of interest as I do when listening to the 90's albums. They were creative, edgy and adventurous then, which they definitely aren't anymore. But sure look, they've been around long enough now to do what they want to do themselves!

innuendo141

I have to say the BBC gig was great. New tunes sound brilliant live, and especially in that setting. Lights of Home is really becoming a huge favourite of mine. The e&i tour is going to be savage. Even if it just comes close to the '15 shows.

the i&e Tour really has my expectations high though, given the perfect concept, design, emotion and delivery of that tour. As Ive said in a recent post, I wasnt even a big fan before then but seeing that show was just like "that is how it should be done". Hopefully they have it in them to pull it off again. SOE deserves it!