another one bites the dust sounds great at wembley and so does i want to break free - are some people deaf!??
i mean listen to those 2 songs from knebworth on the live magic cd and which ones sound better?? wembley not only for freddies voice but also the band sound seems better
86 was their greatest tour except they did crap songs - so as a result my favourite tour wud prob be jazz or early 80's
Thread
Posts in chronological order
oh also compare another one bites the dust at wembley and live at the bowl. no comparrison there. 82 one sounds so gay!
Una999, knebworth gets my vote in terms of voice, though the 1986 Wembeley probably is one of the best versions overall live.
I don't mind him having those rough edges, indeed he does sound very powerful at times.
In the end it all depends on what you look for in a voice, I tend to look for a good clean strong note...something that wasn't allthat common in the later tours thanks to all the shouting.
Others may well just look for power and couldn't vcare less whether he wasn't hitting even the moderatly high notes, like Wemebley.
I personally would put higher range and cleaner sounding note over operatic power myslef...
I'd easily place Knebowrth, Budapest and also Leiden over Wemebley and there are probably over nights such as Manheim that I'd also place above Wemebley, if anything Wemebley was one of the least impressive nights on that entire tour.
(ps, Una, sounds like you have a preferance to a deeper voice then his higher pitch voice he had at earlier live concerts.)
I don't mind him having those rough edges, indeed he does sound very powerful at times.
In the end it all depends on what you look for in a voice, I tend to look for a good clean strong note...something that wasn't allthat common in the later tours thanks to all the shouting.
Others may well just look for power and couldn't vcare less whether he wasn't hitting even the moderatly high notes, like Wemebley.
I personally would put higher range and cleaner sounding note over operatic power myslef...
I'd easily place Knebowrth, Budapest and also Leiden over Wemebley and there are probably over nights such as Manheim that I'd also place above Wemebley, if anything Wemebley was one of the least impressive nights on that entire tour.
(ps, Una, sounds like you have a preferance to a deeper voice then his higher pitch voice he had at earlier live concerts.)
Well yes its nice to hear his deeper voice becasue how often do you hear a voice like that?!
But having said that I equally love his voice from the 70's, but he played far more piano then. That's probably why.
But having said that I equally love his voice from the 70's, but he played far more piano then. That's probably why.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sorry, I'd much rather hear Bono give us a lecture about why we should help fight poverty in Africa than watch him with that pathetic make-up and rubbing his crotch on a camera.
I like bands to try things that are different, but if U2 were just trying to mock themselves, I didn't find the joke funny at all.[/QUOTE]
Achtung Baby wasn't self-mockery. Zoo TV was a massive satire on satellite television, commercialism and consumerism, which involved U2 having a bit of fun. Why all this belief in earnesty? You're on a website of a band that continually mocked themselves in video, onstage in interviews yet you demand the opposite. Very strange.
I like bands to try things that are different, but if U2 were just trying to mock themselves, I didn't find the joke funny at all.[/QUOTE]
Achtung Baby wasn't self-mockery. Zoo TV was a massive satire on satellite television, commercialism and consumerism, which involved U2 having a bit of fun. Why all this belief in earnesty? You're on a website of a band that continually mocked themselves in video, onstage in interviews yet you demand the opposite. Very strange.
U2 is self mockery, period.
To address the topic question ; well, anything is better than the Works tour.
To address the topic question ; well, anything is better than the Works tour.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Asterik wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sorry, I'd much rather hear Bono give us a lecture about why we should help fight poverty in Africa than watch him with that pathetic make-up and rubbing his crotch on a camera.
I like bands to try things that are different, but if U2 were just trying to mock themselves, I didn't find the joke funny at all.[/QUOTE]
Achtung Baby wasn't self-mockery. Zoo TV was a massive satire on satellite television, commercialism and consumerism, which involved U2 having a bit of fun. Why all this belief in earnesty? You're on a website of a band that continually mocked themselves in video, onstage in interviews yet you demand the opposite. Very strange.[/QUOTE]
Personally I think that U2s self-mockery affected their musical focus. I don't mind bands changing as long as the change is for good. 'Achtung Baby' proved that U2 had the ability to re-invent and improve, but what came afterwards was so experimental and so self-mocking that it definitely weakened their work.
I like bands to try things that are different, but if U2 were just trying to mock themselves, I didn't find the joke funny at all.[/QUOTE]
Achtung Baby wasn't self-mockery. Zoo TV was a massive satire on satellite television, commercialism and consumerism, which involved U2 having a bit of fun. Why all this belief in earnesty? You're on a website of a band that continually mocked themselves in video, onstage in interviews yet you demand the opposite. Very strange.[/QUOTE]
Personally I think that U2s self-mockery affected their musical focus. I don't mind bands changing as long as the change is for good. 'Achtung Baby' proved that U2 had the ability to re-invent and improve, but what came afterwards was so experimental and so self-mocking that it definitely weakened their work.
Personally I think that U2s self-mockery affected their musical focus. I don't mind bands changing as long as the change is for good. 'Achtung Baby' proved that U2 had the ability to re-invent and improve, but what came afterwards was so experimental and so self-mocking that it definitely weakened their work.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough we'll agee to disagree.
Fair enough we'll agee to disagree.
It was quite big but not really, really big.
critical questons:
-Why only 45000 people at Hippodrome de Vincennes (capacity about 85000)
-Why moved from Stade de l'ouest to the quite small Amphitheatre in Fréjus?
-Why the hell 3 times Goenoord'Hallen in Leiden, and not for exemple a a Stadium in Holland?
-Why only the Mini Estadi de FC Barcelone (appr 20000) instead of Camp Nou (appr 80000)?
-why in Munich the indoor hall and not the Olympic Stadium?
critical questons:
-Why only 45000 people at Hippodrome de Vincennes (capacity about 85000)
-Why moved from Stade de l'ouest to the quite small Amphitheatre in Fréjus?
-Why the hell 3 times Goenoord'Hallen in Leiden, and not for exemple a a Stadium in Holland?
-Why only the Mini Estadi de FC Barcelone (appr 20000) instead of Camp Nou (appr 80000)?
-why in Munich the indoor hall and not the Olympic Stadium?
the greatest? Nah...was it good? Yah. But for example, Queen's 76 tours had a really trippy setlist, ranks higher in my book. :D
by the way: check out Michael Jacksons Bad / Dangerous / History Tours, those were the real big mega tours...