What do the hardcore U2 fans think?

[CaledonianGonzo]

In fairness, I rely liked the Damien Hirst visuals - the colourful butterflies, etc. It was certainly the most visually inventive backdrop I saw over the weekend (albeit I didn't see any of Coldplay's lasers on the pyramid).

[airds]

The 80,00 people seems a bit much

like I said before it was quiet near us (we were "near-ish" the back speaker)

heres a picture of people leaving when "Moment of Surrender" was on, this was a constant stream BTW

then when "out of control" was playing, this was the area around us

I listened to the set again the other day, and it does seem a bit "flat" even though they played pretty much everything I wanted, going to give the video a watch this weekend and see what I think then

[russycarps]

it was certainly no less 'contrived' than U2's set... with the most obvious difference being the weather

[eFestivals]

that's your (and many others... apparently) opinion. I thought they were great, and the rain and mud DID play a massive part in subduing the punters. I didn't think it was dull

that's my opinion from the shortish time (3 or 4 songs, I think) that I saw them, which was from around the start of their set - so as I didn't see the whole set I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent.

But the fact is that there's no "apparently" in the opinion of those who did see the whole set, at least with those who wrote reviews of it I've read - every single one I've seen (excluding from mega U2 fans who'd write that them farting was a truimph) has said it was far from terrific.

I didn't think it was bad - it had, at one level, everything you'd want. They were in tune, they were in time. But it was also dull and flat without any spark, a band going thru the motions, another day at the office. There's a million and one bands who can do that, and those million and one others don't have U2's reputation - what has now been shown as an undeserved reputation. Everything was in place for them to smash it, and the reason they didn't comes down only to them. If they want to blame the rain as why they didn't then they're kidding themselves.

Bono should have played that song where the poor are f**ked and he's glorying in being a tax exile ..... that would have at least had some soul, and a bit of truth. Instead we got a soulless, sucked up their own arse performance from a bunch of ageing gits who are so obviously surrounded by yes men and PR men.

They have a song "Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing" - so very very true, they've forgotten what the real thing is, they don't know how to keep it real.

[eFestivals]

well, look at their faces...

me... I'd been in the rain for about 6 hours by then. I stayed til the end, but the main thing on my mind was getting back to my dry (inside at least) tent

Yep, look at their faces.

They'd been happy to stand in the rain hoping to see a great U2 performance, and you can be damned sure that if they'd have got one they'd have been very happy about it.

And so the misery on their faces is from more than just the rain.

[eddie_corrigan]

that's my opinion from the shortish time (3 or 4 songs, I think) that I saw them, which was from around the start of their set - so as I didn't see the whole set I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent.

But the fact is that there's no "apparently" in the opinion of those who did see the whole set, at least with those who wrote reviews of it I've read - every single one I've seen (excluding from mega U2 fans who'd write that them farting was a truimph) has said it was far from terrific.

I didn't think it was bad - it had, at one level, everything you'd want. They were in tune, they were in time. But it was also dull and flat without any spark, a band going thru the motions, another day at the office. There's a million and one bands who can do that, and those million and one others don't have U2's reputation - what has now been shown as an undeserved reputation. Everything was in place for them to smash it, and the reason they didn't comes down only to them. If they want to blame the rain as why they didn't then they're kidding themselves.

Bono should have played that song where the poor are f**ked and he's glorying in being a tax exile ..... that would have at least had some soul, and a bit of truth. Instead we got a soulless, sucked up their own arse performance from a bunch of ageing gits who are so obviously surrounded by yes men and PR men.

They have a song "Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing" - so very very true, they've forgotten what the real thing is, they don't know how to keep it real.

[MEGABOWL]

The tone of the piece to me reads like an acknowledgement that it was a fairly subdued affair that can't be helped now, but that neither WW or U2 themselves are altogether satisfied with.

[eFestivals]

Yeah sorry to be a pedant here but its called 'even better than the real thing' just saying if you're going to criticise them and relate it to song titles make sure its correct.

I realised I'd got it wrong as I posted it .... but the real title couldn't have been more wrong so I left it as it was.

After all, their performance wasn't "even better than the real thing". It was barely a thing, and it certainly wasn't real. They don't know what real is.

[eFestivals]

I don't think you can over estimate what the weather did....

Hmmmm ..... I didn't even notice it was raining watching Primal Scream - and as you probably know (I've posted it often enough), they're waaaaaaaaay from being a favourite of mine yet they made me forget it was raining.

That sort of difference is one that U2 could have made, if they were good enough.

[eFestivals]

unless Beyonce had made a guest appearance, jumped into the crowd and given everyone a blow job, it would still have been a miserable evening

if that had happened with U2 playing in the background it would have still been a miserable evening.

[The Nal]

I realised I'd got it wrong as I posted it .... but the real title couldn't have been more wrong so I left it as it was.

After all, their performance wasn't "even better than the real thing". It was barely a thing, and it certainly wasn't real. They don't know what real is.

[Wooderson]

I'd agree with that, it was a good read too

[airds]

I guess I just find the massive coldplay love against the massive U2 hate a bit unfair

[ThomThomDrum]

I didn't think it was bad - it had, at one level, everything you'd want. They were in tune, they were in time. But it was also dull and flat without any spark, a band going thru the motions, another day at the office.

[chameleon]

that's my opinion from the shortish time (3 or 4 songs, I think) that I saw them, which was from around the start of their set - so as I didn't see the whole set I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent.

I'm sure they are grateful to you for giving them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. You were there, by your own admission for 3 or 4 songs and you feel qualified to give a critique of the entire set?

[eFestivals]

Playing the Pyramid or any other stage for that matter other than a U2 stage is hardly another day in the office. The fact that they were out of their comfort zone may have caused them to be a bit unsure about themselves and so did not fully let go due to the tension. Coupled with weather and tecnical difficulties it was not going to be a legendary gig, however dull, flat and without any spark is going a bit too far IMO.......

Their "being out of their comfort zone" really only means "being a band like every other band". So what they've really proven is that they're not a very good band.

And if it wasn't going to be a good gig from the moment it was booked, then I can't understand why they took the booking. They should have simply said "we're not good enough to do this" and hung up their Stetsons forever.

But the simple fact is that they thought they'd smash it by the weight of their reputation alone - they made that clear during the 18+ months it took to happen. Which just adds to them not knowing what real is, really.

And of course no other band ever has to deal with rain at Glastonbury, or has similar technical difficulties (but which, from that PR durge above, didn't actually affect them anyway).

They had their chance. They simply weren't able to take it. Or perhaps, they're simply not good enough, not a very good band anymore, full stop.

[Lubic]

Of course the weather is going to have an effect on the crowd atmosphere - If Beyonce had played in the same conditions a lot of people would have buggered off and her set would have been an absolute disaster.

U2 played a very good, enjoyable set, but the weather definitely affected the atmosphere and played a big part in it not being one of those legendary gigs. I'd call that unlucky.

Coldplay were brilliant, and the atmosphere was a big part of that. In terms of performance, they didnt do anything particularly out of the ordinary - great as always really - they know how to put on a show. I'm guessing a lot of people there or at home hadn't seen them live before and therefore were obviously very impressed.

[eFestivals]

I'm sure they are grateful to you for giving them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. You were there, by your own admission for 3 or 4 songs and you feel qualified to give a critique of the entire set?

I was, by my own admission, there for 3 or 4 songs. I suggest you either read back to actually read what I say rather than fantasise what I didn't, or admit you can't read at all.

OK, so your fantasies have got me nailed. Now all you have to do is find the reasons why all the reviews say they were dull for the whole set just as I found them to be for the songs I saw.

[chameleon]

I was, by my own admission, there for 3 or 4 songs. I suggest you either read back to actually read what I say rather than fantasise what I didn't, or admit you can't read at all.

OK, so your fantasies have got me nailed. Now all you have to do is find the reasons why all the reviews say they were dull for the whole set just as I found them to be for the songs I saw.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, you've got me there, I can't read at all.

I have. You can't. You've proven it already.

It certainly wasn't dull for the whole set where I was stood - and yes I was there for the whole set rather than 3 or 4 songs.

Well, I guess you must have been stood with your head in your U2-fandom. Either that, or every reviewer thinks it's cool to slag off U2 just because they're U2, without regard to the effects that making up reviews out of noithing would have on their employer's publication or their own career.

You've already shown that you'll use fantasy or lies to condemn negative comments against U2, so similarly it's not taking a huge leap in the dark to realise where your positive comments are coming from too.

Remember, we're talking about a band here who thinks it's "performance art" to play some songs like other bands do. I rest my case.

Edited July 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[eddie_corrigan]

Their "being out of their comfort zone" really only means "being a band like every other band". So what they've really proven is that they're not a very good band.

And if it wasn't going to be a good gig from the moment it was booked, then I can't understand why they took the booking. They should have simply said "we're not good enough to do this" and hung up their Stetsons forever.

But the simple fact is that they thought they'd smash it by the weight of their reputation alone - they made that clear during the 18+ months it took to happen. Which just adds to them not knowing what real is, really.

And of course no other band ever has to deal with rain at Glastonbury, or has similar technical difficulties (but which, from that PR durge above, didn't actually affect them anyway).

They had their chance. They simply weren't able to take it. Or perhaps, they're simply not good enough, not a very good band anymore, full stop.

[Wooderson]

I'm sure they are grateful to you for giving them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. You were there, by your own admission for 3 or 4 songs and you feel qualified to give a critique of the entire set?

[Wooderson]

we're all capable of fantasising

every review hasn't slagged them off

[Wooderson]

I'm going to assume you don't know who Willie Williams is sir. He's worked with the band for nearly 30 years on every tour they've done since the War tour and he has regularly kept a tour blog since the Elevation Tour in 2001 and for every tour since and to simply dismiss this blog as some crass public relations exercise is at worst mean spirited and at best naive. These are 4 of his mates and yes whilst it may be blinkered he also had a job to do and i think he is just commenting on how good a job they had done considering how elements beyond their control f**ked up and conspired against them to produce as good as a show as they are capable of playing.

[eFestivals]

I'm going to assume you don't know who Willie Williams is sir. He's worked with the band for nearly 30 years on every tour they've done since the War tour and he has regularly kept a tour blog since the Elevation Tour in 2001 and for every tour since and to simply dismiss this blog as some crass public relations exercise is at worst mean spirited and at best naive. These are 4 of his mates and yes whilst it may be blinkered he also had a job to do and i think he is just commenting on how good a job they had done considering how elements beyond their control f**ked up and conspired against them to produce as good as a show as they are capable of playing.

You're right, I don't know who he is, and nor do I care. I pointed out that it's a PR puff piece - the sort of thing I sit here reading all day every day - and I stand by that. It's not something anyone should take too much notice of.

All the same, within it there's a mention of a few factual incidents. And from what's said about those it's clear that nearly all those incidents wouldn't have been anything the band would have even been aware of until they came off-stage, and so couldn't have possibly effected what the band actually managed to do.

Of the things that they might have been aware of, they're very minimal. If those things are what "conspired against them to produce as good as a show as they are capable of playing", then that only confirms all the more that this is a band on a different planet ... and by that I don't mean anything good.

Back to that blog ..... you say he's been writing that for ten years. So what you're saying is that ten years into the phase of their career that's not been about product but which has been about PR, he started to write that blog. So do tell me how I've called that wrong....?