From: andrewd@ecr.mu.oz.au (Andrew_John DISSELDORP)
Subject: Re: U2 decide not to tour Australia
Keywords: Article from the Melb. Herald Sun
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:35:49 GMT

In article <leroy.717913566@syzygy>, leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy) writes:
> andrewd@ecr.mu.oz.au (Andrew_John DISSELDORP) writes:
> 
> >JUST SAY NO:  U2, whose critically acclaimed ZOO TV tour is working its
> >way across the globe, will not visit Australia.
> 
> >My Comments - This would have been a brilliant tour. You only get a band like
> >U2 once in a very long time. U2 are a commercial success because they do
> >play brilliant music, real music which will stand up by itself for a long time
> >in the future. They may have good marketers, but the music is the primary
> >feature, not the body or hype, unlike some other artists, and definitely
> >not the one monopolizing this group at the moment. I just hope this
> >is a typical Herald Sun beat up.
> 
> Ian Rogerson spoke to U2 for JJJ months ago. The manager, Paul Guinness, said
> there was no way U2 would be touring until Australian councils were prepared
> to approve outdoor shows. I can't see this happening soon, particulary after 
> Paul Dainty fucked the South Sydney council over with Prince's outdoor shows
> (by announcing them without council ok; the council were virtually forced to
> let the show go ahead.)

	That was Paul McGuiness's original reaction - this was based solely
on a talk he had with Dire Straits tour manager, who explained that it was 
impossible to make money on an indoor tour of Australia, given the low
$Au, and the fact that fans expect the same show here, as bands do O/S.
Dire Straits lost >$100K on their tour of Australia. Recently however
the band have been extremely positive in their approach to a tour of Australia -
It has been reported that their was a 99.9% chance of a tour of Australia.
Shows were going to outside - VFL Park/MCG in Melb, definitely Eastern Creek
in Sydney. 
 
> U2, Madonna and MJ complain they can't afford to tour anything smaller
> than stadiums. This is bullshit. If they lose money at the concert (which is, 
> I suppose, just possible), they'd re-coup it in record sales - future sales and
> the records we've already bought. And who wants to see a concert from four 
> miles back? 

[See Below]
 
> It's a pity, actually. The O/S music papers have given the Zoo Tour 
> astounding reviews (NME is currently hanging on their every word.) It seems 
> they've dropped the Joshua Tree/Rattle and Hum pomposity and overblown 
> statements. The entire Achtung Baby package - new music and image - has
> been interesting: it's fascinating their fans have taken the whole thing 
> without a murmur - and that they still complain about Madonna and Kylie 
> Minogue.

O.K. I'll bite
1st the current tour (Zoo TV Outside Broadcast), is designed to played
outdoor solely. The set is designed by the people who designed the Wall 
performed at the Berlin Wall. The set includes about 9 video screens, 5 cars,
approxiamtely 60 tv monitors, 1 sattelite dish, 2 cranes, must I go on.
This is huge. It is the biggest stage setting ever in the U.S. The point
of the tour is not to prove "Hey look how good we are - We are so huge"
but to prove "The absurdity of Big and Beautiful - the whole rock star
image". Just beacuse you are 4 miles back doesn't mean you aren't part 
of this show. When you have words & phrases two storeys high flashed 
on 4 -5 visible screens you take notice. Incidently there are two seperate
stages on this tour, so you will be closish to 1 of them.  

The Achtung Baby image/music is different, but it is still very real.
There is one song of the album which is not performed live (Acrobat) -
Every other song is performed by the 4 band members. Noone else gets
up on stage with them. The only "non real" elements of the music
are Effects Pedals, which everyone uses and A voice Alterer,
used by Bono during Zoo Station, Bullet the Blue Sky and others.
Would you deny that U2 are where they are today because of their 
musical and electrifying live efforts rather then "sex appeal" 
And if you thought I was talking of Madonna (who is a brilliant
marketer) you were wrong. 

Andrew
Newsgroups: aus.music