a very valid question. Sound quality dramatically effects are perception of an 'awesome' gig. If Dublin was a 2 start gig how many of us would have downloaded it never mind voted it the best gig ever?
a very valid question. Sound quality dramatically effects are perception of an 'awesome' gig. If Dublin was a 2 start gig how many of us would have downloaded it never mind voted it the best gig ever?
There's no doubt it makes it easier to return to and listen over again. But the gig has to be high quality too. The performance has to stand up and it does at Dublin.
But I do agree it wouldn't have the same rating if the audio was shocking.
As we've said before elsewhere ZooTV and Zooropa really warrant being considered as separate tours anyway.
There's no doubt it makes it easier to return to and listen over again. But the gig has to be high quality too. The performance has to stand up and it does at Dublin.
But I do agree it wouldn't have the same rating if the audio was shocking.
As we've said before elsewhere ZooTV and Zooropa really warrant being considered as separate tours anyway.
(Which gig is that YouTube from?.....)
The famed Milan 1992 gig.
The only true Zooropa shows for me were the Australian, New Zeland and Tokyo gigs and maybe a few August 1993 shows.
I guess you mean with the increased content from the eponymous album. Quite right really.
I'll rest with you on this one I think.
my point exaclt. Explain to me how 1993-05-10 - Rotterdam was any different than an Outside Broadcast gig on europen soil (apart from the dud with the horns). It is a discussion for elsewhere though. . . .
my point exaclt. Explain to me how 1993-05-10 - Rotterdam was any different than an Outside Broadcast gig on europen soil (apart from the dud with the horns). It is a discussion for elsewhere though. . . .
Audio quality definately influences the rating...We all say South Bend is quite good, but it sounds so freakingly good. There might be far much better shows..who knows.
