Heed the fans call? U22 and the Warhorses

[marik]

So this is probably the 1 millionth post regarding Warhorses, but yesterday's U22 Day got me wondering.

The fan voting for U22 is the first official message delivered to the band about setlist choices, and I wonder if they will take that into effect for future setlist choices.
I believe the voting results reveal the following; (not ness my personal opinion)

1) The Warhorses we want to keep are Streets, WOWY, Still Havent Found, One. The Warhorses we want to give up are IWF, NYD, SBS, and Pride.

2) The ATYCLB repersentation we want to keep is BD and Elevation. Not Stuck, Walk on, In a Little While.

3) The one song from Atomic Bomb we want to keep is actually COBL over Vertigo.

4) The single from NLOTH that should live on is Magnificant, not Boots.

5) We would prefer our more 'classic' live favorites like Bad, Fly, Until, Mysterious Ways, UltraViolet, Real Thing, Out of Control, and One Tree Hill, over 'rare' live cuts like Your Blue Room, Scarlet, Stingray Guitar, and new tour songs like NLOTH, Unknown Caller, Breathe, Crazy.


So will the band heed these fan statements when compiling future set-lists? Who knows really? If U22 voting was purely the voice of long-time diehard fans who travel to multiple shows- than I dont think the band would overly cater to their preferences. U2 has always maintained that the newer fan is also important to them. But Adam's commentary with the U22 release really make me feel that U2's impression of U22 voting is NOT just the long-term diehard fan- but is also the voice of the newer fan they want to engage. They know more than we know, and perhaps he is right. Perhaps only 25% of U2.com memberships pre-date 2000, and the other 75% are all 2005 and later. But with their opinion that U22 voting is a good mix of BOTH long-time diehard AND newer fan, it leads me to believe the voting results may indeed be considered strongly for future setlists.

 

[doctorwho]

I agree and disagree.

The main reason why a band tours is to promote the new album. O.K., yes these days there's lots of money to be made, but that wasn't always true.

Typically, U2 have played 7-8 new songs from their new release each night of the tour. The second half of 360 became the exception. However, if you look at the start of 360 or Vertigo or Elevation or PopMart, it's clear U2 tries to play as much of the new material that they feel will flow with the theme of the concert and set-list. Then they add in some of the big classics.

If U2 release another album and tour to promote it, I predict at least 7 songs will be from the new release. If U2 plays an average of 22 songs per concert, that leaves 15 songs from U2's extensive catalog. And THAT is where your comments have power.

Points 1-4 might be something U2 consider. However, there will be exceptions. Just because their die-hard fans are tired of some classics, it doesn't mean the average fan is.

U2 are truly at a very interesting time. Will there be a new album and if so, what will it sound like? Will U2 tour and how? They cannot get any bigger than 360. Or will U2 consider an album without touring? U2 have always at least partly toured new material, but there can be a first. If U2 follow their pattern to date, what classic songs will be excluded? And what about the fans that do want to hear more of the rarities? Should U2 exclude them all?

Interesting times...

 

[marik]

I definately agree with you Dr Who. As long as U2 is touring for new album releases, I strongly believe that new material will be pushed to the front as best they can. So #5 on my list above (regarding new material) is one fan voting statement I do not believe the band will cater too.

 

[U2387]

1) The Warhorses we want to keep are Streets, WOWY, Still Havent Found, One. The Warhorses we want to give up are IWF, NYD, SBS, and Pride.

Much better topic than mindless new album speculation!! Good thread.

I don't know what to make of these U22 results.

Regardless of the composition of U2.com memberships(in terms of old vs new fans), I don't think U2 views the people that voted on this as anything other than the small minority of diehards.

So I really wouldn't read much into it as far as set lists go.

I would certainly hope that IWF, NYD, SBS and Pride aren't given up. All of those songs sounded the best they had in years on 360. Sure, SBS probably didn't have to be there every night, but they did a reasonably good job of rotating NYD and Pride on 360.

I wouldn't want to see any of these songs leave the set list. They're going to have to rotate a lot more with the classics. Maybe One and Streets can have permanent slots, but the rest, rotate.

As DoctorWho said, they'll likely play 6-8 songs off the next release to start out the tour, so that will make it harder to work in the back catalog.

However, as the last legs of 360 proved, they're now willing to cut back to 3-4 songs off the latest album in favor of digging through the catalog, depending of course on how that album is received. They weren't willing to do that on Popmart, despite Pop's low numbers compared with other albums.

So it will be interesting to watch.

Here's what I think, for what little it's worth:

1.)Rotate the hell out of the warhorses and all back catalog selections next tour. That way, we're not stuck with a bunch of new songs, plus BD, Still Haven't, WOWY, SBS, Streets, Pride and One, which is essentially what we had on 2009 360. That to me was very boring- no 1980s or 1990s album cuts like Out of Control or Even Better..., very little 1980-84 at all, etc.

They have plenty of songs that they know how to play plenty well, they proved that on the last legs of 360. I think the tour got much more interesting starting in Turin 2010 when they began to dig through the back catalog. What a thrill it was to hear songs like Even Better, Spanish Eyes, Love Rescue Me, The Fly, MOTD, Out of Control, One Tree Hill, Zooropa, etc!

Example:
Night 1: SBS, Out of Control, Magnificent, Until The End, Unforgettable Fire

Night 2: NYD,I Will Follow,City of Blinding Lights, Whos..Wild Horses, Bad

2.)Related, don't equate doing the back catalog justice with being washed up and irrelevant.

I don't think anyone commented on or cared that EBTTRT was from 1991 and therefore wasn't a good opener. It set the entire stadium on fire every time, it was incredible!

In my view, they made a huge mistake with the 2009 legs of 360. They thought that they'd be perceived as irrelevant and washed up if they didn't come out of the gate with 4 brand new NLOTH songs. So they forced in 4 reasonably obscure songs(3 of which are great songs, no doubt) that just didn't work well as opening songs. As a result, the crowd just kind of sat there passively waiting for a hit like BD or IWF or something exciting like EBTTRT or Until The End...

Stingray>BD>I Will Follow wasn't the best opening trio(in fact,it was pretty damn awkward) but I had to give them credit for finally getting that they needed to get the crowd going right out of the gate.

So in short, U2 needs to realize they're in charge and pick the songs and the order that will allow them to put on the best show possible, not the ones that they think will prove some perception(in this case, that they're old) wrong.

Seeing them rip through EBTTRT, The Fly, Mysty Ways, Until..World and I Will Follow to start out last summer was about the youngest, most energetic they ever seemed to me!

3.) Don't think 1 and 2 mean that I don't want to see a good new album with 3 or 4 or more big hits on it. I'd love nothing more than to see U2 all over the place again like they were from 2000-2002. I just hope that if we run into another NLOTH type reception(which I hope we don't), they don't continue to play a bunch of obscure songs right up front and let the pacing and show suffer.

No one was crying for Unknown Caller during EBTTRT, that's for damn sure!!

 

[mama cass]

well, i just got from the Chilis gig at the Stade de France in Paris, where U2 played, and have to say the crowd loved the Chilis' "warhorses" - the crowd response to the more well known songs and hits was fantastic, and kind of lulled in between times...

i think the warhorses have their place in a massive stadium setting - you need the big songs to reach the crowds as the space can be just so immense and empty...

off topic - the Chilis gig was fantastic, Flea was MENTAL and INSANE and AMAZING, but jeesus, made me realise how U2 can "fill", "inhabit" and "magically transform" a space

 

[Nick66]

Good comment.

U2 are truly at a very interesting time. Will there be a new album and if so, what will it sound like? Will U2 tour and how? They cannot get any bigger than 360. Or will U2 consider an album without touring? U2 have always at least partly toured new material, but there can be a first. If U2 follow their pattern to date, what classic songs will be excluded? And what about the fans that do want to hear more of the rarities? Should U2 exclude them all?

Interesting times...

These are really good questions. Indeed, U2 can't get any bigger than 360...they've topped that out. To try to do something bigger would look garish and grasping. IMO, they should do something akin to how they recovered from Pop...strip it all down ala the Elevation tour, which was easily the best tour of the 00's.

However, there will be exceptions. Just because their die-hard fans are tired of some classics, it doesn't mean the average fan is.

This is, and only this, pretty much explains why U2 plays the classics that they play...and why that isn't likely to be changing anytime soon, barring a rewriting of the band's DNA (i.e. they stop caring about being the biggest band in the world).

The complaints from die-hards about the same old songs and static set lists mean absolutely less than zero to U2. And U22 is evidence enough itself that there just aren't enough die hards to matter in choosing what they play and don't play.

 

[cobl04]

the Elevation tour, which was easily the best tour of the 00's

Both The Hive Mind and the general music community strongly disagree with you.

 

[mama cass]

Both The Hive Mind and the general music community strongly disagree with you.

i don't know, i, for one, thought Elevation was a great tour! completely different to the vast stadium tours of Vertigo and U2360 here in Europe - i loved the intimacy of the Elevation gig i saw - was pretty special!

 

[LemonMelon]

I can't treat the Elevation tour with the same objectivity I can with Vertigo and 360 because a) I didn't attend and b) it was, at least in part, a Very Special tour. Lots of crying and hugging and I don't want to be the bastard who criticizes it for its obvious shortcomings (laughably short sets, Bono in awful voice, fewest number of rarities of any 00s tour). All the same, yeah, if it had been supporting a flop album and had it never taken on any cultural significance, it would be their worst tour since the early days. Musically, it wasn't much. I have no idea if Nick is trying to defend those aspects, but if he's taking cultural significance into account, I can get on board with that. Clearly, it propped up U2's public image for quite some time.

 

[mama cass]

I can't treat the Elevation tour with the same objectivity I can with Vertigo and 360 because a) I didn't attend and b) it was, at least in part, a Very Special tour. Lots of crying and hugging and I don't want to be the bastard who criticizes it for its obvious shortcomings (laughably short sets, Bono in awful voice, fewest number of rarities of any 00s tour). All the same, yeah, if it had been supporting a flop album and had it never taken on any cultural significance, it would be their worst tour since the early days. Musically, it wasn't much. I have no idea if Nick is trying to defend those aspects, but if he's taking cultural significance into account, I can get on board with that. Clearly, it propped up U2's public image for quite some time.

what do you mean by cultural significance re. Elevation?

i saw it pre-9/11 if that's what you mean, and it was incredible - however there was no "hugging and crying" as you put it LOL

can't put my finger on why exactly it was so special - maybe it was because it was just so stripped down the band had nowhere to hide and you got U2 in their true raw beauty, no hype, no gadgets, just the songs, no matter if ropey in places, it was honest and true, and very very real, a couple of metres in front of me - have to say i don't know what made it connect so strongly for me, maybe it was where i was in my life at that point, but i was totally immersed in the moment, the whole concert, it blew me away... and i wasn't expecting that when i turned up at the gig, it was just another concert for me, i had no expectations, had seen the band once before on Achtung Baby tour, and i hadn't experienced anything like that before and haven't ever again afterwards tbh...

 

[Nick66]

I can't treat the Elevation tour with the same objectivity I can with Vertigo and 360 because a) I didn't attend

This is where I stopped reading.

 

[Nick66]

what do you mean by cultural significance re. Elevation?

i saw it pre-9/11 if that's what you mean, and it was incredible - however there was no "hugging and crying" as you put it LOL

can't put my finger on why exactly it was so special - maybe it was because it was just so stripped down the band had nowhere you hide and you got U2 in their true raw beauty, no hype, no gadgets, just the songs, no matter if ropey in places, it was honest and true, and very very real, a couple of metres in front of me - have to say i don't know what made it connect so strongly for me, maybe it was where i was in my life at that point, but i was totally immersed in the moment, the whole concert, it blew me away... haven't experienced that before or after tbh...

Exactly...it was beautiful simplicity, and U2 played like they had something to prove...because they did. It's easy to forget where U2 was at that stage of their career, and they really could have gone either way in terms of fading after Pops reception (setting aside the musical merits of that record). They really played like their future depended on it, like they were saying to the world "You think we were going away? F**k you, here we are".

I didn't even care about the set list that much...I'd rather hear familiar songs played with passion and intensity than rarer songs where they just go through the motions. No spinning lemons, no disco balls, no Macphisto, no floating cars, no LED jackets, no spaceships. Just U2 playing music. How far back would you have to go to see that, especially with them playing like that had something to prove.

My experience at the Elevation shows easily eclipsed anything I saw on Vertigo and 360, and rivalled some of the pre-Elevation shows I saw as well.

 

[LemonMelon]

This is where I stopped reading.

A good U2 show is a good U2 show is a good U2 show. I'm a diehard fan. I like every show I've been to, and will enjoy all future ones. What sets the shows apart for me are the special WOW moments like Zooropa, Ultraviolet, An Cat Dubh and Gloria that Elevation lacked. I don't need to have been there to be able to say that, for me, the setlists were drab. And short. And the dozen or so bootlegs I've heard from the tour were less inspiring than the dozen or so bootlegs I've heard from the other tours. Wish I'd been able to go so I could have my opinion validated by Nick66 tho

EDIT: This post comes across pretty dickish. I just wish you hadn't been so explicitly dismissive of my opinion, or at least bothered to give a reasoning for why it was invalid. Obviously, there are intangibles. I get that.

 

[LemonMelon]

Exactly...it was beautiful simplicity, and U2 played like they had something to prove...because they did. It's easy to forget where U2 was at that stage of their career, and they really could have gone either way in terms of fading after Pops reception (setting aside the musical merits of that record). They really played like their future depended on it, like they were saying to the world "You think we were going away? F**k you, here we are".

This is what I meant by "cultural significance" fwiw, (in addition to 9/11)...gotta keep in mind historical context when criticizing Elevation. They painted themselves into a corner and staged a graceful tour with no bells and whistles. This is good. I wish they would do it again, but reward the seasoned fans a bit more this time. With no spectacle dragging them down, they would have no excuse. I'm completely behind the idea of music being far more important than spinning lemons, suits of lights, etc. and I like the tried-and-true concept of Elevation. Most bands use it, and it works for them. Maybe all U2 tours will look that way, years from now.

 

[Nick66]

Both The Hive Mind and the general music community strongly disagree with you.

And from this I take great, great, comfort. Consensus opinion has never been something I had much use for.

 

[Nick66]

A good U2 show is a good U2 show is a good U2 show. I'm a diehard fan. I like every show I've been to, and will enjoy all future ones. What sets the shows apart for me are the special WOW moments like Zooropa, Ultraviolet, An Cat Dubh and Gloria that Elevation lacked. I don't need to have been there to be able to say that, for me, the setlists were drab. And short. And the dozen or so bootlegs I've heard from the tour were less inspiring than the dozen or so bootlegs I've heard from the other tours. Wish I'd been able to go so I could have my opinion validated by Nick66 tho

EDIT: This post comes across pretty dickish. I just wish you hadn't been so explicitly dismissive of my opinion, or at least bothered to give a reasoning for why it was invalid. Obviously, there are intangibles. I get that.

You don't need me to validate your opinion. Though I do think you need to have actually seen a show to credibly critique it. Or at least compare apples to apples...i.e. tours you've seen vs. tours you've seen...not boots vs. actual experiences.

In any event, as I said, my opinion of the Elevation shows have little do with the set list and more to do with the way they played. Those shows were effortlessly magical...they didn't have to try. And I'm not sure it's something a bootleg could capture. But your criteria for a good show may vary.

I don't take your comment to be any more or less "dickesh" than your past comments towards me, hence my dismissive reply. Though perhaps I'm confusing you with COBL.

 

[LemonMelon]

Entirely fair.

You can tell Cobbler and I apart because I've attempted to have meaningful discussions with you in the past. As much meaning as Interference banter can carry, anyway.

 

[cobl04]

I used to have meaningful discussions in here, but I stopped some time ago, because it's rarely worth it

 

[mama cass]

I don't need to have been there to be able to say that, for me, the setlists were drab. And short.

i had a really ropey off-the-cuff impromptu version of Party Girl at my gig which was a massive highlight of the night

it wasn't drab or short to me... oh, and I WAS THERE

 

[mama cass]

Exactly...it was beautiful simplicity, and U2 played like they had something to prove...because they did. It's easy to forget where U2 was at that stage of their career, and they really could have gone either way in terms of fading after Pops reception (setting aside the musical merits of that record). They really played like their future depended on it, like they were saying to the world "You think we were going away? F**k you, here we are".

to be honest, i didn't really give a shit where they were in their career - it was before the days of internet forums for me, i wasn't a fan club member or anything, only ever read the odd article on them that came up in Q or Uncut, and i just loved their music... i was oblivious to the rest...

 

[cobl04]

Ahh, to have been a fan before the internet...

 

[mama cass]

Ahh, to have been a fan before the internet...

it was great - i miss those days - too much (non-)information these days...

you young whipper-snappers don't know what you missed

 

[Nick66]

You can tell Cobbler and I apart because I've attempted to have meaningful discussions with you in the past.

Yes. But which of you is better looking?

Actually, I think you did introduce me to Lotus Plaza, which was cool.

 

[doctorwho]

What I liked about Elevation: I got into the heart a few times. Yay! It was nice being SO close.

What I disliked about Elevation: Some fans felt "entitled" to be in "their" spot every single night on the tour. I don't want ot start that conversation again, but let's just say it was a tad annoying.

Vertigo tour tour tried to fix that Elevation problem - but now it became pure chance to get into the oval. I never made it.


360 went back to Elevation for their shape, but I'm now old. Forget the pushing and shoving of being super close. Forget the waiting outside all day (and maybe night) to get a key spot. I used the various Red Zone spots to get great views and get close and loved it - worth the extra $.

Each tour has pros and cons. Bono's voice definitely improved on Vertigo and 360. Vertigo did play a few more rarities. 360 was, IMO, what I wanted PopMart to be.

However, I think returning to an Elevation type of tour is the way to go now. Trouble is, U2 probabaly don't want to play 4 or 5 shows in certain cities due to quick sell-outs. So... Will this become an impossible ticket?

 

[Roland of Gilead]

The undeniable fact of the U22 voting is that Bad needs to come back on the next tour with more frequency. I'm sure the band always knew this, but this song outright winning the vote makes it pretty clear. U2 fans were, at least, smart about this.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I don't know, I think its the fact that they don't play it very often is what makes it so special.

 

[corianderstem]

I would agree, but off the top of my head (I'm sure someone will come running in with a handful of stats if I'm wrong), they barely played it at all on this tour.

I was lucky to see it at the first Chicago show in 2009, but that was it.

 

[Globo14]

I would agree, but off the top of my head (I'm sure someone will come running in with a handful of stats if I'm wrong), they barely played it at all on this tour.

I was lucky to see it at the first Chicago show in 2009, but that was it.

You're right. I don't think it was played much more than a dozen times on 360.

 

[Globo14]

However, I think returning to an Elevation type of tour is the way to go now. Trouble is, U2 probabaly don't want to play 4 or 5 shows in certain cities due to quick sell-outs. So... Will this become an impossible ticket?

I think most fans would like an indoor tour now. But as you said, why do 3 or 4 shows in a place where you can play to as many people in 1?

A solution for me is to go more like ZooTV or Vertigo. Do an indoor leg first, with only 1 or 2 shows in every city. Then, a few months or even a year later, do a stadium leg in fewer locations, but while accommodating more fans.

 

[U2girl]

This is where I stopped reading.

Fear not. That excuse is as weak as moaning about the setlist.

The performance and the audience contribute a lot more to a U2 show than ticking the boxes so that the militant wing of the fandom is satisfied.