Anybody know why they always play the same songs?

[pulle28]

I'm not sure I agree about the backlash-pop-theory.
To me, Achtung was just as experimental as pop, so it's not like U2 has an audience that won't accept the band treading new ground.
I agree that the negative reaction was too harsh (both pop and popmart), but if you're a self confident band, you do what you have to do.
So my point is: Maybe you're right that popmart made U2 a more conservative and "Playing it safe" band.
But the fans are not to be blamed solely. U2 had the choice to say f... it, we'll just go weird on you now.

 

[Vervefloyd]

The is the above all and end all. Bands vary in the setlists they play. You go see a band like Pearl Jam, Phish, the Dead, Bruce, etc - they're going to play different stuff every night. In fact, in 3 nights in Boston last year, PJ repeated ONE song. They played something like 105 tracks. They were fantastic. But there's a difference.

There were mistakes. And there wasn't 1/10 of the emotion of a U2 show.

Whatever they're doing, they're doing right. And they are mixing it up. They must have surprised the hell out of Chicago by closing with Bad. I know I would have been moved.

Bruce played 120 different songs in 120 shows on the last tour with the E Street Band. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didnt think those shows were passionate. im sure pearl jam fans would disagree as well. and U2 makes plenty of technical mistakes each night, not to mention Bono forgetting lyrics ansd thats without rotation. now i dont have a problem with that, but what springsteen comes up with is a base set of new songs and some old songs that he plays every night. these songs stay in the same spot. and then all the other rotating songs appear in the filler, which leads to about 10-15 different songs a night without ever altering the core of the set and the flow of the set. it works amazing. U2 would have to do very little extra work to actually pull off a cool rotation. here is my suggestion using the city of blinding lights setlist as a guide:

city of blinding lights
vertigo/stories for boys
elevation *
the electric co *
an cat dubh/into the heart *
beautiful day
new years day *
miracle drug
sometimes you can't make it on your own
love and peace or else
sunday bloody sunday *
bullet the blue sky *
running to stand still *
pride *
streets
one

---------
zoo station *
the fly *
mysterious ways *
all because of you
yahweh/original of the species
40 *

the songs with a star next to them are 12 spots. streets, one and beautiful day seem like old songs that won't be rotated out at all. now here is a list of songs we know U2 can play and have rehearsed and played already on this tour or on the promo tour or just always have a habit of appearing on every tour:

i will follow
out of control
bad
party girl
wowy
ishfwlf
angel of harlem
desire
all i want is you
until the end of the world
even better than the real thing
who's gonna ride your wild horses
stay
gone
please
wake up dead man
staring at the sun
stuck in a moment
walk on

Imagine 12 completely different spots each night and U2 would never have to alter their flow. If people have been satisfied with vertigo x2 closer, imagine the reaction if it was i will follow instead.

 

[sv]

U2 and Bruce play shows with completely different goals, and this informs their choices with regard to setlist.

U2 is still trying to seduce new audiences and become BIGGER. U2 wants to be BIGGER than the Rolling Stones and will do what it takes to get there. Hence, they make sure that they include enough hits to blow away every new concert-goer. (And they make sure that 90% of the fans in the Ellipse are new fans - to blow them away) That's how you sell records, achieve maximum socioeconomic impact, and become bigger.

Bruce is in the twilight of his creative years. Sonically he hasn't done anything new in over 20 years, and his record sales are minimal. His target audience is his diehard baby boomer fans, mostly from the East Coast, who follow him around from city to city. Without them, he can't fill arenas at all. So he needs to vary the setlist more to encourage them to travel (and it works!).

Also, it's fair to say that the E Street Band, which he usually plays with, are technically capable of managing a repertoire of > 100 songs and delivering them well. U2 are not technically able to accomplish this - partly because of their own limitations and also partly because the textured sounds in their songs have widely varying technical requirements to produce them.

 

[MTEdge]

U2 and Bruce play shows with completely different goals, and this informs their choices with regard to setlist.

U2 is still trying to seduce new audiences and become BIGGER. U2 wants to be BIGGER than the Rolling Stones and will do what it takes to get there. Hence, they make sure that they include enough hits to blow away every new concert-goer. (And they make sure that 90% of the fans in the Ellipse are new fans - to blow them away) That's how you sell records, achieve maximum socioeconomic impact, and become bigger.

Bruce is in the twilight of his creative years. Sonically he hasn't done anything new in over 20 years, and his record sales are minimal. His target audience is his diehard baby boomer fans, mostly from the East Coast, who follow him around from city to city. Without them, he can't fill arenas at all. So he needs to vary the setlist more to encourage them to travel (and it works!).

Also, it's fair to say that the E Street Band, which he usually plays with, are technically capable of managing a repertoire of > 100 songs and delivering them well. U2 are not technically able to accomplish this - partly because of their own limitations and also partly because the textured sounds in their songs have widely varying technical requirements to produce them.

This may be the smartest (and informationally correct) post regarding the issue of "why doesn't U2 vary their setlists" that I've ever read. Kudo's to sv.

 

[Vervefloyd]

U2 and Bruce play shows with completely different goals, and this informs their choices with regard to setlist.

U2 is still trying to seduce new audiences and become BIGGER. U2 wants to be BIGGER than the Rolling Stones and will do what it takes to get there. Hence, they make sure that they include enough hits to blow away every new concert-goer. (And they make sure that 90% of the fans in the Ellipse are new fans - to blow them away) That's how you sell records, achieve maximum socioeconomic impact, and become bigger.

Bruce is in the twilight of his creative years. Sonically he hasn't done anything new in over 20 years, and his record sales are minimal. His target audience is his diehard baby boomer fans, mostly from the East Coast, who follow him around from city to city. Without them, he can't fill arenas at all. So he needs to vary the setlist more to encourage them to travel (and it works!).

Also, it's fair to say that the E Street Band, which he usually plays with, are technically capable of managing a repertoire of > 100 songs and delivering them well. U2 are not technically able to accomplish this - partly because of their own limitations and also partly because the textured sounds in their songs have widely varying technical requirements to produce them.

i completely agree with the technical limitations of U2. However, i don't think a rotation of 45-50 songs is out of the question. they also have so many hits left out of the set. and of course bruce has done nothing sonically new over the past 20 years, he's never done anything sonically new. he's bruce springsteen and he's a story teller. he's never wavered from that approach yet each album is different from the last. the argument can be made that U2 has done nothing sonically new in the last 8 years since pop. you are eactly right as to why U2 is playing all the hits every night. they have always wanted to be bigger than the stones. i think many of us on here would like them to come back to earth smetimes. but i wouldnt say bruce is playing all those different songs just to fill seats. sure its great to fill seats, but as a songwriter myself there is a desire to play different songs in your catalog. there is a challenge to push yourself. i think bruce likes leaving his comfort zone. U2 does not. but i love both bands for completely different reasons. and its fun to be critical since i have paid god knows how much money to both artists.

 

[sv]

In a recent interview, a band member (think it was Adam but I'm not sure) talked about how early in its career, U2 was tagged as being technically subpar in terms of the ability of the individual band members to play their instruments. The band member stated that to overcome that vulnerability, U2 became fairly obsessed with optimizing technical perfection in their shows, and that only recently have they loosened up a bit in that regard. I wish that would in turn create more setlist variance, but U2 just doesn't seem to get a big kick out of playing different sets for the old fans.

 

[pulle28]

Is it true that U2 wants to be bigger than Rolling Stones? And that they will do whatever it takes to get there?
I just don't see it.
U2 is targeting the young audience in a different way than Rolling Stones. I mean, I was at a RS concert a few years ago, and there were not many people under the age of 20.
I understand the comparison, but the status of RS is of a totally different kind than U2's.
What are the criterias of succes? When will U2 be bigger than RS?
I think U2 will be the biggest band in the world the day RS stops touring, or the day Mick Jagger performs from a wheelchair.
But not a day before - and until that day, I think they'll be able to vary their setlists without losing the status as heirs to the crown.

 

[barrett]

I think sv is incorrect regarding Springsteen. Springsteen has historically changed his setlist. The Darkness (1978), River (1980-1), Born in the USA (1984-5), Tunnel of Love/Amnesty (1988) tours all had over 70 different songs, the Human Touch Tour (1992-3) had over 90 songs, the Joad tour (1995-6) had over 80 songs, Reunion (1999-2000) over 100 songs, Rising (2002-2003) over 150 songs, and Current Devils and Dust tour is at 13 shows and over 50 songs. (http://www.brucesetlists.com/stats.php)
Springsteen is not anywhere near U2's level in popularity, but his last 2 albums Devils and Rising both did go to #1.
Changing setlists is not something Springsteen has recently started doing to satisfy a dwindling die hard fan base, but is something that he has always done.
Vervefloyd has correctly pointed out how U2 can achieve variety and a freshness to the shows. Springsteen and the band arrive to the shows several hours early and rehearse 1-2 new songs that are then played that night or in the next few nights. Look at what U2 did with Original in Chicago. They stayed with a structured set and introduced a new song that will now definitely pop up in multiple night stands like Boston. The band has the capability, the question is do they have the desire to rehearse and make shows fresh for diehards who attend mutiple shows.
I think U2 feels that they are too big now to worry about diehards. The same setlist keeps fans from touring to see multiple shows and allows more people to see them. I think that is why the GA system is set up to encourage different people to get the ellipse experience and discourage diehards from seeing multiple shows up close.

 

[broken toy]

Wow. This is a GREAT discussion. Lots of good insight.

I knew that U2 were technically challenged to some degree, but I guess I never gave that much thought to their limitations. I always assumed that, given how much $ they make and how much adoration they receive, they (as professionals) could reasonably put the requisite time into their craft to be able to authoritatively deliver a repertoire of 50 or more songs.

After all, most of them are not that complicated, musically. And the ones that are, are either supported by recorded tracks, or augmented by "invisible" musicians.

My point is that I think if the band really wanted to do varying sets, they could.

Also, there is no reason, given the thematic similarities of many of their songs, that they couldn't craft totally different sets that "say" the same thing. And I feel such collages would be stronger because of their individuality.

There's something to be said for art that is "just exactly so," with every piece perfectly in place. But U2 has never been about perfection... it's not their forte, and they've always been at their best when willing to make mistakes and reach for something extra. And the current set is by no means "perfect." So my preference would be for them to reject the studied, ostensibly "just so" setlist, and opt for different lists that challenge them and their audience

Part of what will establish U2's true artistic legacy is the risks they take. They would not be the immortals they are today without the risks (and subsequent rewards) of Achtung Baby and ZooTV. They'd be a nice relic from the '80s, a cut above the Alarm, Big Country, or other contemporaries.

There is already no band without a 20-year headstart on them to rival them commercially. Where U2 should be focusing all its energies is on creating art that will last. And lasting art is about challenging perceptions, not about regurgitating past triumphs.

Frankly, U2 is probably already "better" than the Stones, but they may never be "bigger" than the Stones, as they'll never be bigger than Elvis or bigger than the Beatles.

The Rolling Stones played a key role in the development of rock and roll, during the artform's first 10-15 years. U2, like all post-Buddy Holly, post-Elvis, post-Little Richard, post-Beatles, post-Stones, post-Who bands, is coloring with someone else's crayons. They can't go back in time and have that seminal impact. Their charge is to push the artform.

 

[U2girl]

This tour brought a lot of older songs that haven't been played in a while.

 

[cleazer]

The thread has become much more interesting.

Kudos to sv for a great post.

U2 won't be playing 150 different songs on this tour, regardless of how far into next year it lasts.

Keep in mind that a lot of times when they play an old song for a new tour, they like to CHANGE that old song (not always, but they've definitely been known to do it). So essentially, they're not just working on the new songs from the new albums, but they're also learning new ways to play old songs. Elevation and The Fly come to mind for this tour, and lets face it, if you guys think they just jumped right in and nailed An Cat Dubh immediately, after ignoring it for 2 decades, you're crazy.

They spent A LOT of time working on the songs and setlists for this tour, and you guys are nuts if you think they're going to scrap it just because you're getting bored while reading the setlist threads night after night.


Of course, the tour just started last month, and there's a whole lots of dates yet to come. I'm sure we'll get a ton of new songs added throughout the year.

 

[RobH]

Quality discussion in here...
Wish more threads were this intelligently adressed.
A lot comes down to the quality of the new material they're touring. If the album is strong and relevant (a la Achtung), then the tour becomes a showcase for those songs. Any oldies that get thrown in seem like a real bonus--and a treat. The last two tours almost seem like the reverse--a showcase for the oldies with the new songs mixed in because that's what they're obstensibally promoting. The last three albums have not enjoyed the same success customary to U2 (and don't trot out sales figures, just ask anybody on the street to name a U2 album and see if they say "Pop") and this has caused them to fall back on the same material time and again.

When Zoo TV opened, the word on the street was that "They're not playing ANYTHING from before The Unforgettable Fire! Can you believe it?" And it was true. And it only went on to be what is considered their best tour (in this writer's opinion too)

The new material was just that strong that it stood on it's own. The material from the last ten years just doesn't hold up--and THEY know it. So the setlist goes back to the tried and true's.

Before this discussion goes off in another direction---we diehards all have our favorites from the past ten years--so don't point out individual songs. Just consider the entire catalog.

U2's setlist problems now are the results of ten years of planting bad seeds.

 

[broken toy]

U2's setlist problems now are the results of ten years of planting bad seeds.

Interesting take, and somewhat similar to my earlier point about their recording/touring schedule.

I think that's why U2 is so tantalizingly frustrating (or frustratingly tantalizing?). They are *almost* great so often. A song that falls one cheesey lyric or goofy bridge shy of unforgettable. An album that's two or three songs short of genius, when a couple of b-sides or outtakes, developed further, may have pushed it over the edge.

That's my main thrust: that U2 needs to go that extra artistic mile to cement their place in music history. They need to take the time to finish an album properly. They need to surround themselves with Brian Eno-types who will burst bubbles and egos, and goad them into exciting and unfamiliar territory. They need to challenge Bono's lyric-writing. And they need to practice, plan and dare to be greater than great live.

Admittedly, this is all in the realm of the hyper-critical, because I'm sure thousands will attest that what U2 does live is more than adequate, and eventually you will get into hair-splitting... the fact that one person's addition will be another's subtraction.

 

[Lemon Meringue]

There have been a lot of interesting points here. I'd like to add that not everyone who goes to the concerts are hardcore fans like most of the people here at Interference are. They go to hear the hits....the songs they have heard on the radio. They don't care if they hear any B-Sides. That's mostly what U2 gives them. When U2 plays a song like Party Girl half of them probably don't even remember it or may never have heard it before. We get pumped about it, but the average concert goer would rather hear Streets or SBS.

 

[RobH]

They go to hear the hits....the songs they have heard on the radio.

But then you start walking the line of becoming an oldies/nostalgia act. Is that what U2 wants to be? I don't think so, not yet.

 

[corianderstem]

A lot comes down to the quality of the new material they're touring. If the album is strong and relevant (a la Achtung), then the tour becomes a showcase for those songs.

Amen to that! I'm still amazed that they came out every night and played SIX SONGS IN A ROW from the new album, and it worked.

Seriously - is there any other big, arena-sized act touring today that has the balls to do that?

 

[theu2fly]

I think that U2 wants everyone to get the same songs fairly as everyone else. Or that they'll start implementing the new songs into later setlists (see 'Out Of Control') being played on Leg 3 of the Elevation Tour.

 

[U2girl]

Quality discussion in here...
Wish more threads were this intelligently adressed.
A lot comes down to the quality of the new material they're touring. If the album is strong and relevant (a la Achtung), then the tour becomes a showcase for those songs. Any oldies that get thrown in seem like a real bonus--and a treat. The last two tours almost seem like the reverse--a showcase for the oldies with the new songs mixed in because that's what they're obstensibally promoting. The last three albums have not enjoyed the same success customary to U2 (and don't trot out sales figures, just ask anybody on the street to name a U2 album and see if they say "Pop") and this has caused them to fall back on the same material time and again.

When Zoo TV opened, the word on the street was that "They're not playing ANYTHING from before The Unforgettable Fire! Can you believe it?" And it was true. And it only went on to be what is considered their best tour (in this writer's opinion too)

The new material was just that strong that it stood on it's own. The material from the last ten years just doesn't hold up--and THEY know it. So the setlist goes back to the tried and true's.

Before this discussion goes off in another direction---we diehards all have our favorites from the past ten years--so don't point out individual songs. Just consider the entire catalog.

U2's setlist problems now are the results of ten years of planting bad seeds.

Any tour is, more than anything, a showcase of the new songs. U2 has always played hits, along with the new material. I see Zoo TV as a new era, a new start and that's why they started with 6 new songs.

I'm surprised they aren't playing I still haven't found, WOWY, Rattle and Hum trio, UTEOTW this time around (and no Pop songs, plus only two ATYCLB songs so far). Bad isn't played regularly, and neither was MW, in the early shows. I can't remember the last time they skipped so many hits.
Instead we got 4 Boy songs, Gloria, 40, Running to stand still, Zoo station - hardly hits. (I guess they're continuing the trend that started on the Elevation tour, only a lot more so)

The last two albums were very succesful, and IMO it's a compliment to ATYCLB songs that they put them up against the songs they played on the Elevation tour. (which had kind of a career review setlists)
This tour seems like it's for the older fans. No 90's material apart from AB, and more less known 80's songs and a strong political/activist message to it, plus more Bono preaching.

The problem is U2 has such a diverse fan base and such a big catalog it's impossible to please everyone.