Have to say this...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

jimjam

Acrobat
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
441
I have seen all summer, people complaining about the setlist never changin and I just have to ask, Why do they care? U2 assume that most people go to see one or two shows and yet people (some who dont go to any show at all) look at setlists and say same old thing and get themselves annoyed about it. Some people atart threads saying why certain songs should be played, U2 obviosly choose not to play them simple as that. Also, people go to shows and have the time of their lives and when some of them go onto the internet to talk about it thay read people complaining about the same old setlist.

There, Just had to get that off my chest, now, crucify me
 
:laugh: Exactly what you have said has been said many times previously and its absolutely true.

Be prepared though, you are considered sheep for stating anything positive or if you defend the band. Would you like for me to list the people from here that will post negative things in this thread? Because it will be the exact same ones that always say negative things.
 
I said exactly the same thing a couple of weeks ago. However, one has to differentiate between complaining about the setlist and complaining about U2 shows in general. I am sure that none of us would stop going to a U2 show even if they played exactly the same thing for 5 years in a row...
 
:shrug: I don't know jimjam. You'd think playing Boy songs, Gloria, 40, Running to stand still, Zoo station, Who's gonna ride... and Miss Sarajevo would be enough to please everyone.

2 shows into the third leg and the moaning is already firm in place. So predictable...*gasp* how dare U2 not play 25 songs each and every night? How dare they have good and bad nights? How dare they not play every single song they rehearse? How dare they not play what *I* want? How dare they not be like Pearl Jam or Springsteen, even though they do live shows in a totally different way and there is no comparison?
(*choose any given sentence, repeat to infinity)

Of course, had there been more 90s material - I mean precious Pop and even more precious Zooropa, you can bet some people would be choking on their drool right now.
 
Last edited:
No one here is a sheep. Whether you say something positive or negative, your opinion is your own.

My reason for 'complaining' about the stagnant setlist is as follows:

I understand that the band is not Pearl Jam, nor are they Springsteen (bands who elect to play a wide range of their songs (even when they are not perfectly rehearsed) on varying nights, with varying setlists amongst the nights), and I do understand some of the logic behind having the same setlist night in and night out, I just simply do not agree with this logic.

I base this on the fact that I am a long time fan. The problem with being a long time fan of this band is that we have to deal with the idea that the band is always trying to gain younger fans and audiences. Now this is a good thing for a band, but when you have been listening to them for over 20 years, and have been going to their concerts for that long, there is quite a lot of repetition.

Here is an example:

The first time I heard Where the Streets Have No Name live was on September 14, 1987 in Giants Stadium. Since that date (18 years ago) The band has played that song at every single show I have been to in every city I have seen them.

Yes, it is a hit, but at some point I would assume the band would get bored of playing it, and if not that, they might think that some of their longstanding fans might get bored of seeing it. And if not bored, more interested in hearing a different song that they may have fallen in love with 1, 5, or 20 years ago.

The problem that I find is that that song is only one of about 5 or so songs that I can apply this to (Pride, One, Bullet the Blue Sky, Sunday Bloody Sunday, I Still havent Found.) My main gripe, and believe me, it is not such an important gripe in the scheme of things, hey I am still buying tickets, and still going, is that those songs are not necessarily the reason why I fell in love with this band. I like their music as a whole, not a group of 5-10 songs that they bring out on tour every 4 years.

One of my highlights of this tour is being able to see An Cat Dubh live. I never thought in a million years I would ever get to see the band play that song live. It was amazing. But in all honesty 90% of the people in the arena did not know the song, so I can see why the band is hesitant to pull out the rarities. I just think it is too bad they feel like they always have to play all their hits at every show.

I think by taking a Pearl Jam approach to touring it would make this band such a more dynamic being. They want to keep it exciting, they want to keep it fresh, well a couple of lights, or a new LED screen are not going to do it (and coming from a strage design geek, that is hard to say, trust me) I think a greater rotation of songs would not only squelch the complainers here, would even boost those who are now in total admiration of this band.

I think some of the hard feelings that come out here are because we do love the band, but we also love each other's input on this board. That is why we come here - we read each other's opinons, jokes, ideas, etc.

Now a setlist is only a list of songs written on a piece of paper and before the 'net the only way to track what bands had played was to steal the setlist off the stage, correspond with friends who went to the shows, or read it in the paper. Times have changed, and I feel like the element of surprise is gone in tours today. There is a good chance a fan is going to read about what the band has played at their shows, and unfortunately knows what i scoming up at their show (to about an 85% certainty.) This is why so many complaints came out about last night's show, because it was shorter than most, and because we knew they had rehearsed (yet not played) some new songs. had we not known any of this, everyone would have thought it was a classic U2 show. But again, we knew more info than most going into it...

There are bands, however, that even if you read what they played on a Tuesday, you would not know what they would play on a Wednesday.

It adds some element of surprise, and for the fans of those bands it is great.

Unfortunately my heros are not in those bands...

I'd like to end this with an image I saw today that brought a smile to my face.

The early days of innocence:

u2_1983_stage.jpg
 
ouizy said:

Now a setlist is only a list of songs written on a piece of paper and before the 'net the only way to track what bands had played was to steal the setlist off the stage, correspond with friends who went to the shows, or read it in the paper. Times have changed, and I feel like the element of surprise is gone in tours today. There is a good chance a fan is going to read about what the band has played at their shows, and unfortunately knows what i scoming up at their show (to about an 85% certainty.) This is why so many complaints came out about last night's show, because it was shorter than most, and because we knew they had rehearsed (yet not played) some new songs. had we not known any of this, everyone would have thought it was a classic U2 show. But again, we knew more info than most going into it...

There are bands, however, that even if you read what they played on a Tuesday, you would not know what they would play on a Wednesday.

It adds some element of surprise, and for the fans of those bands it is great.

Unfortunately my heros are not in those bands...


Interesting post :up:.

It brings up the question though, who's to blame for someone's disappointment: U2, technololgy, or being a longtime fan who's heard One a ton of times before?

That's why posts that go, "U2 is crap, they are clueless, etc. . ." seem unfair to me.
 
kellyahern said:


Interesting post :up:.

It brings up the question though, who's to blame for someone's disappointment: U2, technololgy, or being a longtime fan who's heard One a ton of times before?

That's why posts that go, "U2 is crap, they are clueless, etc. . ." seem unfair to me.

I have to agree with your last line wholeheartedly. Truly unfair, and typically said out of a passionate response to reading a show review.

Who is to blame?

I think that is a rhetorical question.

I think the rhetoric answer is a combination of all the above, but in the end we who complain have to in the end blame ourselves, because it is we who continue to attend. We could stop, but obviously something keeps us going.

It must be the 1000th live version of One.

:wink:
 
great discussion we have going on here. setlist-wise, U2 is no different than they were during the UF, JT, ZooTV, and Popmart tours, yet you hardly hear the word "crap" associated with those tours. interesting that the only tours that have had mass complaining are the ones during the internet age. surely, there was internet during the Popmart tour, but not nearly as accessible as it has been from 2000-present. i do really believe that the same people here who are constantly negative would have been the same way with every other tour U2 has ever done if they were going on right now during the internet age.

i've said it before, i really think that the internet has had a negative impact on U2's fan base when it comes to their setlists. the internet obviously has some advantages for us, too. for example, the new album leaking 3 weeks early, or the ease at which you can download rare songs and bootlegs.

i guess we just have to take the good and bad as they come.
 
mikal said:
great discussion we have going on here. setlist-wise, U2 is no different than they were during the UF, JT, ZooTV, and Popmart tours, yet you hardly hear the word "crap" associated with those tours. interesting that the only tours that have had mass complaining are the ones during the internet age. surely, there was internet during the Popmart tour, but not nearly as accessible as it has been from 2000-present. i do really believe that the same people here who are constantly negative would have been the same way with every other tour U2 has ever done if they were going on right now during the internet age.

Very true indeed.

:up:

I am still concerned, however, and it is something that all the optimists do not comment on, is WHY are the band playing the same songs they have played consistently for 18 years?

I think we have nailed down the reasons why the fans complain, but doesn't the band play other songs?

:?:
 
ouizy said:


Very true indeed.

:up:

I am still concerned, however, and it is something that all the optimists do not comment on, is WHY are the band playing the same songs they have played consistently for 18 years?

I think we have nailed down the reasons why the fans complain, but doesn't the band play other songs?

:?:

hmm...

well, i definitely consider myself a diehard, yet i have no problem with their inclusions of BTBS, Pride, NYD, and others. i think they need those staples for the casual fans. of course i'd love it if they played Hawkmoon, Ultraviolet, and Wire, but U2 has the job of trying to please everyone at the show, not just the few who are like you and i.
 
mikal said:


hmm...

well, i definitely consider myself a diehard, yet i have no problem with their inclusions of BTBS, Pride, NYD, and others. i think they need those staples for the casual fans. of course i'd love it if they played Hawkmoon, Ultraviolet, and Wire, but U2 has the job of trying to please everyone at the show, not just the few who are like you and i.

Me too. I love singing along to NYD and the "wooooo" in Bullet.

It's surprising and interesting when they play a rare song, but do I love it anymore in that moment as I do singing, ". . . it's truuuuuuuuuuue, it's truuuuuuuuuue" during NYD? Can't really answer that one myself.

So why do the play the same songs? Because they're good songs and a lot of people like them. Some people are tired of them, but a lot of people aren't and still love to hear them again and again. Plus, it's not like they don't include any of their new songs. It's not like going to a Stones concert and hearing two songs off the new album.


I still like the Stones, btw, so no flames please :wink:.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
:shrug: I don't know jimjam. You'd think playing Boy songs, Gloria, 40, Running to stand still, Zoo station, Who's gonna ride... and Miss Sarajevo would be enough to please everyone.

2 shows into the third leg and the moaning is already firm in place. So predictable...*gasp* how dare U2 not play 25 songs each and every night? How dare they have good and bad nights? How dare they not play every single song they rehearse? How dare they not play what *I* want? How dare they not be like Pearl Jam or Springsteen, even though they do live shows in a totally different way and there is no comparison?
(*choose any given sentence, repeat to infinity)

Of course, had there been more 90s material - I mean precious Pop and even more precious Zooropa, you can bet some people would be choking on their drool right now.

Yes, there would be people choking on their drool, but how many of those people would actually get to hear them perform those songs live, that's what I dont understand
 
mikal said:
great discussion we have going on here. setlist-wise, U2 is no different than they were during the UF, JT, ZooTV, and Popmart tours, yet you hardly hear the word "crap" associated with those tours. interesting that the only tours that have had mass complaining are the ones during the internet age. surely, there was internet during the Popmart tour, but not nearly as accessible as it has been from 2000-present. i do really believe that the same people here who are constantly negative would have been the same way with every other tour U2 has ever done if they were going on right now during the internet age.

i've said it before, i really think that the internet has had a negative impact on U2's fan base when it comes to their setlists. the internet obviously has some advantages for us, too. for example, the new album leaking 3 weeks early, or the ease at which you can download rare songs and bootlegs.

i guess we just have to take the good and bad as they come.

Very true. The element of surprise has been taken away. It's almost impossible for U2 to throw any curveballs because we've already heard they've been rehearsing something days before the show.

But didn't they keep Miss Sarajevo quiet at least?

As for setlist bitching, yes I want more Pop and Zooropa (because the current grand total is: none! and those are 2 of my favourite albums) but I'm not gonna protest U2 if they don't play a single song from those albums the whole tour. I think U2's setlists have been pretty good this tour...a good mix of new, old, classics, and rarities. and I would personally be somewhat disappointed if U2 didn't play One or Streets at a show since those are my two favourite U2 songs...I'm quite the diehard fan, and Pop is my favourite album, but I love the classics just as much as the rarities.
 
Personally I would like to have some sense of unpredictability. I'm not asking for Pearl Jamesque total setlistrevamping. Then again, I would welcome it. But it would be nice to not go to a U2 show and know 99% certain which songs will come next. Or having to catch yourself saying to yourself I wish they would get on with these two songs so they can play my favorite. There should be certain spots in the setlist which are up for grabs. That like you know Vertigo (or whatever) is going to open but the song thereafter can be anything.
The most ideal solution however would be to ditch the encores. The setlists with its greatest hits selection ends at the end of what we now call the main set. Nothing gets planned for the encores.
Instead the audience has to work to deserve one. As it should be. So if the audience does make a lot of noise, U2 comes back, plays a few songs, their choice. Then they leave and if the audience still makes enough noise they come back again.
If they audience doesn't make enough noise thinking they will come back anyway as they are used to these days U2 just gets in their limo's and drives to the hotel. The audience learns a vital lesson for the next time and we will once and for all know which shows were absolutely awesome just from looking at the setlist.

Simple, elegant. Variable setlist people happy, greatest hits crowd happy. I rule so much I should get me a t-shirt from Maddox.
 
I must say that the discussion here is much better than the "Toronto 2 Setlist - The boys at their very worst (Crap show)" thread!!

I think that before a tour they do ask themselves "do we have to play streets?"

Just looking at #1 hits on the charts in the US:

With Or Without You
&
I Still Haven't Found

Those are technically U2's biggest hits in the US and they hardly played them on the 1st leg!!

Wasn't there an interview where Bono said they considered not playing Streets, but then he decided that it could have the Africa theme?

I think that's what they try to do, change the version a bit from tour to tour:

take PopMart, New Year's Day and Street were played VERY differently than on previous tours.
On Elevation, they did the prayer before streets, now they do the Africa theme (since Bono "remembered" that it was written about Ethiopia)
I think that's how they are able not to get bored by playing the same song over and over again...

just my thoughts...
 
bort269 said:
I must say that the discussion here is much better than the "Toronto 2 Setlist - The boys at their very worst (Crap show)" thread!!

I think that before a tour they do ask themselves "do we have to play streets?"

Just looking at #1 hits on the charts in the US:

With Or Without You
&
I Still Haven't Found

Those are technically U2's biggest hits in the US and they hardly played them on the 1st leg!!

Wasn't there an interview where Bono said they considered not playing Streets, but then he decided that it could have the Africa theme?

I think that's what they try to do, change the version a bit from tour to tour:

take PopMart, New Year's Day and Street were played VERY differently than on previous tours.
On Elevation, they did the prayer before streets, now they do the Africa theme (since Bono "remembered" that it was written about Ethiopia)
I think that's how they are able not to get bored by playing the same song over and over again...

just my thoughts...

That's a great point, changing how they play the songs and what theme they want to portray with them changes the experience. Bullet for an example. It's not played the same way it was on ZooTV, or PopMart, or the JT/Lovetown tours. They manage to re-invent some songs over time, which make them more interesting. The Fly also is a song I love in every incarnation live, ZooTV, Elevation, and especially the new Vertigo version, even tho Bono is held back behind the guitar. I thought Sunday Bloody Sunday was kind of dead on the Elevation tour after being brought back in bits and pieces in acoustic at PopMart, but now look, it's part of that whole War group of songs, Sarajevo/RtSS, Love and Peace and Bullet included and I hear people raving about how great it is again.

Then you look at some songs like Streets, whose status is raised by the song that comes before it. Now with Pride coming before it, people say it's weaker than it used to be, and with the Africa theme. I listened to Streets from Twickenham I yesterday, and thought it was a freakin great. It's all just a matter of opinion I guess though. Pride seems stale to me because they've played it the same way for about 20 years
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


Pride seems stale to me because they've played it the same way for about 20 years

Its because you can play it only one way. With SBS as long as you have the basic arpeggio you could play it slower, or just Edge singing with his guitar. Bullet is also easy. But Pride has that well known guitar riff that drives the song. You can't take that away and play simple Bm-E-A-F# chords because nobody would then recognize it. That riff cannot be played accoustically, it needs the whole shebang of Edge effect wizardry. It also needs the pumping bass and the big drums cause they are the other part of the song. That leaves you with just playing it as it is. In a way like Streets. Can also be only played as it is. But at least with Streets the intro and outro give you some room to do additional stuff. All you can do with Pride is either go for the giant ohohoh singalong or a big speech.
 
A U2 show is more than a piece of paper with what they played written on it; and I'd like to think people don't go there to watch the fancy stage setups. Quizy, you already answered your questions in your own posts.

For no one in particular: If you like messing with the setlist so much, I don't know how come you go to U2 shows; they've never been known to do that. You KNOW they always play a certain amount of the hit songs.
Vertigo was great in bringing out the 80's material and two AB songs that weren't played since Zoo TV and even a Passengers song. Given their rehearsals and what Dallas said, it looks like some Pop is coming too. Zooropa was their weakest live album - IMO only Stay and Dirty day really worked - and they don't play it anyway ; this is not new on this tour.

Of course, no one ever complains about the two tours that REALLY had stale setlists.
 
U2girl said:
Of course, no one ever complains about the two tours that REALLY had stale setlists.

Don't you get tired of making the same lame ass argument in every thread that comes up? You do realize that the tours you keep referring to (ZooTV and Popmart) had a SHITLOAD of corresponding imagery, right? You do realize that those two tours were much more musical theatre than a typical concert, right? It's like criticizing Pink Floyd's setlists during The Wall tour. The idea was to blow your mind, and the stage show was meant to share center stage with the songs.

Vertigo and Elevation, conversely are both meant to be back to basics in terms of spectacle. The focus is on the band, the music, the songs. While a significant portion of the show does have corresponing video (Streets comes to mind as one important one), there is NO NEED anymore to be restrained to specific setlist.

When you have an additional or fresh point to make, please do so. But you sound as much like a broken record as U2 did during the European leg of the Vertigo Tour.

Until then, please SHUT UP.
 
bort269 said:
I must say that the discussion here is much better than the "Toronto 2 Setlist - The boys at their very worst (Crap show)" thread!!

nevermind... this thread has now degenerated to the childish arguments of the other thread.

...SIGH...

"no, YOU shut up!"
 
Back
Top Bottom