Set list variation...this is how all bands should do it no matter how big or small

[The OOTS]

Exactly, and U2 are a great live act for different reasons. So why say they should do it the way Pearl Jam does when they are not the same live and their style of music is not the same? Thats why I'm saying they shouldnt be compared to them. I'm sorry, PJ are good, but they are not globally popular like U2 are, not even close. I know some of you say that doesnt make a difference but I think it does and I indicated why. If you are going to compare U2 to anyone, the Rolling Stones would be WAY closer to U2's level than Pearl Jam. U2 has similiar reasons for their approach to their concerts based on what I indicated before. You may not like it, but I dont get how complaining about it or indicating you dont understand why they do it that way (when you know 90% of us here know EXACTLY why) is doing any good to anyone.

If anything, Pearl Jam tends to shy away from popularity. They've had that, now it is all about their music and fans to them. It is a major part of their appeal to their loyal fans.

We complain because we want the self proclaimed 'best band in the world' to be even better.

And it saddens me that they are now being compared to the Rolling Stones, who at this point, are mostly in it for the $$$$.

 

[coggster]

well, what a great debate!

I love pearl jam and worship U2 and I can see why fans would compare the 2 who love or like or have seen them both........because Pearl Jam mix up their sets and play lots of songs per tour in a variety of song orders.

I saw bruce twice last year and he played 9 different songs the second time around! This doesnt make me worship U2 less (I like pearl jam and bruce more than I would do otherwise tho!).....but id worship U2 more if they mixed things up, like my two other favourite bands do.

And I keep reminding myself, at these big stadium shows, most fans might have a U2 greatest hits cd, maybe the joshua tree and achtung, and may be thinking of buying the new album cos the first few singles sounded good.

So really, the setlists specifics, and whether they play the same set in vienna as in London as in Amsterdam, only really matter to U2 woshippers! And I agree, it would be great to see something different from them more often tho.

 

[Blue Room]

If anything, Pearl Jam tends to shy away from popularity. They've had that, now it is all about their music and fans to them. It is a major part of their appeal to their loyal fans.

We complain because we want the self proclaimed 'best band in the world' to be even better.

And it saddens me that they are now being compared to the Rolling Stones, who at this point, are mostly in it for the $$$$.

Again, EXACTLY, PJ doesnt want that much popularity. U2 does! yet another HUGE difference between the two that DOES contribute to the static nature of the setlists. The band are only alike in that they are both good bands, I dont see any other similarities at all. I havent seen one thing mentioned that shows how they are alike in any way. Because they are not.

I said the Stones because as far as popularity goes (especially live) they are on the same level. I would say Paul McCartney would be close as well. Sure they make alot of money, because their is such a high demand to see them, they can charge ridiculous prices and still sellout stadiums. Not saying its right, but you keep proving my point by trying to prove yours!!

So you complain because you want them to be better??? Good Lord, please dont tell me you think they are checking out this message board and/or taking suggestions from fans. Or that the bitching posts are going to change a damn thing. All I can say to that is WOW. Explains alot of the responses then, but if thats the case I would say those of you that believe that, its time to take a break from the message boards for awhile and get back to reality.

 

[Chizip]

well the band did pay attention to the fans bitching about the presale screw up

 

[Blue Room]

well the band did pay attention to the fans bitching about the presale screw up

True, but its not even close to the same number who complain about the setlists. I know it doesnt seem like on this board, but you are a VERY minor portion of the U2 fan base. So there is no outcry like there was with pre sale debacle. Its a poor comparison as they are not even close to the same thing or even close to the same level.

 

[Chizip]

so basically we just gotta start bitching a lot more

come on people, i know we can do it

 

[Zoomerang96]

it's absolutely criminal for a band to be so predictable.

their excuse for popmart and zootv were barely good enough, what with all the technology involved.

but this? this is unacceptable.

so fucking what if they aren't playing to the same crowd every night? doesn't anyone else see the bigger picture here? u2 are nothing more than robots programmed to regurgatate a greatest hits setlist (and don't you tell me this isn't, because that's EXACTLY what it is) night after night AFTER NIGHT.

same city or not.

what was the surprise tonite? out of control instead of i will follow? honestly boys, QUIT. if your live shows aren't even exciting, that combined with your latest albums screams to anyone with artistic integrity to RETIRE.

wow, that felt great.

rant over.

 

[Blue Room]

it's absolutely criminal for a band to be so predictable.

their excuse for popmart and zootv were barely good enough, what with all the technology involved.

but this? this is unacceptable.

so fucking what if they aren't playing to the same crowd every night? doesn't anyone else see the bigger picture here? u2 are nothing more than robots programmed to regurgatate a greatest hits setlist (and don't you tell me this isn't, because that's EXACTLY what it is) night after night AFTER NIGHT.

same city or not.

what was the surprise tonite? out of control instead of i will follow? honestly boys, QUIT. if your live shows aren't even exciting, that combined with your latest albums screams to anyone with artistic integrity to RETIRE.

wow, that felt great.

rant over.

Great, then go back to the Lemonade Stand, you dont offer anything new or good here. Your posts here are even more garbage than they are in the LS.

 

[Zoomerang96]

maybe if u2 offered something new in their Greatest Hits Setlist Inc. Tour (copyright 2004-2006), i could offer something new.

but if you keep saying that, i promise i'll post even more here.

 

[Blue Room]

Man, you think you are fooling some people with your crap and get them to think its "cute" in some way. But you are so transparent. Sorry, I think its pathetic. But I guess some dont. So feel free to keep posting, you just prove what I think even moreso when you do. I'm sure some will find your drivel cute.

 

[Zoomerang96]

are you incapable of discussion?

did i not post this in the right thread?

i won't go on and on, i've made my point.

but i guess i shouldn't leave without posting a few , for without, i'm not entirely sure you'd understand.

 

[Blue Room]

are you incapable of discussion?

did i not post this in the right thread?

i won't go on and on, i've made my point.

but i guess i shouldn't leave without posting a few , for without, i'm not entirely sure you'd understand.

What the hell is your point??? U2 should quit?? Thats not a point, thats a moronic statement. Sorry

I find it funny that someone that would use "you'd" as a word somehow thinks I would not be capable of understanding.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

just wanted to add several:




*:leaves:

 

[Snowlock]

Hell, it seems logical to me that if a band were to make each show somehow different or special, it might actually increase attendance because you wouldn't be getting the same thing every time.

How do you increase attendence on a sold out tour? Just curious.

 

[Snowlock]

maybe if u2 offered something new in their Greatest Hits Setlist Inc. Tour (copyright 2004-2006), i could offer something new.

but if you keep saying that, i promise i'll post even more here.

The greatest hits tour? Zoo Station, Electric Co, The Ocean, Gloria, Yahweh, Running To Stand Still, An Cat Dubh, Out Of Control. Seven songs a night off their new album alone? Are you sure you're talking about the right band?

 

[Zoomerang96]

What the hell is your point??? U2 should quit?? Thats not a point, thats a moronic statement. Sorry

I find it funny that someone that would use "you'd" as a word somehow thinks I would not be capable of understanding.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=you'd

i came to rant, i did, and now i feel better. i have not come to scream with you, i do that enough when i'm trapped inside four white walls 20 hours a day.

 

[The OOTS]

Again, EXACTLY, PJ doesnt want that much popularity. U2 does! yet another HUGE difference between the two that DOES contribute to the static nature of the setlists. The band are only alike in that they are both good bands, I dont see any other similarities at all. I havent seen one thing mentioned that shows how they are alike in any way. Because they are not.

I said the Stones because as far as popularity goes (especially live) they are on the same level. I would say Paul McCartney would be close as well. Sure they make alot of money, because their is such a high demand to see them, they can charge ridiculous prices and still sellout stadiums. Not saying its right, but you keep proving my point by trying to prove yours!!

So you complain because you want them to be better??? Good Lord, please dont tell me you think they are checking out this message board and/or taking suggestions from fans. Or that the bitching posts are going to change a damn thing. All I can say to that is WOW. Explains alot of the responses then, but if thats the case I would say those of you that believe that, its time to take a break from the message boards for awhile and get back to reality.

Just because there is a demand to see these bands that have been around for 25 years doesn't mean that they should take the safe and easy route with regard to their performances. The Rolling Stones do that well enough. PJ lays it out every night...and the fans in no way can predict what songs will be played...except for maybe 2 or 3 'popular' songs. U2 has not brought out any surprising material this tour....except the songs that they were reported to have rehearsed extensively. Playing a catalog of 30 or so songs from a realistic catalog of hundreds of songs to play is playing it way too safe, predictable...and dare I say...lazy!

Case in point...night 2 in Amsterdam...all they changed was swapping out IWF for Out of Control???

They are capable of much more than a robotic setlist...don't you think?????

 

[Axver]

The greatest hits tour? Zoo Station, Electric Co, The Ocean, Gloria, Yahweh, Running To Stand Still, An Cat Dubh, Out Of Control. Seven songs a night off their new album alone? Are you sure you're talking about the right band?

THANK YOU! Someone who talks sense! Same goes for Blue Room. to both of you.

 

[liamcool]

You forgot 40 though.

 

[quasi1970]

Whew!

Well, I started this post and did not expect this big of a thread. When I read the interview with Mike McCready (regarding their setlist behaviour) I thought that it really made sense. A music group writes/rehearses/creates songs to record and to eventually perform live before an audience. Over the years, they put out several albums and become better and better performing live with a (hopefully) hefty back catalogue songs to offer their fans at concerts. Most people enjoy hearing a variety of songs with a good helping of "hits" (maybe not the same ones every time). To keep it fun for both the band and audience, most bands like to mix up their live offering so it doesn't get dull for anybody ("We like to keep the fans surprised, and we like to keep it fresh for ourselves, too.")

However, the fact that U2 has become the most popular band on the planet brings up some tough issues. Do they try and appease the greatest number of fans by playing an established set list that exposes the greatest number of fans to generally the same experience (thereby creating a singular/consistent global experience that pleases the majority)? Or do they offer up a greater variety of songs (while still throwing in the "hits") while risking the chance of alienating a larger portion of this global audience? Obviously, U2 has chosen the former. In a sense, this makes U2 no more than a circus/play where the same acts/dialogue are performed night after night. Perhaps U2 is now more a mix between music/performance art than a "rock and roll band".

U2 has admitted to being a corporation and sadly, this type of standardization philosophy fits (though the fact that they have behaved like this since the beginning throws this theory for a mild loop). Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan (I saw them 5 times in the spring and will see them twice this fall)...but I'm beginning to appreciate my 2nd favorite band, Pearl Jam more and more (I'll be seeing them this fall as well). Also, I don't think I'll see as many multiple U2 shows on their next tour (if there is a next tour).

One thing I will grant U2 is the "religious" experience (perhaps only possible through massive repetition and perfection) some people have talked about. The thought of hearing "Streets" right now does not excite me at all...but if I were in a stadium hearing it right now in Europe, I know I would be stoked and totally into it . Taking this into account, I know I would be even MORE excited if I heard new songs on a regular basis (even over the course of 3-4 shows over 8 months). As powerful as the U2 live experience is with their static setlists...imagine how even more powerful it could be with variation. I'm sure Larry wouldn't mind skipping Sunday Bloody Sunday for at least a few nights.

Regardless, after reading this thread, I've begun looking at the U2 live experience in a different light. Basically, I'm more understanding as to why they do what they do...but still slightly bummed because it is the reality associated with being the "world's biggest band".

 

[AndrewCowley]

it's absolutely criminal for a band to be so predictable.

their excuse for popmart and zootv were barely good enough, what with all the technology involved.

but this? this is unacceptable.

Geez, take a deep breath, settle down, and have some basic understanding for the band you supposedly support. Go and read the setlists for the Unforgettable Fire tour 21 years ago and you will learn that fixed setlists is just what this band does. Sure bands like Pearl Jam mix things up better. But for U2 fixed setlists has always been the order of the day. This tour is just like every other U2 tour in the last 25 years, the only difference being the heightened awareness that the internet gives people like you and me of what they are playing each night .

 

[The OOTS]

Geez, take a deep breath, settle down, and have some basic understanding for the band you supposedly support. Go and read the setlists for the Unforgettable Fire tour 21 years ago and you will learn that fixed setlists is just what this band does. Sure bands like Pearl Jam mix things up better. But for U2 fixed setlists has always been the order of the day. This tour is just like every other U2 tour in the last 25 years, the only difference being the heightened awareness that the internet gives people like you and me of what they are playing each night .

I guess some bands have raised the bar with regards to being able to play their whole catalogs on any given night.

Oh, and go read the setlists for Lovetown...a fantastic tour.

 

[EmitFlesti]

A response to the incessant Pearl Jam comparisons in this thread: I'd rather hear the same U2 setlist every night than any setlist by Pearl Jam any day.

 

[coggster]

well said andrewcowley!

 

[The OOTS]

A response to the incessant Pearl Jam comparisons in this thread: I'd rather hear the same U2 setlist every night than any setlist by Pearl Jam any day.

Have you read the PJ comparisons??

 

[AndrewCowley]

Oh, and go read the setlists for Lovetown...a fantastic tour.

Lovetown tour was the exception. But to demand setlist variety from U2 is simply unrealistic imho. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see variety, ala Lovetown. But it ain't going to happen. So why point the finger at this tour? Lovetown aside this is just what U2 has always done.

 

[EmitFlesti]

Yes, I have read them OOTS. Do you think I just magically intuited their existence?

What's the point of your question?

 

[The OOTS]

Lovetown tour was the exception. But to demand setlist variety from U2 is simply unrealistic imho. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see variety, ala Lovetown. But it ain't going to happen. So why point the finger at this tour? Lovetown aside this is just what U2 has always done.

Why is it unrealistic???

Are they not capable of variation in their setlists?

 

[The OOTS]

Yes, I have read them OOTS. Do you think I just magically intuited their existence?

What's the point of your question?

What was the point of your post?
So you prefer U2 to PJ. So do I.

However, I can appreciate PJs aversion to longer, unpredictable setlists than to U2s present cookie cutter versions.

As far as live performances, both bands are very good in different ways....and I admire a band who doesn't conform to a greatest hits package virtually every night. I'd like to see U2 do a nice mixture of material ala Lovetown.

Heck, I'd like to see some songs from Zooropa and Pop...which have been totally left out as of now.

 

[jphelmet]

After reading through all this I see both sides of the argument. I am a big Pearl Jam fan as well, and I can honestly say they are a great live band. I have seen PJ live 8 times, and have seen them play ultra rare b-sides like U. The good of the way PJ does it sets is that you don't know whats coming, but the bad is songs like U, maybe 3% of the crowd has a clue what they are playing and it totally kills momentum. The place goes quiet. A lot of PJ's mixing it up is for the total obsessive fans, but most people who go to see PJ don't care. I like the way PJ does it and it works for them. It is why I like to go see them, but most fans wouldn't care if they played the same set each night. Which is the case with U2. 98% of all people whow see U2 may have a gripe about a song or two missing, but for the most part they hear exactly what they want. U2 take the time to work out specific sections, and the flow from song to song- something that is not the case at all with PJ. U2, simply put, know what they are doing. They are the best live act in the world.