why are the setlists so short?

[applenut]

Oh, so it's about $$$ then?

um... is that even an argument?

ok, yes, for 160 bucks they should play longer than under 2 hours. earn your fucking money

you get what you pay for.

(i love pearl jam- but the concert experience is not even in the same ball park as U2)

um....excuse me? U2 is charging more than any previous tour for this tour and yet it is their most stripped down and probably cheapest tour to produce to date. A concert experience is up to the viewer and to me U2 isn't providing for the price. 160 bucks for a stripped down set with only 22 songs and under 2 hours of music playing large arenas.

Yea, so I will say seeing Pearl Jam play for 2.5 hours+ for 40 bucks is a lot better experience. Especially since they actually change their setlist, improvise, and play songs differently night to night.

U2 fans here seem to be jizzing themselves over the fact that U2 has decided to swap a song or two out each night. AMAZING! HOLY SHIT! EVERY SHOW IS NOT THE SAME. give me a fucking break.

 

[djerdap]

All you U2 fans who think this tour is varied and especially U2.com ("U2 mix it up again!" titles. Damn I hate those), check out this.
A band called Pearl Jam did this one time:
07/02/03 - Tweeter Center for the Performing Arts: Mansfield (Boston), MA

set: Oceans, Go, Hail Hail, Save You, Deep, Get Right, Dissident, I Am Mine, Even Flow, Help Help, Immortality, In My Tree, Light Years, Evacuation, Whipping, Grievance, Present Tense, Porch
enc 1: Thumbing My Way, Elderly Woman, Smile, State Of Love And Trust, Leaving Here
enc 2: Soon Forget, Bushleaguer, Fuckin' Up

07/03/03 - Tweeter Center for the Performing Arts: Mansfield (Boston), MA

set: Release, Animal, Gods' Dice, Do The Evolution, Insignificance, Love Boat Captain, I Got Shit, Low Light, Rival, Lukin, Not For You, Daughter/(WMA)/(I've Been Tired), You Are, In Hiding, I Am A Patriot, Once, Rearviewmirror
enc 1: Driven To Tears, Corduroy, Soldier Of Love, Crazy Mary, Alive
enc 2: Baba O'Riley, Yellow Ledbetter

07/11/03 - Tweeter Center: Mansfield (Boston), MA

Unplugged preset: Long Road, Of The Girl, Sometimes, Off He Goes, All Those Yesterdays, Drifting, Thin Air, Sleight Of Hand, Footsteps, All Or None, Parting Ways, Indifference
set: Can't Keep, Breakerfall, Brain of J, Spin the Black Circle, Ghost, Green Disease, Tremor Christ, Given To Fly, Nothing As It Seems, Cropduster, Faithfull, Why Go, Wishlist/(Why Can't I Touch It?), Leatherman, Nothingman, Better Man, 1/2 Full, Untitled/MFC, Blood
enc 1: Breath, Habit, Down, Mankind, U, Black, Jeremy
enc 2: Arc, I Believe In Miracles, Know Your Rights, Fortunate Son, Rockin' in the Free World
enc 3: Yellow Ledbetter

Impressive, wouldn't you say?

 

[walkon11]

um... is that even an argument?

ok, yes, for 160 bucks they should play longer than under 2 hours. earn your fucking money

Perhaps the most flawed argument to this cause (and there are plenty). What about those who only payed 45-50 dollars a ticket?? What do they deserve? Or the people gouged by scalpers on Ebay who payed DOUBLE what you paid? Do they deserve more? And do you get to say when they've earned their money? C'mon, that is ridiculous.

um....excuse me? U2 is charging more than any previous tour for this tour and yet it is their most stripped down and probably cheapest tour to produce to date. A concert experience is up to the viewer and to me U2 isn't providing for the price. 160 bucks for a stripped down set with only 22 songs and under 2 hours of music playing large arenas.

Yea, so I will say seeing Pearl Jam play for 2.5 hours+ for 40 bucks is a lot better experience. Especially since they actually change their setlist, improvise, and play songs differently night to night.

U2 fans here seem to be jizzing themselves over the fact that U2 has decided to swap a song or two out each night. AMAZING! HOLY SHIT! EVERY SHOW IS NOT THE SAME. give me a fucking break.

This is your choice. No one made you pay the amount you wanted for your ticket. Considering U2's history of touring for at least the last 15 YEARS, you should have known the average set time. Count this one as "your bad".

The songs they do pull out of the hat have been older than ME. So, you know what? I think I'll let them play "New Years Day"...or "Pride"...I knew they odds, I chose to go. When they play the ultra-rare stuff, you shouldn't be shocked by the reaction. Perhaps that's the reason. If they played "Gloria" every other show, would it be NEARLY as exciting?

 

[U2junkie]

To the best I can remember 20 - 25 songs were the tops for U2...25 being a really over-the-top, kill themselves type of show. Obviously they can't do this every night. Plus this tour is just beginning. Also, I think the "performance" needs to be taken into consideration here as well. I've seen many bands in concert......but most of the lead singers are "stationary" and just sing. They're not running around a "HEART", and really pushing themselves to the limit for the audience and to make more of connection so both the band and audience are the show. The other bands simply played and the audience cheered. This special and unique technique that U2 has, and has been known for, takes a good amount of energy. And guys, like many of us, they're not 25 any more either. So I'll take this bands uniqueness, special connections and extra effort to connect above hearing a few more songs.....This is just my first gut reaction to this post.......and now, after writing my reply, it's still my feeling. One thing though "GUYS"...........why no With or Without You. The way this song is done live is for me, too amazing to delete from the setlist. The music, Bono's voice, the crowds reaction to the first few notes of it and all through the song.....I also think it's one of the songs from Joshua Tree, along with Streets and SHFWILF that pushed the band to cross the line to super stardom. I also think and feel that this song's "effect" on the crowd is one that will never wear itself out. Anyone have any thoughts on this one?

 

[walkon11]

Impressive, wouldn't you say?

Impressive if you like Pearl Jam. I don't, to be honest, so I couldn't tell you what 9/10th's of those songs are/were.

From a strictly personal standpoint, I think Radiohead has a (somewhat) similar structure to what U2 is doing now. Radiohead's last tour gave you the new album (Hail to the Theif), the classics (Paranoid Android, The National Anthem, Karma Police/Green Plastic Trees, etc) and mixed a few songs in and out (rarities, older songs). To be honest, about 4-5 songs were different each night at the most (from what I could tell on the setlist boards). Consistent opening song, same closing song. Yet they still have much clout in the music world for their shows as well.

I guess I'm trying to say that mixing it up doesn't always mean better. It could, but it doesn't always.

 

[the tourist]

U2 is not Pearl Jam. I like both. I see how Pearl Jam mixes it up. If it's good for them, it's good for them. Obviously it isn't good for U2, if you haven't noticed. They've only done something like this for Lovetown. And although Lovetown was genius, who really cares??? It's U2! It's going to be amazing.

 

[Axver]

I find it interesting how a lot of people are demanding quantity but aren't considering quality.

Now, that's not to say U2 couldn't play for three hours, but could the band - particularly Bono - stand it, or would they be exhausted? These guys want to give the best show they can, we all know that, so I imagine they only play two hours for a reason. I bet if U2 did a three hour show, this board would be full of whiny posts about how "Bono was so exhausted that he couldn't sing 40 properly!"

 

[jphelmet]

U2 fans here seem to be jizzing themselves over the fact that U2 has decided to swap a song or two out each night. AMAZING! HOLY SHIT! EVERY SHOW IS NOT THE SAME. give me a fucking break.

you have any tickets you want to sell?

 

[tilen]

To the best I can remember 20 - 25 songs were the tops for U2...25 being a really over-the-top, kill themselves type of show. Obviously they can't do this every night. Plus this tour is just beginning. Also, I think the "performance" needs to be taken into consideration here as well. I've seen many bands in concert......but most of the lead singers are "stationary" and just sing. They're not running around a "HEART", and really pushing themselves to the limit for the audience and to make more of connection so both the band and audience are the show. The other bands simply played and the audience cheered. This special and unique technique that U2 has, and has been known for, takes a good amount of energy. And guys, like many of us, they're not 25 any more either. So I'll take this bands uniqueness, special connections and extra effort to connect above hearing a few more songs.....This is just my first gut reaction to this post.......and now, after writing my reply, it's still my feeling. One thing though "GUYS"...........why no With or Without You. The way this song is done live is for me, too amazing to delete from the setlist. The music, Bono's voice, the crowds reaction to the first few notes of it and all through the song.....I also think it's one of the songs from Joshua Tree, along with Streets and SHFWILF that pushed the band to cross the line to super stardom. I also think and feel that this song's "effect" on the crowd is one that will never wear itself out. Anyone have any thoughts on this one?

I too think u2 should include With Or Without You into their Set!
It's like--this IS their most f..... famous song and poetry!!!!
Plus it really reminds me to a time some 4 years ago when everything was alright....

 

[babyman]

well, pearl jam are just another planet, they're musicians, u2 are sssssssssssssssshowmen!

 

[djerdap]

First of all - Pearl Jam fuckin' rules and they are probably the most underrated band from the last 20 or so years. They make incredible music.
Second of all - All you With or Without You lovers. I understand you, I really do. That song is one of my favorites ever. But I would rather see it not being played ever again then listen to these insulting mediocre versions from the last 10 years. If you appreciate that song as much as I do, then it wouldn't be fair to massacre it even more. There is no passion in it anymore. Bono can't sing it, Edge couldn't care less about it(where are those beautiful added solos/riffs from the JT or ZooTV days?). Only Larry showed some interest in his beautiful performance from the San Diego 2 version when he played exactly like on that legendary Rattle and Hum performance. Larry saved the song from being a total failure, what it was on Elevation and Popmart.

 

[babyman]

First of all - Pearl Jam fuckin' rules and they are probably the most underrated band from the last 20 or so years. They make incredible music.
Second of all - All you With or Without You lovers. I understand you, I really do. That song is one of my favorites ever. But I would rather see it not being played ever again then listen to these insulting mediocre versions from the last 10 years. If you appreciate that song as much as I do, then it wouldn't be fair to massacre it even more. There is no passion in it anymore. Bono can't sing it, Edge couldn't care less about it(where are those beautiful added solos/riffs from the JT or ZooTV days?). Only Larry showed some interest in his beautiful performance from the San Diego 2 version when he played exactly like on that legendary Rattle and Hum performance. Larry saved the song from being a total failure, what it was on Elevation and Popmart.

that's it, eddie vedder doesn't like the same media resonance u2 like, but they're not underrated, everyone in the music ambient knows how much pearl jam are worth, and they have plenty of fans. i agree that with or without you is in a ceaseless agony, this song hasn't much more to say. but they wont play it too much times, but it's one of those songs which you shape with u2

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

By the way, I pay 25 bucks for Gov't Mule tickets and 40 for Pearl Jam. 160 for a 1 hour 45 minute U2 performance.

I pay $4.95 for a Big Mac with large fries and a coke and $15 for salmon sashimi.

 

[MrBrau1]

I pay $4.95 for a Big Mac with large fries and a coke and $15 for salmon sashimi.

Swish! Nothing but net.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

All you U2 fans who think this tour is varied and especially U2.com ("U2 mix it up again!" titles. Damn I hate those), check out this.
A band called Pearl Jam did this one time:
07/02/03 - Tweeter Center for the Performing Arts: Mansfield (Boston), MA

set: Oceans, Go, Hail Hail, Save You, Deep, Get Right, Dissident, I Am Mine, Even Flow, Help Help, Immortality, In My Tree, Light Years, Evacuation, Whipping, Grievance, Present Tense, Porch
enc 1: Thumbing My Way, Elderly Woman, Smile, State Of Love And Trust, Leaving Here
enc 2: Soon Forget, Bushleaguer, Fuckin' Up

07/03/03 - Tweeter Center for the Performing Arts: Mansfield (Boston), MA

set: Release, Animal, Gods' Dice, Do The Evolution, Insignificance, Love Boat Captain, I Got Shit, Low Light, Rival, Lukin, Not For You, Daughter/(WMA)/(I've Been Tired), You Are, In Hiding, I Am A Patriot, Once, Rearviewmirror
enc 1: Driven To Tears, Corduroy, Soldier Of Love, Crazy Mary, Alive
enc 2: Baba O'Riley, Yellow Ledbetter

07/11/03 - Tweeter Center: Mansfield (Boston), MA

Unplugged preset: Long Road, Of The Girl, Sometimes, Off He Goes, All Those Yesterdays, Drifting, Thin Air, Sleight Of Hand, Footsteps, All Or None, Parting Ways, Indifference
set: Can't Keep, Breakerfall, Brain of J, Spin the Black Circle, Ghost, Green Disease, Tremor Christ, Given To Fly, Nothing As It Seems, Cropduster, Faithfull, Why Go, Wishlist/(Why Can't I Touch It?), Leatherman, Nothingman, Better Man, 1/2 Full, Untitled/MFC, Blood
enc 1: Breath, Habit, Down, Mankind, U, Black, Jeremy
enc 2: Arc, I Believe In Miracles, Know Your Rights, Fortunate Son, Rockin' in the Free World
enc 3: Yellow Ledbetter

Impressive, wouldn't you say?

I guess so. The problem is that Pearl Jam hasn't written a great song in about 8 years.
Ten- Excellent. No one has anything original to say about this album.

Vs- Very Good. Not as consistent as Ten but PJ expand their sound a bit.

Vitalogy- My favorite PJ album but the cracks are starting to show.
TONS of filler--Stupid Mop, Aye Davinita, Bugs...If U2 put out album tracks of that quality they'd be shot by their fans.

No Code-- Hmmm... PJ are exposed. Good songwriters: Yes. Great Live Band: Sure. But original in any way?: No. Songs that sound like Neil Young, songs that sound like U2...Songs that sound like the Who...even a song that sounds like Jim Morrison on a bad poetry day. Lukin rocks though, and In My Tree isn't bad. Has there ever been a more nonseniscal song than
Who You Are? I mean ever? Present Tense sounds like a
self help book condensed until the nifty sample from Unforgettable Fire...

Yield- Treading Water. A little bit of the earlier rock sound of ten and Vs mixed with No Code musical sensibilities.
No GREAT songs. Not one. Lots of good songs though.
Not bad. One thing though, "Like Pilate I have a Dog"?? What kind of chorus is that?

Live on Two Legs- A great live band puts out a crap live album.
Just unfortunate. A hideous off key version of "Elderly Woman..."
actually gets some radio play in major markets. None of the songs are from the same shows so the sound quality varies greatly.
PJ won't make this mistake again.

Binaural- PJ's first crap album. It sounds a bit like a promising bunch of demos for a real album. No great hooks. No good lyrical ideas. Boring, dull and uninspired. Only a huge PJ fan could actually love anything on this album. Binaural recording elements are highlighted on one excruciating track called,
I think, Rival. If you put on headphones you can hear dogs barking in one, then the other ear. Exciting stuff.
My girlfriend at the time insisted that the song was a comment on
the Columbine school shootings and childhood bullying.
I guess so.
Another track (Breakerfall maybe??) actually rips off the intro to I Can See For Miles. (I know, I know it's an homage).

Riot Act- PJ's worst album. Prior to its release there was promising talk of a political album. Song titles like cropduster and bushleaguer are more inflamatory than the actual songs which are middling unfocused crap.

Lost Dogs- Dogs indeed.

 

[RA-D]

there's no way the voice of Bono could last for too much longer than two hours. To experiment, if you can, try turning the volume of the songs right up and sing along at full volume to 3 hours of u2 and do the same with another band and you'll find most other bands easier to keep up with. Some are just more voice intensive than others unfortunately.

 

[djerdap]

I guess so. The problem is that Pearl Jam hasn't written a great song in about 8 years.
Ten- Excellent. No one has anything original to say about this album.

Vs- Very Good. Not as consistent as Ten but PJ expand their sound a bit.

Vitalogy- My favorite PJ album but the cracks are starting to show.
TONS of filler--Stupid Mop, Aye Davinita, Bugs...If U2 put out album tracks of that quality they'd be shot by their fans.

No Code-- Hmmm... PJ are exposed. Good songwriters: Yes. Great Live Band: Sure. But original in any way?: No. Songs that sound like Neil Young, songs that sound like U2...Songs that sound like the Who...even a song that sounds like Jim Morrison on a bad poetry day. Lukin rocks though, and In My Tree isn't bad. Has there ever been a more nonseniscal song than
Who You Are? I mean ever? Present Tense sounds like a
self help book condensed until the nifty sample from Unforgettable Fire...

Yield- Treading Water. A little bit of the earlier rock sound of ten and Vs mixed with No Code musical sensibilities.
No GREAT songs. Not one. Lots of good songs though.
Not bad. One thing though, "Like Pilate I have a Dog"?? What kind of chorus is that?

Live on Two Legs- A great live band puts out a crap live album.
Just unfortunate. A hideous off key version of "Elderly Woman..."
actually gets some radio play in major markets. None of the songs are from the same shows so the sound quality varies greatly.
PJ won't make this mistake again.

Binaural- PJ's first crap album. It sounds a bit like a promising bunch of demos for a real album. No great hooks. No good lyrical ideas. Boring, dull and uninspired. Only a huge PJ fan could actually love anything on this album. Binaural recording elements are highlighted on one excruciating track called,
I think, Rival. If you put on headphones you can hear dogs barking in one, then the other ear. Exciting stuff.
My girlfriend at the time insisted that the song was a comment on
the Columbine school shootings and childhood bullying.
I guess so.
Another track (Breakerfall maybe??) actually rips off the intro to I Can See For Miles. (I know, I know it's an homage).

Riot Act- PJ's worst album. Prior to its release there was promising talk of a political album. Song titles like cropduster and bushleaguer are more inflamatory than the actual songs which are middling unfocused crap.

Lost Dogs- Dogs indeed.

Well, I guess we have to make this a Pearl Jam discussion, since I think you're wrong on many levels. But it's your opinion and I respect that.
No Code is a fantastic album. Yes, it is inspired by The Who and Neil Young(where do you see U2 there, I don't know) but it has incredible power in these songs and plenty of variety in there.
In My Tree, Present Tense and Off He Goes are emotional master-pieces.
Yield does not have a GREAT song? Do the Evolution is one of the best rock songs in the past decade.
Binaural is a grower. It does sound dull at the first listen, but it gets better and better. Parting Ways is absolutely beautiful and Sleight of Hand and Insignificance are not that far behind.
Riot Act is a mixed bag. It has fillers, but it has also amazing songs in the shape of Save You(best rock song since Evolution), Love Boat Captain, I Am Mine, You Are and All Or None.
Lost Dogs has b-sides that can be a-sides to most of the bands out there.
So, that's my opinion. Pearl Jam gets better and better with more experience. As songwriters and performers. They are far from the band they were in the early 90's. In a good way.

 

[STERKERNOG]

By the way, I pay 25 bucks for Gov't Mule tickets and 40 for Pearl Jam. 160 for a 1 hour 45 minute U2 performance.

If you don't think it's worth it, don't go.

 

[powerministries]

there's no way the voice of Bono could last for too much longer than two hours. To experiment, if you can, try turning the volume of the songs right up and sing along at full volume to 3 hours of u2 and do the same with another band and you'll find most other bands easier to keep up with. Some are just more voice intensive than others unfortunately.

I'm afraid I don't sing for a living, but you know I might try. And I think if I (or you) tried, like every day for a month, we'd be able to do an hour. And every day for 2 months we'd be able to do about 2 hours. And if we scheduled shows with large gaps in between in order to see which market we could fill in the mean time, I think we could afford some really good lemon tea, and do maybe another few songs. Not 50 songs. Not every single b-side. But maybe another 15 minutes a night. 3 songs? 5? Just a little more. As I said, what was the excuse when Bono was younger and they were doing a SHORTER set? Do you really think his voice has gotten stronger with age, and that's why they're doing longer sets than in '87? Paul McCartney does about the same length (good too, but not great, but hey, he's 63). Please quit making excuses. I dig ditches for a living and I'd be more than happy to run around the same stage as the last tour 50 (actually 8 or 9) times in 2 hours, and get "exhausted." Do you think the band finishes and colapses into bed? Bono with tea, and the Edge with a hand massage? They go to a good restaurant, have a good meal, and drink a few (well documented). And they should. But please, Bono's voice can't handle it? I guess that's why they took a little while to announce the second show in Vegas... "Hey Bono, um we could book a second show, but were afraid you might blow your voice."
Bono: "I think I'll get by, we had a whole 6 days in between to make sure my voice recovered, but now in the middle of my needed break I think I'll belt it out 2 nights in a row."
Don't be such a silly person and post such silly statements as Bono can't sing an extra 15 minutes a night. He can sing an extra 4 hours a week when Vegas calls (and pays), and I'm sure glad he can, I just wish the set was a wee bit longer.

 

[U2Smilzz]

hmmmm, comparing two very different bands here....
Its much harder for U2 to mix up setlists because they have so many backing tracks, videos, and programmed lights etc for each song. Something Pearl Jam doesnt seem to have... instead they have 6 musicians on stage including Boom whos roped in for the tour... U2 create a mood with their shows, which it seems is carefully based on the song ordering and sequing! Pearl Jam is out there to rock, and thats that really. Which is great, but very different from U2's show....
Ive got that 3 night stand 100 different songs on cd... and as great as it might be, its common knowledge in the Pearl Jam online community, that its not rated as one of the best shows they did. It doesnt flow, it sounds ad lib and Eddies voice was not tip top. I also believe pearl jam have a distinctly different target market/fan base. The majority of fans that go to a sold out Pearl Jam show are hardcore fans who know the bands earlier matarial. their earlier matarial also only being 10-15 years old... the majority of fans at a u2 concert probably know most of u2's matarial since Joshua Tree... They just arnt interested in hearing songs that are 20-25 years old.... they just dont know them..... Ive read on this very board that the early songs they have been playing this tour have been recieved indifferently by the audience.

I think the setlist rocks, I cant see why people complain. If you think its a rip off. DONT GO. If you think the setlists arent being varied enough. DONT GO.

word. Now has anybody seen creed live....... (*ducks and runs!*)

 

[joe_leedsfc07]

Think slane 1 lasted 2 and a half hours

 

[U2junkie]

I too think u2 should include With Or Without You into their Set!
It's like--this IS their most f..... famous song and poetry!!!!
Plus it really reminds me to a time some 4 years ago when everything was alright....

"Ditto", Tilen!...........I'm hoping they rethink this one. I can understand why after 9/11 they deleted it (because of the chorus lines) but I hope thier not putting this one on the archive shelf for thejust rare, evey-once in while spontaneous addition to the night's setlist. The song's WAY TO POWERFUL for that. I think I'm blabbing on now about this so........
.....If I can

 

[applenut]

I pay $4.95 for a Big Mac with large fries and a coke and $15 for salmon sashimi.

Warren Haynes encompasses more talent in his fingers than U2 does in its entirety. The sad thing Is I will bet you have no fucking clue who warren haynes is. U2 fans seem to be out of touch with TRUE musicians and have settled for the mediocre musicianship of U2.

Someone said no other band runs around and puts on as much energy in a show. Give mea break. Even Mick Jagger does a longer show and he's fucking 60 years old and runs around just as much. Eddie Vedder jumps from a fucking speaker tower. Bruce Springstein plays till he's drenched. Stevie Ray Vaughan played till his fingers bled.

You guys have no idea what "effort" is. And on the one hand you dismiss complaints about the tameness of the latest set design and show and say its all about the music and then when the length of the show and the music is criticized who argue its all about the show. How about you stop sucking Bono's dick for a second and stick to a single belief.

 

[grbounds]

Warren Haynes encompasses more talent in his fingers than U2 does in its entirety. The sad thing Is I will bet you have no fucking clue who warren haynes is. U2 fans seem to be out of touch with TRUE musicians and have settled for the mediocre musicianship of U2.

Someone said no other band runs around and puts on as much energy in a show. Give mea break. Even Mick Jagger does a longer show and he's fucking 60 years old and runs around just as much. Eddie Vedder jumps from a fucking speaker tower. Bruce Springstein plays till he's drenched. Stevie Ray Vaughan played till his fingers bled.

You guys have no idea what "effort" is. And on the one hand you dismiss complaints about the tameness of the latest set design and show and say its all about the music and then when the length of the show and the music is criticized who argue its all about the show. How about you stop sucking Bono's dick for a second and stick to a single belief.

 

[Skwege]

hmmmm, comparing two very different bands here....
Its much harder for U2 to mix up setlists because they have so many backing tracks, videos, and programmed lights etc for each song. Something Pearl Jam doesnt seem to have... instead they have 6 musicians on stage including Boom whos roped in for the tour... U2 create a mood with their shows, which it seems is carefully based on the song ordering and sequing! Pearl Jam is out there to rock, and thats that really. Which is great, but very different from U2's show....
Ive got that 3 night stand 100 different songs on cd... and as great as it might be, its common knowledge in the Pearl Jam online community, that its not rated as one of the best shows they did. It doesnt flow, it sounds ad lib and Eddies voice was not tip top. I also believe pearl jam have a distinctly different target market/fan base. The majority of fans that go to a sold out Pearl Jam show are hardcore fans who know the bands earlier matarial. their earlier matarial also only being 10-15 years old... the majority of fans at a u2 concert probably know most of u2's matarial since Joshua Tree... They just arnt interested in hearing songs that are 20-25 years old.... they just dont know them..... Ive read on this very board that the early songs they have been playing this tour have been recieved indifferently by the audience.

I think the setlist rocks, I cant see why people complain. If you think its a rip off. DONT GO. If you think the setlists arent being varied enough. DONT GO.

word. Now has anybody seen creed live....... (*ducks and runs!*)

Thats a bit of a lame excuse. Maybe its time for U2 to quit using so many damned backing tracks and just bring out some additional stage musicians to actually play the material.

New Order uses a large amount of backing tracks, yet quite frequently mixed up the setlist all throughout the eighties.

As far as programmed lights, thats another weak excuse. The Prayer Tour by The Cure had an immensely intricate lighting show, yet they still managed to mix up the setlist and perform an average of 30 songs a night. Keep in mind alot of these songs were over 8 minutes as well (A Forest alone frequently ran for 10-15 minutes)

Simple Minds on their Once Upon A Time Tour wouldnt mix up the setlist too much(though still more than U2), but the songs would frequently get rearranged mid tour rather drastically. Speed Your Love To Me was probably rewritten five times during that tour. So in a manner of speaking the setlist was switched up rather often.

Rush doesn't mix up the setlist much, yet they still play for over three hours. Not to mention their songs are a helluva lot more difficult to perform than U2's catalog. They also happen to be ten years older.

The current U2 tour is a ripoff. Precisely the reason why I am not going. The saved money from one U2 ticket will probably pay for five different shows this summer.

The thing with U2 is they don't really need to play three hours shows. They know people are still going to blindly attend their concerts no matter what. Bono could be onstage juggling bowling pins for five minutes and the fans would still come out in droves paying $150 a ticket. The ones to blame are the fanbase, because you are the ones who let U2 get away with it.

Nevertheless feel free to flame away. I know I have a fairly unpopular stance on the subject.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

You people defending U2 for not playing a longer setlist act like more songs actually bothers you.


Why can't you all just be objective and say "Well I supposse a few more songs would be better"? Because we all knew it would.

 

[Skwege]

there's no way the voice of Bono could last for too much longer than two hours. To experiment, if you can, try turning the volume of the songs right up and sing along at full volume to 3 hours of u2 and do the same with another band and you'll find most other bands easier to keep up with. Some are just more voice intensive than others unfortunately.

There are quite a few artists out there with extremely difficult songs to sing, yet manage to stay out onstage for more than 115 minutes.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

There are quite a few artists out there with extremely difficult songs to sing, yet manage to stay out onstage for more than 115 minutes.

name them

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Why would he name them? You know these do exist. What about some crappy club singer who still wants to make it big? I bet he/she is still singing his/her heart out every night.

I'm sure Bono would'nt mind stepping out of his Maserati to sing a couple more songs...

 

[tilen]

yep, i agree, bono and lads---more songs are definitely needed here!! And a more diverse setlist,too! I mean, if a fan goes out to see them like twice, 3 or more times, he/she surely expects every one of them to be something "special", not a repetitive "cd album"played over and over again.
BTW, it's bono's own fault to sing so sky-high, he should've written an octave or so lower music if he can't handle it...