why are the setlists so short?

[KUEFC09U2]

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...

but what about the fans just going for one night, and finding out the show is suffering because they have decided to mix it up? which could easily happen,

 

[tilen]

of course it is always impossible to satisfy everyone...
We are just talking about it--hey, maybe even u2 is reading this and would consider pros and cons about this debate and make easier decision?

 

[Astoria Guy]

This is a n interesting question...as a diehard Bruce Springsteen and U2 fan, I have always said that there is a tradeoff between the 2 best live acts around.

For Bruce you get variety and length and passion

For U2 you get consistency

to the casual fan or the first timer, U2 is probably better

for the diehard who goes to as many shows as possible, Bruce is...

IMHO

 

[Popmartijn]

Welcome Astoria Guy!

I think you're kinda right.
But I would also stick the label 'passion' to U2's performance.

And as for Bruce, many here are demanding U2 should vary like him and they should vary now. They conveniently forget that for the first dozen or so shows of Bruce's The Rising Tour the setlists were also almost identical. He didn't start to really vary until after the short European 'tour' (if you can call those 7 or so concerts a separate tour leg) in the fall.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Astoria Guy]

Welcome Astoria Guy!

I think you're kinda right.
But I would also stick the label 'passion' to U2's performance.

And as for Bruce, many here are demanding U2 should vary like him and they should vary now. They conveniently forget that for the first dozen or so shows of Bruce's The Rising Tour the setlists were also almost identical. He didn't start to really vary until after the short European 'tour' (if you can call those 7 or so concerts a separate tour leg) in the fall.

C ya!

Marty [/QUOTE

i agree on both fronts...passion for u2 and the fact that bruce did not vary much early on....


I would actually say passion fits more for u2 and ENERGY more for Bruce.

The thing with Bruce altrernating is that everyoe on the bruce boards was so mad when he started the Rising tour without alternation. In his defense om that one, he never did 2 shows in the same city at that point. When he does multiples in a city there is massive variation.

I was t San Jose I and LOVED it. It was an amazig show, I just wanted another tenty minutes. The Edge simply kicked ass...thanks also for the welcome.

 

[tilen]

No, U2 kicks ass!!!

 

[Astoria Guy]

No, U2 kicks ass!!!

I think we all agree with you on that one!!!!

 

[Skwege]

name them

The Street Fighting Years Tour by Simple Minds. They played on average 3 hours ever night, and their songs are just as difficult to sing, as well as being instrumentally lightyears beyond anything U2 plays.

Rush is another band whose catalog is infinitely more difficult. They used to play 2 hour sets, but when they turned fifty they expanded the setlist to three hours. Not to mention their songs are some of the most difficult to play night to night.

Paul McCartney who is probably just as greedy as U2 puts on a three hour show.

Not to mention the aforementioned Pearl Jam, and most Metal Bands.

Don't get me wrong, I love U2. But their music is not exactly the most technically difficult in the world. So to say "They can't perform three hours because the songs are hard to sing", well that just does not hold water.

 

[Axver]

Here's a novel idea: maybe just U2 don't feel like playing more than two hours. Maybe they don't need some bossy, demanding fans to tell them what to do. Maybe they think this is how they can put on the best show for ALL fans. And maybe, just maybe, because U2 (not you) ARE U2, they know best because they're the ones up on stage playing the damn tunes.

Now, I'd like U2 to play longer sets, but bloody hell, the whining and accusations here are just insane.

 

[Skwege]

Here's a novel idea: maybe just U2 don't feel like playing more than two hours. Maybe they don't need some bossy, demanding fans to tell them what to do. Maybe they think this is how they can put on the best show for ALL fans. And maybe, just maybe, because U2 (not you) ARE U2, they know best because they're the ones up on stage playing the damn tunes.

Now, I'd like U2 to play longer sets, but bloody hell, the whining and accusations here are just insane.

The only thing I despise more than whiners, are people who whine about whiners. If you don't like it, don't read it. Is that too difficult?

My problem with some people who complain, is that they still go. I think the setlist is rather boring, and the short length of the concert is inexcusable.
So you know what I did, I didn't buy a ticket. I wish more people would put their money where their mouths are.

 

[U2junkie]

This is a n interesting question...as a diehard Bruce Springsteen and U2 fan, I have always said that there is a tradeoff between the 2 best live acts around.

For Bruce you get variety and length and passion

For U2 you get consistency

to the casual fan or the first timer, U2 is probably better

for the diehard who goes to as many shows as possible, Bruce is...

IMHO

Not with me. Sorry, I think they give it their all. I've been to many concerts and they do really well. They will not go out on stage..........even to do a few more songs and sound "crappy"...That's fine by me. They have the connection, the talent, Bono's voice, Edge's guitar........but they also draw a audience unlike any others I've seen. I'm happy with them. No complaints...And hey, guys, they just put out a new album, giving us a huge tour...........whats up with "ranking" on them????

 

[Astoria Guy]

Not with me. Sorry, I think they give it their all. I've been to many concerts and they do really well. They will not go out on stage..........even to do a few more songs and sound "crappy"...That's fine by me. They have the connection, the talent, Bono's voice, Edge's guitar........but they also draw a audience unlike any others I've seen. I'm happy with them. No complaints...And hey, guys, they just put out a new album, giving us a huge tour...........whats up with "ranking" on them????

where have you actually disagreed with me? I agree with all you said...I just said that they do not vary the setlist much, which is a simp;le fact, and that there is a tradeoff here...but if you want to be the dan who goes to 20 shows on a tour and hewar somethign new, you wont get that with them... that is all

 

[Harry Vest]

You paid HOW MUCH???
Why didn't you go for the cheapest (and by the way best) seats. When I saw U2 in New Jersey 2001 I paid 40 odd bucks and strolled right up to the stage. $160.00 seems a bit much.