Why doesn't U2 change up their setlists?

[quasi1970]

And the second night

Now, that's mixing it up! C'mon U2, we know you have it in you to do this for the fans. No matter what though, I'm still going to both shows in L.A. this fall though. I'm usually just so happy to be hearing U2 live (regardless of what they play) to worry about setlists. Would be nice though.

 

[zwervers2]

Re: Check out 2 nights with Pearl Jam...

I know U2 would never do this (and I've accepted this), but just imagine if they mixed up the set list like Pearl Jam. Check out these 2 set lists from 2 consecutive nights in New York in 2003...

July 8, 2003 setlist--------July 9, 2003 setlist
1. Love Boat Captain------1. Crazy Mary
2. Last Exit-----------------2. Save You
3. Save You----------------3. Hail Hail
4. Green Disease----------4. Whipping
5. In My Tree--------------5. Cordurory
6. Cropduster--------------6. Red Mosquito
7. Even Flow --------------7. Dissident
8. Gimme some Truth----8. I Am Mine
9. I Am Mine --------------9. Get Right
10. Low Light-------------10. Given To Fly
11. Faithful----------------11. Evacuation
12. Wishlist----------------12. Even Flow
13. Lukin-------------------13. I Believe In Miracles
14. Grievance--------------14. Untitled/MFC
15. 1/2 Full-----------------15. Deep
16. Black--------------------16. Present Tense
17. Spin the Black Circle--17. Nothingman
18. Rearview Mirror -------18. State of Love/Trust
19. Your Are----------------19. Porch
20. Thumbing My Way----20. You've Got To Hide
21. Daughter---------------21. Small town
22. Crown of Thorns ------22. Glorified G
23. Breath-------------------23. All or None
24. Betterman--------------24. Do the Evolution
25. Do The Evolution------25. Alive
26. Crazy Mary-------------26. Go
27. Indifference------------27. Know Your Rights
28. Sonic Reducer---------28. Rocking In Free W
29. Baba O Riley-----------29. Yellow Ledbetter
30. Yellow Ledbetter

On top of this, I was able to buy both of these "official bootlegs" (mastered with art work/sleeves) from the fan club (5 discs total for both shows) for $25!

No Alive twice on one night??? You can not take Pearl Jam serious anymore!!! They MUST have a shitty lightshow

 

[Nisse]

R.E.M. also mixes up their setlists each gig, not as much as Pearl Jam though. But they (aswell as Pearl Jam I suspect) play much smaller venues and have a LOT more stripped down show than U2's.

 

[quasi1970]

Pearl Jam played Madison Square Garden...

R.E.M. also mixes up their setlists each gig, not as much as Pearl Jam though. But they (aswell as Pearl Jam I suspect) play much smaller venues and have a LOT more stripped down show than U2's.

Actually, they played almost the same arenas...Madison Square Garden in New York and Key Arena in Seattle to cite two examples.

Still looking forward to U2 this November...even though I know the setlist will be probably be identical to what was played in Paris tonight (with the exception of maybe 4 songs). Hope my excitement stays up during the African spiel though (which I agree with, but have heard one too many times).

 

[corianderstem]

For what it's worth, last fall REM was in Seattle, and they played the new opera house, much, much smaller than Key Arena.

I've been out here 5 years, and they haven't played anywhere bigger than that during that time ... because they're the only other band on my "must-see" list, and I would have been there.

 

[matt_tx00]

I think: We moan alot about our favourite band not playing all the hidden gems etc.
I have learned to accept that U2 will never perform like for instance Bruce Springsteen (who makes alot of changes).
But I still think they owe us hardcore fans something.
Maybe every night 1 or 2 acoustic rarities just to please us. It would just be so nice to get to a point during the show where all the hardcore fans would be excited: Ok, what have they rehearsed today? "lady with the spinning head"? "October"?
But of course, that would mean they should rehearse on a daily basis...
I just don't think that's too much to ask.
I recently went to see Bruce Springsteen. He played three songs that were requests from fans he met in the morning outside the hotel where he stayed. I mean, he must have been practising for an hour or two to make these songs work.
That's good old protestant work ethic for ya'...
Are U2 catholics?

I think you make some really good points here.

I mean, look at how many shows they are doing just in the U.S. this year. Its like in the hundreds! Many of us on the forum are going to see them multiple times, with at least some hope that they will change up the setlist a little bit. I would think they would get bored playing nearly the same setlist so many nights in a row.

I do think that with this many shows and so many repeat shows in cities that changing up more than just a couple of songs is not too much to ask.

Anyway, I guess we'll see how it all plays out after the third leg of the tour is over.

 

[Ellay]

I would explode if U2 played Ground Beneath Her Feet full band.

I was at the astoria when they played it full band, was amazing to hear, although at the time I doubted it would ever become a regular.

Shame the bootleg's shockingly poor quality though.

 

[EmitFlesti]

One thing that's really different now than in the past is the internet. People can check out the setlist for that night's show and critique it within minutes or hours after the show (sometimes even while the show is in progress!), thus everyone has an idea what the setlist will be by the time the tour rolls around to their area. I think U2's relatively static setlists probably used to be justified by saying they'd rather focus on getting a relatively small number of songs really tight in performance, rather than shifitng it around a lot and being unprepared - kind of like a fixed travelling show who's quality and reliability would be great. After all, if you saw a travelling production of say, Hamlet, you wouldn't expect the actor to ad-lib some new lines each night just because you've heard the same ones before! In the pre-internet days they could do this and most people wouldn't have known what last night's setlist was. It was always fresh for the new audience. Now, with setlists (and even recordings of shows) easily available online, it comes to look predictable by the time the tour gets to you.

I remember ZooTV - way back in those pre-internet dark ages of 1992!. I didn't see it until September, the third leg of the tour that started in February in the US and then went to Europe for the Summer, before coming back to the US. Despite "my" show coming so late in the tour, I hadn't heard a single recording of any ZooTV show or song live before that, nor - aside from reading a few reviews that gave most of the setlist and thus having some idea what songs they might play - did I really know what the setlist would be. Though obviously I knew new Achtung Baby songs would predominate, I had no idea what order or what they would sound like live. It was all a marvelous surprise.

Fast forward to 2000: completely different. Not only had I been able to download a couple of recent shows before I saw them live, I had seen all the setlists online, knew almost exactly what songs they would play and in which order (only one song was different than I expected), and at a bar before the show I was actually telling a few people the name of the closing song in the setlist. Though they had actually seen the previous night's show, they didn't know what the song was called!

Quite a change actually in a few short years, and I'm not sure the band themselves (and other bands and artists too) really even realize yet how the quick availability of setlists and bootleg recordings online affects fans' perceptions of their recent performances and setlists.

 

[Axver]

Great post, EmitFlesti!

 

[rwolins1]

Another viewpoint

Just a thought for all of you guys exerting energy bashing the greatest band in the world, if not ever, for not changing their setlists.

How bout the idea that they want as many people to see them live and although I am as guilty as the rest of you I think, they are not trying to cater their setlists to those of us who go to multiple shows, especially on back-to-back nights.

Think about if everyone only went to 1 show on the entire tour. You might not want to have the setlist altered would you guys? I could be wrong, just throwing out another viewpoint.

 

[Zoomerang96]

too bad.

u2 became a band as any real musicians would to express themselves. they are ARTISTS.

or am i wrong?

no, i think i'm right. they're very good musicians or ARTISTS when they want to be.

but there is nothing creative about playing it safe over and over again.

 

[JOFO]

I just can't understand how Bono can say that "Kite" was their best song from the last album and then not play it but instead play "Elevation" instead.

*yeah, I know elevation was single. it also sucks.*

 

[Bodnex]

I think: We moan alot about our favourite band not playing all the hidden gems etc.
I have learned to accept that U2 will never perform like for instance Bruce Springsteen (who makes alot of changes).
But I still think they owe us hardcore fans something.
Maybe every night 1 or 2 acoustic rarities just to please us. It would just be so nice to get to a point during the show where all the hardcore fans would be excited: Ok, what have they rehearsed today? "lady with the spinning head"? "October"?
But of course, that would mean they should rehearse on a daily basis...
I just don't think that's too much to ask.
I recently went to see Bruce Springsteen. He played three songs that were requests from fans he met in the morning outside the hotel where he stayed. I mean, he must have been practising for an hour or two to make these songs work.
That's good old protestant work ethic for ya'...
Are U2 catholics?

Sorry, have you listened to October lately? There's a song that would make 90% of the audience go "What the fuck is this?" and just kill any atmosphere going. While about 100 fans sit in quiet admiration and think "How awesome is this, but no-one's as pumped as I am! This sucks." If you really need something that is "teh r@r3", Cartoon World [or something upbeat like that] would be awesome. Though it would have the same effect on the 90%, they might actually get into the song anyway, and it would then rock.

And of course U2 are Catholics, why do you think they rock so hard?

 

[AtomicBono]

One thing that's really different now than in the past is the internet. People can check out the setlist for that night's show and critique it within minutes or hours after the show (sometimes even while the show is in progress!), thus everyone has an idea what the setlist will be by the time the tour rolls around to their area. I think U2's relatively static setlists probably used to be justified by saying they'd rather focus on getting a relatively small number of songs really tight in performance, rather than shifitng it around a lot and being unprepared - kind of like a fixed travelling show who's quality and reliability would be great. After all, if you saw a travelling production of say, Hamlet, you wouldn't expect the actor to ad-lib some new lines each night just because you've heard the same ones before! In the pre-internet days they could do this and most people wouldn't have known what last night's setlist was. It was always fresh for the new audience. Now, with setlists (and even recordings of shows) easily available online, it comes to look predictable by the time the tour gets to you.

I remember ZooTV - way back in those pre-internet dark ages of 1992!. I didn't see it until September, the third leg of the tour that started in February in the US and then went to Europe for the Summer, before coming back to the US. Despite "my" show coming so late in the tour, I hadn't heard a single recording of any ZooTV show or song live before that, nor - aside from reading a few reviews that gave most of the setlist and thus having some idea what songs they might play - did I really know what the setlist would be. Though obviously I knew new Achtung Baby songs would predominate, I had no idea what order or what they would sound like live. It was all a marvelous surprise.

Fast forward to 2000: completely different. Not only had I been able to download a couple of recent shows before I saw them live, I had seen all the setlists online, knew almost exactly what songs they would play and in which order (only one song was different than I expected), and at a bar before the show I was actually telling a few people the name of the closing song in the setlist. Though they had actually seen the previous night's show, they didn't know what the song was called!

Quite a change actually in a few short years, and I'm not sure the band themselves (and other bands and artists too) really even realize yet how the quick availability of setlists and bootleg recordings online affects fans' perceptions of their recent performances and setlists.

You win, excellent post, very true

 

[jag0918]

Dont forget North & South of the River peeps!!! Would be a great alternating song ever other night between that & Yahweh.

 

[Chizip]

Dont forget North & South of the River peeps!!! Would be a great alternating song ever other night between that & Yahweh.

that would be awwwwesome

 

[chiso]

Maybe this is a bit controversial; but I think it has alot to do with their fanbase. U2 have a different fanbase to say Pearl Jam. Alot of U2s ticket buying fanbase would be bemused if the band broke into I Threw A Brick. . . or Daddy's Gonna Pay. . .

I mean; I know a few of us would be in heaven; but U2 are much more of a populist band than Pearl Jam. I'd say alot of people attending the Vertigo tour had never listened to October; never paid much attention to The First Time or Seconds. So basically U2 do have to crank out the hits every night. I for one would love them to come out and play the whole UF album; but maybe others just want Elevation and Vertigo (twice )

Of course; I'm probably wrong; they are playing An Cat Dubh and Gloria; and its fecking great!

Which makes me think: Wouldn't it be f**king great if U2 had a "hardcore fans only" tour???

I mean, It's kind of annoying seeing people who only went to hear Vertigo and WIth or Without You b**ch when U2 break into An Cat Dubh or any other lesser known song... or when Bono gives his speeches...

Meanwhile, on a fan tour, we would all be jumping around!! Celebrating every song! No annoying "I came to see U2 to gloat and say I saw the hottest band in the world, even though I don't know their songs" people in the audience...

PS: I would pass out if they played "11 O'Clock Tick Tock"!!!

 

[jumpstone]

I feel sorry for the hardcore U2 fans. I have been to 3 shows on this tour, Amsterdam 2, Amsterdam 3 and Barcelona. All shows were great but after Barcelona I couldnt understand why people are traveling around to see so many U2 shows. A lot of changes between Amsterdam 2 and 3. So that was nice. I was told before that I wouldnt get too many changes from the other night. I was pissed off when they skipped Running to stand still. But I liked Miss Sarajevo even if I didnt know the song.

As a Springsteen fan I am happy the way he changes the setlists. But it can work the other way around too. You never know what you will get at a Springsteen show. So it is very well possible that you will get songs you dont wanna hear as a hardcore fan. On his latest ( solo ) tour I went to 3 shows. Got to hear the River 3 times. I am pretty sure a lot of you wouldnt mind to hear that song. Or would you prefer to hear Lost in the flood, Incident on 57th street, Wreck on the highway, Stolen car or the Iceman? Songs the average Springteen fan doesnt know.

What I am trying to say is that with U2 you know what you will get. You are prepared to it. With Springsteen you know you will get changes. But perhaps not the changes you want yourself. You prefer this or that and when he doesnt play them you are kinda pissed off, even if the show was great.