Why doesn't U2 change up their setlists?

[Zoocoustic]

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I'm just asking a simple question: since the dawn of time (1980) U2 has been an extremely predictable live band, as far as setlists go. They are very entertaining - don't get me wrong - but their setlists remain extremely static. Nothing has changed in 25 years with regard to the way they play basically the same setlist night after night, with little or no surprises.

So why don't they bother to change up their setlists from night to night...especially when they have multiple nights in the same city? I don't mean re-arranging the order of songs, or giving us one or two suprises. I mean playing the first night in a city with 20+ songs, and then a second night in the same city with nearly all COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SONGS. Something like a band like Pearl Jam does, where maybe the only songs repeated from one night to the next are 3 or 4 gems from the current album they are touring behind.

I guess I'm wondering if U2 has that in them, and if so, why have they never done it in 25 years? If not, what's holding them back? My thoughts are that the "stripped down" design of Elevation and Vertigo give them the freedom to do whatever they want. There are no background videos choreographed to the songs that "lock" them into a certain order. They can do whatever they want with this stage design. and change things up completely.

Why don't they do it???

 

[boystupidboy]

I've often thought the same.A group with their back catalogue should be able to throw in songs at random whenever they feel like it.For some reason u2 never have done this and with the tag of 'best live band in the world' they should be able to knock out any tune when they want

 

[Aardvark747]

It does baffle me why Electrical Storm hasnt been played in Europe yet. They are talented players, so it can't just be a case of them sat in rehearsals racking their brains trying to work out how to play it live. It shouldnt be THAT much of a problem for THEM.

 

[onyourkneesboy]

I totally agree with you !!!

Best band in the world? Ok U2, prove that you still are:

Play some stuff out of the ordinary: Electrical Storm, Ground Beneath her Feet (full-band!), Zooropa, Crumbs...!

 

[Aardvark747]

I totally agree with you !!!

Best band in the world? Ok U2, prove that you still are:

Play some stuff out of the ordinary: Electrical Storm, Ground Beneath her Feet (full-band!), Zooropa, Crumbs...!

ACROBAT!

 

[zwervers2]

Those lazy bastards

 

[AtomicBono]

I totally agree with you !!!

Best band in the world? Ok U2, prove that you still are:

Play some stuff out of the ordinary: Electrical Storm, Ground Beneath her Feet (full-band!), Zooropa, Crumbs...!

I would explode if U2 played Ground Beneath Her Feet full band. One of U2's greatest songs ever...when the song really kicks in... heaven.

and I agree, though they do have the light-curtains configured to songs, they could still mix it up a little more, I say. Probably the one and only valid complaint about U2 live.

 

[Chizip]

Those lazy bastards

You may be joking but you do have somewhat of a point.

Bono has said he hates rehearsals. He says that they work on their songs as the tour evolves.

I think that's kind of crap. That means the first concerts of a tour get the worst sounding versions of the songs. The people who go to the first few shows spend just as much money as the people who go to the last shows, why do they deserve a lesser performance? Because you are too lazy to put in the proper time to rehearse?

I went to the opening show in San Diego, and I also went to a show in Chicago. The quality of the songs in Chicago were 10 times better than the songs at the opener. Thats not really fair to the people who could only go to an early show is it?

This also comes into play with the setlists. Sure they could play more songs, but that would take more rehearsal time, and we know how Bono hates that. Besides they can't add new songs because they are trying to perfect the songs that should have already been perfected in rehearsals. After the San Diego show the Edge said the setlists would be the same for a while because they needed to practice the songs. That's BS, if im paying 180 bucks for a ticket the songs should already be in top form, and Bono should be able to remember the lyrics.

Like other people have said, this is the one big flaw of the U2 live shows.

 

[zwervers2]

You may be joking but you do have somewhat of a point.

Bono has said he hates rehearsals. He says that they work on their songs as the tour evolves.

I think that's kind of crap. That means the first concerts of a tour get the worst sounding versions of the songs. The people who go to the first few shows spend just as much money as the people who go to the last shows, why do they deserve a lesser performance? Because you are too lazy to put in the proper time to rehearse?

I went to the opening show in San Diego, and I also went to a show in Chicago. The quality of the songs in Chicago were 10 times better than the songs at the opener. Thats not really fair to the people who could only go to an early show is it?

This also comes into play with the setlists. Sure they could play more songs, but that would take more rehearsal time, and we know how Bono hates that. Besides they can't add new songs because they are trying to perfect the songs that should have already been perfected in rehearsals. After the San Diego show the Edge said the setlists would be the same for a while because they needed to practice the songs. That's BS, if im paying 180 bucks for a ticket the songs should already be in top form, and Bono should be able to remember the lyrics.

Like other people have said, this is the one big flaw of the U2 live shows.

I was not joking...

 

[one4u2]

Play some stuff out of the ordinary: Electrical Storm, Ground Beneath her Feet (full-band!), Zooropa, Crumbs...!

I would have to literally be scraped off the floor if they played any of those songs

 

[Chizip]

I was not joking...

then we're on the same page

 

[broken toy]

I've been as big a proponent of anyone for them to mix things up, and dig into the back catalog.

But let's not forget, they trotted out The Electric Co. (hardly a hit single) for the first time in 18 years, and An Cat Dubh/Into the Heart (even more obscure) for the first time in 21 years and The Ocean (weirdest of all) for the first time in 23 years. Best of all, they made them fit the theme of what they were doing, and didn't just wedge them into the set.

So let's do give credit where it's due, and appreciate the fact that those choices were pretty "out there" given the band's track record.

Bottom line: I think it would make them better to mix it up even more, but I'd be asking them to be something other than what they are.

 

[Chizip]

Bottom line: I think it would make them better to mix it up even more, but I'd be asking them to be something other than what they are.

You know to say a static setlist is ok because it is what U2 has always done is kind of a cop out. I've always known U2 has a cutting edge band, being able to see trends before they happen and then being able to capitalize on it. Before the 90's U2 never had a huge stage production, used video screens, or dressed up in outfits for their live show. They could have continued with their minimalistic production for their tours because, hey, thats what they've always done. But no, U2 had the forsight to mix things up, and create a show of total sensory overload that they, nor any other band, had before. And I have to say that worked out pretty well for them.

Currently we are in an information age. We live in a time where people can see the setlist of their shows while the concerts are going on. People can download the shows as early as the next day. U2 should realize this and understand things are different from before. The best way to make shows exciting and different these days is with varied setlists. It doesn't really have to be anything too drastic, just a little variation and some surprise songs could make a huge difference.

The technology exists today where they can't use the excuse that the video production limits their ability to mix things up. Things can easily be rearranged with the push of a button on a computer.

So when people say, well this is how U2 have always done it, I don't really think that makes it ok. U2 has always been an innovative band and for them not to use this same innovation when it comes to setlists is a little disappointing.

I still love them and the shows though

 

[JOFO]

probably alot of it has to do with the fact that bono can't even remember the lyrics to current songs, much less rarer ones.


also, admittedly they are not a band that can just "jam" on a tune; they've got to painstakinly work out each one over many many rehearsals.
used to not be that way.

 

[packcrush]

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!

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

That must be Thread #1.000.000 regarding this topic - but obviously many people still don't get ist, so: Since their early days the main reason for U2 to go on tour has been to promote the new songs of their current album - and to develop these tracks live. These tunes have built the frame of the concert and takes away roughly a fourth or a third of all the song-slots in a concert. decide, what to play - and then they play it in the concerts.

Plus you have to chose tunes from your past: U2 have differnet phases in their career with songs they think do cover these moments and topics best. Mostly these tunes are Singles, but on the current tour they break with this rule radically and beautifully: So, the USA have had the chance to get little BOY/OCTOBER gigs in the sets with up to five songs in a row (Stories For Boys snippet, The Cry, The Electric Co., An Cat Dubh and Into The Heart or the alternative Stories For Boys snippet, Gloria and The Ocean) from that time with tunes, they haven't played for more than 20 years.
Then you (still) have the THE JOSHUA TREE and ACHTUNG BABY hommage with some tracks not having been performed for a long time, too: Just think of the awesome Running To Stand Still (even better now than in the US with longer harp and the "...still running..." coda!) or the kick of Zoo Station. And if you get lucky you get even more: Party Girl, Out Of Control, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses or diffferent snippets or different versions of the classic "Greatest Hits". These tunes, everybody knows, are at the moment Beautiful Day, Elevation, New Year's Day (the best version I'v ever head happened in Brussels!), Sunday Bloody Sunday (with new found spirit performed in NYC in May!), Pride (unfortunately cut for being a sing-along), Where The Streets Have No Name (with the new "Africa" spirit), One, The Fly, Mysterious Ways - plus the rarely played I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lokking For and With Or Without, that might become fixed staples now in the European sets.
The result: The current shows have something for everyone - the occasional listener, who likes to enjoy one show; the more frequent concert attendant aka die-hard fan, whoi wants to hear different tunes. The latter - though surely not the majority (!) - has to be satisfied, too - and he should be 2005: I've attended 5 shows until now and none has copied another regarding the exact setlist and song versions. Instead I've got every night suprises and spontaneity keeping it fresh for me . and, I guess, also for the band. This is one of the best tours ever for people who like the back catalogue U2 have from the early 80ies until now - with U2 sounding that strong they have been in the late 80ies and early 90ies. So, enjoy it!

 

[U2girl]

Songs they brought back on the last two tours that haven't been played for a long time: 11 o clock, Out of control, Stay (and others but less frequently played like A sort of homecoming, Spanish eyes, Slow dancing, In God's country), Into the heart/An cat dubh, Electric co, Ocean, Gloria, 40, Running to stand still, Zoo station.
3 different openers, 3 different closers this time around.

For U2's standards, this is spectacular as far as mixing setlists goes.

 

[bray]

i was lucky enough to get the electric co. and an cat dubh when i saw them and even though i was excited ALOT of people had confused looks on their faces. i still think the setlist sucks and they are nowhere near as good as their early days ( my first U2 show was the unforgettable fire tour and it is still the best show i have ever seen) but the boys seem lazy on this tour. i read in one of these threads that someone was comparing U2 to rush. i have to put my two cents in , rush play a three+ hour gig at a cost of 80 bucks for awesome seats. U2 play about 100 minutes of music and i paid 160 bucks for a not so good seat. rush has been around 30 years and they play a varied setlist from almost all of their 17 albums. U2 has been around 25 years and they leave out over half of their albums. pearl jam varies setlists every night and eddie vedder sounds better now than he did 10 years ago. bono sounds weak on this tour. it seems all of the fans who are going nuts for this tour just seen them on elevation only ( which was awesome ) but this is one fan who will not be throwing 500 bucks down the drain again unless U2 get out of the greatest hits jukebox.

 

[zwervers2]

i was lucky enough to get the electric co. and an cat dubh when i saw them and even though i was excited ALOT of people had confused looks on their faces. i still think the setlist sucks and they are nowhere near as good as their early days ( my first U2 show was the unforgettable fire tour and it is still the best show i have ever seen) but the boys seem lazy on this tour. i read in one of these threads that someone was comparing U2 to rush. i have to put my two cents in , rush play a three+ hour gig at a cost of 80 bucks for awesome seats. U2 play about 100 minutes of music and i paid 160 bucks for a not so good seat. rush has been around 30 years and they play a varied setlist from almost all of their 17 albums. U2 has been around 25 years and they leave out over half of their albums. pearl jam varies setlists every night and eddie vedder sounds better now than he did 10 years ago. bono sounds weak on this tour. it seems all of the fans who are going nuts for this tour just seen them on elevation only ( which was awesome ) but this is one fan who will not be throwing 500 bucks down the drain again unless U2 get out of the greatest hits jukebox.

be ready for the shitload

 

[zwervers2]

i was lucky enough to get the electric co. and an cat dubh when i saw them and even though i was excited ALOT of people had confused looks on their faces. i still think the setlist sucks and they are nowhere near as good as their early days ( my first U2 show was the unforgettable fire tour and it is still the best show i have ever seen) but the boys seem lazy on this tour. i read in one of these threads that someone was comparing U2 to rush. i have to put my two cents in , rush play a three+ hour gig at a cost of 80 bucks for awesome seats. U2 play about 100 minutes of music and i paid 160 bucks for a not so good seat. rush has been around 30 years and they play a varied setlist from almost all of their 17 albums. U2 has been around 25 years and they leave out over half of their albums. pearl jam varies setlists every night and eddie vedder sounds better now than he did 10 years ago. bono sounds weak on this tour. it seems all of the fans who are going nuts for this tour just seen them on elevation only ( which was awesome ) but this is one fan who will not be throwing 500 bucks down the drain again unless U2 get out of the greatest hits jukebox.

For a person who has been called a setlistmoaner I will put in some defence for the band.

First of all:
Bono does not sound weak on this tour. He is singing better than the two previous tours.

Second:
They have played more older stuff than they have for more than 17 years. As I recall they did play gloria and out of control during the lovetown tour but not an cat dubh, ocean etc..I'm glad that I got to see Gloria live...

Third:
160 bucks for a concert is absurd
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest: On most parts I think you are right and that's a damn shame. a U2 concert is a very special event and I'm really looking forward to amsterdam let me tell you. Fact remains that Bono hates rehearsels and therefor isn't committed enough to have a changing setlist with let's say 60 songs. Of course everybody jumps with a second Vertigo performance: it's a song and people tend to jump and scream if the rythm is little uptempo especially when preformed by their favourite band....I'm sorry but that's the way it works...The people who say Vertigo twice is great have to ask themselves: what if Vertigo was played once and another uptempo song replaced the other Vertigo. let's say in the beginning:Out of control or something..would Vertigo later in the show be any less special because it is only played once? I don't think so..therefor there is no reaosn to play it twice

with all the old stuff that they are playing combined with the
zoostuff and the new record they could create an unbelievable setlist...unfortunately it's a good set not a great eventhough it would be so easy to do...I wish I was their tourcoach or something...

 

[Eliv8]

I enjoyed the early shows. Never new what was coming up next.

 

[SPENCERSLIDE]

I promised that i wouldnt buy another u2 ticket ever if i heard they were playing WTSHNN again.....but then again if i'm pissd off hearing it live for the 15th time imagine how the band must feel playing it for the 1,000,000,000,000,000 time!

 

[bray]

about the rehearshal excuse...its bullshit. bono has said that U2 is best when they improv because of a mistake and i agree. the tour has a canned feel to it. bonos voice doesnt sound as good as it did in previous tours IMHO . new york on the elevation tour as well as in a little while both came through with feeling. gone from the dvd ( they didnt do that one when i saw them ) is also good. on the pop tour last night on earth and miami were incredible and do we even have to bring up the zoo t.v. tour? im just bent because i was so sure the mold was gonna break this tour. with the internet keeping track of every note played i thought they would mix it up by alot just to keep relevant. the same africa speech is getting old. heres what i would like for my cabbage

1.city of blinding lights
2.vertigo
3.elevation
4.last night on earth
5.the fly
6.twilight ( alternate electric co.
7. even better than the real thing
8. bullet the blue sky
9. new york
10. the unforgettable fire
11. in Gods country
12. heartland
13.crumbs from the table
14. electrical storm
15. beautiful day
16. miracle drug
17. numb ( alternate some days are better than others)
18.love & peace or else
19. where the streets have no name
encore 1
20.one tree hill
21.sometimes you cant make it on your own
22.walk on
encore 2
23. october/ new years day
24.until the end of the world

frica speech is getting old

 

[happy880]

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!

I totally agree with what you said. I have been a long time fan and pray for the oldies but U2 is defintely trying to please their younger fan base. Bono has even said it in recent interviews. When they played An Cat Dubh & Ocean I noticed hardly anyone was singing/moving to those songs. Most of the concert-goers now go only as far back as the ZooTour. I am very happy U2 has a new fan base but for those that have not done so, please go pick up a copy of Boy, October, War & Unforgettable Fire.

 

[zoopop]

I'm baffled too when it comes to U2 mixing things up a bit. They have such a A+ back catalouge and do not use it to there advantage. I don't understand why U2 has to play of there songs EVERY night. Out of:

I Will Follow
Gloria
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Years Day
Pride
Bad
Streets
I Still Havent' Found
With or Without You
Bullet
All I Want Is You
Desire
The Fly
Mysterous Ways
One
Until The End Of the World
Even Better...
Stay
etc.

they should pick 10 of these each night and play them in different sequences. They try to squeeze in all the hits in there set. I mean I love Bullet and all but why have they played this since the JT. Larry said he was tired of being the human jukebox playing all the hits. .
Doesn't U2 do this evernight with there static setlist.

 

[Nisse]

well so far they haven't played An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart, Gloria or The Ocean in Europe

 

[broken toy]

You know to say a static setlist is ok because it is what U2 has always done is kind of a cop out.

I never said it was "ok."

My point is that railing about U2 have static sets is like yelling at a native Mexicano for not speaking English. The person could learn otherwise, but it sure isn't going to come naturally.

I really don't think that U2 does share or will share in our belief that changing their approach to live playing is any kind of necessity for them, or a key to further their greatness.

 

[zwervers2]

I really don't think that U2 does share or will share in our belief that changing their approach to live playing is any kind of necessity for them, or a key to further their greatness.

And that my friend is a damn shame. Sometimes i feel that I know what's better for them on stage then they know themselves. Does this make sence...man I'm even hoping on the sweetest thing now...Blue eyed boy brown eyed girl.....

 

[Zoocoustic]

That must be Thread #1.000.000 regarding this topic...

Only further justifying why it is a problem that the band needs to address.

 

[yimou]

Songs they brought back on the last two tours that haven't been played for a long time: 11 o clock, Out of control, Stay (and others but less frequently played like A sort of homecoming, Spanish eyes, Slow dancing, In God's country), Into the heart/An cat dubh, Electric co, Ocean, Gloria, 40, Running to stand still, Zoo station.
3 different openers, 3 different closers this time around.

For U2's standards, this is spectacular as far as mixing setlists goes.

True !!!!!!,,, But we want ACROBAT´