Four in a row???

[U2Man]

Hey, if it was just a discussion about it I wouldnt have a problem with it either. Problem is, most of the time it isnt. Its the same cast of characters and all they are doing is bitching with the same argument over and over and 90% of the time its VERY negative. How is that fun? Spending that amount of effort to be negative about something you supposedly love so much is just odd to me. I just dont get that and I never will. Each their own. But to start calling those "sheep" or "apologists" because they dont care for the setlist bitching (and yes, thats what it is most of the time, sorry if you dont like the term) is also very negative and ridiculous to me. The person that posted that is what caused me to respond the way I did.

Maybe they just feel they have to start up being a bit provocative in order to start the discussion and see what other people feel about it.

 

[ouizy]

It IS fun. The thing is, we have a great interest in this band - that's why we are using up so much time DISCUSSING (not bitching, I don't like that term) the setlists. I don't give a about how George Michaels setlists are each night or if they are changing - but that's because I have no interest in his music, but I love U2, and I want them to put out the best they can and play as many of all their great songs live as possible. Some of just think that they are not doing their own material (AND their long term fans) justice by playing the songs on the current setlists at the moment. That's it and I think we have a right to feel so and discuss it as much as we want.

Finally.

Well, honestly, I am one who 'complains' and I was sure of those who would reply to this immediately also 'complaining' about this thread.

I think we all have to remember something here. This is a forum to discuss (not bitch, or whine, or wear diapers or whatever) what the band is doing and specifically here, what is going on on this tour.

If you do not like a thread that discusses the setlist (whether positive, or negative) do not reply to it. You have to understand that there are some of us in here being critical of the band we love. There is nothing wrong with this, becasue let me restate 'the band we love.' I simply do not see what is wrong with criticism.

Rather than poke fun at the people who post these thoughts, why not say something on topic. If you really think it is a great idea that the band plays the same songs night in and night out - say it. Defend it. Say something creative. If you are just going to reply with the idea that the people who do not agree with this are 'bitches' you should probably take your immature remarks elsewhere because those of us that do actually post this stuff are looking for debating remarks, not stupid comments.

Now, is there anyone out there that thinks it was a great idea for the band to play the same exact setlist for the past 4 dates? I am not even talking about changing up the songs in the tour, but the last 4 dates. When you think about it, Europe is a much easier continent to travel than the US due to the excellent train service you all have. If one were so inclined to see a string of dates, don't you think that person would be a bit down on the idea of seeing the same exact show four nights in a row? I actually wonder if anyone woul dbuy tickets to 4 straight shows if they knew in advance they would be seeing the same show 4 times.

That is all I am saying - the possibility does exist for someone to want to do this, yet the possibility does not exist to see a differing show.

And as far as comparing this tour to other U2 tours - it is a valid argument that they never change up the setlist, but you can also compare this band to others who do and wish they would take cues from them.

Young-ish bands like Pearl Jam change up their setlist nightly, while older acts like the Rolling Stones also throw in some olides and rarities here and there.

I simply feel that at this point the band is actually afraid of coming off not perfect. I would love to see them try an old song they have not rehearsed over and over again. Mess up the chords, screw up the beat, I would love to see that. I would love for the fans of this band to be able to compare the show they saw and compare the different songs from that show. That is hard to do on this tour.

I digress.

If you do not like replying to threads talking about the setlist in a negative way, feel free not to reply, but if you have something interesting to say (whether positive or negative) I would love to read it.

I really do want to see what people think of the band playing the same setlist 4 nights straight, I just don't want to read the word bitch over and over again...

 

[Blue Room]

Maybe they just feel they have to start up being a bit provocative in order to start the discussion and see what other people feel about it.

Why? To start up trouble or get a reaction out of people that they know will be bad? Thats just as pathetic IMO. If the topic needs that for it to suceed, then perhaps it should be a topic to begin with.

My "wish" would be for more variation in the setlist. I would love it along with most diehards here. Its not going to happen anymore than it already has and complaining about it isnt going to change it. If the threads were, "wouldnt it be cool if they did X song", Or "I wish they would play X song, it would help the flow of the setlist", that would be fine. But it doesnt happen very often. You get you "apologist sheep" comments, and the "U2 is lazy", "U2 sucks", "U2 are lame" comments which are WAY more prevelant and typically come from the usual suspects.

 

[Axver]

Seriously, when did the band ever vary the setlists?

Lovetown.

For those complaining about the Vertigo Tour's sets, just be thankful this isn't Popmart. Though the irony is that most, if not all, of the whiners about this tour worship Popmart.

 

[ouizy]

Well, if I am one of the 'usual suspects' I can guarantee you that I have never said that the band is lame, or that they suck, or that they are lazy - I just like to start topics to see if there is any discussion to be had...

I am sorry if I in any way offended you, maybe you should not be so sensitive.

This is a discussion (or was supposed to be at least.)

 

[U2Man]

Lovetown.

For those complaining about the Vertigo Tour's sets, just be thankful this isn't Popmart. Though the irony is that most, if not all, of the whiners about this tour worship Popmart.

Well, I don't . Now you're the one generalising....

 

[U2Man]

Well, if I am one of the 'usual suspects' I can guarantee you that I have never said that the band is lame, or that they suck, or that they are lazy - I just like to start topics to see if there is any discussion to be had...

I am sorry if I in any way offended you, maybe you should not be so sensitive.

This is a discussion (or was supposed to be at least.)

I agree with that.

 

[Axver]

Oh, and aren't you glad this isn't the first leg of the War Tour?

The exact same setlist (sans snippets) was played at 1983-03-21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. That's seven shows in a row.

 

[BVS]

I know I have proposed marriage to you before, but here it goes again...

Will you marry me?

Would I have to move to Detroit?

 

[Blue Room]

Lovetown.

For those complaining about the Vertigo Tour's sets, just be thankful this isn't Popmart. Though the irony is that most, if not all, of the whiners about this tour worship Popmart.

More different songs were actually played on Elevation and I believe Joshua Tree also. But Lovetown had the most variation over the shortest period as far as song order since it was only a 3 1/2 month tour.

 

[ouizy]

Oh, and aren't you glad this isn't the first leg of the War Tour?

The exact same setlist (sans snippets) was played at 1983-03-21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. That's seven shows in a row.

Ha!

I guess you cannot teach an old dog new tricks then, huh?

 

[Chizip]

Well a point I've made a million times before and I don't really know why I'm getting into this debate again but oh well, is that we are living in the information age now. While static setlists were not as big a deal at one point in time, in this day and age a more varied setlist would make more sense.

 

[U2Man]

Oh, and aren't you glad this isn't the first leg of the War Tour?

The exact same setlist (sans snippets) was played at 1983-03-21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. That's seven shows in a row.

Oh, I see. And how old were U2 then? 4-5 years? And how much material did they have? Please try and compare that to their current situation because that is exactly our point!

 

[Miroslava]

For the record, Ouizy, I find you quite constructive and eloquent on your criticisms and there are a few of you that fall in this same category. I think that threads like these are fine, healthy and just perfectly peachy. But then, there is the other group of people, we'll call those the whiners/bitchers/setlist weenies and they drive me insane. I do not care for those types of comments and just try to avoid them...

From my point of view, yes, I am one of those "sheep" that is pretty much happy with whatever they want to play. At the end of the show, have I been known to say, "man, I wish they would have played X song"? Absolutely, but then 2 seconds later I am happy to have been lucky enough to hear what I heard.

As was also mentioned earlier in the thread, and the main reason why I do not criticize/over analyze the set lists, is the fact that they as a band are trying to give the best possible show for the majority of their audience (not the nerds checking the setlists on real time at home). The people inside the arena/stadium. The people that can maybe only afford to go to ONE show for the tour, not the freakazoids like me that have gone to 6 shows and have tickets for 5 more shows in the fall.

Would I have to move to Detroit?

Hmmm, not necessarily... Depends who lives in the less crappy state

 

[U2Man]

Well a point I've made a million times before and I don't really know why I'm getting into this debate again but oh well, is that we are living in the information age now. While static setlists were not as big a deal at one point in time, in this day and age a more varied setlist would make more sense.

Exactly, Chizip. A band like U2 has to follow the technological evolution. Things change and the fans' desire changes and grows with it.

 

[Blue Room]

Well, if I am one of the 'usual suspects' I can guarantee you that I have never said that the band is lame, or that they suck, or that they are lazy - I just like to start topics to see if there is any discussion to be had...

I am sorry if I in any way offended you, maybe you should not be so sensitive.

This is a discussion (or was supposed to be at least.)

Another nice tactic, put words in my mouth. When did I EVER say it offended me? Please quote that as I would love to see it. Actually read what I said. I said I dont get why some of you feel the need to do it, (sado masachists or something? ) and I personally think alot of the time its ridiculous and it does nothing more than create negativity amongst fans. AGAIN, like I said previously, if the threads were JUST a discussion about it that would be fine, but they turn nasty most of the time. I also love that I didnt say a single name but automatically you think I'm referring to you specifically??? Then try to show you are right because you (one individual who I didnt even name) dont use the general terms I stated?? Hmmm, OK! Whatever works for you!

 

[rjhbonovox]

maybe because the 4 shows were in different parts of the world?

so why would they throw a completley different set list in for a totally different city and to the last one?

Why are you so defensive of U2? Are they THAT perfect?

 

[Miroslava]

Exactly, Chizip. A band like U2 has to follow the technological evolution. Things change and the fans' desire changes and grows with it.

You mean the fans sitting at home "READING" the setlists?

 

[ouizy]

OK now you have done it.

No one can call me a bitch anymore, but a "setlist weenie" absolutely anytime you want.

 

[Axver]

Oh, I see. And how old were U2 then? 4-5 years? And how much material did they have? Please try and compare that to their current situation because that is exactly our point!

They managed to have some variety in setlists on previous tours.

Go study the sets a bit before you make some claim that they couldn't have variety then.

What I'm trying to point out here is that U2 are creatures of habit, and like to find a setlist that WORKS. They aren't going to muddle up the songs just for the sake of doing so.

 

[Chizip]

You mean the fans sitting at home "READING" the setlists?

and listening to the bootlegs the next day

 

[U2Man]

You mean the fans sitting at home "READING" the setlists?

Yes - and these are the same persons spending a lot of their time downloading bootlegs of every single concert, insane amounts of money on DVD's and tickets, travel around the world to go to multiple concerts etc. I think I've made my point clear.

 

[Miroslava]

OK now you have done it.

No one can call me a bitch anymore, but a "setlist weenie" absolutely anytime you want.

For the record:

"setlist weenie" is trademarked by neutral



Off to plan my wedding, I mean, off to the gym...

 

[Chizip]

What I'm trying to point out here is that U2 are creatures of habit, and like to find a setlist that WORKS. They aren't going to muddle up the songs just for the sake of doing so.

and another point I've made is U2 was a creature of habit with minimal type show productions in the 80's. But they went against that in the 90's with huge success. Sometimes change is good.

but in reality U2 are at a point in time where it's not worth it to them to change. they are having plenty of success just doing what they are doing and they are happy with that. so more power to them, and we should just accept it.

 

[Miroslava]

Yes - and these are the same persons spending a lot of their time downloading bootlegs of every single concert, insane amounts of money on DVD's and tickets, travel around the world to go to multiple concerts etc. I think I've made my point clear.

Well now you are generalizing, cause as I stated earlier, I am one of those people spending ungodly amounts of money and time to go see shows in several places, and I am perfectly happy

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaah

[/sheep]

 

[Blue Room]

Exactly, Chizip. A band like U2 has to follow the technological evolution. Things change and the fans' desire changes and grows with it.

Sorry, but this makes me laugh. It was partially technological evolution with the show itself that caused U2 to have some of the most static overall tour setlists of their career (IE Zoo TV and Popmart). NEXT

You cant argue with success. U2 are one of the biggest concert draws period 20 years on in their career. They are obviously doing something right. You would never know by what alot of you post here.

 

[U2Man]

They managed to have some variety in setlists on previous tours.

Go study the sets a bit before you make some claim that they couldn't have variety then.

What I'm trying to point out here is that U2 are creatures of habit, and like to find a setlist that WORKS. They aren't going to muddle up the songs just for the sake of doing so.

Now I'm the one defending U2....

I was just pointing out that maybe it was a bit more understandable back then - being young, insecure, inexperienced, not very well known and having far less material behind them - if they didn't have much variation in their setlists at some periods.

 

[U2Man]

Well now you are generalizing, cause as I stated earlier, I am one of those people spending ungodly amounts of money and time to go see shows in several places, and I am perfectly happy

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaah

[/sheep]

Good for you, but everyone is clearly not like you.

 

[U2Man]

Sorry, but this makes me laugh. It was partially technological evolution with the show itself that caused U2 to have some of the most static overall tour setlists of their career (IE Zoo TV and Popmart). NEXT

You cant argue with success. U2 are one of the biggest concert draws period 20 years on in their career. They are obviously doing something right. You would never know by what alot of you post here.

Please explain why technology meant static setlists.

Btw. as far as I recall POPMART wasn't a big success, but the down-stripped Elevation was.

By technology, Chizip and I clearly meant the Internet - the fans' ability to see what they are doing, listening to the concerts etc.

 

[Chizip]

He means that huge productions that required lots of technology, like ZooTV and Popmart forced U2 into static setlists

But I will go even further and say technology has advanced even past that, that now technology is so good that they can use a big production but also use varied setlists. Everything is just programmed onto a computer now and you can change the lights to the songs you need with just a push of a button.