Four in a row???

[U2Man]

Originally posted by Blue Room


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]

Originally posted by U2Man


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]

Originally posted by U2Man


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]

Originally posted by martha
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]

Originally posted by Axver


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]

Originally posted by 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.)

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]

Originally posted by Miroslava


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]

Originally posted by Axver


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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Would I have to move to Detroit?

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

[U2Man]

Originally posted by 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.

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