From ZooTV to Vertigo - A Setlist Analysis

[phanan]

The recent "Worst Tour" poll has shown that a lot of people here think the ZooTV tour is the best one of the last four tours (I didn't vote, having not seen them all, but the ZooTV show I saw was incredible). Many think the current tour is great performance-wise but feel the setlists could be improved. Others chose the PopMart tour because, well, it's PopMart.

One thing Chizip's poll demonstrated was that if both the performance and the presentation of a show is excellent, people would forget about setlists not changing very much (and I'm one of those people who bitch about it). This is the case with ZooTV.

Since ZooTV, U2 have used the same path to conduct their tours every time out. The first leg is usually in the U.S., followed by a European leg. And the number of shows is quite remarkably about the same each time. Yet in comparison to each tour, ZooTV actually had the LEAST amount of different songs played:


ZooTV First Leg (U.S.) - 33 shows, 28 different songs
ZooTV Second Leg (Europe) - 25 shows, 30 different songs
PopMart First Leg (U.S.) - 31 shows, 39 different songs
PopMart Second Leg (Europe) - 32 shows, 51 different songs
Elevation First Leg (U.S.) - 50 shows, 40 different songs
Elevation Second Leg (Europe) - 33 shows, 47 different songs
Vertigo First Leg (U.S.) - 29 shows, 37 different songs
Vertigo Second Leg (Europe) - 33 shows, 39 different songs


The Vertigo tour has had more interchangeable songs than the ZooTV tour did through the first two legs, yet a lot of us (including me) comment that we'd like to see a more varied setlist from city to city. Is this because ZooTV was such an unbelievable performance with an incredible presentation? Do we view the Vertigo tour as much less of an experience? Or is it because times have changed with instantaneous bootlegs and online setlist parties, and knowing everything there is to know about a show immediately?

Personally, I think it's a combination of both. ZooTV was an electrifying experience that will never be matched by anyone. That said, we expect so much from U2 - demand it, really - that sometimes we forget how it used to be. No instantaneous bootlegs to overanalyze, no setlist party threads, etc. Perhaps not knowing every single detail would help us enjoy it more.

Another interesting tidbit is that PopMart has been the most varied tour since 1992, yet also the most hated (by this group, anyway). It's ironic that we complain about the lack of change in the setlists but dislike the one tour that had the most change!

If more variety in the setlist is your wish, however, past trends bode well. We've seen how many different songs have been played on the first two legs for the last four tours. Check out how the third legs have gone:


ZooTV Third Leg (U.S.) - 48 shows, 46 different songs
PopMart Third Leg (U.S.) - 17 shows, 33 different songs
Elevation Third Leg (U.S.) - 30 shows, 40 different songs


With the exception of Elevation (which saw it's setlist start to vary more in the second leg), you can see that as a tour goes along, U2 continue to tweak with the setlist and add more songs. More than likely, this trend will continue with Vertigo's third leg. Something that should make people happy.

But if that happened, would we rank the tour any higher? Stay tuned...

 

[KUEFC09U2]

personally i would like to see out of the people who voted, how many have actually even been to a vertigo show

 

[phanan]

And I'll just acknowledge that I took that information from Axver's site.

 

[Exit thru Wire]

Id agee with your point that if presentation and performance are great noone really cares about setlists. Id also agree that the only reason there is a 'setlist issue' is because it gets analysed everynight. Every u2 show is special and not the 'stale/same' list of songs presented in a setlist party.

Another point
PopMart was set up to be the biggest tour ever, it had the biggest ever screen and was the most creative, and as you have shown, varied setlists. I think the only reason it won the poll is because Bono's voice was at its weakest, making it a sort of uncomfortable tour, as he was clearly struggling.

 

[phanan]

PopMart was set up to be the biggest tour ever, it had the biggest ever screen and was the most creative, and as you have shown, varied setlists. I think the only reason it won the poll is because Bono's voice was at its weakest, making it a sort of uncomfortable tour, as he was clearly struggling.

That is a good point, although in some instances the rawness of his voice gave an edge to certain songs.

 

[Axver]

Part of the reason Popmart's setlists look more varied is the variety of songs Edge did for his karaoke. Take that out and it'll cut down on variety a bit - though there was also the variance in songs that followed One to close the show.

I suppose the spectacle is part of the reason ZooTV is so fondly remembered. The spectacle to me is pretty meaningless - I'd be happy if U2 played on an empty stage, it's all about the music to me rather than any visuals - and maybe that's why I'm one of ZooTV's most vocal critics.

 

[phanan]

I'd be happy to see them on an empty stage as well. However, the spectacle that was ZooTV really enhanced that tour to another level. I think if one hadn't seen it in person, that person would probably not think of it in the same terms.

I never got to see them, but from what I hear, a Pink Floyd show would be similar. Obviously, the music was fantastic, but the spectacle that is Pink Floyd added to the overall atmosphere, creating an experience like no other. And their setlist hardly ever changed.

And I could see that just from viewing the Pulse video...

 

[Yahweh]

Part of the reason that this setlist and the last setlist are being analyzed so much is that we now live in the "Internet Age" even when Popmart was out the Internet wasnt as widely used or available as it has been in the last 2 tours and thats why they get a real unfair treatment from people here in my mind. People like to follow and not lead so if the popular opinion is shown as something most people will agree with it...including if an album is great good or terrible or if a tour is great good or terrible.

Every album since the internet has been widely used that U2 has put out has been more critiqued then usual due to the evolution of the Internet. Pop, ATYCLB and Bomb are suffering from a few loud mouths that have an opinion that the album is a bad one and they eventually get a lot of people to agree.

 

[Ellay]

Interesting stuff.

Personally I like a spectacle, so I voted for elevation on the grounds it was less visually stimulating.

However whenever I go a concert I'm just so glad to be there, I don't really care too much about what's on the set list. (as long as they play 1 or 2 of my favourites)

It's only when I start collecxting the boots I like a bit of variety / rarities, or just a stand out moment to make them unique.

 

[chrissybaby]

Good thread!

Having seen multiple shows on all the four tours we are discussing, i'd like to chip in!

ZooTV for me is the best live show I have ever seen, I don't mean the outdoor shows (Zooropa and Outside Broadcast), but the 2nd indoor leg in Europe. This had a very very intimate atmosphere and I don't really know why!? There was a hell of a lot of Propaganda tickets in all the shows I went to. Remember that this was before ebay, and that the UK hadn't seen the band in 4 years. There was an electric atmosphere, we didn't know what to expect and as such there were a lot of open mouthed fans every night. The whole tour felt like the start of a new journey, and I cant help but feel as if people are now thinking whether Vertigo will be the last chance they get to see U2. Even though I personally believe it wont be.

Also, the setlist meant less not just because of the lack of information about each show, but because U2 had less material to choose from. Achtung Baby was THAT good that opening with 8 new songs seemed natural. Getting a few faves off the Joshua Tree was amazing, but no one was even THINKING about Boy, October, Unforgettable Fire, etc, etc. This was a new tour, and previous (obviously more recent back then) tours had dealt with those songs for a long time! Bear in mind that we are talking 14 years ago! U2 had only been a recording band for a little over 10 years at the time of ZooTV.

Bottom line is that I dont believe people came to a U2 show with a wish list back in '91, they came to see what this new U2 was all about, on the back of easily their greatest ever album.

If they had gone off with "40" instead of Love Is Blindness in '91 i'd have been very unhappy. If they'd have started with Streets instead of Zoo Station i'd have been very unhappy. Only my opinion, but I don't think we should let sentimental memories determine how happy we are with a U2 setlist.

 

[djerdap]

Don't get me wrong. I adore ZooTV. My favorite tour by far.

But imagine if we had ZooTV now in the "Internet Age".
The critisicm and the moaning wouldn't end, I tell you...

 

[Exit thru Wire]

That is a good point, although in some instances the rawness of his voice gave an edge to certain songs.

Especially Sunday Bloody Sunday!!!

Sorry, officially worst playonwords ever.

I know what you mean. I like the fragility of his voice sometimes as you can hear the emotion and strain he is putting in, prime example being Sarajevo. Even though his voice is weak he gives it everything, including a great performance of WOWY and the best live version of If You Wear That Velvet Dress i have heard.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Fans have been asking for setlist variety because the group has TRIPLED ticket prices after Popmart. Not because of the internet.

 

[chrissybaby]

Fans have been asking for setlist variety because the group has TRIPLED ticket prices after Popmart. Not because of the internet.

don't agree at all. As a rule I bet ticket prices don't come into it for the hardcore fans that surf forums and go to multiple shows.

 

[U2FanPeter]

higher $ = higher expectations?

 

[KUEFC09U2]

higher $ = higher expectations?

not at all... tickets prices have risen across the board, for EVERY act

 

[zoopop]

not at all... tickets prices have risen across the board, for EVERY act

So true, and U2 has kept prices pretty fair for the fans. $160 is alot, but when you compare to other acts its farely resonable.

I really think the internet has put alot of criticism on U2's setlist. Being diehard U2 fans we expect anything and everything. Is also eaiser to hear (read) this criticism wth message boards and U2 websites. Whoever said ZooTV would have taken the same heat if it was going on today is absolutely right.

The thing is, once your at the show all this "setlist" talk goes out the door and its the U2 event. I've seen a ZooTV show, 2 Popmart shows, 3 Elevation shows, and 1 Vertigo show (2 more coming). They all have their advantages and U2 always puts on a good show.

 

[phanan]

I agree that if ZooTV occurred today, it would probably garner the same criticisms despite being the visual extravaganza that it was. But it didn't, and it's just kind of funny that most people (including me) love that tour even though the setlist hardly changed.

I also agree with the remarks made about the "Internet Age" having played a major role in how we critique each setlist, and that is probably a major factor in how we view the Vertigo tour as a whole. It appears that if the setlists were more varied, there would be a more positive reception from the online U2 community. There's no argument, I don't think, that the performance hasn't been spectacular, because it has been.

Let me offer an example of how a current tour with a varied playlist is getting very positive feedback online. My other favorite artist is Bruce Springsteen, and he's been on tour since April. Check out his tour's stats compared to U2:


Devils & Dust Tour - 50 shows, 114 different songs


No, that's not a typo. While he keeps the main songs that he wants represented in every night, he is constantly changing things up with the rest of the setlist, which makes it exciting and fresh each time out. And the Springsteen forums that I have visited have been ecstatic about what he has been playing.

And someone mentioned collecting bootlegs and how that plays a role. I agree. You have no idea how enjoyable collecting shows from Springsteen's current tour has been!

So I wonder if U2 changed things up more if there would be more positive feedback from people. Or perhaps we'd just find something else to complain about.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

but as has been said bruce springsteen isnt such a big concert drawer here in the UK as he might be in the U.S. and a few other places around the globe, his stage show from what i have seen is also very modest, little or no video, and basic lighting, U2 go for the spectacular. elevation had some AMAZING lighting, also vertigo is what U2 are good at a spectacle

everyone has there own opinions though

p.s. of course people would complain if it was changed every night, we would then have people saying "well i wanted to hear such and such which was played last night, i am so dissapointed"

 

[phanan]

Springsteen is a large draw in Europe. Not quite as big as U2, but still an insanely popular live performer there. Granted, his lighting isn't the same (although he does indeed use video), but when you have a performance like his, generally going over three hours, you realize that HE is the spectacle.

 

[Shade]

The reason people are complaining about the setlists is that U2 started the tour with a set that included out-of-nowhere songs like An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart and The Ocean and Gloria, and the return of an '80s staple like '40'. They were whipping out songs that a lot of Zoo TV-and-up ticket buyers who were too young or too poor in the '80s to ever have experienced live. They even had the balls to end a show with Bad. Then, they get to Europe, and despite the addition of a few songs (not including Crumbs - which Adam said would probably have shown up by now) the wild variation of the sets atrophied. Add a bafflingly unnecessary second Vertigo to the mix, and it's no wonder that a lot of people are scratching their heads and wondering if the band is even gonna give a fuck when they hit the next leg. The band have suddenly imposed rules on a tour that seemed to be embracing a no-rules mentality. That's just my opinion, of course.

 

[Yahweh]

U2 is playing Vertigo twice because that is what they did in the old days when they ran out of new songs to play on both the Boy and October tours they played more then one song twice...its just a symbol of them embrassing their roots and why they wanted to join a band in the first place, unfortunatly as most things it probably goes over a lot of peoples heads.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

U2 get comfortable with their set, maybe, some might say, too comfortable. The set list they played in Europe was the one they thought delivered the message of HTDAAB best. My guess is that it will change slightly next month and even more so in 2006.

I'm hoping to hear "Crumbs" personally.

 

[chrissybaby]

The reason people are complaining about the setlists is that U2 started the tour with a set that included out-of-nowhere songs like An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart and The Ocean and Gloria, and the return of an '80s staple like '40'. They were whipping out songs that a lot of Zoo TV-and-up ticket buyers who were too young or too poor in the '80s to ever have experienced live. They even had the balls to end a show with Bad. Then, they get to Europe, and despite the addition of a few songs (not including Crumbs - which Adam said would probably have shown up by now) the wild variation of the sets atrophied. Add a bafflingly unnecessary second Vertigo to the mix, and it's no wonder that a lot of people are scratching their heads and wondering if the band is even gonna give a fuck when they hit the next leg. The band have suddenly imposed rules on a tour that seemed to be embracing a no-rules mentality. That's just my opinion, of course.

Very true...

Not wanting to stoke the Vertigo x2 argument further but after quite a few European shows this summer I actually loved it on the night. And more to the point, a lot of my friends joined me for different shows (being casual fans they only wanted to go to 1 show) and it was their absolute highlight almost every night. To the point where they said it blew their mind when it started again! My over riding memory of Paris is 1000's of Parisians walking to the Metro singing Vertigo, all in incredible spirits.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

The reason people are complaining about the setlists is that U2 started the tour with a set that included out-of-nowhere songs like An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart and The Ocean and Gloria, and the return of an '80s staple like '40'. They were whipping out songs that a lot of Zoo TV-and-up ticket buyers who were too young or too poor in the '80s to ever have experienced live. They even had the balls to end a show with Bad. Then, they get to Europe, and despite the addition of a few songs (not including Crumbs - which Adam said would probably have shown up by now) the wild variation of the sets atrophied. Add a bafflingly unnecessary second Vertigo to the mix, and it's no wonder that a lot of people are scratching their heads and wondering if the band is even gonna give a fuck when they hit the next leg. The band have suddenly imposed rules on a tour that seemed to be embracing a no-rules mentality. That's just my opinion, of course.

its already been said in other parts of the forum, stadiums are a much bigger fish in terms of the amount of "casual" fans you will get, so if they played an cat dubh/into the heart, the ocean etc, then the atmoshphere would just be drained, and that would be down to the casual fans thinking "eh whats this", so yes they do play it safe in terms of setlists in a stadium and i say fair play to them, BUT we got the HUGE spectacle, and in all honesty i didnt see anyone "scracthing there heads" at the show i went to, also add to that, we only had a handful of multiple dates in the same citys. so of course the sets are going to be the same, why cant people see that? there not going to totally change the set from city to city, theres no point as it will be a totally different crowd than the previous city.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Very true...

Not wanting to stoke the Vertigo x2 argument further but after quite a few European shows this summer I actually loved it on the night. And more to the point, a lot of my friends joined me for different shows (being casual fans they only wanted to go to 1 show) and it was their absolute highlight almost every night. To the point where they said it blew their mind when it started again! My over riding memory of Paris is 1000's of Parisians walking to the Metro singing Vertigo, all in incredible spirits.

in manchester i remember walking down to get the bus back to the hotel and just hearing groups of people singing "hello hello" amazing feeling

 

[chrissybaby]

in manchester i remember walking down to get the bus back to the hotel and just hearing groups of people singing "hello hello" amazing feeling

i was there too, for both nights!!! great party atmosphere after the shows...
It's fantastic because for years and years we love this band and are happy to hear in public the odd song on a pub jukebox or video on mtv. Then once every four years U2 take over entire cities!!!!!!!!!! Cardiff was immense, even at the local starbucks when we took it in turns to leave the GA queue, people were asking me if i'd come to see the show!!!! It's like our cult has risen for a day!

 

[Mofo]

Devils & Dust Tour - 50 shows, 114 different songs


No, that's not a typo. While he keeps the main songs that he wants represented in every night, he is constantly changing things up with the rest of the setlist, which makes it exciting and fresh each time out. And the Springsteen forums that I have visited have been ecstatic about what he has been playing.

And someone mentioned collecting bootlegs and how that plays a role. I agree. You have no idea how enjoyable collecting shows from Springsteen's current tour has been!

So I wonder if U2 changed things up more if there would be more positive feedback from people. Or perhaps we'd just find something else to complain about.

I don't think it's fair to compare Tours (U2 & Bruce) yes Bruce has always been about the music, and as someone mentione HE is the show while U2 completeley raised the bar when it came to live shows back in 92 (along with the Stones and Pink Floyd) Besides Bruce is playing solo/acoustic which is way easier to come up with any song and he is playing in small venues, a lot of people in here wish U2 would do the same, but imagine the prices, the demand and the scalpers... I don't think U2 would be able to do a tour this way

an observation... most people complaining about the European setlist are americans, I don't think I've seen a complain from most people who have attended this shows, me being one of them, I had my reservations on the tour, setlists, etc but after seeing them it works live, yes including bullet, pride, elevation, etc.


my two cents...

 

[Muad'zin]

I love Popmart. It had one of the best setlists ever and the whole over the top show fitted nicely with the self irony they still had at the time. Every tour should have the Dublin 4 emerge from a giant lemon. The same goes for Zoo TV. Bono dressing up as some show biz devil making prank calls was hilarious.
Elevation was about intimacy with the audience. It saw a return to the holier then thou preachy U2 of the 80's but the intimacy made it not only bearable but enjoyable. Can't be funny and ironic all the time. Bono kept it restricted to One, that helped.
Vertigo just doesn't really cut it for me. Bono's preaching now spread out to 3 songs and the staleness of the European setlists fully comes across because there is not a shred of humor to compensate for it. If you see a single show, its OK, see more then one and you find yourself thinking just a few more songs, then its time for insert random favorite. See or hear more then one show and you find yourself thinking during the big Africa speeches: F*** Africa. Its Africa, dying is what they are good for. Please Bono, if you want to convince somebody, subtlety in the long run works better then the sledgehammer approach.


Anyway, thats just my 2 cents.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I love Popmart. It had one of the best setlists ever and the whole over the top show fitted nicely with the self irony they still had at the time. Every tour should have the Dublin 4 emerge from a giant lemon. The same goes for Zoo TV. Bono dressing up as some show biz devil making prank calls was hilarious.
Elevation was about intimacy with the audience. It saw a return to the holier then thou preachy U2 of the 80's but the intimacy made it not only bearable but enjoyable. Can't be funny and ironic all the time. Bono kept it restricted to One, that helped.
Vertigo just doesn't really cut it for me. Bono's preaching now spread out to 3 songs and the staleness of the European setlists fully comes across because there is not a shred of humor to compensate for it. If you see a single show, its OK, see more then one and you find yourself thinking just a few more songs, then its time for insert random favorite. See or hear more then one show and you find yourself thinking during the big Africa speeches: F*** Africa. Its Africa, dying is what they are good for. Please Bono, if you want to convince somebody, subtlety in the long run works better then the sledgehammer approach.


Anyway, thats just my 2 cents.

"F*** Africa. Its Africa, dying is what they are good for"

wow am sorry but you just lost all respect i had for you with that africa quote