U2: Back to Basics – Honestly

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dalton

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
15,151
Location
Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
This is not a knock on the Vertigo Tour (looks great from the pictures) or the Elevation Tour (I loved it!), but if I got my wish U2 would really do a “back to basics” tour.

I completely understand that with all the technology that they use they cannot just switch the set list up on a whim (I’ve worked as a stage hand and that would be awful) and I have loved the last three tours (ZooTV, Popmart, and Elevation), but I think it is time to give the technology a rest and go back to the free flowing Lovetown Tour. Will it be as visually cool as the tours that followed it? No. Could it be amazing? Absolutely here is why.

Can you imagine the thrill of going to a U2 show not knowing what song is going to come next? Not knowing what hit or hidden gem from 25 years of hits and hidden gems will come next? Magical. U2 would have the option of throwing covers into the mix or even better for us fans – b-sides! Its hard to imagine in todays tours songs like Party Girl or Spanish Eyes becoming a fan favorite, but they are amazing songs. I would love to see that kind of tour.

Again, I don’t want them to change the Vertigo Tour. It looks spectacular, but man would I love to see them do this sort of tour one more time……
 
The technology aspect of the tours is only one factor that prohibits them from playing more songs/mixing up the set. Here are some others.

* a lot of their nineties stuff relies (at least a little bit) on sequencers and background noises. So they have to line those up ahead of time as well.
* History suggests they don't really like to rehearse the more difficult/obscure songs. I mean really: whenever they bust out new songs, 90% of the time it's either a song they played on the last tour at some point, or its an acoustic version that only half the band has to really work to get right.
* Bono has enough trouble remembering the words to the core setlist. Remember early in the Vertigo tour? He kept forgetting words!
 
I had a thought today:

Do the band really like the songs from their past two records better than their old stuff, let's say the scond half of the Joshua Tree, or some of the Rattle stuff?

I wonder.
 
ouizy said:
I had a thought today:

Do the band really like the songs from their past two records better than their old stuff, let's say the scond half of the Joshua Tree, or some of the Rattle stuff?

I wonder.

Their past two records? At my last count there have only been at most 3 songs from 1992-2002 in the setlist.
 
that's cause the 90's were silly.

they're playing it safe now, guys. we like our "back to the basics" rock with SOUL power! we don't like lyrics that might confuse people, like mysterious ways (wtf is that song about anyway?!?!?!?!??!).
 
ouizy said:
I had a thought today:

Do the band really like the songs from their past two records better than their old stuff, let's say the scond half of the Joshua Tree, or some of the Rattle stuff?

I wonder.

Well, here's a comparison.

HTDAAB: NA, as it's the album being promoted, so of course it'll take a lot of setlist places.
ATYCLB: Two shows (plus the LA rehearsal) have had three ATYCLB songs. The rest have had two. [This is somewhat remarkable to me as this is BELOW how many songs U2 normally play from the previous album.]
Pop: One song played.
RAH: One song played.
Second side of JT: Nothing. [First side of JT: five.]

So I don't think it can be said U2 have a clear preference to their most recent work.
 
Now, on the original topic, I would absolutely adore some kind of 'back-to-basics' tour - I've been saying for a good while that all I want is U2 on a stage playing songs. While the lighting and visuals may be neat, I don't think they're necessary - and in some cases, not even desirable. Legitimately or not, U2 seem to think visuals can be an excuse for static setlists.

I love U2 because of the music, not because of what visuals they portray at live concerts! So a tour that focuses entirely on what the band play and how they play it would be absolutely spectacular in my opinion.
 
I thought the Elevation Tour was "back to the basics." I really don't think you can blame the static setlists for the past two tours on the technology. And they are kind of proving that this leg by throwing a few surprises into the set.
 
Chizip said:
I thought the Elevation Tour was "back to the basics." I really don't think you can blame the static setlists for the past two tours on the technology. And they are kind of proving that this leg by throwing a few surprises into the set.

yep.

and if they have such a hard time playing new/different songs on the tour, it wouldn't be any easier for them if you took away the technology they are currently using for the songs.
 
I look back on the Joshua Tree/Lovetown tours and think that it would be amazing to see the band with minimal "distractions."

However, also looking back at ZooTV and Popmart, it seems that those set lists were static - at least per leg - without much variation at all. However, those setlists seemed a lot more thought out and ran really well, so it didn't matter that there wasn't much diversity.

However, with Elevation and Vertigo, since they are stripping back down, they have a little more freedom with their setlists, but never bring out anything remarkable. Sure it was cool to see/hear/read about them playing songs from Boy... but really, they've been doing it for 5 months now.

I'm rambling, I know... but as far as Achtung - ATYCLB goes, I think they need to pick better songs to dip into from those albums. I mean, Elevation is my least favorite U2 song ever. It rocks way more live than on record, but its not even a great rocker. Its more of a dud. I'd rather hear Kite or Walk On in the middle of the set than Elevation. Same thing goes for One. Its odd how One has become stale live as quickly as it did. It took Pride until Elevation tour to get completely stale.

Blah blah blah. Y'know?
 
Chizip said:
I thought the Elevation Tour was "back to the basics." I really don't think you can blame the static setlists for the past two tours on the technology. And they are kind of proving that this leg by throwing a few surprises into the set.
That's what I thought too.
 
The thing is, this really only concerns "die-hard' U2 fans - who follow them around on tour, and go to every tour and so on. Most people are not like that. I went to two concerts this leg, with a total of six different people, and none of them had ever been to a U2 concert before. We're all college-age - heck, I was three years old when JT came out.

A back to the basics, stripped-down tour would be nice for the 0.5% of fans who follow them from concert to concert. For the other 99.5% of fans, we don't care if they've played a song all tour or if this is it's first appearance - this is our first concert! This is our first time hearing it! What does it matter?

And for people who say that U2 should stop playing Pride or One or With or Without You - it's the same problem. You guys are hardcore die-hards who see them all the time. For us who haven't been seeing U2 for the last 15 years, we love those songs. I was pretty disappointed when U2 didn't play WOWY in my first concert. Yeah, maybe they've been playing it every tour since JT, but that doesn't matter - I had never heard it live. So when they played it on my second concert, I went crazy. I think a lot of people here on Interference are out of touch with what 99% of concert-goers want to hear.

That's why I don't understand why everyone is so pumped about Crumbs. Yeah, I really like the song, but if most U2 concertgoers had a choice between hearing With or Without You or Crumbs, what do you think they would choose? And that fact that most of us would choose WOWY does not make us any less of a U2 fan.

Is it any wonder why Zoo TV is considered one of the greatest tours ever? I would rather have a static setlist worked out to perfection rather than a hodgepodge of songs from all over. Like most people, I don't have time and I can't afford to go see several shows on one tour. And really, people who can follow them from city to city are the only ones who benefit from a random selection of songs every night.
 
Last edited:
People mistake variety with being a good concert experience.

I saw Crumbs last night and I was excited to hear a new song after seeing them 4 times all ready.

But you know what. I was more excited by them closing with With or Without You. It's just a better song.

Don't turn your back on the songs that made you a fan in the first place.

They have little reason to vary the setlist that much other than themselves feeling bored by playing it. But they are touring the new album and play songs from the new album. And these always play Bullet, One, Streets, Pride. Staples.

If you go to a Jimmy Buffet show, does he not play margaritaville? (I have no idea so I could be screwing myself here - but I know if I went that's the only song I know - see?)

Back to basics tour. If they played a small theater, but if they are playing an arena and their stage looked like Keane's, it wouldn't be as fun.

The light show is awesome.

POP was fun as hell.

ZooTv I missed it, and I hate myself for missing it.

It looked amazing.

Don't underestimate the power of the stage design and lights on your overall enjoyment of a U2 show.

No, I was there for Lovetown, but that's how bands start out.

U2 makes the best songs and concerts.

Back to basics is what Elevation and Vertigo is now. They can't scale back anymore, because that's what they do.

You would miss it.

I would.
 
Chizip said:
I thought the Elevation Tour was "back to the basics." I really don't think you can blame the static setlists for the past two tours on the technology. And they are kind of proving that this leg by throwing a few surprises into the set.

I guess that's why we got material from every single U2 album including Passengers on this tour - and that this tour has been changing everything from openers and closers to the encore.

I guess that's why Elevation had the biggest selection of songs played on any U2 tour.
 
the reason they don't play different songs has nothing to do with the technology. they have to rehearse for months to play new things. thats why when we get something "new" this tour, its acoustic. thats why it took forever for crumbs to be played, and thats why now that the tour is almost over, we won't see anything else new, unless its acoustic.

you mean to tell me they could pull out lemon, or hmtmkmkm, please, or others (full band) with just a rehearsal or 2? no way.

which I dont understand really; I mean, adam's parts are easy to remember, and larry seems like he's serious and would do his homework....I don't know.

and this has nothing to do with "setlist bitching"; I haven't complained about the setlist in months; it's just perplexing to me why in the world they don't do it......they gotta be burnt out on playing pride every night.......they've just gotta be.
 
Do you ever get tired of masterbating?

Never.

Isn't that the same as playing the same song all the time. If it was your song, and you were a rockstar, you would stroke it (I mean play it) all the time too.
 
To be honest, many would consider Elevation a "back to basics" tour... certainly compared to Zoo TV and Popmart. Vertigo also isn't as extravagant as those two shows (although the stage setup for the European leg was much better than the U.S. one, IMO).

Anyways, to be honest I wouldn't like to see them strip down more than Elevation. I mean the light show when I saw them on the European leg was unbelievable! Yes the music constituted most of my enjoyment of the shows, but the screens/lighting DEFINATELY accounted for at least 20% of the enjoyment.

So, in conclusion, a simple stage and "three chords and the truth" would be really boring, so let's hope it doesn't happen.
 
Joshua_Tree_Hugger said:
So, in conclusion, a simple stage and "three chords and the truth" would be really boring, so let's hope it doesn't happen.

I completely disagree. In a sense, I kind of got that twice in Boston when I was so close to the stage (front row once) that I couldn't see almost all of the lighting to appreciate it - the whole of my attention was on the music and the atmosphere in the building, and it was sensational.

Now, personally, I go for the music. Lighting, visuals, and all that is not only secondary to me, but unnecessary. I'd enjoy the band just as much if not more if they were on an empty stage.
 
I have seen plenty of shows I've enjoyed that where very simple... I mean Bruce Springsteen is amazing live and he doesn't do any of this fancy stuff. But he has energy.

U2 has plenty of energy, and creativty.

Why hold them back when the things they do make the show even better.

I love the stage design. If it was just them on a square stage, the music would still be great, but the performance would be hard to rise to the level is has been since Elevation.

It just gets Bono and the edge all excited.

My point. I think Where The Streets Have No Name was better last tour when he was running around in a lap before the song kicked in and all those great red lights... it's good now, but I missed him running around. It just doesn't seem to be as great.

the song still great. but the performance isn't as great. It's just missing that little something extra that lighting and stage design and plan creativity that add to the overall experience.

That being said, like most, I'd watch them play in a subway station and still love it.

But let's have our cake and eat it too.

The technology isn't holding back their song choices as much as their willingness or desire to vary the set list. It's never been there thing.

It seems like they do 50 songs per tour and the snippets are where you might get a nuggest or treasure of a new or unplayed song or cover.
 
Axver said:


I completely disagree. In a sense, I kind of got that twice in Boston when I was so close to the stage (front row once) that I couldn't see almost all of the lighting to appreciate it - the whole of my attention was on the music and the atmosphere in the building, and it was sensational.
Well of course none of that matters when you're right up next to the band. I don't think anyone pays attention to any lights or stage design when they're that close! :)

But that's not the point. The problem is for the other 75% of the people in the arena/stadium who aren't close to the band. They're the ones that the stage design and lighting is for. Without that, you're going to have a lot of people getting sick of watching four tiny dots. Might as well just save the money for the ticket and buy the DVD instead, since you're certainly not going to see anything while you're there.

Note that I haven't actually been to a concert when I'm that far away, so I don't actually know what it's like.

And clerks, I totally agree about Streets. What I miss, however, are the big, brilliant lights that just flood the crowd during the intro. I love the lights during the bridge, but I miss them at the beginning. There's just something about looking around and seeing thousands of people all going crazy at the same time. :)
 
Last edited:
Axver said:
Now, on the original topic, I would absolutely adore some kind of 'back-to-basics' tour - I've been saying for a good while that all I want is U2 on a stage playing songs. While the lighting and visuals may be neat, I don't think they're necessary - and in some cases, not even desirable. Legitimately or not, U2 seem to think visuals can be an excuse for static setlists.

If we didn't sit around every show-night waiting for pictures, setlists etc...would we still feel the same way of visuals being unnecessary?
I know that after Brussels I pretty much knew exactly what the visuals would be like, so as I had seen it before...it gave me a chance to take my attention off the visuals and focus on the band ( mainly The Edge :drool: )
But for those who didn't see the pictures etc, I think the visuals would have greatly enhanced the experience for them.
 
I just think a lot of people of this forum has a screwed up view of reality and expectation.

I'm not saying thier bad... just not in touch
 
clerks said:
Do you ever get tired of masterbating?

Never.

Isn't that the same as playing the same song all the time. If it was your song, and you were a rockstar, you would stroke it (I mean play it) all the time too.

best. analogy. ever.
 
Joshua_Tree_Hugger said:
To be honest, many would consider Elevation a "back to basics" tour... certainly compared to Zoo TV and Popmart. Vertigo also isn't as extravagant as those two shows (although the stage setup for the European leg was much better than the U.S. one, IMO).

Anyways, to be honest I wouldn't like to see them strip down more than Elevation. I mean the light show when I saw them on the European leg was unbelievable! Yes the music constituted most of my enjoyment of the shows, but the screens/lighting DEFINATELY accounted for at least 20% of the enjoyment.

So, in conclusion, a simple stage and "three chords and the truth" would be really boring, so let's hope it doesn't happen.

I've made the point in other threads that I don't really understand the whole obsession with stage set ups. Sure you need the video screen so people can see the band but what does a lot of twinkly light bulbs have to do with the music? Are young people so fixated on the visual that the aural completely passes them by?

As for the other point that U2 can't mix up their sets cos fo the programmed sequencers et al, if REM can have extra musicians on stage, Bruce has about 12 people there, why are U2 so precious about not hiring some session musos to play the extra parts? :shrug:
 
Axver said:
Now, on the original topic, I would absolutely adore some kind of 'back-to-basics' tour - I've been saying for a good while that all I want is U2 on a stage playing songs. While the lighting and visuals may be neat, I don't think they're necessary - and in some cases, not even desirable. Legitimately or not, U2 seem to think visuals can be an excuse for static setlists.

I love U2 because of the music, not because of what visuals they portray at live concerts! So a tour that focuses entirely on what the band play and how they play it would be absolutely spectacular in my opinion.

I take some issues with what you wrote.

These last two tours have limited visuals. Yes, this tour we have the beautiful strings of lights, but they are used sporadically. There are quite a few times throughout the concert where it's just the band on stage - perhaps a bit of stage lighting, but that's it. So this is hardly some visual overload like ZOO TV or PopMart. The same was true on the last tour.

You might then counter that if so, why are the setlists so static. I contend that U2 do mix up the setlists by tossing in new songs here and there. Perhaps that's not enough for you, but it's not like they have the exact setlist every night.

Still, you are correct in that barring a few songs, the basic setlist remains the same. But this is not related to visuals. Rather, this is related to U2. I have boots from the 80's and even then, the setlists were very static. People rant and rave about the Love Town tour, but even that tour was static - just the order of the songs were changed. In other words, it was the same songs, but they just mixed up the order. So is that really "mixing things up"?

U2 play the basic setlist every night because of their perfectionist streak - and because these are the songs they know well. As Bono said recently when they introduced "Fast Cars" to the setlist, this was a new song and they hoped they got it right because they couldn't practice as much as they hoped (and I think he even said that Larry doesn't even go to the practice sessions ;) ). But there's a lot of truth there - there's only so much time to practice new songs and incorporate them into setlists. As it stands, people are already bitching about Bono forgetting words (which is really rare - people make it sound like he forgets every night!) or Edge messing up (wrong notes on the piano or guitar) or Adam/Larry being off. One reason U2 stands out so much as a great live band is how good they are on stage. A miscue or two is fine - but if they really started screwing up just so that they could add more songs to the setlist to appease a very small segment of their fans (i.e., the diehards here on this board), then that reputation would be lost. And the concerts would be difficult and tense, instead of relaxed and flowing - even with the token miscues.

So while everyone dreams of some small stage setting where U2 basically does a "by request" performance, given their vast catalog of hits and outstanding album tracks, it just won't happen. These last two tours are about as "back to basic" as one will get, and U2 have mixed up the setlist far more than they did on ZOO TV or PopMart.
 
Back
Top Bottom