Ugly Name Side, Pitcairn Island Superthread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And I see Bono's appearing at an inaugural celebration event for Obama on Sunday entitled We Are One. No prizes for guessing what he sings.
 
I just realised my randomly saying he was going to sing "An Cat Dubh" has a double meaning and is kinda funny.

:nerd:
 
I know I'm way obsessive about Phish, but I love how they did a three night stand at a venue, played three hour shows and repeated ONE song through the entire run.

Dynamic setlists, FTW. :up: A lesson U2 could stand learning.
 
I know they're a stadium band, but come on, they can afford to do at least some songs different and take some things out of the rotation. Their repetoire should be something like 100 songs instead of the 35 it has been in recent years.

QfT.
 
I know they're a stadium band, but come on, they can afford to do at least some songs different and take some things out of the rotation. Their repetoire should be something like 100 songs instead of the 35 it has been in recent years.

Honestly, I'd settle for just 50 songs. Now, I know recent tours have had fifty songs over the course of the whole tour, but some of those have been one-offs or songs done only a few nights before being ditched. I mean fifty songs that could potentially be played on any given night from the first show to the last show. That would mean that on two consecutive nights, U2 could potentially play two totally different sets, assuming they stick with their usual two hour/22-24 song concert length. THEN add your one-offs, your songs that get dropped or picked up on the way, and you're hitting 75+ songs in the course of a tour.
 
Random thought: Is it morbid/inappropriate to hope that when U2 ends, McGuinne$$ slits his wrists?

Probably so.
 
Honestly, I'd settle for just 50 songs. Now, I know recent tours have had fifty songs over the course of the whole tour, but some of those have been one-offs or songs done only a few nights before being ditched. I mean fifty songs that could potentially be played on any given night from the first show to the last show. That would mean that on two consecutive nights, U2 could potentially play two totally different sets, assuming they stick with their usual two hour/22-24 song concert length. THEN add your one-offs, your songs that get dropped or picked up on the way, and you're hitting 75+ songs in the course of a tour.

Setlist math, just one more service provided by the Superthread.
 
Good lord, it's 34 degrees outside. Aaaand now the sun is coming around to finally hit my place. It's been nice and cool in here thus far ...
 
Honestly, I'd settle for just 50 songs. Now, I know recent tours have had fifty songs over the course of the whole tour, but some of those have been one-offs or songs done only a few nights before being ditched. I mean fifty songs that could potentially be played on any given night from the first show to the last show. That would mean that on two consecutive nights, U2 could potentially play two totally different sets, assuming they stick with their usual two hour/22-24 song concert length. THEN add your one-offs, your songs that get dropped or picked up on the way, and you're hitting 75+ songs in the course of a tour.

Two hours is a disgrace, though. If I went to a concert and the band played for two hours I'd be fucking pissed.

(admittedly, The Cure, Waters AND Dream Theater all played for 3+ hours, so I'm spoilt there)

At this caliber, though, is a three hour, 35 song set too much to ask? Come on, arseholes.
 
Two hours is a disgrace, though. If I went to a concert and the band played for two hours I'd be fucking pissed.

(admittedly, The Cure, Waters AND Dream Theater all played for 3+ hours, so I'm spoilt there)

At this caliber, though, is a three hour, 35 song set too much to ask? Come on, arseholes.

They're old farts.

Not much of an excuse when The Stones, even older farts, put on about a 2.5-3 hour gig. And Mick Jagger doesn't fucking hold still.
 
Good lord, it's 34 degrees outside. Aaaand now the sun is coming around to finally hit my place. It's been nice and cool in here thus far ...

It only got up to 3 degrees here today. :angry: Trade?
 
Two hours is a disgrace, though. If I went to a concert and the band played for two hours I'd be fucking pissed.

(admittedly, The Cure, Waters AND Dream Theater all played for 3+ hours, so I'm spoilt there)

At this caliber, though, is a three hour, 35 song set too much to ask? Come on, arseholes.

Eh, when I've seen Explosions In The Sky and Laura, they've played for only about 80 minutes. But then they're much smaller post-rock bands playing venues with more bands on the bill squeezed into a smaller space of time. And as far as EITS went, they poured so much into their setlist that I don't know how they were meant to play any more - or, for that matter, play another show for a week. Most intense gig I've ever seen.

But yeah, I agree that at this stage of U2's career, they should be playing three hour concerts. They should've been playing gigs that long since about Popmart. So if we're working on the basis of 35 songs, then I'd expect a pool of 70+ songs available from first to last night, boosted to 100 different songs performed over the whole tour by one-offs, rarities, and what-have-you.
 
Eh, when I've seen Explosions In The Sky and Laura, they've played for only about 80 minutes. But then they're much smaller post-rock bands playing venues with more bands on the bill squeezed into a smaller space of time. And as far as EITS went, they poured so much into their setlist that I don't know how they were meant to play any more - or, for that matter, play another show for a week. Most intense gig I've ever seen.

But yeah, I agree that at this stage of U2's career, they should be playing three hour concerts. They should've been playing gigs that long since about Popmart. So if we're working on the basis of 35 songs, then I'd expect a pool of 70+ songs available from first to last night, boosted to 100 different songs performed over the whole tour by one-offs, rarities, and what-have-you.

They're also a different sort of band.

U2 as a band are just disgraceful, period.
 
I can't believe this. U2's new single goes to radio on Monday the 19th, and yet there has been NO official word from U2.com. No song title, no release date, nothing. The only reason we know the title and date are thanks to other sources.

If you aren't the kind of fan who keeps tabs on forums like Interference, you wouldn't know anything is happening.

Disgraceful.
 
Suddenly this deal sounds terrible.

:lol: Didn't think it'd work after I threw in that stipulation.

That and I'm afraid to fly to Oz. :reject: The Joker will get me. :shh:

:nerd: That was a very vivid dream I had last night...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom