Best Song Survivor: ATYCLB, Round Three

[PhilsFan]

I wonder who keeps making hits of these songs like One and Elevation that U2 fans everywhere supposedly hate? And why does U2 insist on playing these songs that all those people in the crowd are sick of? Obviously they're way out of touch with their base and don't realize that 100,000 screaming people would rather be hearing Mofo and Mercy.

Though, you know despite all the enthusiastic jumping that surely can't be easy on a beer-filled bladder, I can't remember seeing many people head for the bathrooms during Elevation.

I'm beginning to think that "Interference World" is a better term than The Hive.

I think you're going too far to the other extreme with this argument.

Even amongst this "Interference World," almost everyone here likes One. Almost everyone here likes a lot of U2's hit singles: New Year's Day, Where the Streets Have No Name, songs like that. There is certainly a reactionary feeling towards the fact that they haven't changed the setlists as much as they could have, but at the end of the day, people here and everywhere like those songs.

At the same time, just because Elevation is well played and recognized by most concertgoers does not automatically mean that disliking the song makes you a snobbish diehard hipster fan, nor does it mean that you are part of message board groupthink where everyone has talked themselves into it being shitty because they're sad that the band never put Mercy on an album.

Elevation is three power chords, Bono singing about moles because "excavation" was the only thing he could think of that rhymed with "elevation," and its hook is everyone shouting "woo hoo!" together. You can't imagine a scenario where someone just doesn't like the song on its own merits?

 

[Nick66]

You can't imagine a scenario where someone just doesn't like the song on its own merits?

Of course. I can't remember, but I believe I was responding to comments along the lines of people getting "sick" of hearing Elevation (and One) in concert, and wishing they'd play something else. I really don't have any problem with whether people like the song or not. I'm tired of hearing several of U2's songs in concert, including a few that I love, but I understand why they play those and maybe not some I'd choose.

And I don't think they rotate set lists to appease casual fans. You can rotate the set list and still check the boxes on certain songs. I don't think it matters to casual fans much which order they play the songs, or which lesser known track they substitute one night for another (what difference does it make whether it's YBR or Scarlet they hear from the toilet)....as long as they get to hear most of the songs they came to hear.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Personally, Im more of a vole fan...

 

[trevgreg]

They abandoned many of those new songs in the latter part of the tour when it became a greatest hits show. That should tell you all you need to know about who they are playing for.

The "new" songs were over two years old by the summer dates in 2011, and I'm pretty sure people would've been complaining about them still opening with Breathe if that had been the case then (and therefore, "not changing it up").

Of course. I can't remember, but I believe I was responding to comments along the lines of people getting "sick" of hearing Elevation (and One) in concert, and wishing they'd play something else. I really don't have any problem with whether people like the song or not. I'm tired of hearing several of U2's songs in concert, including a few that I love, but I understand why they play those and maybe not some I'd choose.

And I don't think they rotate set lists to appease casual fans. You can rotate the set list and still check the boxes on certain songs. I don't think it matters to casual fans much which order they play the songs, or which lesser known track they substitute one night for another (what difference does it make whether it's YBR or Scarlet they hear from the toilet)....as long as they get to hear most of the songs they came to hear.

And that's just it. 90% of the people at shows want to hear Streets, One, or fill-in-the-blank. And if I'm not someone who follows the band religiously and goes to only one show on the tour, then I'd probably want to hear those songs too. That happens to me every time I see an act live who I'm a fan of, but might not own every album or know every song for. I'll enjoy the lesser-known songs or new ones too, though I won't be able to sing along for them and might just nod my head a bit. But if I like it enough and am willing to go through the effort, I'll look up a set list or memorize a lyric and find the song later on. Not everyone does that, but I'm sure a lot do, and might even become bigger fans as a result.

I'm sure people do that at U2 shows too, but I can understand the perspective of being a casual fan and wanting to see songs at the only show we go to. I'd think that most of us are in similar positions with bands we like, but not as much as this one obviously. And I'd bet it's pretty easy to lose that perspective when we look at set lists constantly or know the catalog as deeply as we do... not that there's anything wrong with that, but yeah.

 

[PennyLanePHINS]

Hey at least they played "Zooropa", "Moment Of Surrender" & "Your Blue Room"

 

[trevgreg]

Hey at least they played "Zooropa", "Moment Of Surrender" & "Your Blue Room"

Exactly. And pulling out other songs like Ultra Violet, HMTMKMKM, The Unforgettable Fire, and some new songs in 2010 along with Mercy isn't exactly playing it safe all the time either.

 

[PennyLanePHINS]

360 had a good balance. But I think they have enough well known songs that they could retire a popular song like Pride in exchange for another.

 

[Galeongirl]

Time to get rid of Suck in a moment now

 

[Nick66]

Time to get rid of Suck in a moment now

Piss on Earth is much worse than Wild Honey.

As for elevation.. It sucks donkey balls.

Charming. And so well put.

Exciting to have so many U2 "fans" in one place!

Stay classy!

 

[No spoken words]

Charming. And so well put.

Exciting to have so many U2 "fans" in one place!

Locutus in the house.

 

[LemonMelon]

Charming. And so well put.

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f287/shuttlecock-192262.html

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm starting to think Nick wouldn't be such a bad guy if he dropped the act. What he's saying isn't so outlandish.
But I get it; he feels like it's him against the "Interference World". He probably feels like a diamond in the rough. A prince among the unwashed masses. A single marshmallow in a cruel box of Count Chocula.
But you still signed up for a U2 message board and all the shitting on people for high post counts isn't going to change this one important fact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0

Might as well try to make some friends

 

[No spoken words]

I agree with Nick a lot more than I disagree with him, that's become clear the past week or so.

 

[Nick66]

Exactly. And pulling out other songs like Ultra Violet, HMTMKMKM, The Unforgettable Fire, and some new songs in 2010 along with Mercy isn't exactly playing it safe all the time either.

True. And I'm glad they pulled out all those songs (well maybe not Mercy). But let's face it, inserting a few lesser known songs in a set list full of hits isn't exactly being "courageous" either. Not that I expect much more than that, considering everything U2 has to accomplish in an evening's entertainment. I was personally disappointed that they dropped so many NLOTH songs in the later part of the tour, but there it is. They did that for a reason and I understood it, even if I disagreed with it. All of the 360 shows I saw were early on, so I was fine.

I kind of agree with Dig when he said U2 usually has a good balance. For me, sure I'd love it if they played some lesser known stuff. But even then, I'm sure the lesser known stuff I'd like to hear (TUF and JT b-sides, for example) are different than the lesser known stuff many others would want to hear. So U2 is in a tough spot...they have a deep catalogue to be sure, but have a big responsibility to play a certain "cannon" of songs and provide a massively entertaining show that people paid money (in some cases, a lot of money) to see. So I just have to accept that they're going to play One, again, no matter what and I'm probably not going to ever hear ASOH or Luminous Time or Love Comes Tumbling. During the Rate the Songs series, many here called those songs and others from the era "boring filler" and "drivel", and I'm sure they wouldn't be happy if U2 played those songs. Or an ambient selection from Passengers. But then again I probably wouldn't be happy if they played a lot from Pop. And they'd lose the casuals either way. So U2 has a tough order.

Again, there's a distinction between what I want as a fan, and U2's responsibilities to all the people attending a concert. They are professionals, after all. They don't show up drunk, or late, or play sloppy shows (for the most part), and don't indulge themselves in playing whatever they feel like (and God knows if we are sick of some of those songs they relative handful of times we've heard them, imagine how they feel). I'm sure everyone here would love it if they did the latter, but that's not who they are.

 

[LemonMelon]

I agree with Nick a lot more than I disagree with him, that's become clear the past week or so.

He saved a guy's life; he can't be all bad.

 

[digitize]

True. And I'm glad they pulled out all those songs (well maybe not Mercy). But let's face it, inserting a few lesser known songs in a set list full of hits isn't exactly being "courageous" either. Not that I expect much more than that, considering everything U2 has to accomplish in an evening's entertainment. I was personally disappointed that they dropped so many NLOTH songs in the later part of the tour, but there it is. They did that for a reason and I understood it, even if I disagreed with it. All of the 360 shows I saw were early on, so I was fine.

I kind of agree with Dig when he said U2 usually has a good balance. For me, sure I'd love it if they played some lesser known stuff. But even then, I'm sure the lesser known stuff I'd like to hear (TUF and JT b-sides, for example) are different than the lesser known stuff many others would want to hear. So U2 is in a tough spot...they have a deep catalogue to be sure, but have a big responsibility to play a certain "cannon" of songs and provide a massively entertaining show that people paid money (in some cases, a lot of money) to see. So I just have to accept that they're going to play One, again, no matter what and I'm probably not going to ever hear ASOH or Luminous Time or Love Comes Tumbling. During the Rate the Songs series, many here called those songs and others from the era "boring filler" and "drivel", and I'm sure they wouldn't be happy if U2 played those songs. Or an ambient selection from Passengers. But then again I probably wouldn't be happy if they played a lot from Pop. And they'd lose the casuals either way. So U2 has a tough order.

Again, there's a distinction between what I want as a fan, and U2's responsibilities to all the people attending a concert. They are professionals, after all. They don't show up drunk, or late, or play sloppy shows (for the most part), and don't indulge themselves in playing whatever they feel like (and God knows if we are sick of some of those songs they relative handful of times we've heard them, imagine how they feel). I'm sure everyone here would love it if they did the latter, but that's not who they are.

I like this post.

 

[Axver]

I'd just like to say that I didn't argue "why care about the casuals at all?" making the set, but why the biggest emphasis would be put on them rather than the band's core of serious fans. You can cater to both of them, and since the band's core love most of the hits anyway, it's not that hard to cater to them - a bit of rotation here, a few obscurities there - without the casual even really noticing. Out of 24 songs, a casual's not going to care if Wire and 11OTT are mid-set and Exit is in the encore, or if WOWY is done on night one and ISHFWILF on night two. Nobody's arguing that U2 should go out before a stadium audience and do a set of just b-sides (though if they want to come to Melbourne and do that in a little venue, I'll be the guy having a heart attack of joy in the front row). Hell, this band has so many hits and famous songs you can make two completely different sets full of them that would sate the casuals. Don't make me actually write out examples.

I'm sure that if they wanted to rotate their setlists, they would have by now.
As they don't seem to be willing to do that, I guess they don't want to.

Except on multiple occasions they've made noises about wanting to rotate - then just not done it.

And they probably like playing what they think are their best songs instead of their more obscure ones.

Given that many of the band's favourite songs are more obscure ones (just see Bono's thoughts on Your Blue Room), I don't think you are correct here.

Like I pointed out in another thread, you can generally tell what songs the band really like by which obscurities they go to great lengths to play live. Just look at how much time and effort they've put into songs like YBR, Zooropa, The Electric Co., and all that soundchecking of Drowning Man (which it seemed didn't make the set purely because the band got too perfectionist about how and when to play it). Meanwhile, it's well-known that they haven't wanted to play certain big hits - Bono didn't want Pride on Popmart and apparently they weren't initially too wild about doing Streets on Vertigo. So you can't make an argument that "U2 play what they think are their best songs; the big hits predominate in the set, ergo U2 think their big hits are the best songs". That's not to say they don't enjoy playing those songs or love the big reaction, just that they are not always the songs U2 like the most or think are the best in their discography.

 

[trevgreg]

True. And I'm glad they pulled out all those songs (well maybe not Mercy). But let's face it, inserting a few lesser known songs in a set list full of hits isn't exactly being "courageous" either. Not that I expect much more than that, considering everything U2 has to accomplish in an evening's entertainment. I was personally disappointed that they dropped so many NLOTH songs in the later part of the tour, but there it is. They did that for a reason and I understood it, even if I disagreed with it. All of the 360 shows I saw were early on, so I was fine.

I kind of agree with Dig when he said U2 usually has a good balance. For me, sure I'd love it if they played some lesser known stuff. But even then, I'm sure the lesser known stuff I'd like to hear (TUF and JT b-sides, for example) are different than the lesser known stuff many others would want to hear. So U2 is in a tough spot...they have a deep catalogue to be sure, but have a big responsibility to play a certain "cannon" of songs and provide a massively entertaining show that people paid money (in some cases, a lot of money) to see. So I just have to accept that they're going to play One, again, no matter what and I'm probably not going to ever hear ASOH or Luminous Time or Love Comes Tumbling. During the Rate the Songs series, many here called those songs and others from the era "boring filler" and "drivel", and I'm sure they wouldn't be happy if U2 played those songs. Or an ambient selection from Passengers. But then again I probably wouldn't be happy if they played a lot from Pop. And they'd lose the casuals either way. So U2 has a tough order.

Again, there's a distinction between what I want as a fan, and U2's responsibilities to all the people attending a concert. They are professionals, after all. They don't show up drunk, or late, or play sloppy shows (for the most part), and don't indulge themselves in playing whatever they feel like (and God knows if we are sick of some of those songs they relative handful of times we've heard them, imagine how they feel). I'm sure everyone here would love it if they did the latter, but that's not who they are.

You bring up a lot of good points, especially those in the second paragraph regarding the balance factor. I also think that the band manages to find a decent balance between hits and lesser-known material, when all things are considered. I'm sure the band knows they have plenty of songs to choose from and probably wouldn't mind playing a lot of what we don't hear either. But yet again, if they go on a mid-show thing where they play, let's say, Luminous Times, Slug, and The Ocean all in a row, they're going to lose some of the show's momentum and most of the crowd. Not that it would ever happen, of course, but you get the idea. You could throw Mofo or something along those lines in there and that would certainly do a better job in keeping everyone's attention, but then we'd complain about something else being left out after a few shows of that!

It also helps to know that there are a lot of bands where they literally change 2 or 3 songs the whole tour, much less play songs that haven't even been released yet. Maybe U2 is in a better place because of their popularity and such, but I don't think they're just going through the motions either.

I'd just like to say that I didn't argue "why care about the casuals at all?" making the set, but why the biggest emphasis would be put on them rather than the band's core of serious fans. You can cater to both of them, and since the band's core love most of the hits anyway, it's not that hard to cater to them - a bit of rotation here, a few obscurities there - without the casual even really noticing. Out of 24 songs, a casual's not going to care if Wire and 11OTT are mid-set and Exit is in the encore, or if WOWY is done on night one and ISHFWILF on night two. Nobody's arguing that U2 should go out before a stadium audience and do a set of just b-sides (though if they want to come to Melbourne and do that in a little venue, I'll be the guy having a heart attack of joy in the front row). Hell, this band has so many hits and famous songs you can make two completely different sets full of them that would sate the casuals. Don't make me actually write out examples.

Except on multiple occasions they've made noises about wanting to rotate - then just not done it.

The rotation thing is something that I've experienced before with shows, but it can be a bit double-edged too. And that's even without considering the argument of a casual fan who would be pissed without hearing WOWY or Streets the one night they go! If one of the rotated songs in the set list alternates between that obscure War number and one from Pop, and I'd rather hear the Pop one, I'm going to be mad that they didn't play it at the one show I happened to attend! Obviously, you could just be happy with whatever they play or just go to more than one show and increase your chances of seeing that one song live. But it's not always easy that way. Unless you're going to more than 2 shows on a leg, you still might not see the songs you want to hear live, basically bringing you back to the point before any songs were even rotated. In that case, then sometimes a rarity becoming a mainstay in the set list for awhile might be the preferable option. Either way, you just don't know.

 

[nbelcik]

I saw my first U2 show in 2011 in Seattle and I know that I would've been disappointed if they hadn't played UTEOTW, Streets, SBS, WOWY, etc. It was great getting to see Zooropa and HMTMKMKM, but getting to see the warhorses was awesome as well. U2 plays those songs because people want to hear them. Not everyone goes to every show and most people only see one show. Imagine how disappointed those people would be if they didn't hear Streets at their only U2 concert.

 

[PhilsFan]

Of course. I can't remember, but I believe I was responding to comments along the lines of people getting "sick" of hearing Elevation (and One) in concert, and wishing they'd play something else. I really don't have any problem with whether people like the song or not. I'm tired of hearing several of U2's songs in concert, including a few that I love, but I understand why they play those and maybe not some I'd choose.

And I don't think they rotate set lists to appease casual fans. You can rotate the set list and still check the boxes on certain songs. I don't think it matters to casual fans much which order they play the songs, or which lesser known track they substitute one night for another (what difference does it make whether it's YBR or Scarlet they hear from the toilet)....as long as they get to hear most of the songs they came to hear.

I think they don't rotate the sets because that would require a lot more rehearsing.