Can U2 do what REM just did for their gigs?

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

dougal55

War Child
Joined
Mar 20, 2001
Messages
528
Location
London, UK
Hi!

I read somewhere that REM had apparently rehearsed no less than 75 songs for their current tour. That way, they were able to play some pretty old but rarely played songs during the shows....

I thought thats pretty amazing as I reckoned it would be quite hard to remember all those songs ie what guitar to use, what chords to play etc etc.....

So the question is.....Can U2 do this kind of thing for their next tour possibly in 2004? Rehearse as many songs as possible and play as many songs as possible during the tour? Or will they be restricted by the kind of shows like those on the Elevation tour where they, more or less, played the same songs again and again?

I personally feel that it would be fantastic if they could follow REM's example but then again, after seeing U2 live 15 times now, I dont mind what songs they play as long as they make fans like us all go home feeling satisfied. So who know what U2 has up their sleeve on the next tour? They might surprise us! They always do anyway! :D

dougal
 
I just wanted to say that for all the complaining about the setlists on the last tour I thought it was great they played so many older songs and rarities.
(11 O clock tick tock, Out of control, Party girl, In God's country, People get ready, All along the watchtower, Spanish eyes, A Sort of homecoming, Slow dancing, Sweetest thing...)
 
dougal55 said:
Hi!

I read somewhere that REM had apparently rehearsed no less than 75 songs for their current tour. That way, they were able to play some pretty old but rarely played songs during the shows....

I thought thats pretty amazing as I reckoned it would be quite hard to remember all those songs ie what guitar to use, what chords to play etc etc.....

So the question is.....Can U2 do this kind of thing for their next tour possibly in 2004? Rehearse as many songs as possible and play as many songs as possible during the tour? Or will they be restricted by the kind of shows like those on the Elevation tour where they, more or less, played the same songs again and again?

I personally feel that it would be fantastic if they could follow REM's example but then again, after seeing U2 live 15 times now, I dont mind what songs they play as long as they make fans like us all go home feeling satisfied. So who know what U2 has up their sleeve on the next tour? They might surprise us! They always do anyway! :D

dougal


LOL. I know for a fact that before REM starts rehearsing for a tour, they go out and buy all the songbooks they possibly can to remember the songs.
 
I saw REM a bit over a week ago and it was great

just about all the people there were big fans and knew just about every song they've ever released

U2 play for far bigger crowds than REM (which means a lot more casual fans)
+ U2 have got a few more greatest hits than REM which people do want to hear (REM do play "Everybody Hurts", "Man on the Moon", "Losing my Religion" + "It's the end of the world as we know it" every single night)


to answer your question, I think that - yes - U2 could do it
if they wouldn't mind playing a tour for a lot less people
and I don't think that's what they want
U2 has always been about reaching as many people as possible


I don't really see a comparison between U2 and REM at this point of their careers anyway though
 
U2girl said:
I just wanted to say that for all the complaining about the setlists on the last tour I thought it was great they played so many older songs and rarities.
(11 O clock tick tock, Out of control, Party girl, In God's country, People get ready, All along the watchtower, Spanish eyes, A Sort of homecoming, Slow dancing, Sweetest thing...)

Just out of curiosity, when did the band play All along the watchtower during Elevation??? I would love to hear it.

Cheers.
 
I'd love to see some variety on the next tour. I don't think it would cost them their audience. If the casual fans are that fickle, or are there only to hear the hits, screw 'em! I'd really like to see the sets loosened up a bit. The Boston concerts that were mixed up didn't drive away the fans.
 
Couple of things here...

This is a greatest hits tour for REM so they're expected to play songs throuhout their career.

I've seen tours like this and I've seen Pearl Jam tours where they get close to playing every song in there catalog at least once throughout the tour. Two things happen, it's almost a given that they'll screw up a song that's not a staple, somewhere along the tour. Pearl Jam just perform Satan's Bed for the first time in a long while on this tour and Eddie forgot almost every lyric. Then you'll always have someone who feels cheated because last night's performance had a better set list than what they were given.

The last thing I would add is that, it's a little harder to mix up the set list too much when you have tours like Elevation, Pop Mart, and Zoo TV when there is so much technology and extras put in the set.

Either way you're always going to have some bitch. If I go and I was entertained and moved, I got my money's worth.

Just my $.02
 
Great posts Bonovoxsupastar and Salome, I think you both hit it right on the money.

Lets not forget that U2 played well over 50 songs on Elevation. They just had a core setlist for most shows which makes it seem much more static. Also at the beginning of the tour they were just getting the feel for the show, as a result, the setlists were almost identical during that time frame.

U2 is not a jam bad, never have been, never will be. They are perfectionists and they actually hate making mistakes. They get a particular flow that works live and they like to stick to it. Its what works for them and the last time I checked, they are one of the greatest live acts of all time. If it isnt broke, dont fix it.

As a diehard fan I would love it if they pulled out some B sides and played a bunch of different songs each night. But U2 are not this type of band, I refer back to Salome's and Bonovoxsupastar's posts as to why.
 
Actually, I just recently saw Pearl Jam in Buffalo NY...and while I guess you can consider me more of a casual fan of them, I still thought their show with amazing with their dynamic setlist...Because, they *always* include at *at least* 6 songs that are very popular...a few semi popular...a few from the new album...and a few obscure...But they fill these slots with a different variety every night making different combinations...and like you said, they might screw up a song every once in a while, but I think that makes the show all the more memorable! I would love bono to start singing Two Shots of Happy, one shot of sad and mess it up ( oh wait, he did .. =) )

...But definately do agree with you BVS on the part where you can feel cheated if the band doesn't play your favorite set of songs and the played them all the night before...so I dunno..

Anyway U2 decides to do it when the tour next...I'll be happy
 
I do not htink the band has the capacity to rehearse that many songs, but from what we saw on elevation (Out of Control etc.) I am sure they will pull some stuff from the vault for the next tour.

I think if they play the same stuff from the elevation tour they will be panned by the critics - so they would not do such a thing.
 
Also, Michael often reads words from sheet music or even promptor during concerts to get all the words right.

I LOVE REM. They are probably my second fave band ever, but live they are underwhelming.
 
U2 did in fact play over 50 songs over the course of Elevation. However, at least 20 of them were played under 10 times. I don't understand why 11:00 tick tock was only played like 5 times or something, or why "Spanish eyes" was only played once. I mean, they took the time to rehearse it and get it down, why not treat the hardcore fans to it every now and then. "A sort of homecoming" only had one real performance, as did "Running to stand still". They could easily throw those songs in and still get a good reaction. I just think they play it too safe with their setlists.
 
For whatever reason I don't really care that much about setlists. Elevation was the best show I've ever seen them do. I do prefer arenas over stadiums and it looks like they may be going back to stadiums for the next tour. That *will* make it easier to get tickets. I hate TicketBastard. :scream:
 
The_acrobat said:
U2 did in fact play over 50 songs over the course of Elevation. However, at least 20 of them were played under 10 times. I don't understand why 11:00 tick tock was only played like 5 times or something, or why "Spanish eyes" was only played once. I mean, they took the time to rehearse it and get it down, why not treat the hardcore fans to it every now and then. "A sort of homecoming" only had one real performance, as did "Running to stand still". They could easily throw those songs in and still get a good reaction. I just think they play it too safe with their setlists.

Here is the quick and simple explanation. Because they didnt want to play them more. Most of the songs you listed (except 11 O'clock) were very ragged impromptu versions. A Sort Of Homecoming was done purposely only at Slane 1 and that is just because of the significance of the location and the song, so I understand why they pulled the full band "rehearsed" version out for only that show, something had to be special and unique for that show only. It was still VERY rough. The other A Sort Of Homecoming was done at Oakland 11-16-01 and only because the audience member pulled out of the crowd started playing it, it was a very ragged acoustic version and it was NOT on the setlist that night. Spanish Eyes was done, well, because they were in Spain, a tradition they have continued on every tour since the song was written. It is another unique song they do for Spain only every tour. Much like One Tree Hill is always played (in some form) when they play New Zealand. Running to Stand Still was completely impromptu, it was not on the setlist either. None of the impromptu songs were rehearsed at all.

The full band version of the songs you listed were barely rehearsed and the live performances of them show if you listen to the recordings. They were done for special occasions or locations only. Nothing wrong with that. I dont have the official count on 11 O'Clock, but I believe itwas done more than 5 times.

Popmofo, All Along the Watchtower was played at the Denver 3rd leg show and it was pretty much a full band impromptu version. Very ragged, I dont believe it was planned as it was not on the setlist that night.

U2 will pull out a few songs that havent been played for awhile on the next tour I'am sure. But I'am sure we will get the same setlist complaint threads demanding they do jam sessions like Phish and change the setlist every evening like Pearl Jam and act shocked and say the shows suck as a result even though they have never done anything remotely similiar to this in the past. But you can never make everyone happy. U2 plays for the masses, because there is such a large mass of people who want to see them.
 
But it would be okay if they rehearsed a few rarely played songs and tossed them in now and again. Your assessment kind of shows that they're a little too stagnant, even with the "surprises." They play Spanish Eyes for Spain, One Tree Hill for NZ, etc. I'm not bitching about setlists, and I'm not asking for 20 minute jams (lord knows :rolleyes: ), but I do think that a nugget thrown out now and again won't alienate the casual fan, won't ruin the carefully planned setlist, and if rehearsed, won't sound like hell.

It wouldn't hurt anyone to give it a try. Start rehearsing them during tour rehearsals, and then have some fun with them.
 
The most funny (or should I write annoying?) thing on a board is when people judge a show by looking at the (just posted) setlist on their computerscreen at home. Take a look at Bruce Springsteen boards, or Pearl Jam boards. And when U2 tours you can take a look at Intereference or U2Tours. It?s the same everywhere.

Point is: static or dynamic setlist; there will always be complaining from people at every fanboard, wether it?s Pearl Jam or U2 or R.E.M or Bruce Springsteen.

U2 should only do one thing: try to deliver the best they can every single night. That?s the only thing I wish for all U2 fans who?ll visit a U2 gig in the future.
 
Soulrock2 said:
The most funny (or should I write annoying?) thing on a board is when people judge a show by looking at the (just posted) setlist on their computerscreen at home. Take a look at Bruce Springsteen boards, or Pearl Jam boards. And when U2 tours you can take a look at Intereference or U2Tours. It?s the same everywhere.

Point is: static or dynamic setlist; there will always be complaining from people at every fanboard, wether it?s Pearl Jam or U2 or R.E.M or Bruce Springsteen.

U2 should only do one thing: try to deliver the best they can every single night. That?s the only thing I wish for all U2 fans who?ll visit a U2 gig in the future.

Exactly, U2 are in a damned if they do and damned if they dont situation with this. One thing to remember, the diehards (which would be us) are a small percentage of the crowd going to see U2. A majority are there to hear the songs they know. Not Spanish Eyes. While I would love U2 to mix it up, I understand why they dont that much and I can tell you it isnt going to change much. I actually thought they did a decent job of mixing it up somewhat for Elevation. But then some of you are complaining about that. The performance is the most important thing anyway. I saw alot of Popmart shows and those setlists were even more static. But I saw some of the best U2 perfomances ever on that tour and I have seen U2 alot. Its not about tallies and they didnt play X song. Its that feeling you get seeing U2 live and that chemistry that exists when they play live.
 
I wasn't complaining.

But I do think that fans can have a legitimate discussion about what their favorite band plays in concert. And we can have that discussion without being labled as complainers. No one here has complained, we've only talked about what we'd like to see happen and what other bands are doing. There's no disloyalty in that.

I'm loyal to my dog, but I do like to vary her walks so the both of us can expand our outlooks a bit.

That's all I'm saying. If you don't like the discussion, don't join in.
 
Last edited:
LOL, Hmm, didnt know I said any names??? I was talking in general because tour time, the complainers come out. I thought the discussion was whether U2 would do like REM and rehearse and play 75 songs? Is that not what I was discussing and indicating why I thought they would not?
 
hmm, interesting replies so far!

I quite agree with SoulRock that all U2 fans wants from them is the best they can do every time on stage. That much I agree and Im not complaining about the setlists as such

All Im just saying is that it would be nice if U2 could change the way they play their setlists, thats all. Perhaps play a lot rarely played oldies and mostly newer stuff rather than a lot of newer stuff and few rare songs...well, something like that. You know, its not getting any easier for U2 to choose a setlist as the years go by! There's just so many songs now.... but thats a plus side I suppose as they would choose a song that is appropriate for the occasion like A sort of Homecoming at Slane 1 as an example.

The negative side is that, as some people have pointed out here, U2 can never satisfy everybody with what they play on stage, but they just somehow do make everyone happy with the best they do that night. Thats the whole point of a U2 performance, they just go out there and play, and not adhere to every fan's wishes of a setlist. And I will always believe U2 will do the best they can on stage and they, after 15 shows that I have seen so far, have never let me down.

dougal
 
martha said:
I wasn't complaining.

But I do think that fans can have a legitimate discussion about what their favorite band plays in concert. And we can have that discussion without being labled as complainers. No one here has complained, we've only talked about what we'd like to see happen and what other bands are doing. There's no disloyalty in that.

I'm loyal to my dog, but I do like to vary her walks so the both of us can expand our outlooks a bit.

That's all I'm saying. If you don't like the discussion, don't join in.

I do like this discussion about U2 playing some other old songs or mixing setlists more during their next tour, but I just don't agree with the comparison people always try to make with other bands. That's why I made a point about boards and complainers.

BTW, to add something to the setlists-discussion: imo U2 should try to play Running To Stand Still the next tour again. It was rarely played the last 2 tours but it's a very beautiful and popular song. That would be a great crowdpleaser! (It was not a hitsingle but who doesn't have a copy of the Joshua Tree album???)
 
Last edited:
R.E.M seriously need to call it a day, since Up

they havent got a drummer and their new songs are nowhere as inspiring or have the same depth and layers the old R.E.M used to have
 
I agree.

I am with Martha on this.

If I were in a band, I would want to mix it up a bit. The most impromptu thing I have seen U2 do live in my 8 times seeing them over 17 years was when Bono decided to switch the set at MSG during Elevationa dn played Out of COntrol and 11 O'colock back to back. Now this was not so shocking as they had been playing one of those songs at each concert, but it at least showed a little spontineity.

I think ideally they should rehearse at least 10 songs they have not played in years, and rotate them through the tour.

I have to say that as much as I love their music, when Streets starts and the screen goes red, I pretty much yawn. When you do something over and over again, and over again it loses its meaning. I think the Elevation tour should have killed some songs from the setlist (Streets, for example) as they have been played to death.

Similar to It's the End of the World as We Know It which Michael Stipe reads off of a music stand...
 
ouizy said:
I agree.

I am with Martha on this.

If I were in a band, I would want to mix it up a bit. The most impromptu thing I have seen U2 do live in my 8 times seeing them over 17 years was when Bono decided to switch the set at MSG during Elevationa dn played Out of COntrol and 11 O'colock back to back. Now this was not so shocking as they had been playing one of those songs at each concert, but it at least showed a little spontineity.

I think ideally they should rehearse at least 10 songs they have not played in years, and rotate them through the tour.

I have to say that as much as I love their music, when Streets starts and the screen goes red, I pretty much yawn. When you do something over and over again, and over again it loses its meaning. I think the Elevation tour should have killed some songs from the setlist (Streets, for example) as they have been played to death.

Similar to It's the End of the World as We Know It which Michael Stipe reads off of a music stand...

I think you are definately in the minority on Streets. U2 has already indicated that they plan to play it as long as they are playing live. You actually yawn during Streets??? Hmm, interesting, never seen U2 fans yawning at a concert especially at that point. At least we will know how to pick you out in the crowd in 2004 LOL ;) Streets ALWAYS gets one of the biggest crowd reactions at each show. It is here to stay. I would agree though that a few songs could take a break on the next tour and it wouldnt bother me (IE Until The End Of The World, Bullet, Pride). Then again, some fans would be unhappy if those were dropped. So that leaves us back at square one.

Regarding MSG, Out Of Control and 11 O clock were far from played every single night at the time you saw them. So I dont think your statement is completely accurate. They were playing the songs every once and awhile at that stage though. But neither were ever a staple in the setlist on the 1st and 2nd leg. Out Of Control was done more extensively though on the 3rd leg.

Look, its simple, if you want them to mix it up and are going to be upset or let down that they dont then dont go. If the concert is boring for you, let a fan that is going to have fun and enjoy whatever they play have the ticket.

Oh, and I'am not directing this at any individual!! LOL. Except maybe you Ouizy with the (being bored) part :) I want to try to make sure I meet the intricate qualifications of posting on this board and that there is never a deviation even slightly from the posted topic!! GASP that would be awful.
 
Last edited:
ouizy said:
I If I were in a band, I would want to mix it up a bit.
perhaps if Bono, Edge, Larry and Adam were in a band they wouldn't feel like mixing it up
 
Why would U2 waste their time rehearsing 70 songs when a set is only 20 songs? Their most succesful tours had static setlists, Zoo TV and Popmart. No point in mixing it up, because U2 does a "show", not a jam of songs picked at random. U2 puts thought and cohesion to their setlists. It's like watching a broadway musical, you already know the order of the songs but at the end of the day you are still giving a standing ovation to the performers. And the broadway musical would be screwed up if songs were added, subtracted and shuffled.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP
 
martha said:
I'd love to see some variety on the next tour. I don't think it would cost them their audience. If the casual fans are that fickle, or are there only to hear the hits, screw 'em! I'd really like to see the sets loosened up a bit. The Boston concerts that were mixed up didn't drive away the fans.

yes, same with the four chicago shows. it was cool, one night they actually did a zootv type setlist.

elevation, the fly, even better than the real thing, mysterious ways, one-unchained melody and until the end of the world to kick things off.

good stuff. :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom