Radiohead discuss the "madness" of static setlists

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

BoMac

Self-righteous bullshitter
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
16,897
Location
Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Hello everyone,

Let me precede this by saying I have had no problem with U2's setlists in the past. I'm just happy being at the show. Do I think they could mix it up a little? Yes, it wouldn't hurt.

Now recalling those setlist parties last year( is it June already?!) I remember some people complaining about U2's penchant for playing virtually the same set every night(save three or four different songs when playing multiple dates in a city). I think it would be interesting to see what other bands think about static setlists. So here is Radiohead's take on static setlists as seen in New York magazine:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Radiohead, currently on a nineteen-date tour of the U.S. and Canada, has played over 800 shows without repeating a set. “One of the worst things in music is when bands play the same set every night,” says Ed O’Brien, who plays guitar and sings backup vocals for the group. “We did about three and a half weeks on the road with Alanis Morissette just before we went to the studio for OK Computer—she played the same set every single night, and they’d been touring for like fifteen months. Her musicians literally went mad.”



Along with front man Thom Yorke and drummer Phil Selway, O’Brien puts together set lists after lunch on the day of each show. “For this tour, we have about fifteen new songs, and before the tour, we went through a list of about 100 old ones, then whittled it down and rehearsed 45 songs, and we draw from those.” We asked O’Brien to go through the list after last Tuesday’s show at the Theater at Madison Square Garden.



(1) You and Whose Army?
(a haunting, slow song)
We’ve been able to open with these songs ’cause we’re playing all theaters on this tour—it’s intimate, so you don’t have to come out all guns blazing. Although there were a few hecklers last night. It’s a North American phenomenon. You know, “Hey, Thom!” In Japan, it never happens. In Europe, people tell them to shut up.



(2) 2 + 2 = 5
One of the things that marks our band—that Thom and Jonny used to drive home all the time—is sounding different. You can do it through stuff like using unusual intervals on harmonies [in songs like “2 + 2 = 5”]. The trouble with a lot of rock music is that people are still doing their Beatles and their Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young harmonies. You can’t just keep making replications of those things.



(3) 15 Step/Morning Bell
Putting “15 Step” and “Morning Bell” together was deliberate. “15 Step” is in 5/4 and “Morning Bell” is in 7/8 [both rarely used rhythmic structures]. It’s nice to have a bit of clapping, a bit of audience participation, if they can get the beat. In Spain, they love “Morning Bell”—all the fast clapping is like flamenco music. But in the West, we’re not very rhythm-savvy. Anything not in 4/4 is hard for a lot of people.



(4) Fake Plastic Trees/ Climbing Up the Walls
Last night, when we played “Fake Plastic Trees,” we hadn’t played anything off OK Computer or The Bends. It had been all new stuff, it had been Kid A–Hail to the Thief–Amnesiac stuff. Sometimes people need reassurance. About nine or ten songs in is a really good place to put two really well-known songs.



(5) Idioteque
Some of these songs are quite technical, quite complicated, and they do need a bit of rehearsal. “Idioteque” needed a bit. Last night, we started too slow—Jonny [Greenwood] sets the tempo with an analog dial on his AX drum machine. Phil indicated to Thom that it was too slow, so we started over.



(6) The Bends
In that spot, we were either going to play “The Bends” [an up-tempo fan favorite] or “Exit Music” [a slower ballad]. The theater felt like a club because the ceiling is so low, and the songs from “The Bends” era were all first played in clubs, so when we got to the break after the main set, we said, “This feels like a ‘Bends’ night.”



Not present: “Creep,” the band’s first and still biggest radio hit
“Creep” is on the list of songs we’re gonna play on this tour, but it hasn’t felt right yet. We will do it some night. It’s a great song to play. The reaction you get is really extreme.
 
they've changed their setlists dramatically from show to show.

it's nice to see.

you NEVER know what songs they're going to play. last show they played neither paranoid android, idioteque or there there.

they play what they want to, and i'm sure it makes for the best possible show.
 
imagine going to vertigo expecting what theyve been doing then getting some of these:

out of control
a sort of homecoming
dirty day
11 o'clock tick tock
discotheque
mofo
IYWTVD
walk on
exit
red hill mining town:wink:
desire
ultraviolet
two hearts beat as one

wouldnt you be more excited than normal?
 
i would love to hear u2 play some of those songs the previous poster mentioned.
problem is, radiohead shook off their stadium rockers status and are now comfortable, playing smaller venues, playing largely for quite hardcore fans, most people there wont be screaning to hear "creep".
U2 on the other hand embrace and love their status as the biggest band in the world and want to play to bigger and bigger audiences, which i can totally appreciate. However this means that the crowd will be full of people who have never seen u2 before, and maybe own two U2 albums at best and understandably they want to hear the hits they know. So U2, being the band of the people that they are will try to cater for them as well as us hardcore fans, and this i guess is quite tricky.
I'll stray from the point of this post for a moment just to complain about all the corporate arseholes who i was surrounded by at the second twickenham gig last year. They had obviously got free tickets from their company and were obnoxious throughout the night, they had no idea about what U2 were about at all, they knew maybe one or two songs and were complaining endlessly about Bono making political speeches. It got too much for me, and I was screaming at them that if they dont want to see politics and music mixed they should fuck off and go and see a bon jovi concert!!
 
^ I agree. Good post, though I must admit that the political posturing that Bono does gets a bit tedious after a while. And I think that some of the stuff that they do in North America doesn't really work in Europe. Still, that's off the point of this thread so getting back to mixing setlists up, I think that on the Vertigo tour U2 must have played a very large number of different songs, something close to 45 at least, surely. I saw them twice in Croke Park and got to see Electric Co, Out of Control, Party Girl, Gloria, Original of the Species, An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart, amongst others. Plus, when I saw them at Slane 1 a few years ago I saw A Sort Of Homecoming (albeit slightly shambolic) as mentioned by somebody above. That's got to be mixing it up a bit. It would be nice for them to be a bit more spontaneous but I think that the nature of the set-up really precludes it. There's a hell of a lot of sequencing now (and they don't have a keyboard player to chop it up), Edge uses so many different pedals and effects that have to be used in sequence and at the right times, and the stage set ups generally are sequenced to suit a certain type of set.
 
phillyfan26 said:
imagine going to vertigo expecting what theyve been doing then getting some of these:

out of control
a sort of homecoming
dirty day
11 o'clock tick tock
discotheque
mofo
IYWTVD
walk on
exit
red hill mining town:wink:
desire
ultraviolet
two hearts beat as one

wouldnt you be more excited than normal?

:drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:
 
I don't think many bands (Radiohead being one of them) have such a high number of hits that they make up half the setlist

it would also be dubious for a band who have the status of U2 to go out of their way to play songs most the crowd have not come to hear
 
If U2 just rotated the hits they know so well:

I Will Follow
Pride
Bad
All I Want..
Bullet
WOWY
ISHFWILF
NYD
WTSHNN
SBS
MW
Desire
FLY
One
UTEOTW
Eleveation
Stuck
BD

Play about 7-10 of the above everynight, but in different order.

Add in 7-9 songs of new material.

And play about 4-5 rarities.

U2 would be fine. Just by rotating and shuffling the hits would be great at a U2 show.

Imagine:

Vertigo
New Years Day
All Because of You
Beautiful Day
Who's Gonna Ride
 
The only problem with U2 doing all that mixing up and rotating of songs in the setlist or throwing in new ones is the headache it would cause for the rest of the crew who have all their light cues, visuals, etc. worked out and rehearsed well in advance...plus, the guys would actually have to rehearse all those extra songs, and we all know how much they love rehearsing.:wink:
 
Shaliz said:
The only problem with U2 doing all that mixing up and rotating of songs in the setlist or throwing in new ones is the headache it would cause for the rest of the crew who have all their light cues, visuals, etc. worked out and rehearsed well in advance...plus, the guys would actually have to rehearse all those extra songs, and we all know how much they love rehearsing.:wink:

I understand what you say but how hard would it be to just play one or 2 songs that come completely out of left field? Think of what people must have been thinking when the band unveiled Miss Sarajevo for the first time in Amsterdam or Love is Blindness in South America.

In addition, a less well known song might catch someone's attention who will go back and buy the album from which the song comes from. I mean yes it's very nice to play perfect versions of the same songs every night but it wouldn't kill the crew to learn an extra song or two.

And if U2 screws up a song, so what? At least they attempted to play it to satisfy the fans and also, it brings them down to a human level. I went to Coldplay concert last year and the band screwed up Yellow not once but three times, yet Chris Martin made a joke about it and moved on. I thought it made them look human.

Sorry for the rambling! I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere!
 
PookaMacP said:
I think that on the Vertigo tour U2 must have played a very large number of different songs, something close to 45 at least, surely. I saw them twice in Croke Park and got to see Electric Co, Out of Control, Party Girl, Gloria, Original of the Species, An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart, amongst others. Plus, when I saw them at Slane 1 a few years ago I saw A Sort Of Homecoming (albeit slightly shambolic) as mentioned by somebody above. That's got to be mixing it up a bit. It would be nice for them to be a bit more spontaneous but I think that the nature of the set-up really precludes it. There's a hell of a lot of sequencing now (and they don't have a keyboard player to chop it up), Edge uses so many different pedals and effects that have to be used in sequence and at the right times, and the stage set ups generally are sequenced to suit a certain type of set.

:up: very good points. I think U2 did a pretty good job mixing it up on Vertigo Tour, especially when you compare it to, say, ZooTV. I mean, who the hell thought they'd throw out Miss Sarejevo or The First Time or Who's Gonna Ride or even Zoo Station? Hopefully U2 will mix it up even more next tour. I think the best formula for a set would be 1/3 classics, 1/3 new material, and 1/3 rarities/not as well known songs (for example, Zooropa and Pop stuff, and stuff that was played on previous tours but not the last tour). Vertigo Tour actually may have been somewhat close to that formula, but I'll bet people on here would complain less if U2 simply rotated the classics a bit more and maybe didn't play everything in the exact same order. It'd be fantastic if U2 could have a rotating set to the point where 1/3 of the songs were different every night. but really, I don't care that much. I don't have enough money/free time to follow U2 around, so I only go to one or two shows a tour, so it doesn't really matter to me if the sets are static :shrug:
 
Radiohead usually has good setlists, but Karma Police uses closes their sets all the time. You're lucky to hear...

Fake Plastic Trees
You and Whose Army
How To Disappear Completely
Karma Police

As well as others, making it a really good show. They switch openers, and don't really make the show flow according to the setlist. They could play;

There There
2+2=5
Airbag
Lucky
You And Whose Army

In those orders...

I'd like to see U2 play a show where the setlist is turned upside down...

All Because Of You
Vertigo
Elevation
Out Of Control
Beautiful Day
An Cat Dubh / Into The Heart
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
Discotheque
City Of Blinding Lights
Gloria
Love And Peace Or Else
Sunday Bloody Sunday
Bullet The Blue Sky
Miss Sarajevo
Where The Streets Have No Name
Crumbs From Your Table

The Fly
Until The End Of The World
One

Party Girl
Original Of The Species
Bad
 
Last edited:
One thing that I'd love to see in a U2 setlist is a medley. It's an effective way to play a lot of hit songs without taking up much space in the setlist, and it's a sure thing to drive the audience nuts... Just imagine a "Elevation"/"Vertigo"/"Even Better Than The Real Thing"/"I Will Follow" medley, for example...

Shaliz said:
The only problem with U2 doing all that mixing up and rotating of songs in the setlist or throwing in new ones is the headache it would cause for the rest of the crew who have all their light cues, visuals, etc. worked out and rehearsed well in advance...plus, the guys would actually have to rehearse all those extra songs, and we all know how much they love rehearsing.:wink:

Tell me about it... Can you picture Bono trying to remember the lyrics for 45 U2 songs?

A "rotating setlist" sounds like a great idea... Take some hit songs that don't have to show up in every concert, like ISHFWILF, SBS, BD, IWF, and play them once in a while. If they have to, play WOWY, One and WTSHNN every night. That should open some space for a lot of surprises...

...but I guess we're just kicking a dead horse here. They'll probably open the next tour's concerts with Bullet The Blue Sky.
 
I'd rather not U2 play all their songs when they tour by just rotating them.

There is a certain novelty in them dusting off an old song that they haven't played in well over 10 years.

Like when they played Gloria and stuff from Boy on this tour that haven't been played in such a long time.
 
Shaliz said:
The only problem with U2 doing all that mixing up and rotating of songs in the setlist or throwing in new ones is the headache it would cause for the rest of the crew who have all their light cues, visuals, etc. worked out and rehearsed well in advance...plus, the guys would actually have to rehearse all those extra songs, and we all know how much they love rehearsing.:wink:

I don't see why lighting cues are such a problem. Lots of other bands can quite easily muddle up their sets. The only time I can see it being a problem is if lighting is designed to segue from one song to another. But if the lighting is just for one song and isn't designed to lead in or out of anything else, then there shouldn't be a problem whether they play New Year's Day between October and Gloria or between UTEOTW and ISHFWILF. If the crew know how to do the lighting for each song and the effects are all properly programmed, I don't see how the order of the songs makes any difference.

Or, you know, U2 could just cut back on the needless frills and just play music. I personally prefer the simple approach. Plus, I imagine that would help keep ticket prices down. :wink:
 
Honestly, though I'd love to hear some of my favorite older U2 songs, changing the setlist massively just doesn't work for U2 these days, and not just for the crew reasons mentioned above (and those can be nasty, having worked crew for smaller shows myself).

U2's shows aren't just a collection of cool songs played live. They're full on Shows, closer to Broadway and Opera than typical rock.

(This seems to be somewhat intentional; note all of Bono's comments about Opera, starting back with ZooTV, the most operatic tour any group has ever done.)

There's a story, even if it's a vague one, built around the songs in that particular order. There can be some swapping, but not a lot; just like you can improvise a few lines in a play, or have a scene or two run a few different ways, but you can't start quoting entire passages from an entirely different play.

Not only would that confuse the hell out of the crew and cast, it would hurt the overall show (no matter how many fans of that other play were in the audience).

No one says that a broadway play is old after being on stage for a year...by that point, the actors have gotten familiar with the work, and honed their relationships to a fine point, and the show is often actually better after doing it exactly the same way every night for months in a row.

The best U2 can do is work up "segments" (think the Heart of Darkness bit from the current tour, or its ZooTV counterpart) and hot-swap them in and out.

I think that one of the biggest reasons U2 shows are so epic, so moving, and so beloved by all of us is that there's more to it than just a couple of songs being played live. There's a narrative, and an emotional arc, and a rigidity in setlists--though it leaves us missing some of our favorites--actually supports that arc. Especially over the course of a year-long tour, as they discover and refine the key points in that overall arc.
 
:yes: That and U2 wants to give the best possible show each time. Easier to do by playing a tight, well-rehearsed set than bringing out new songs night after night.
 
It's a hard topic, and I have feelings both ways. Ed O'Brien calls it "one of the worst things in music", but it's only bad for the band, and if the playing 3/4ths of U2 has no problem plunking out the same chords every night who are we to tell them what's good or bad for them?

On the other hand, there's a visible difference in the band between Boston and Slane DVDs. Slane is a lot livelier, and I think that's because they didn't worry about rehearsing a setlist to perfection. I think they've done pretty good this tour about keeping it fresh. Of course, Radiohead is playing smaller gigs then U2 also, so the risk/reward is different.
 
You have a point. But another important point is that as U2 see it, they do not play to the same audience each night, but each night they perform to different people. And it really should be like that, because people who go to 10 shows (guilty), cannot expect U2 to mix it up just because of them. That's "selfish", if you know what I mean. Most of the people who go to a U2 concert, hasn't seen a number of shows from the same tour, and to them it is all new.
Another point is that for U2, it takes a lot more effort to mix it up than for many other bands (comlexity of the show and equipment, songs and so on). But this tour they have been changing some - not big time, but some.

I'm really glad that U2 decides to play their new stuff. I miss the POP tunes on this tour, though. They should play more of their new material, but at least they are playing them.
 
Last edited:
ElectricalVoice said:
You have a point. But another important point is that as U2 see it, they do not play to the same audience each night, but each night they perform to different people. And it really should be like that, because people who go to 10 shows (guilty), cannot expect U2 to mix it up just because of them. That's "selfish", if you know what I mean. Most of the people who go to a U2 concert, hasn't seen a number of shows from the same tour, and to them it is all new.

I see what you mean. However, what exactly do "normal people" (people that attend a single concert) want to hear? One? WOWY? SBS? Pride? WTSHNN? BD? Vertigo? MW? IWF? All of them? My point is, they can't play everything. So they might as well leave some hits out of the setlist, and use the extra space to spice it up a little...

ElectricalVoice said:
Another point is that for U2, it takes a lot more effort to mix it up than for many other bands (comlexity of the show and equipment, songs and so on). But this tour they have been changing some - not big time, but some.

Hmmmm, I'm no musician, but I don't think U2 songs are all that complex. Regarding the lighting, screens and equipment, I don't think that would be a problem, as long as they stick to a simpler stage, like the Elevation stage, for example.
 
I think Radiohead need to look in the mirror first. They are playing in only 10 cities in North America versus over 30 cities for U2 in N.A. And the overall length of their current tour seems rather wimpy.
 
kristbg said:


I see what you mean. However, what exactly do "normal people" (people that attend a single concert) want to hear? One? WOWY? SBS? Pride? WTSHNN? BD? Vertigo? MW? IWF? All of them? My point is, they can't play everything. So they might as well leave some hits out of the setlist, and use the extra space to spice it up a little...

Hmmmm, I'm no musician, but I don't think U2 songs are all that complex. Regarding the lighting, screens and equipment, I don't think that would be a problem, as long as they stick to a simpler stage, like the Elevation stage, for example.


Yes, I agree that they could mix it up a little. I absolutely agree that they could loose some of the classics. I actually think they should leave out WTSHNN on some shows (but that could never happen). People expect to hear certain songs when they go to a U2 concert. They just have to play the classics, and I think it's sad, because it means that they cannot play enough of the new great stuff. Therefore the new material will never be classics. U2 should take a chance, loose some classics and play more new stuff. The danger is that they will become a best-of-band.

I didn't mean that the songs are so complex that it is hard to rotate the set list, but Edges equipment and the way the songs rely on all this equipment, makes it a little more complex.

But maybe the thing is that they just can't do it because they don't know how to. Maybe they are not the kind of musicians that can improvise and mix it up. I don't know.
 
kristbg said:


I see what you mean. However, what exactly do "normal people" (people that attend a single concert) want to hear? One? WOWY? SBS? Pride? WTSHNN? BD? Vertigo? MW? IWF? All of them? My point is, they can't play everything. So they might as well leave some hits out of the setlist, and use the extra space to spice it up a little...

I think that either on the DVD or a bootleg, Bono stated that songs like SBS, Pride, and Streets represent the best bits of the past and will always be played. The performance of SBS changed to incorporate the coexist message, and the Buenos Aires 2006 (dvd) version of the song is one of the best I've seen on any tour. I hope they always play the classics.
 
ElectricalVoice said:

I didn't mean that the songs are so complex that it is hard to rotate the set list, but Edges equipment and the way the songs rely on all this equipment, makes it a little more complex.

That's right. But I think that would be pretty fun for him :lol:


But maybe the thing is that they just can't do it because they don't know how to. Maybe they are not the kind of musicians that can improvise and mix it up. I don't know.

I'm guessing the main problem here is Bono remembering the lyrics...
 
Radiohead has sucked ever since Kid A. And I don't really like the idea of an unpredictable setlist, because you might get some songs you hate. What if this happened:

Instead of playing UTEOTW, WGRYWH, and Please, the band plays Stories For Boys, Miami, and The Ocean. Both would be surprising, but honestly, which set would you have more fun watching? Now imagine if the whole show is like that.

I think they should mix things up sometimes, but it's not that big of a deal, particularly if I'm spending $300 on a show.
 
LemonMelon said:
Radiohead has sucked ever since Kid A. And I don't really like the idea of an unpredictable setlist, because you might get some songs you hate. What if this happened:

Instead of playing UTEOTW, WGRYWH, and Please, the band plays Stories For Boys, Miami, and The Ocean. Both would be surprising, but honestly, which set would you have more fun watching? Now imagine if the whole show is like that.

I think they should mix things up sometimes, but it's not that big of a deal, particularly if I'm spending $300 on a show.

I would go for Miami anytime! :drool:
 
ElectricalVoice said:
You have a point. But another important point is that as U2 see it, they do not play to the same audience each night, but each night they perform to different people.

I don't buy that as a valid reason at all. They could still mix up the setlist a lot. I like the logic that Dream Theater's Mike Portnoy uses to create setlists. He considers that most people see a band they like in their home city - so someone who lives in Brisbane will see the band in Brisbane whenever they come through. So Portnoy looks at the sets from previous visits to that city and tries to create a show with different material so that fans get to hear material they haven't heard before. In contrast, it seems the only new songs a U2 fan will hear are songs from the most recent album - otherwise, they're likely to hear repeats of songs they heard on previous tours, such as One, Pride, WOWY, ISHFWILF, Streets, Mysterious Ways. Instead of playing all six of those, couldn't U2 just choose three?

And I don't mean to appear like I'm harping on about Dream Theater at U2's expense; it's just that I'm quite familiar with their setlists too and I admire their methods, so they make for good examples. Which is why I'm going to use them again as an example to counter the argument that U2's concerts are more than concerts and the sets are static because U2 are building a cohesive show with themes. Other bands have had varied sets and successfully maintained a theme. On Dream Theater's latest tour, they were marking their 20th anniversary with a chronologically themed setlist. They still varied the setlist greatly from night to night. For example, the trio of songs from their first three albums could be Afterlife/Under A Glass Moon/Innocence Faded one night followed by A Fortune In Lies/Take The Time/The Mirror the next night, and the theme is maintained perfectly. Similarly, U2 could easily maintain their themes with varied sets. The war trilogy didn't always have to be LAPOE/SBS/Bullet. Why not Please/Exit/LAPOE? You still have the song from the recent album, a non-single from U2's most famous album, and a single about the Troubles in Ireland. The war theme is still maintained.
 
Yes. I'm not saying they couldn't rotate more. I think they should. I just tried to give an explanation of why they didn't. How they might look at it.

But as I said before:

"But maybe the thing is that they just can't do it because they don't know how to. Maybe they are not the kind of musicians that can improvise and mix it up. I don't know."

I think they even could loose Streets on some shows. I want more new stuff.

kristbg: Miami is GREAT live. :drool:
 
Back
Top Bottom