Some interesting U2 historical setlist facts

[gvox]

I guess not.

You know what? I'm going to reread your post, because you usually write good shit. Give me a sec, I must have missed it in Semantical World War XXVI

 

[VintagePunk]

You know what? I'm going to reread your post, because you usually write good shit. Give me a sec, I must have missed it in Semantical World War XXVI

 

[dan_smee]

key point is that the main gripe in this thread is people saying they dont mix the setlist up enough. The OP, and then my next post proved that, while it may not be to some peoples 'optimal' rotational standards, they have actually been improving. 13 dates into a tour (which is their most varied in terms of setlist for the opening 13 dates of a U2 tour) is perhaps slightly premature to be having coniptions about the setlists. People need to cope with the fact that U2 can do whatever they like when they feel it is best for the overal quality of the show they are playing to the people who payed the money and are standing infront of them at that moment.

I admire this in them.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

Golly gee, I'm so glad you popped in. I'd hate to think I had ascribed an incorrect meaning to your entire sentence!

Was there any doubt that dan smee would come to your rescue?

 

[U2DMfan]

and that's why I can't fully agree with this being a legitimate gripe

basically the band is treating the 90s like they treat the 80s
they play the biggest hits + 1 or 2 live favourite rockers and maybe 1 random song

Fair enough, all good points.

I am heavily biased towards some of those songs (Lemon, Mofo, Zooropa etc.)
So maybe that's why I see it as legit, whereas if someone were complaining about a lack of October songs I know I wouldn't think it was legit...

So yeah, I wasn't being very objective about it.

 

[Diemen]

Was there any doubt that dan smee would come to your rescue?

So you knew that dan smee would come in and basically prove you wrong?

Why all the arguing in the meantime then?

 

[gvox]

I think that lacking confidence *may* have something to do with it. Before people pounce on me, just let me say that I've been reading U2 by U2 lately, and the one thing that jumped out at me is the way they seem to minimize their abilities as musicians. They focus a lot on their shortcomings. Whether they really feel that way, or it's more of a show of humility, who knows. But the one thing that's certain is that they really don't seem to give themselves enough credit, at least in that one book. So, in that sense, I think that they might be extremely uncomfortable in jumping into unrehearsed numbers, at least more so than PJ and Bruce.*

Another factor could be that they also pride themselves on putting on a very professional, polished show, and that's why they vary the setlists less - they're much more comfortable performing songs that they're rehearsed heavily and have perfected (in their view). I've heard them rehearse. They don't run through each song a few times to reacquaint themselves with it and call it a day, they go through them ad nauseum. In 2 1/2 hours, they literally only rehearsed two songs (Discotheque and Mofo), and then only ended up playing Discotheque - they obviously weren't happy with Mofo.

I'd also like to add that the reason Pearl Jam gets away with playing so many rarities and such a diverse setlist is because I think their audiences are made up of a much higher percentage of die hards than are U2's audiences. PJ have made themselves into the biggest little cult band around, and so that style of performing suits them and their audience better. Springsteen? I haven't quite got that one figured out...


*Eta - I should add that I also think that along with those reasons, the added complexity of their staging cues and sequencing as compared to PJ and Bruce has a lot to do with it, too. Their stage shows just don't lend themselves to being all loosey-goosey with their setlist, there's a certain amount of planning that needs to be done.

Yep

This was one of the posts that made page 1 great. I think people tend to forget that none of them were all that great in terms of musicianship when they started out. That can be a dangerous thing for a musician when they rise to the top as did U2, especially with the way they did it vis a vis gruelling touring schedules in the 80s etc. It doesn't leave alot of time for personal improvement as a musician. I'm not making an excuse, it's just the reality of being on the road all the time.

Another good point - their self confidence. People see Bono as this egotistical guy who thinks he rules the world. I see him completely differently. I've never really said this before but even watching him live and just reading bits and pieces - esp, as you say, U2 by U2 - I've come to the conclusion that he is probably the least confident or arrogant of anyone in the band. I even wonder if he struggles with something that can be clinically defined like anxiety or maybe even worse. When I've run into him after shows he gives off this vibe that he just wants to go crawl into a corner of his room for a while and chill whereas before a show or on the street he's been friendly. I'M NOT SAYING THIS JUDGEMENTALLY (I couldn't, and not be a hypocrite). But for people who are challenged by some diagnoses, in many cases they find safety in structure. I learned this the hard way with a former bandmate. If I mixed a song up say wanted to play it earlier in the set, he would literally have a nervous breakdown. He needed a setlist 1-2 days before a show, and we could not deviate from it, especially during the show. We could possibly propose something different in the dressing room before, but after a while I told the others not to do that because you could see him visibly tank and lose all self-confidence and just be a bundle of nerves. Now I'm not saying this goes on in U2...but all it takes is one band member with a condition like that, and if you're good friends who care about each other, you work within that.

Your point about being perfectionists is bang on. They are self-admitted perfectionists and about as far away from 'jam band' as you can possibly get. I like jam bands once in a while, but not all the time, and not when I'm paying big bucks.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier VP, it was a great post

 

[gvox]

So you knew that dan smee would come in and basically prove you wrong?

Why all the arguing in the meantime then?

I know I just got chastised but that was precisely my point. Everyone else fully understood what dan was saying, yet zoo chose to focus on one word and twist it to suit his desire to engage us in pages of semantical bs. This happens in all these threads with this guy.

Mind you, I bit, so...

 

[Salome]

just let me say that I've been reading U2 by U2 lately, and the one thing that jumped out at me is the way they seem to minimize their abilities as musicians.

what I noticed most about U2 by U2 is that they're definitely not the biggest fan of their own back catalogue
they are very, very critical
they seem to mostly hear missed opportunities
which might also explain why they go for songs they actually are proud of

 

[U2DMfan]

Rotate the songs in the shrinking window

Do you agree? They could do some of this and not necessarily at the expense of the spectacle...

Ideally, yes, I think any band should be able to rotate songs even in a small 'window'.

U2 are just limited in what they are willing to do.

It's true, they are limited in terms of some things, musically or otherwise (Bono is at times about as consistent as wet toilet paper) but the more and more they pound out the familiar sets, the better the shows become.

This is just the way it is with U2. People either need to accept it or move on. I found these discussions to be tedious five years ago, just trying to help people along with some advice that I wish I had listened to when I was probably griping about Elevation sets 8 years ago.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

So you knew that dan smee would come in and basically prove you wrong?

Why all the arguing in the meantime then?

All I'm saying is that it is completely predictable that dan smee, with whom I've had a recent disagreement, would come in and blindly join the cause of gvox.

 

[gvox]

what I noticed most about U2 by U2 is that they're definitely not the biggest fan of their own back catalogue
they are very, very critical
they seem to mostly hear missed opportunities
which might also explain why they go for songs they actually are proud of

Yep. That's part of being a new eager band though. You write a tune, you're incredibly excited about it, you have no fans to worry about, and very few critics around you to hold you back, and, most of all, you just want to get it to tape and out on the radio. It can result in less than polished (perfect?) end product. Personally, I think this dynamic led to some of their greatest, most sincere work. However I can see them looking back on it after having read 20 years of reviews and maturing both musically and personally and saying 'holy fuck we were such babies back then!'.. I think they should be proud of it though and embrace the innocent brilliance of what they came up with in the early 80s. It's great stuff!

 

[BVS]

The Smashing Pumpkins played about 60 different songs over two nights in the fall tour. They had a repetoire of about 130. And the arrangements are all really complex now.

Really complex? Serious? Do you play?

I think that the reason U2 don't do this is because Bono's voice is dead and he can't sing about 60% of their songs, and wouldn't be able to remember the words. And the musicians aren't good enough to switch it up quickly. As glourious and original as they are, they are pretty average musicians.

Bono's voice is dead? 60% of their songs?

You just killed any legitimacy you think you may have had...

 

[BVS]

for everyone else, sorry to carry this on... But this person just won't let it go and posts very arrogantly.

Irony Man

 

[gvox]

All I'm saying is that it is completely predictable that dan smee, with whom I've had a recent disagreement, would come in and blindly join the cause of gvox.

So you refuse to accept the remote possibility that maybe, just maybe, you either at worst took his words out of context or at minimum refused to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he was trying to say (albeit with the poor choice of the word 'aside')??

Instead, this is all about some (probably forgotten by him) personal beef you two had and The Blind Cause of Gvox?

Wow.

 

[gvox]

fix'd

 

[Diemen]

All I'm saying is that it is completely predictable that dan smee, with whom I've had a recent disagreement, would come in and blindly join the cause of gvox.

This is utterly ridiculous. Dan isn't just coming blindly to the rescue of his buddy, dan smee is clarifying the intent of what he, himself, dan_smee, chose to write - and I dare say he has far more accurate knowledge of the intent of his words than you.

This level of inane bickering needs to stop, and it seems to be something you and several others around here feel compelled to engage in.

I've yet to see you yield any ground to anyone disagreeing with you. If you are incapable or unwilling to yield ground on an issue, perhaps it'd be best if you just agreed to disagree and moved on. That goes for everyone involved.

 

[VintagePunk]

Yep

This was one of the posts that made page 1 great. I think people tend to forget that none of them were all that great in terms of musicianship when they started out. That can be a dangerous thing for a musician when they rise to the top as did U2, especially with the way they did it vis a vis gruelling touring schedules in the 80s etc. It doesn't leave alot of time for personal improvement as a musician. I'm not making an excuse, it's just the reality of being on the road all the time.

Yeah, I get that, about the constant touring and the effect it can have on musicianship, especially when you didn't have much to start with, as they didn't (by their own admission, they didn't even know how to play when they answered Larry's ad). I think you'd become extremely proficient at what you do (as has been said about the Beatles, during the time that they played The Cavern Club constantly), but you may not really stretch yourself.

Another good point - their self confidence. People see Bono as this egotistical guy who thinks he rules the world. I see him completely differently. I've never really said this before but even watching him live and just reading bits and pieces - esp, as you say, U2 by U2 - I've come to the conclusion that he is probably the least confident or arrogant of anyone in the band. I even wonder if he struggles with something that can be clinically defined like anxiety or maybe even worse. When I've run into him after shows he gives off this vibe that he just wants to go crawl into a corner of his room for a while and chill whereas before a show or on the street he's been friendly. I'M NOT SAYING THIS JUDGEMENTALLY (I couldn't, and not be a hypocrite). But for people who are challenged by some diagnoses, in many cases they find safety in structure. I learned this the hard way with a former bandmate. If I mixed a song up say wanted to play it earlier in the set, he would literally have a nervous breakdown. He needed a setlist 1-2 days before a show, and we could not deviate from it, especially during the show. We could possibly propose something different in the dressing room before, but after a while I told the others not to do that because you could see him visibly tank and lose all self-confidence and just be a bundle of nerves. Now I'm not saying this goes on in U2...but all it takes is one band member with a condition like that, and if you're good friends who care about each other, you work within that.

Bono has always seemed like a study in contradiction to me. Brash, arrogant, and yet insecure and self-deprecating. Very willing to put himself out there, but desperate for approval. I think he's said much the same, himself. The anxiety thing wouldn't surprise me a bit, I think we've seen some evidence of that over the years.

Your point about being perfectionists is bang on. They are self-admitted perfectionists and about as far away from 'jam band' as you can possibly get. I like jam bands once in a while, but not all the time, and not when I'm paying big bucks.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier VP, it was a great post

I do believe them when they thank us for spending our money on them, and I think they feel they owe it to us to give us the best show possible for that money...and I think they feel the way they perform is giving us their best.

No problem, I was just a little frustrated last night, to see what promised to be an interesting topic turn into yet another bitchfest.

what I noticed most about U2 by U2 is that they're definitely not the biggest fan of their own back catalogue
they are very, very critical
they seem to mostly hear missed opportunities
which might also explain why they go for songs they actually are proud of

I agree! I don't know how many times during that book they would (unduly harshly, IMO) critique songs that I love, almost dismissing them like they are crap. I'm sure that many times, I actually said "dude, NO, that's a great song!" aloud while reading it. Edge in particular seems to do that a lot. I guess that's understandable, given that he's the main writer of the music, but still, I think he's wrong in most cases. At times I almost started feeling angry about it - it was as if by putting down the song, he was calling my taste into question (the way I frequently feel here when people say that certain songs are crap). Anyway, I think you're right, that maybe they're simply giving us what they consider their best.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

Everyone else fully understood what dan was saying, yet zoo chose to focus on one word and twist it to suit his desire to engage us in pages of semantical bs.

The thing is the word "aside" is very, very clear. You even admitted so by labelling the sentence a contradiction in terms (according to you, "add" was clear, "aside" had to go). This is what you had to say about the sentence:

The entire sentence is a contradiction of terms. I overlooked it and focused on the main point of the sentence

So:

Does dan smee know how to use the word "aside"? I think he does. I think he's being a bit revisionist here...

Did "everyone else" realize what you supposedly realized? I don't think so. I think people gave the words their normal meanings and used the context, where necessary, as an aid.

-----

Could it be that he used it properly and that you're guilty of the behaviour of which you accuse me?

-----

This is how I see your recent behaviour.

1. You take the word "aside" as having its normal meaning... because the sentence would result in a "contradiction in terms" (assuming you read "add" in your way), you have to ignore it (the word "aside"). Doesn't say much about dan smee's ability to use "aside", but anyway...

2. I tell you "add" can have different meanings (which you didn't realize), it doesn't necessarily result in a contradiction. This gives dan smee credit, he used the word properly... the sentence also makes sense given the context. Facts to be considered in and of themselves, from the angle of U2 Stats.

3. Most recently, you're challenging the themes idea of "aside" (which you had no problem with initially... it was all about "add", remember?).

 

[corianderstem]

Holy shit, dude.

 

[gvox]

I'd just like to state for the record that dan_smee and I have a fundamental dislike for each other that runs deep to the core of our very beings, we're sworn enemies, and we'll be staging a fight to the death this Friday night - check your local cable provider for listings, if anyone's interested.

 

[Diemen]

The thing is the word "aside" is very, very clear. You even admitted so by labelling the sentence a contradiction in terms (according to you, "add" was clear, "aside" had to go). This is what you had to say about the sentence:



So:

Does dan smee know how to use the word "aside"? I think he does. I think he's being a bit revisionist here...

Did "everyone else" realize what you supposedly realized? I don't think so. I think people gave the words their normal meanings and used the context, where necessary, as an aid.

-----

Could it be that he used it properly and that you're guilty of the behaviour of which you accuse me?

-----

This is how I see your recent behaviour.

1. You take the word "aside" as having its normal meaning... because the sentence would result in a "contradiction in terms" (assuming you read "add" in your way), you have to ignore it (the word "aside"). Doesn't say much about dan smee's ability to use "aside", but anyway...

2. I tell you "add" can have different meanings (which you didn't realize), it doesn't necessarily result in a contradiction. This gives dan smee credit, he used the word properly... the sentence also makes sense given the context. Facts to be considered in and of themselves, from the angle of U2 Stats.

3. Most recently, you're challenging the themes idea of "aside" (which you had no problem with initially... it was all about "add", remember?).

Are you deaf?? Consider this your formal warning: quit beating the dead horse and move on. Continued bickering back and forth will result in the posts being deleted so people who actually want to have a rational exchange of ideas can do so without having to wade through this nonsense.

 

[torn vinyl]

I'd just like to state for the record that dan_smee and I have a fundamental dislike for each other that runs deep to the core of our very beings, we're sworn enemies, and we'll be staging a fight to the death this Friday night - check your local cable provider for listings, if anyone's interested.

Hahahaha. Two guys typing...

 

[VintagePunk]

Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.

 

[Diemen]

I don't remember any articles or interviews on the topic either, but it's definitely something I'd like to know more about, too, VP. I would imagine that when it comes to the songs they're all going to be playing day in day out for months/years at a time, it becomes a fairly democratic process to select those songs.

Though I do picture Adam just saying "yeah, whatever, that's fine."

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

I've yet to see you yield any ground to anyone disagreeing with you.

I'll find an example for you... it's not a problem for me. If I felt gvox had a real point, I'd have conceded (I even said it when I said I had to check whether the word "aside" was really there...).

 

[gvox]

Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.

I'm not answering this question because you didn't respond to my response to Salome. Harumph!



lol

Nah, seriously...I have read that Larry has a very heavy involvement in the setlists. I can't cite the reference however. One other thing I heard, but took it with a grain of salt, is that he has veto power

:idea: This could be why the setlists are what they are. It's one big overt Larryesque FUCK YOU to U2 fans in teh internetz!

 

[Popmartijn]

Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.

From what I read over the years, it is a more or less democratic process. Every member has a say in it, but Bono has the biggest say. This is because he is at the front and has to sing the songs (and remember the lyrics ).

 

[torn vinyl]

Question - has anyone read anything about how they come up with their setlists? Is one member more responsible than the others? In other words, does Edge contribute more/have more influence over what they play, or is it a completely democratic process? I can't remember reading any mentions of this.

I read an interview with Edge from 88/89 and he was expressing displeasure with having to play the same songs every night to people who weren't fans, who were just into whatever was big. Doesn't answer your question really, but it's something.

 

[Diemen]

nm