The "casual fan" excuse

[BVS]

But the average U2 fan that makes up a majority of the crowd, owns almost all their CD's.

I don't buy this one bit... I think this is the reason so many misunderstand this argument is that they honestly believe this to be true. This would be true at a PJ or Radiohead show, but U2 attracts a different type of crowd.

I've seen it first hand, I've been at shows where I was surrounded by people who had very little clue as to who U2 really was. They are a band that everyone "wants to see at least once" because they've heard they put on such a great show.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

I think the real issue isn't with "casual" fans or whether or not they know a certain song. In my opinion it has more to do with whether or not more fans LIKE the song. U2 plays the songs that the most fans will end up liking to hear. First of all, people overestimate how many casuals come to concerts. I would say a better word is "average" u2 fan. These "average" I would wager pretty confidently, don't just own U218. They have all the major albums from U2. Maybe the young people who don't buy albums and just pick songs off itunes. But the average U2 fan that makes up a majority of the crowd, owns almost all their CD's. So the problem boils down to which songs they ENJOY from those CD's. More people are going to want to hear WOWY over Exit, so U2 assumes that the best choice is to play that song nightly, because it will please the most fans. It's not that people don't know Exit, it's just most of the crowd probably wouldn't get as excited to hear it over a more well-known track from TJT, and U2 is all about getting people excited because they feed off that energy.

I used the term "casual fan" because that's the one that we're often met with when debating here. I used the term but suggested they know more than we're giving them credit for (equating to the "average" fans you describe). I guess we're in disagreement as to what should be played based on that... I don't think the like-factor should be the determining one... I'm also not sure that we'd agree on which songs are most "liked".

Regardless, great post!

 

[mikal]

i have a couple friends that own every U2 cd, but couldn't even tell me what half the songs sound like.

 

[BVS]

Are you kidding? You were linking my knowing an album to the technology available. I'm just asking you to apply your own logic...

I was giving you an excuse as how and why you could possibly know all of Slippery When Wet, I had the cassette, I listened to it when I was a kid but I don't know it, I know maybe three songs now.

 

[zwervers2]

So these "casual fans" have been listening to U2 single after U2 single on the radio over the years... presumably they like what they hear because they ultimately go to a show... and they never bother to think "Hey! Another good U2 song... maybe I should pick up an album and check these guys out"... and this has thought-process has repeated itself time after time after time... from year x to 2009.

excellent statment.

this whole casual fan talk is BS anyway.

let's do some simple math:

A new U2-record sells 8 to 9 million copies
A U2 world tour is seen by 4 /5 million people max.
I think it is safe to say that 50% of the people who actually go to a shop to buy the new U2 record want to see this band live. In fact, I know a lot of people who just download it illegal and still go to the concerts.

You are welcome. Goodnight everyone, dinertime

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

I was giving you an excuse as how and why you could possibly know all of Slippery When Wet, I had the cassette, I listened to it when I was a kid but I don't know it, I know maybe three songs now.

Let me clarify. Having listened to the album when I was younger, I'd recognize that a song was heard at an earlier point in my life... it would not be unfamiliar. Sort-of like riding a bike, or recognizing a face.

 

[Kinsa]

I don't buy this one bit... I think this is the reason so many misunderstand this argument is that they honestly believe this to be true. This would be true at a PJ or Radiohead show, but U2 attracts a different type of crowd.

I've seen it first hand, I've been at shows where I was surrounded by people who had very little clue as to who U2 really was. They are a band that everyone "wants to see at least once" because they've heard they put on such a great show.

I totally agree with this. I would wager that the majority of the people at a U2 show maybe own 1-2 U2 albums tops. They are one of the last Big Bands to see, and that's why the majority of people go to see them. Not because they know the entirety of The Joshua Tree. I think the people on this board lose perspective, because we are such big fans. I know no other fans of U2 like me in real life, but I always have plenty of friends that want to see them in concert. And trust me, they are there to hear the warhorses, not Acrobat!

 

[BVS]

I think it is safe to say that 50% of the people who actually go to a shop to buy the new U2 record want to see this band live.

Want and do, are two different things.

I can list about 20 people off the top of my head(in my circle of friends) that have seen U2 and own two albums or less.

I can list maybe 5 that own a majority or all.

And this excludes any interferencers.

 

[BVS]

I own ONE Rolling Stones album and I've seen them twice.

 

[mikal]

maybe instead of using the term "casual", we should say "non-freaks" because i would still say that there's a huge difference between people like us that overanalyze everything and those who just enjoy U2's music but don't feel the need to join a fan forum.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

Want and do, are two different things.

I can list about 20 people off the top of my head(in my circle of friends) that have seen U2 and own two albums or less.

I can list maybe 5 that own a majority or all.

And this excludes any interferencers.

I'm not sure that that qualifies as a random sampling...

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure that that qualifies as a random sampling...

I didn't say it was. Some of us don't sell our opinions and experiences as fact.

My point is that if I could do that that easily and being such a huge U2 fan for so long, I bet many others could do the same...

 

[Chrisedge]

With a third of the setlist being "new", plus adding a little better % of newer songs (last 2 albums) you aren't left with a whole lot of options for adding more songs. Each tour they seem to break out a few rotating deeper classics. Last tour we got, Electric Co, Cat Dubh, Ocean, Into the Heart, Gloria, The First Time, Miss Sarajevo, Discothèque, One Tree Hill, Who's Gonna Ride...ETC....

In fact looking at U2gigs.com, there were only 9 songs played at every show last tour. The VAST majority were played less than 100 times out of 132 shows...

Not sure setlist bitching does much more than be trolling/flaming/internet bully.

We are ONE show in...why not wait til we have 10 shows and see how much they rotate in new songs...

Edited to add...They played 60 songs in 132 shows, with the average probably around 22 songs per show...That isn't a bad mix in my opinion.

 

[catlhere]

I honestly can't even believe that people really think U2 is this anomaly band that has concerts where most of the audience is fans who only knows hits. What other band gets accused of this? I can't even think of one. Suddenly U2, because they are SO big, means that their concerts are filled with people who have never heard anything they have done that isn't on the radio? I just don't buy that at all. It just seems like a convenient excuse to explain why U2 keeps playing warhorses, and isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

 

[Chrisedge]

I honestly can't even believe that people really think U2 is this anomaly band that has concerts where most of the audience is fans who only knows hits. What other band gets accused of this? I can't even think of one. Suddenly U2, because they are SO big, means that their concerts are filled with people who have never heard anything they have done that isn't on the radio? I just don't buy that at all. It just seems like a convenient excuse to explain why U2 keeps playing warhorses, and isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

Lots: Rolling Stones, The Who, Madonna, etc...Lots of folks know the deeper cuts, but it doesn't excite the crowd like a "Streets" does...

 

[digitize]

I honestly can't even believe that people really think U2 is this anomaly band that has concerts where most of the audience is fans who only knows hits. What other band gets accused of this? I can't even think of one. Suddenly U2, because they are SO big, means that their concerts are filled with people who have never heard anything they have done that isn't on the radio? I just don't buy that at all. It just seems like a convenient excuse to explain why U2 keeps playing warhorses, and isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

You have to remember, the only band that are on the same stature as U2 in terms of touring are the Rolling Stones, and U2 do much better than the Stones at messing with setlists (and actually playing stuff from their new album). Both the Stones and U2 have a large number of people in their audiences because of their perceived status as being the greatest bands in the world, many of whom knowing very few of their songs.

 

[Kinsa]

I honestly can't even believe that people really think U2 is this anomaly band that has concerts where most of the audience is fans who only knows hits. What other band gets accused of this? I can't even think of one. Suddenly U2, because they are SO big, means that their concerts are filled with people who have never heard anything they have done that isn't on the radio? I just don't buy that at all. It just seems like a convenient excuse to explain why U2 keeps playing warhorses, and isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

Just because you can't believe it, doesn't make it so. Fact - my fact, of course: every person I have ever gone to a U2 concert with is a "casual fan", and I have been to more than 20 U2 concerts in my lifetime. I have never had a problem finding someone who wants to come, and yet, they only know the warhorses. Am I an anomaly? People come to see them because they are U2. Just like people go to see the Rolling Stones. I have see the RS twice, and yet do not own a RS album. I think I am pretty representative of a RS concert going audience.

 

[Chrisedge]

You have to remember, the only band that are on the same stature as U2 in terms of touring are the Rolling Stones, and U2 do much better than the Stones at messing with setlists (and actually playing stuff from their new album). Both the Stones and U2 have a large number of people in their audiences because of their perceived status as being the greatest bands in the world, many of whom knowing very few of their songs.

Actually the Stones do some shows where they "mix it up" up again, it's tough when you have been around for 25-40 years and have a deep catalog.

You can please some of the people, most of the time, or most of the people, some of the time....but you can't please everyone.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

I honestly can't even believe that people really think U2 is this anomaly band that has concerts where most of the audience is fans who only knows hits. What other band gets accused of this? I can't even think of one. Suddenly U2, because they are SO big, means that their concerts are filled with people who have never heard anything they have done that isn't on the radio? I just don't buy that at all. It just seems like a convenient excuse to explain why U2 keeps playing warhorses, and isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

I'm with you 100%.

It's like you'd have to have deliberately shunned U2 for up to 31 years to be the people we're describing...

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

Both the Stones and U2 have a large number of people in their audiences because of their perceived status as being the greatest bands in the world, many of whom knowing very few of their songs.

Circular argument.

 

[Chrisedge]

Circular argument.

That is what this whole "argument" is. You want them to do something different that what they have pretty much done their whole career. Someone gives you reasoning, yet you still want something U2 is not.

 

[BVS]

I honestly can't even believe that people really think U2 is this anomaly band that has concerts where most of the audience is fans who only knows hits. What other band gets accused of this? I can't even think of one. Suddenly U2, because they are SO big, means that their concerts are filled with people who have never heard anything they have done that isn't on the radio? I just don't buy that at all. It just seems like a convenient excuse to explain why U2 keeps playing warhorses, and isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

Rolling Stones and Madonna. I would say Chili Peppers and Green Day audiences very much divided by "true fans" and those that bought their last album or two. I don't know why this is so suprising to some people.

Just pay attention to the banter around you next time and you'll be able to tell that most don't even own close to the majority of albums.

 

[zwervers2]

I don't buy this one bit... I think this is the reason so many misunderstand this argument is that they honestly believe this to be true. This would be true at a PJ or Radiohead show, but U2 attracts a different type of crowd.

I've seen it first hand, I've been at shows where I was surrounded by people who had very little clue as to who U2 really was. They are a band that everyone "wants to see at least once" because they've heard they put on such a great show.

So U2 has to play warhorses for people who have very little clue who U2 is?
And if they play WOWY for the 42362732637th time somebody who has no interest with the acception of "hey I want to see them once in my life" is now a fan for life or what is the reason? It just doenst make sense

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

That is what this whole "argument" is. You want them to do something different that what they have pretty much done their whole career. Someone gives you reasoning, yet you still want something U2 is not.

That's not what a circular argument is...

 

[zwervers2]

Rolling Stones and Madonna. I would say Chili Peppers and Green Day audiences very much divided by "true fans" and those that bought their last album or two. I don't know why this is so suprising to some people.

Just pay attention to the banter around you next time and you'll be able to tell that most don't even own close to the majority of albums.

I am not paying attention to the banter around me, I pay attention to the band that has become the biggest band in the world through people like you and me who actually buy the records, see all the tours and know the songs.

 

[mikal]

That's not what a circular argument is...

oh my....you do realize that ChrisEdge's 2nd statement wasn't actually intended to define what a "circular argument" is, right?

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

We haven't even addressed the issue of what happens to these "warhorses" (can we drop this term) when they're played night-in and night-out. Even I'm getting tired of singing these songs... I can't imagine how Bono (or Larry) feels. Do we agree that WOWY has suffered in recent tours, Streets, One... why play them if it's only in the technical sense?

Don't intend to argue this here, just a related thought...

 

[Chrisedge]

Listen to any decent recording. What songs get the reaction? Those are the songs they are gonna play. Like it or not. Just cause you wanna hear ______ doesn't mean the band wants to play it. I could pick my "warhorses" that should go, and you could pick yours and they could be totally different. I keep seeing people mention UTEOTW as something they should add back in because it's a "rocker"...That is close the top of my list as one they need to rest. Along with Pride. You might say ISHFWILF...I thought that sounded good from the boot from the other night.

60 different songs when they play 22 a night over 130+ shows is fine by me. If you don't like the setlist, I will buy your tickets from you....

 

[zwervers2]

That is what this whole "argument" is. You want them to do something different that what they have pretty much done their whole career. Someone gives you reasoning, yet you still want something U2 is not.

Oh, but they once were. ZOOTV, come to think of it. THOSE were gutsy shows.

How that couple of lines before Numb(ZOOTV Sydney) keep ringing in my ear the last couple of days

They want new material. You can not sell the same old thing to the same old crowd forever. How easy they seem to have forgotten

Or Bono on that same tour (openingnight): We might lose some of the popkids but we don't need them.

Come back mirrorballman, you are greatly missed sometimes

 

[Bruce]

Boy - I Will Follow, MAYBE Out of Control
October - No. (sadly)
War - Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, maybe 40.
TUF - Pride, Bad. Possibly SOH or TUF.
TJT - Whole thing.
Rattle - the 4 singles.
Achtung - Whole thing.
Zooropa - Numb, Lemon.
Pop - No. (sadly)
ATYCLB - Lots of
HTDAAB - Chunk of
NLOTH - Doesn't mattr, play it.

BOY- OCTOBER, OUT OF CONTROL (DEFINATLY) AND MAYBE A DAY WITHOUT ME SNIPPET LIKE IN UNDER A BLOOD RED SKY.

OCTOBER- AT LEAST PLAY THE SONG OCTOBER

WAR- SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY, NEW YEARS DAY, SURRENDER, DROWNING MAN 40 (LAST SONG_

TUF- PRIDE, BAD, A SORT OF HOMECOMING, AND PROMENADE

JOSHUA TREE- STREETS, WITH OR W/O YOU, BULLET, RUNNING, RED HILL MINING TOWN, EXIT

RATTLE - DESIRE, HEARTLAND , ALL I WANT IS YOU

ACHTUNG- ZOO STATION, FLY, MYSTERIOUS, ONE, ACROBAT, LOVE IS BLINDNESS

ATYCLB- BEAUTIFUL DAY -KITE

HTDAB- VERTIGO MIRACLE DRUG/ CITY OF BLINDING LIGHTS CRUMBS FROM YOUR TABLE

NLOTH- MAGNIFICENT, FEZ


NOW THATS A SET LIST......