The Ultimate Setlist Question

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers

Static Or Non Static, that is the question...

  • I am generally OK with Static Setlists

    Votes: 48 55.2%

  • I am generally NOT OK with Static Setlists

    Votes: 39 44.8%
  • Total voters
    87
elevated_u2_fan

elevated_u2_fan

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
31,965
Location
I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Alright people, this is for all the marbles!

Setlists, are you ok with the Standard Setlist Pattern that U2 has basically followed for the past 20 years or are you not?

People keep mentioning on both sides of the argument that there are a lot of people who agree with them, lets see where this goes...

Just to clarify, you can only choose one option:

You are generally OK with Static Setlists that are basically the same night after night - this is the reality of who U2 are and it takes into account the amount of casual fans who are there along with the live experience being much more enjoyable then downloading bootlegs... :blahblah: you get the picture...

You are generally NOT OK with Static Setlists and want more variation between shows - U2 has performed varied setlists previously so they are capable of doing so again, it makes for a more entertaining show, the setlists do not need to be drastically different every night just have more variety, other artists (Bruce, Radiohead, etc) switch up their setlists… :blahblah: you get the picture...
 
This topic has been rehashed so many times and I don't believe I've ever posted on the subject, but:

It comes down to what type of show do you want?

U2 if famous for it's extravagant live shows, groundbreaking stage designs, interaction with the audience and some of the greatest video screens and graphics in rock and roll touring.

Now, how would they accomplish this without keeping the setlist static? I, for one, love the fact that their live shows are an experience. It's almost theatre.

I love going to Springsteen shows because I also find it charming to see nothing but a great band up on stage playing music.

But that's not what U2 is. The shows are best when they're on sensory overload and that's what we finally have again with U2 360.

They also have songs that have many layers, keyboards, two guitars, synth, etc, etc. And those need to be on a programmed set. The E-Street band is like an 8 piece band and can pick up any song and play.

U2 is essentially a three piece band because Bono's guitar is more of a decoration;)

I think the shows are legendary and great the way they are. Sure, I'd love to hear a show full of rarities, but if I take my wife, she damn well better hear Pride, One, Streets, Beautiful Day, and WOWY, or she'd feel ripped off. It's just the way it is and when you're playing to 90 000 people, most of them don't come to interference.com

I think that if most of the complainers on here would have been told pre-tour that the band would be playing Ultraviolet, and The Unforgettable Fire nightly on this tour, they would take that and run and not care about the rest of the set.

That's not even to mention Electrical freaking Storm.

Seriously, people. This forum had two massive threads on Ultraviolet and UF before the tour, and BOTH ARE IN THE SET!!!! That is unbelievable and terrific.

Can't wait for Toronto 1 and 2.

P.S - The only contention I have with the set is that it should fit the theme/design of the tour and stage. This tour should have big songs and go less on the acoustic, not that I have a problem with the actual songs being played.

Even the "tired old warhorse" BTBS would really fit this tour.
 
Bruce said:
If you do the same thing over and over again doesnt it get boring?
Click to expand...

Ask a Broadway actor. To me that's kind of what a U2 show is, and has been since probably JT but for sure since ZooTV, it's part rock n roll and part theatrical show... nothing wrong with that. :shrug:
 
PG Canada said:
This topic has been rehashed so many times and I don't believe I've ever posted on the subject, but:

It comes down to what type of show do you want?

U2 if famous for it's extravagant live shows, groundbreaking stage designs, interaction with the audience and some of the greatest video screens and graphics in rock and roll touring.

Now, how would they accomplish this without keeping the setlist static? I, for one, love the fact that their live shows are an experience. It's almost theatre.

I love going to Springsteen shows because I also find it charming to see nothing but a great band up on stage playing music.

But that's not what U2 is. The shows are best when they're on sensory overload and that's what we finally have again with U2 360.

They also have songs that have many layers, keyboards, two guitars, synth, etc, etc. And those need to be on a programmed set. The E-Street band is like an 8 piece band and can pick up any song and play.

U2 is essentially a three piece band because Bono's guitar is more of a decoration;)

I think the shows are legendary and great the way they are. Sure, I'd love to hear a show full of rarities, but if I take my wife, she damn well better hear Pride, One, Streets, Beautiful Day, and WOWY, or she'd feel ripped off. It's just the way it is and when you're playing to 90 000 people, most of them don't come to interference.com

I think that if most of the complainers on here would have been told pre-tour that the band would be playing Ultraviolet, and The Unforgettable Fire nightly on this tour, they would take that and run and not care about the rest of the set.

That's not even to mention Electrical freaking Storm.

Seriously, people. This forum had two massive threads on Ultraviolet and UF before the tour, and BOTH ARE IN THE SET!!!! That is unbelievable and terrific.

Can't wait for Toronto 1 and 2.

P.S - The only contention I have with the set is that it should fit the theme/design of the tour and stage. This tour should have big songs and go less on the acoustic, not that I have a problem with the actual songs being played.

Even the "tired old warhorse" BTBS would really fit this tour.
Click to expand...

I think this is an awesome post. I am both a U2 and Springsteen fan. I got to admit that I have seen both over 20 times apeice and when it comes to live performance theres Bruce and then theres everbody else.

#1 I wish U2 could be more like Bruce as in expanding the setlist Springsteen shows are generally 45 minutes longer than U2 shows and he's 59 years old. NO reason why U2 cant give us 3 hours shows especially if they are going to charge $250.00 per ticket.

Point#2 Why cant U2 change their set list every night? For 2 years Springsteen has gone into the audience and taken requests from fans and then plays the songs like they were rehearsed over and over. No reason U2 cant do this. Imagine going to a U2 and Bono takes your sign and then plays the song you requested say like " Red Hill Mining Town?

One of the better books I ever read on U2 was by Carter Alan " Outside is America" During the Zoo TV era I wrote Mr. Alan who spent a great deal of time with the band what he thought and he felt that a U2 show was more an event about the stage design, Lights, explosions etc and not about the music I wonder what he would say now?

U2 will go down as one of the greatest bands of all time. For well over 20 years they have written some of the greatest songs of all time. I just wonder when they play live do they still enjoy it or is it just doing their job. When I see Springsteen I see a different set list every night and a guy who really enjoys what he's doing. I've seen him keep playing when the stage lights go on. I've seen him play 30 songs walk off stage and then come back up the steps and tell the band to play one more. I just dont see this in U2 and it makes me sad because I love them as well.
 
Springsteen and U2 are different? Go figure...:shrug:

I'm sure there are U2 fans that would like U2 to be more like Bruce, and I'm sure there are Bruce fans that wish he was more like U2.

I like my artists to be themselves, otherwise I wouldn't like them...

I've seen U2 do their spectacle of a show, I've seen Ryan Adams play disjointed all over the place shows, I've seen PJ play straight forward rock shows, I've seen Damien Rice play short scripted shows, I've seen Tori Amos play where she never stood up from the piano or talked to the crowd... and I loved them all, I wouldn't have asked for anything different.
 
Bruce said:
I think this is an awesome post. I am both a U2 and Springsteen fan. I got to admit that I have seen both over 20 times apeice and when it comes to live performance theres Bruce and then theres everbody else.
Click to expand...

Don't blast me, I've never seen Bruce live. I love his 80s stuff. But everytime I see them on TV or videos - and, notably, doing only 3 or so songs - I can't help but think two things 1. Jesus, his voice is shot. It's barely listenable and 2. They sometimes venture into 'jam band' territory - not as bad as the musically horrific Rolling Stones, but...

So when you say there's Bruce and then there's everybody else, I'd have to strongly disagree. In terms of quality of performance, U2 tops Bruce in my books. Bono can still sing for the most part and Edge doesn't sound like a wall of muddy noise (a la Stones)

:shrug:
 
BVS said:
Ask a Broadway actor. To me that's kind of what a U2 show is, and has been since probably JT but for sure since ZooTV, it's part rock n roll and part theatrical show... nothing wrong with that. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Then you have got to admit that the recent tours ATYCLB, HTDAB, and the current tour do not have the passion that The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree and even Zoo TV.
 
gvox said:
and, notably, doing only 3 or so songs - I can't help but think two things 1. Jesus, his voice is shot. It's barely listenable and 2. They sometimes venture into 'jam band' territory - :
Click to expand...

I have seen Bruce and it was a good show, but this is exactly why it wasn't an amazing show. It was a disjointed setlist that night, his voice left a lot to be desired, and the band would drag out songs, but the show was high energy I have to give it that... different strokes for different folks. :shrug:
 
gvox said:
Don't blast me, I've never seen Bruce live. I love his 80s stuff. But everytime I see them on TV or videos - and, notably, doing only 3 or so songs - I can't help but think two things 1. Jesus, his voice is shot. It's barely listenable and 2. They sometimes venture into 'jam band' territory - not as bad as the musically horrific Rolling Stones, but...

So when you say there's Bruce and then there's everybody else, I'd have to strongly disagree. In terms of quality of performance, U2 tops Bruce in my books. Bono can still sing for the most part and Edge doesn't sound like a wall of muddy noise (a la Stones)

:shrug:
Click to expand...

I would never blast you. Your giving your opinion and it's a great one! Maybe you should YouTube some of Bruce's recent shows before saying his voice is shot. Trust me it's better than ever. As far as saying U2 tops Bruce in performance I think you should see him in concert before making any judgements.

I guess alot of my posts are Pro-Springsteen and I really dont mean to piss anybody off. Whatever I write is in my opinion and not fact. God knows I'm not that smart. I've been a U2 fan since 1987 and always will be. However when I saw Springsteen I just saw a different dimesion I guess than what I saw in U2.
 
The idea that U2 cannot:

- Be theatrical on a couple of songs.
- Entertain everyone, from casual fans to diehard fans.
- Be themselves and not someone else.

... while maintaining a non-static setlist is a joke. They can. They choose not to, most likely out of laziness.
 
I don't think the problem lies in the setlist being static. An U2 show is at least half-conceptual and theatrical than a pop singer show, so it justifies the "static" argument.
I think the problem lies in how the setlist is structured, the repetition of the setlist formula of the last tours erases the conceptual side of it.
 
phillyfan26 said:
The idea that U2 cannot:

- Be theatrical on a couple of songs.
- Entertain everyone, from casual fans to diehard fans.
- Be themselves and not someone else.

... while maintaining a non-static setlist is a joke. They can. They choose not to, most likely out of laziness.
Click to expand...

In complete agreement...

Maybe a bit out of fear also...
 
It's like what you're seeing out there on stage these days is U2 Inc., not U2...


I really get the impression that U2 don't like doing this much either... I think they feel they have to do it this way, which is, in fact, very un-U2.
 
phillyfan26 said:
The idea that U2 cannot:

- Be theatrical on a couple of songs.
- Entertain everyone, from casual fans to diehard fans.
- Be themselves and not someone else.

... while maintaining a non-static setlist is a joke. They can. They choose not to, most likely out of laziness.
Click to expand...

:up:

Whether its laziness or not i dont know though
 
The question is misleading. It assumes that the setlist itself isn't ok if it is static. People look at that and say, "well of ourse static isn't ok" but surely given that they sub in 4 or so different sons each 2nd show in a city, and that the songs we are hearing are songs not played in 20 years or ever or whatever, surely static is a good thing in this instance, because I sure as shit want them to still be playing UV, and ES when I see them.
 
Well, on the one hand: blah blah blah, yada yada yada

And on the other hand: blah blah blah, yada yada yada

In English? Yeah, I'd love more varied setlists. But I'm okay with them being static because a) I'm still seeing my favorite band in concert; and b) I've been a fan for quite some time, and know that this is most likely the way the tour is going to go.

If I'm disappointed by the setlist after seeing my first show because it's so similar to the other shows, I only have myself to blame for knowing the setlists backward and forward going into the show.

I'm not sure if the people who expect them to bust out with all these varied setlists are either complete fools or eternal optimists. :)
 
ZooMacPhisto800 said:
It's like what you're seeing out there on stage these days is U2 Inc., not U2...


I really get the impression that U2 don't like doing this much either... I think they feel they have to do it this way, which is, in fact, very un-U2.
Click to expand...

U2 Inc? So U2 Inc. plays Electrical Storm, The Unforgettable Fire, and Party Girl? NO I think the only time you could ever use the U2 Inc. branding would be the final leg of the Vertigo Tour. As for them not liking it....if they didn't like it they would change it. They could all sit on the stage in bear suits and playing October on Mandolins and would sell out most every single night because contrary to popular belief the other 89,842 non-interferencers in the crowd DO NOT give a shit about the set list. :|
 
dan_smee said:
The question is misleading. It assumes that the setlist itself isn't ok if it is static. People look at that and say, "well of ourse static isn't ok" but surely given that they sub in 4 or so different sons each 2nd show in a city, and that the songs we are hearing are songs not played in 20 years or ever or whatever, surely static is a good thing in this instance, because I sure as shit want them to still be playing UV, and ES when I see them.
Click to expand...

No, I never once say there is something wrong with Static Setlists, I ask if you are ok with it or not...

And for those sitting on the fence, you have to lean one way or the other, none of this "I can't choose BS!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Setlist Issue
Replies
3
Views
487
lazarus
lazarus
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Please Use [Spoiler] Tags On All Setlist / Video Discussions
Replies
0
Views
762
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
prbiker15
Sphere Show #1 Setlist Party
14 15 16
Replies
451
Views
20K
dan_smee
dan_smee
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
The Final Countdown - U2 at Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part 3
18 19 20
Replies
574
Views
25K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom