Too much claw, not enough body! - Complaints about the setlist

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS - we are probably not very different in our passion and desire to see something a bit different. It has not been "all of a sudden" that people are asking for the ability to surprise us. I can recall U2 stating that they needed to "Eat the monster, before it ate them." I now wonder if their fantastic spectacles are locking them into constraints. It's questionable to the point where the element of surprise has been lost. Let me add, I also think deviating from the locked-in setlist should not be defined just by what songs are played, but a surprise in the order. Would you not like a bit of surprise?
.
Yes it is "all of a sudden" that people are asking. It's cos of the internet. I've been a U2 fan for fucking centuries, and I sure didn't know what U2 played in Dusseldorf on the UF tour, and how it compared to Madrid. I didn't have the fucking internet. I knew what they played in my home town at the concert I saw in 1984, and to this day I don't know what they played on the second night. I wasn't there. It wasn't listed all over the shop the next day. I would find out the highlights of what they played in English shows in 3 month old NMEs. The internet has created a whole new breed of fan who needs to know every second of what U2 are doing. There was no set list bitching every single day on the Lovetown tour, unless you were willing to write letters to Melody Maker or Smash Hits or something. AND FRANKLY NOONE CARED. At this point, the words LIFE. GET. A. come to mind.....
 
Let me add, I also think deviating from the locked-in setlist should not be defined just by what songs are played, but a surprise in the order. Would you not like a bit of surprise?

Ordinarily I don't read setlists until I see my first show. And you know what the best parts for me were? In 2001, hearing The Fly reincarnated in San Diego. In 2005, hearing Love and Peace open the 3rd Boston show, hearing Out of Control come back, that random playing of Fast Cars when we thought the show was over.... They realllllly don't leave a lot of room for "surprise". Those are kind of lame.

I tend to agree with Daveydave here, but I was this rabid about it on the last two tours, especially because I was going to several shows each tour. But it's not even just the lack of variety within one tour. I've been fortunate (or is it crazy?) enough to see them 32 times since 87, three tours in Europe and all over the US, including every show in Boston. I've heard Pride 32 times, Streets 32 times, WOWY 32 times, One 27 times....and I get excited when they throw me a bone of Out of Control???? Really? I look at my friends who are Springsteen fans and go to multiple shows and they're always rocked by the variety and how he seems to pull the songs out of thin air and deliver them. He's probably the only one I'd liken to U2 with the catalog and potential to dig deep and make it work. And he does. And U2 doesn't. Why don't they? I think that's what Daveydave is trying to flesh out here. We've heard the excuses: light show, stage production....what about apathy?

What would be so hard about having 6-8 holes in a show with 12-15 possible songs to fit into those holes, rotate them out, play what suits your whim that night and not what's so rehearsed that it's rote? Type up some lyrics for Bono's teleprompter and mix it up!

It's sad, I talked to two Dubliners after Saturday night's Dublin show and they both said "crap, they just phoned that in." I was shocked. Having been to 5 shows in Dublin myself, that is horrifying that they felt that way. Inexcusable actually. Not that they tried and failed but that they didn't even seem to try at all, they threw their hometown crowd what they'd play in Tacoma, Oslo and Anaheim. Pretty sad.

This time I'm seeing two in Boston and that's it. It became obvious to me that that's all I need to say I've seen "the tour" and I certainly don't get rewarded by going the extra mile to see more. I still love them, they're still my favorite band, but maybe as middle age sets in I'm taking a stand and saying enough is enough. The leftover ticket money will buy a nice sectional for my living room. :lol:
 
Yes it is "all of a sudden" that people are asking. It's cos of the internet. I've been a U2 fan for fucking centuries, and I sure didn't know what U2 played in Dusseldorf on the UF tour, and how it compared to Madrid. I didn't have the fucking internet. I knew what they played in my home town at the concert I saw in 1984, and to this day I don't know what they played on the second night. I wasn't there. It wasn't listed all over the shop the next day. I would find out the highlights of what they played in English shows in 3 month old NMEs. The internet has created a whole new breed of fan who needs to know every second of what U2 are doing. There was no set list bitching every single day on the Lovetown tour, unless you were willing to write letters to Melody Maker or Smash Hits or something. AND FRANKLY NOONE CARED. At this point, the words LIFE. GET. A. come to mind.....

Oh hell yes.....
 
I say we make ONE thread called the "Tour complaints & Negativity Thread" and anyone who wants to rant about something can just do that in there. I think most of the sane people on here though will stay away from it so everyone else can have their brawl and anger fit in the negative thread.

... Im serious... i think it would be a good idea. We would get rid of all these spawns of complaint threads.

Mods?

That's what this thread is for and that's why I edited the title. One complaint thread is more than enough.
 
Ordinarily I don't read setlists until I see my first show. And you know what the best parts for me were? In 2001, hearing The Fly reincarnated in San Diego. In 2005, hearing Love and Peace open the 3rd Boston show, hearing Out of Control come back, that random playing of Fast Cars when we thought the show was over.... They realllllly don't leave a lot of room for "surprise". Those are kind of lame.

I tend to agree with Daveydave here, but I was this rabid about it on the last two tours, especially because I was going to several shows each tour. But it's not even just the lack of variety within one tour. I've been fortunate (or is it crazy?) enough to see them 32 times since 87, three tours in Europe and all over the US, including every show in Boston. I've heard Pride 32 times, Streets 32 times, WOWY 32 times, One 27 times....and I get excited when they throw me a bone of Out of Control???? Really? I look at my friends who are Springsteen fans and go to multiple shows and they're always rocked by the variety and how he seems to pull the songs out of thin air and deliver them. He's probably the only one I'd liken to U2 with the catalog and potential to dig deep and make it work. And he does. And U2 doesn't. Why don't they? I think that's what Daveydave is trying to flesh out here. We've heard the excuses: light show, stage production....what about apathy?

What would be so hard about having 6-8 holes in a show with 12-15 possible songs to fit into those holes, rotate them out, play what suits your whim that night and not what's so rehearsed that it's rote? Type up some lyrics for Bono's teleprompter and mix it up!

It's sad, I talked to two Dubliners after Saturday night's Dublin show and they both said "crap, they just phoned that in." I was shocked. Having been to 5 shows in Dublin myself, that is horrifying that they felt that way. Inexcusable actually. Not that they tried and failed but that they didn't even seem to try at all, they threw their hometown crowd what they'd play in Tacoma, Oslo and Anaheim. Pretty sad.

This time I'm seeing two in Boston and that's it. It became obvious to me that that's all I need to say I've seen "the tour" and I certainly don't get rewarded by going the extra mile to see more. I still love them, they're still my favorite band, but maybe as middle age sets in I'm taking a stand and saying enough is enough. The leftover ticket money will buy a nice sectional for my living room. :lol:


This is an awesome post and really explains how many of us feel. I was kicking around both NJ shows and I'm glad I'm only going to one. Considering the costs of a ticket, gas, travel as it will take me two hours to get there. I would be basically disappointed if I saw the same show both nights.
 
I really feel bad for the people who want setlist variation for legitimate reasons because a lot of the time the reasons I see people post are pretty hilarious.

Most of them reek of selfish entitlement to be honest. "As a U2 fan who pays good money I am entitled to hear such and such a song" or "U2 owe it to the fans to play this or that"...

weak sauce, dude :down:

U2 play what they want to play and if you don't like it, don't go. End of story. No one is making you spend money to go to a concert or travel around the world to see them and if you are that deluded that you would actually BLAME them for somehow ruining your experience because they played the same songs two nights in a row, well, I don't know what to tell you... And it's fine if you want to complain on here but expect a backlash. Simple as that. Because for every person who feels the need to complain about something on here there are just as many or sometimes more who will defend it... Except the mask, nobody liked that one lol...

:up:
 
Yes it is "all of a sudden" that people are asking. It's cos of the internet. I've been a U2 fan for fucking centuries, and I sure didn't know what U2 played in Dusseldorf on the UF tour, and how it compared to Madrid. I didn't have the fucking internet. I knew what they played in my home town at the concert I saw in 1984, and to this day I don't know what they played on the second night. I wasn't there. It wasn't listed all over the shop the next day. I would find out the highlights of what they played in English shows in 3 month old NMEs. The internet has created a whole new breed of fan who needs to know every second of what U2 are doing. There was no set list bitching every single day on the Lovetown tour, unless you were willing to write letters to Melody Maker or Smash Hits or something. AND FRANKLY NOONE CARED. At this point, the words LIFE. GET. A. come to mind.....

:up:
 
omg!!!11 we should start an online petition to force U2 to play the songs we want to hear so we can enjoy the concerts from home!!!!11111

kthx
 
I've been fortunate (or is it crazy?) enough to see them 32 times since 87, three tours in Europe and all over the US, including every show in Boston. I've heard Pride 32 times, Streets 32 times, WOWY 32 times, One 27 times....and I get excited when they throw me a bone of Out of Control???? Really? I look at my friends who are Springsteen fans and go to multiple shows and they're always rocked by the variety and how he seems to pull the songs out of thin air and deliver them. He's probably the only one I'd liken to U2 with the catalog and potential to dig deep and make it work. And he does. And U2 doesn't. Why don't they? I think that's what Daveydave is trying to flesh out here. We've heard the excuses: light show, stage production....what about apathy?
First of all you're a rarity.

The Bruce thing has been brought up about 169 times but since I haven't seen you post I'll touch upon it. That works for a Bruce crowd, it wouldn't work for a U2 crowd, like it or not the majority of a U2 crowd is "casual fans". They want to sing along to WOWY and hear One if not the show is going to die a slow death because the crowd will not get into it, especially in a stadium.

What would be so hard about having 6-8 holes in a show with 12-15 possible songs to fit into those holes, rotate them out, play what suits your whim that night and not what's so rehearsed that it's rote? Type up some lyrics for Bono's teleprompter and mix it up!
Well that's pretty much what they are doing maybe not 6-8 holes, but we're pretty new into the tour. You must have hated PopMart.

It's sad, I talked to two Dubliners after Saturday night's Dublin show and they both said "crap, they just phoned that in." I was shocked. Having been to 5 shows in Dublin myself, that is horrifying that they felt that way. Inexcusable actually. Not that they tried and failed but that they didn't even seem to try at all, they threw their hometown crowd what they'd play in Tacoma, Oslo and Anaheim. Pretty sad.
So two Dubliners said that? That's it, I'm shocked as well, how could they do that to Dublin? We have video of a whole fucking stadium going nuts and singing SBS, we have reports that Bono may have even cried :gasp:, and hearing what I have there was no phoning it in...:shrug:
 
That works for a Bruce crowd, it wouldn't work for a U2 crowd, like it or not the majority of a U2 crowd is "casual fans". They want to sing along to WOWY and hear One if not the show is going to die a slow death because the crowd will not get into it, especially in a stadium.

I don't agree there at all, I think they have one of the more transient fan bases going today.

Well that's pretty much what they are doing maybe not 6-8 holes, but we're pretty new into the tour. You must have hated PopMart.

Loathed it.

So two Dubliners said that? That's it, I'm shocked as well, how could they do that to Dublin? We have video of a whole fucking stadium going nuts and singing SBS, we have reports that Bono may have even cried :gasp:, and hearing what I have there was no phoning it in...:shrug:

Well all those jubilant screamers must have been those "casual fans" who travel 3000+ miles to see a show in the band's home town. {irony alarm} :hmm: They certainly weren't all Irish, anyone who's been to a Dublin show would know the locals vs. visitors ratio is heavily weighted towards visitors. My point in mentioning that was those are the Irish guys I attended shows there with and knew how important those shows were for them. They left disappointed and wanting for more. Maybe Bono cried because it was a shitty homestand, who knows.
 
I don't agree there at all, I think they have one of the more transient fan bases going today.
It's hard to prove either way, but given my experiences and hearing story after story, I haven't found this to be true. It's been my experience that U2 have a very diehard fanbase and a very casual fanbase of people who just want to see them because they've heard they are the greatest live band and they like the songs they hear on the radio. And it's been my experience that the die hards do not make up the majority of the audience.

Well all those jubilant screamers must have been those "casual fans" who travel 3000+ miles to see a show in the band's home town. {irony alarm} :hmm: They certainly weren't all Irish, anyone who's been to a Dublin show would know the locals vs. visitors ratio is heavily weighted towards visitors. My point in mentioning that was those are the Irish guys I attended shows there with and knew how important those shows were for them. They left disappointed and wanting for more. Maybe Bono cried because it was a shitty homestand, who knows.

It's too bad those two guys didn't have a good time.
 
FFS, you want setlist variation? Don't follow the setlists online, and only go to one show. Voila, as far as you know, your setlist was vastly different from anyone else's. There's your variation.
 
if someone goes to a U2 show, and they're upset that they played a "static" setlist, that's their own damn fault. i follow the setlists knowing that i'm most likely not going to be surprised by anything when i eventually see them (Chicago 1), and i'm fine with that. you won't see me posting all negative when i come back.
 
ok I dont know if this ever crosses anyone's mind around here but...

they actually have to PLAY the songs you guys are wanting from this setlist.

Its not an easy task. It takes years to practice and get things down for a live crowd. Hell, Im a mentalist/ magician and it has taken me 4 years just to perfect a single act! To just snap your fingers and think that the band will somehow be able to pull together a song they havent played in years is ridiculous. They are not our servants, WE ARE LUCKYthat they are even sharing their music with us. The beatles stopped playing live just when they were getting good! and yet U2 comes to your town to share the music that made them who they are.

and on another note... When we get used to something it ceases to impress us, but do the setlist complainers realize that they are playing Ultraviolet and Unforgettable Fire (not to mention ES at times)! I mean just because they are playing it every night doesn't dilute the significance that U2 are actually playing these songs. If one of those showed up on Vertigo tour, this place would go crazy (if we dont go crazy tonight... sorry couldnt resist)... yet they are playing these songs every night FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT. jeez guys show a little respect towards the band. Its not easy to put on a show.

just my $ 0.02

This would be reasonable if U2, at their current skill level, suddenly decided to perform technical progressive speed metal instead of their own discography. As it is, U2's songs are among the most simplistic I've come across. It's difficult to get the feel down perfectly, but learning them doesn't involve any more skill than learning songs by any of their contemporaries. And, unless their collective memory is completely shot, they should be able to at least partially remember songs they were performing every single night for years, as is the case with, say, Gone or Gloria. So to claim that they have to "learn" the songs is somewhat inaccurate in these cases.

Of course, some of us don't really care all that much if U2 fucks a song up. A little sloppiness could do them some good. From an artistic point of view, it often breeds spontaneity and inspiration. But hey, it's U2's show. If they feel the crowd deserves perfection, they will continue to seek it out. I'm not looking for that, but I'm just one face in the crowd, one who will probably have a wonderful time no matter what.
 
if someone goes to a U2 show, and they're upset that they played a "static" setlist, that's their own damn fault. i follow the setlists knowing that i'm most likely not going to be surprised by anything when i eventually see them (Chicago 1), and i'm fine with that. you won't see me posting all negative when i come back.

Wake UP! That's not the point being made here. The question is whether U2 have been creative with setlists given their experience. It's the one area they fail to be great at. Let me repeat...It is the only area they fail to be great at! I someone really going to argue that? Save the "most bands" argument, I don't consider U2 to be a typical band. They have the catalog, the experience and an intelligent fan base to pull something better off in this area.

Springsteen was mentioned earlier, I'll add Pearl Jam to the debate. These are two bands that succeed and do a better job of recognizing that certain shows deserve additional recognition. Springsteen goes out of his way to play a great catalog through any NY / NJ set of shows. PJ - I've experienced them playing 3 dates in Boston without repeating a song. Seattle always gets special attention and surprises.

U2 in Dublin this week - kind of sad they didn't get special attention given the fact they are so bonded to their "tribe." It would be interesting to hear from Irish & even more so -international travelers if they were thrilled with the setlists or if they feel kicked in the ass a bit.

To have stated that fans are only recently upset with the setlist variety is somewhat ridiculous. Sure, I might have been early to the internet setlists via usenet and newsgroups in '92 - '93 via the wire list, but u2tours.com and setlists on internet sites have been easily available to millions since Popmart.

dave
 
Wake UP! That's not the point being made here. The question is whether U2 have been creative with setlists given their experience. It's the one area they fail to be great at. Let me repeat...It is the only area they fail to be great at! I someone really going to argue that? Save the "most bands" argument, I don't consider U2 to be a typical band. They have the catalog, the experience and an intelligent fan base to pull something better off in this area.

Springsteen was mentioned earlier, I'll add Pearl Jam to the debate. These are two bands that succeed and do a better job of recognizing that certain shows deserve additional recognition. Springsteen goes out of his way to play a great catalog through any NY / NJ set of shows. PJ - I've experienced them playing 3 dates in Boston without repeating a song. Seattle always gets special attention and surprises.

U2 in Dublin this week - kind of sad they didn't get special attention given the fact they are so bonded to their "tribe." It would be interesting to hear from Irish & even more so -international travelers if they were thrilled with the setlists or if they feel kicked in the ass a bit.

To have stated that fans are only recently upset with the setlist variety is somewhat ridiculous. Sure, I might have been early to the internet setlists via usenet and newsgroups in '92 - '93 via the wire list, but u2tours.com and setlists on internet sites have been easily available to millions since Popmart.

dave

don't tell me to wake up. not a good decision on your part. i know people.

and there are several points being made here. yours is of lesser importance to me.
 
This would be reasonable if U2, at their current skill level, suddenly decided to perform technical progressive speed metal instead of their own discography. As it is, U2's songs are among the most simplistic I've come across. It's difficult to get the feel down perfectly, but learning them doesn't involve any more skill than learning songs by any of their contemporaries. And, unless their collective memory is completely shot, they should be able to at least partially remember songs they were performing every single night for years, as is the case with, say, Gone or Gloria.

Of course, some of us don't really care all that much if U2 fucks a song up. A little sloppiness could do them some good. From an artistic point of view, it often breeds spontaneity and inspiration. But hey, it's U2's show. If they feel the crowd deserves perfection, they will continue to seek it out. I'm not looking for that, but I'm just one face in the crowd, one who will probably have a wonderful time no matter what.

Very reasonable thoughts & addressing the issue at hand. Thank you.

How is it that most U2 cover bands can pull off a better setlist than the real band? It's not that difficult to remember your own songs when you are experienced professionals.

dave
 
imagine if the internet were around when zoo tv was happening? or popmart? i mean, i know it was around but not like we have today where we know what song is being played 30 seconds after it's started halfway around the world. it's kind of crazy. nobody here has anybody to blame but themselves if they even know what a static setlist is. there's nobody that forced anybody here to look at a setlist prior to going to a show.

even if somebody did...why does it make it less enjoyable for you that you're seeing the same setlist in say, foxboro, that they played for the people in berlin? does it matter one bit? is it going to suddenly make u2 suck while they're playing? no.

i'm not sure exactly why people continue to expect some crazy varied setlist night in and out. for early on in the tour, u2 have done an excellent job of mixing it up - by their standards. they've still got songs they've rehearsed that they haven't played yet too.

as for the stage, i haven't seen many but i've seen a few complaints about the visuals not being awesome. it usually takes them half a leg if not a full leg to hit full stride with the visuals and see what works. also bear in mind too that for awhile when these concerts start it looks like there is a lot of daylight. that should change at least when they're here in the US for leg 2.
 
"don't tell me to wake up. not a good decision on your part. i know people."

You know people? What is that supposed to mean? You know a couple of mods? You know a guy that can take care of things in my neighborhood?
 
"don't tell me to wake up. not a good decision on your part. i know people."

You know people? What is that supposed to mean? You know a couple of mods? You know a guy that can take care of things in my neighborhood?

don't make me pick up the phone.
 
I don't agree there at all, I think they have one of the more transient fan bases going today.



Loathed it.



Well all those jubilant screamers must have been those "casual fans" who travel 3000+ miles to see a show in the band's home town. {irony alarm} :hmm: They certainly weren't all Irish, anyone who's been to a Dublin show would know the locals vs. visitors ratio is heavily weighted towards visitors. My point in mentioning that was those are the Irish guys I attended shows there with and knew how important those shows were for them. They left disappointed and wanting for more. Maybe Bono cried because it was a shitty homestand, who knows.

As a moderate Springsteen fan (i.e someone who owns all his albums) who recently went to a Springsteen concert in front of 50,000 people in Glasgow. His setlist sucked, I'm sure the diehards loved it but it was poorly paced, only had 4 songs off his last two albums, and for large parts the audience who were mostly casual (any stadium gig is made up of mostly casual fans) were listless and bored, quite simply because the boss thought it was more important showing that he could play a bunch of rarities than songs the majority of the crowd could recognise. Don't get me wrong my favourite song of the whole night was an old song he's only ever played 3 times so I can see why diehards love it, but Springsteen's approach can very easily miss. U2's is about consistency.

I'm not too bothered by variation in U2 sets, they'll mix it up more as it goes on like the 3rd leg of Elevation and there's been enough changes to keep it interesting. And from the soundchecks it seems they're attempting to work more stuff in. Having been to the Berlin concert I'm a bit more forgiving of the setlist, as it has a pace in person which isn't apparent on paper or even on youtube but I don't think the base setlist is as strong as it could be but it delivers a far more consistent experience than Springsteen. And went you have a largely different set of 50,000 plus every second night consistency is the key.
 
Springsteen was mentioned earlier, I'll add Pearl Jam to the debate.
Those two band have two entirely different audiences from U2. PJ are pretty much playing to their invested fans, they don't get much new airplay so there aren't many "hits" fans in the audience these days. Same with Bruce to an extent.

We have a member here who talked about how she was introduced to U2 just recently and knows very little pre-2000 work, and she's now one of us, there are thousands like her who just know the new stuff or the hits in a U2 audience.

It would be interesting to hear from Irish & even more so -international travelers if they were thrilled with the setlists or if they feel kicked in the ass a bit.
Why exactly would they feel "kicked in the ass"?
 
Here is a question for the "other side"; do you honestly think that U2 wants to do varied setlists - whatever your definition of that is?

Do you think they are bored with what they play night in and night out? And if so, why have they not done so in the past 20 so years?
 
Here is a question for the "other side"; do you honestly think that U2 wants to do varied setlists - whatever your definition of that is?

Do you think they are bored with what they play night in and night out? And if so, why have they not done so in the past 20 so years?

it doesn't matter if U2 wants to do it or not. what matters is that i want them to do it!

!1
 
Very reasonable thoughts & addressing the issue at hand. Thank you.

How is it that most U2 cover bands can pull off a better setlist than the real band? It's not that difficult to remember your own songs when you are experienced professionals.

dave

Very, Very interesting since alot of cover bands have day jobs as well.
 
Very reasonable thoughts & addressing the issue at hand. Thank you.

How is it that most U2 cover bands can pull off a better setlist than the real band? It's not that difficult to remember your own songs when you are experienced professionals.

dave

It's not a factor of can't, it's a factor of won't. They prefer a more managed consistent experience for the audience each night on a technically complex stage environment with multiple lighting and video que's than to throw out a random bunch of songs and see what sticks. You might not like it but they're playing for 95% of the audience who attend 1 concert in the tour not the diehards. Having seen Springsteen live then U2 two weeks later, the U2 experience was certainly more polished than a Springsteen set light on hits and big on rarities which had no more flow than cruise ship cover band working through this weeks single chart.
 
Back
Top Bottom