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

[daveydave]

Oh look!

Well played Dalton! LOL!

 

[No spoken words]

Well played Dalton! LOL!

Good thing you replied, because if two posts of his get ignored in the same thread, he transforms into a wolf.

 

[popshopper]

That's fine for you. I guess I expect more from the self-proclaimed "best band in the world" and ask for a little more. I'm not even looking for Flower Child. Just stretch your legs a bit more than the same old same old.


I don't think it's insane. I think it's delivering a concert experience other bands have proven is possible. And I went from 11 shows last tour to 2 this tour. So I've put my money where my mouth is.


But we don't know that now, do we? And probably never will. And for the one Springsteen show you said sucked, I have a handful of friends here who saw quite a few last time around and say the complete opposite....they lived and died for a rarities show like that. Why aren't I allowed to expect that from "my" favorite band?

They lived and died for a rarities show like that.

Excuse me for shouting.

THE MAJORITY OF THE AUDIENCE ARE NOT DIEHARDS, AND COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT RARITIES

Jesus, the self-entitlement of some people. U2 aren't just playing for you and the small contingent of obsessives who follow them about all summer, if they did they'd be playing smaller venue or living as a nostalgia act. Springsteen struggled at Hampden, the majority of the crowd had to sit through 13 rare songs before he deemed to play something approaching a hit song, it was flat. Springsteen was meant to be supporting his new album, 4 songs he played from it in 29 song set, you want that then your on the wrong website and looking at the wrong band. They'd quit before it ever came to that.

The only thing which inherently amazing about a 'rare set' if you have no concept of what is expected, for the vast majority of concert goers, every night is filled with the unexpected. Had you stayed away from the setlists then the idea of them playing Ultraviolet or the Unforgettable fire would probably blow your mind at the concert, as would have the idea of Gloria or the Ocean last tour. It's only expected and dull because you sought out the information.

 

[popshopper]

All a great post for sure, but how is U2 different from REM, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam?

Pearl Jam, Springsteen and REM are essentially nostalgia acts at this point. Pearl Jam are playing to their established fan base (they took the decision to do so years ago when they stopped releasing singles and music video), REM are now an arena act, not playing stadia and when they do the sets are filled with greatest hits. Arena acts = smaller audience = more diehards per audience.
On the monster stadium tour, REM played 40 songs in 28 shows on the first leg and then they only played 37 different songs in 26 shows on the second leg. U2 have played 35 different songs in 14 shows. Stadium tours by relevant bands or bands seeking to still be relevent aren't big on change.
Springsteen is 'supporting' his new album with 4 songs off it a night, and maybe 1 song off the album before that and it's essentially a rare reunion tour.

U2 are playing stadiums and are playing a set frontloaded and heavy with new material, and also a technically ambitious tour at that. You're not comparing like for like. And at the end of the day, it's far too early in the tour for this sort of whingeing. I imagine this will progress in the same way as the Elevation and Vertigo tours did with more material coming onstream as the tour progresses.

 

[HCL]

All a great post for sure, but how is U2 different from REM, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam?

Please check Peeling Off Those Dollar Bills forum.
U2 is one of the biggest four bands ever. R.E.M., Bruce and PJ all have big fanbases, but nothing next to U2. The only ones coming close these days are the Stones.

 

[zwervers2]

That was me, remember. That's how I know you better than you know yourself!

Damn, you are right. How easily I forget.
Post traumatic stress syndrom does that to you I guess

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

ok, lets say it's d.) all of the above.

what now? Don't you think U2 would change this if they really thought it was a problem?

why won't anyone answer me!? I am human!! I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!

 

[daveydave]

Please check Peeling Off Those Dollar Bills forum.
U2 is one of the biggest four bands ever. R.E.M., Bruce and PJ all have big fanbases, but nothing next to U2. The only ones coming close these days are the Stones.

This may differ in the States vs. Europe or elsewhere.

I disagree with you on Bruce. Step up a generation from us (I assume) and he's god. In the States, Bruce can play multiple stadium gigs in most places. The reason U2 are avoiding certain markets, is because they know they are not well received in certain areas of the States.

The only reason why the Stones are as big as they are is because they have the desire to play stadiums. They are not a functioning studio band anymore.

PJ - Maybe where you are, but the number of multiple returners to U2 shows is much higher in the Boston area for U2 than for PJ. PJ probably can't sell out stadiums, but like you said, they took a different direction years ago.

R.E.M - I don't know enough about their fanbase to tell you. I suspect they are smaller than both PJ and U2.

dave

 

[daveydave]

Good thing you replied, because if two posts of his get ignored in the same thread, he transforms into a wolf.

I'm not unknown to give credit where credit is due. It didn't stink of large text or insult, it didn't mind the discussion, it was just smart!

dave

 

[Dalton]

Good thing you replied, because if two posts of his get ignored in the same thread, he transforms into a wolf.

A BIG fuckin' wolf.

 

[daveydave]

why won't anyone answer me!? I am human!! I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!

Money - you don't have to mix it up or put in the extra effort when the money is guaranteed??? It's a thought. When was the last time they had to rely on selling tix after the tour (s) had started?

dave

 

[mikal]

i sure hope U2 plays "When I Look At The World" in Chicago....just for me!

 

[daveydave]

A BIG fuckin' wolf.

A scary wolf that loves Road House or Patrick Swayze?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Money - you don't have to mix it up or put in the extra effort when the money is guaranteed??? It's a thought. When was the last time they had to rely on selling tix after the tour (s) had started?

dave

thank you but you didn't answer my question. Don't you think U2 would change their setlist if they really were bored or thought they weren't giving a good performance?

 

[gvox]

How is it that most U2 cover bands can pull off a better setlist than the real band?

Very, Very interesting since alot of cover bands have day jobs as well.

I'll try this one on, as I feel both of these statements are misleading.

Most - if not all, U2 cover bands don't do two major things: perform hundreds of shows on a straight run tour in front of hundreds of thousands of people. The second thing they all don't do, is perform most, if any, of U2's songs as well as U2 does. None of them. Bar none. I like a few of the top ones, but they all lack something in one or more elements of the L+E+B+A=U2 equation. They play the songs well, but then again alot of them are great musicians who also can play music other than U2's quite well, also. U2 self-admittedly don't do alot of other music and aren't maybe even as musically skilled as some tribute band musicians, for all we know

Finally, most - if not all - U2 cover bands will tell you that while their overall U2 repetoire does in fact exceed 60-75 songs or so, they can only realistically play 25-30 of those on any given night and they are challenged even more than U2 is because they can't get away with playing 6 new album cuts and a slew of rarities at the expense of hits. Most audiences are going to want the hits, a couple of rarities, and a couple of new tracks. Most Interferencers experience with U2 cover bands has been at fan gatherings where there is a heavy contingent of hardcores and so during those times these bands revel in the rarities and fan favorites, obviously, it's alot of fun and a bit of a boost to play songs that U2 rarely does. As a matter of fact, especially during tour time, tribute bands play a valuable function there in playing those rarer tunes. HOWEVER...that does not speak to the other 40-50 weeks of the year where you don't see that same band, and when they pull into Buttfuckville USA or play some corporate event or a Casino or a wedding and there's maybe one Interferencer/online U2 fan in the house? They go back to the safety of the U2 hit parade with one or two rarities. Or lose the audience completely.

2. I am not the only one at the gig. Do I think Stuck, Elevation and Vertigo are the Holy Grail of U2? Hell no. But someone, somewhere in the audience heard one of those songs on the radio, completely oblivious as to whom it was, and was completely blown away. I need to respect that. U2 does.

QFT (and I understood the rest of the context and somewhat agree, just thought this bit was worth repeating for a needed dose of perspective)

why won't anyone answer me!? I am human!! I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!

Probably because you're right, and what you are asking is largely rhetorical. U2 aren't necessarily sick of these songs, and they find comfort and joy in playing them. They are their songs, after all.

 

[No spoken words]

i sure hope U2 plays "When I Look At The World" in Chicago....just for me!

Dick, if they play that they're playing it for me. And, you'll be suffering from a concussion anyway, cos Chicago hot dogs make for powerful projectiles.

 

[gvox]

Dick, if they play that they're playing it for me.

There's three of us now then. Surely they HAVE to play it now!

 

[daveydave]

thank you but you didn't answer my question. Don't you think U2 would change their setlist if they really were bored or thought they weren't giving a good performance?

I don't know. This is not meant in a wise-ass way. I have no idea what they perceive as a great or good performance. Is it selling out? Is it crowd reaction? Is it a cohesiveness in the group?

I think that is why I am hopeful that they really bring it on with this tour. "I don't have all the answers, I just have a list of questions."

dave

 

[zooropop40]

I think U2 is smarter than us when it comes to what to play/ how to please the crowd/ how well they play the songs/ etc...

They know better, they have more experience, and they are not stupid. Im pretty sure they are playing the songs they are playing for good reasons.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I don't know. This is not meant in a wise-ass way. I have no idea what they perceive as a great or good performance. Is it selling out? Is it crowd reaction? Is it a cohesiveness in the group?

I think that is why I am hopeful that they really bring it on with this tour. "I don't have all the answers, I just have a list of questions."

dave

Don't get me wrong it's not that I don't disagree with a lot of what you guys say it's just that it's never going to change. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Complaining about it isn't doing any good other than irritating people who have no control about it either.

 

[smitefull1]

it's just the result of having your ass kissed, and having been told how great everything you do is for 20 years. it's also the reason i will remember u2 as a good band, but not the greatest band

you want spontaneity, and musicianship, go see phish, 20 years without a repeated setlist or a single show ticket over 60 bucks

 

[gvox]

you want spontaneity, and musicianship, go see phish, 20 years without a repeated setlist or a single show ticket over 60 bucks

I'll take 30 years of the same band lineup over Phish any day.

 

[smitefull1]

you make no sense

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

you're going to do well around here, I can tell

 

[monsieur fly]

What does "WE need" mean?

Are "WE" at every show?

I don't think so.

Setlists aren't for a little minority of hardcore fans but for a wide audience. If U2 only played rarities, they could pack in their Claw, no more stadium shows.

Well an earlier part of my post showed I was referring to purists. As you will probably unpick that term, let me define it as a group more familiar with, and more appreciative of their album tracks. And before you treat us to what you'd no doubt call "discourse analysis" "we" is just a word, that's all. Furthermore, your final argument strikes me as slightly odd given that you and other setlist defenders love inisisting that casual fans don't even read the setlists. Therefore, by that logic there would be no effect on attendance.

 

[AtomicBono]

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.

No offense, but why exactly do you think you should be "rewarded" for going to more shows? The fact is very few people go to multiple shows during a leg/tour... I'm pretty diehard, you can see that from my post count . U2 has been my favourite band for over a decade and i'm only 21. My room is full of U2 posters, magazines, books, etc. I went to one show on Elevation, two on Vertigo (one on each NA leg), and am so far going to one show this tour. You know why? It's not because I don't like the setlists. It's because it's all I can afford/have time for. So, if you figure that maybe 75% of an audience is made up of somewhat casual fans, and the other 25% are true diehards... an even smaller percentage of the diehards are attending multiple shows, since for most people it's just not feasible. U2 aren't playing their shows based on the idea that their fanbase is following them around...they want as many people as possible to get to see U2, and so they want those people who are seeing ONE show (aka MOST people) to have the best possible experience - which means playing the hits.

Now, do I think U2 could mix it up a little more? Yes, there are plenty of songs I wish they were playing, and I think it wouldn't hurt to switch out a couple of either the more recent songs (like some of the ATYCLB songs) or hits for some 90's (non-AB) or early 80's songs, just because then every U2 era would be fairly represented. However I am suggesting a very minor change, still keeping the majority of the set as is. And I could care less if the set I get is the exact same one they played in Berlin or whatever. No one forced me to look at the setlists beforehand. If I wanted to be surprised I would just stay away from this place. Had I not looked at the setlists beforehand I certainly wouldn't expect UF, UV, or MLK. I wouldn't have expected so many ATYCLB songs (especially IALW), and I wasn't sure they'd keep COBL this tour. And I didn't know for sure which songs from NLOTH they'd play (the stuff played on the promo tour of course, but what about UC and MOS?), and I certainly didn't expect a remix of Crazy. And I wouldn't know for sure every hit they'd play...they just brought back NYD for the first time, and weren't playing UTEOTW at the beginning of the tour. AOH isn't a hit I would have guessed they'd play. The set would have been more than surprising enough for me, though I don't think U2's goal is to "surprise" anyone.

In short: people complaining about U2 playing the same set every night when they're just reading the sets are ridiculous. People complaining about U2 playing the same set every night because they want to see U2 30 times this tour have more reason to complain, but if you are lucky enough to be able to see U2 that many times it seems like kind of a minor complaint to me.

 

[dal975]

this is what i don't get and i've brought it up in other threads:

why doesn't U2, at this stage of their career, mix in several small club dates during a world tour in select cities? Tickets would be so hard to get it would ensure it would be only diehards. The band could do whatever they want and not have to worry about the outside world- they's be "amongst friends." Who cares if they fucked up? They could play ten acoustic songs, they could try to play October straight, hell Bono and Larry could switch places for awhile. Wouldn't that be the magical solution to all of these posts? Imagine the value of the bootlegs from those shows. It would keep the band fresh and...gasp...we all on this forum just might appreciate the usual static stadium setlist all the more because we are given rare, but precious, life sustaining variety and originality in between the big shows.

I'm not talking 10 or 15 of these shows...but like 1 or 2 per leg.

 

[DubbalinGirl]

Excuse me for shouting.

THE MAJORITY OF THE AUDIENCE ARE NOT DIEHARDS, AND COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT RARITIES

Jesus, the self-entitlement of some people. U2 aren't just playing for you and the small contingent of obsessives who follow them about all summer, if they did they'd be playing smaller venue or living as a nostalgia act. Springsteen struggled at Hampden, the majority of the crowd had to sit through 13 rare songs before he deemed to play something approaching a hit song, it was flat. Springsteen was meant to be supporting his new album, 4 songs he played from it in 29 song set, you want that then your on the wrong website and looking at the wrong band. They'd quit before it ever came to that.

The only thing which inherently amazing about a 'rare set' if you have no concept of what is expected, for the vast majority of concert goers, every night is filled with the unexpected. Had you stayed away from the setlists then the idea of them playing Ultraviolet or the Unforgettable fire would probably blow your mind at the concert, as would have the idea of Gloria or the Ocean last tour. It's only expected and dull because you sought out the information.

First, you missed the part where I spent three tours avoiding setlists and was not surprised. This is the first tour where I'm looking since Zoo TV.

Second, I'm not even talking about rarities...you obviously missed my "not looking for Flower Child"...but really, swap out One for Gone, Bad for Please...there are plenty of worthy "hits" that the "casual" fan would know that aren't played to death. You don't have to look hard for them. That's the benefit, I would think, of having 15 albums to pull from. I'd expect this static from a band with 1 or 2 albums out. Not 15.

Third, I am hardly entitled, I'm expecting better from a band that they (and you) proclaim to be the best in the world. I'm not getting it, so I'm reining it in and U2 will not have that much of my hard earned cash this time around.

Lastly, I got a completely different impression from people who I know who saw Bruce. And they weren't nearly as passionate about him as I was about U2. Just sayin'...

The only ones coming close these days are the Stones.

And that's a comparison to be proud of? I guess "coming close" in terms of static setlists, cranking out the same oldies night after night? Or money earned doing it?

In comparing U2 and other bands as I did earlier, I was asking specifically what the difference is in catalog, stage production, difficulty in "relearning" a song they actually wrote and how that all factors in to a static setlist. There's a big difference between being able to deliver a lot of variation in songs and actually doing it. But what I don't get is why you all keep making references to the different fan bases in order to prove that's why U2 don't do this without addressing the logistics.

 

[gvox]

you and other setlist defenders love inisisting that casual fans don't even read the setlists. Therefore, by that logic there would be no effect on attendance.

This is actually one of the best points for the 'variety side' (if there is a side, I think they are varying the setlists just fine) I've heard yet.

Conversely, it's sortof a moot point - people are going to buy tickets for this tour whether or not U2 plays SBS and it's companion warhorses every night or not, granted. Mainstream media will probably give poorer reviews as a result of a lower level of excitement with the crowd, and this might drive *some* people to not want to buy tickets for the next tour or leg, but at this point of their career it's highly unlikely that sales would drop off. They might not pack stadiums, however.

But I don't think anyone is asserting that U2 plays these same songs because if they didn't fans would turn on them and stop attending. I think it's a combination of a number of factors, the greatest two being 1. the majority of fans want these songs and 2. the band wants to play them.

 

[DubbalinGirl]

No offense, but why exactly do you think you should be "rewarded" for going to more shows? The fact is very few people go to multiple shows during a leg/tour...

In short: people complaining about U2 playing the same set every night when they're just reading the sets are ridiculous. People complaining about U2 playing the same set every night because they want to see U2 30 times this tour have more reason to complain, but if you are lucky enough to be able to see U2 that many times it seems like kind of a minor complaint to me.

Let's not start a diehard pissing contest, shall we? That only ends badly.

Again, I'm not even saying static just within ONE TOUR, but static over the last SEVERAL tours. Run the numbers...go back to my first post in this thread, I gave a handful of stats there.

I used to go to multiple shows in multiple legs because I wanted to be there when they did something different. I got to hear A Sort of Homecoming in Dublin, I was at the first show post-9/11 in NYC, I got to be at St. Patrick's Day in Boston, the first show after Bono's Dad died, Larry's Halloween birthday show. That was when magical things happened. There are bands you can follow and get something special every night, no matter the circumstances, different on every tour, which is the "reward" you get when you follow them around. That's just not the case with U2. I'm blessed that I had and have the resources to do it, but it's become a case of diminishing returns.