thelaj
Refugee
As I recall (probably incorrectly), Bono said his favourite U2 tracks were Please and Stay and Miss Sarajevo... which is why it surprises me that the former hasn't appeared (even in acoustic form) since the Elevation Tour.
As I recall (probably incorrectly), Bono said his favourite U2 tracks were Please and Stay and Miss Sarajevo... which is why it surprises me that the former hasn't appeared (even in acoustic form) since the Elevation Tour.
I have a feeling the song Zooropa is going to make an appearance. It just seems like it is time.
PS: Plus Bono shouldn't have problem singing it.
ok, now without hyperboleI know it's so much easier to resort to hyperbole, but I don't think anyone in this conversation has ever asked U2 to play Pop and October in their entirety rather than the hits, merely to mix in a song or two from them occasionally, because, you know, some people like those albums.
They heavily catered for early 80's U2 last tour, now it's mid 80's turn. Achtung Baby is 90's U2, it's not the full spectrum of 90's U2 but it's a valid part of that sound and they've heavily playing it this tour as they did last tour . Yes it's a tad annoying the band don't seem to rate Zooropa or Pop but they're not beholden to your tastes or mine. I'm not particular sure what occasionally including a song from Pop or Boy would do except allow some fanboy to tick a setlist box.
ok, now without hyperbole
U2 axes City of Blinding Lights and Beautiful Day and will play Out of control and Last night on earth
do you really, really think this is going to be considered as an improvement by the general concert goer?
yes, they couldThere are ways for them to get songs from Pop, and early stuff in without making it a show of rarities, and obscure songs. Those I mentioned are pretty even swaps in terms of commercial success.
yes, they could
but apparently they don't really want to and the concerts wouldn't be really better
so what's the point?
dear U2,
please play the exact setlist i want you to play. if you don't, you suck.
sincerely,
mikal
Why do you enjoy distorting people's concerns so much? Is it the lure of a cheap joke? Whichever setlist they play they will never "suck". All the critics of the current setlist are saying is that they would like to hear other prominent songs that haven't been played in a while- they're not talking about obscure songs, they're not talking about fantasy setlists where half of Pop gets played- all they want is a bit more variety within the current structure.
Why do you enjoy distorting people's concerns so much? Is it the lure of a cheap joke? Whichever setlist they play they will never "suck". All the critics of the current setlist are saying is that they would like to hear other prominent songs that haven't been played in a while- they're not talking about obscure songs, they're not talking about fantasy setlists where half of Pop gets played- all they want is a bit more variety within the current structure.
Frankly at this point Pearl Jam are just playing to the diehards which is a position they chose themselves to be in, and fair play to them but they're not a valid comparison.
Although one can say a significant portion of the usual PJ audience are hardcore fans, it's kinda silly to think that a band that still sells out (or nearly sells out if you will) arenas all over the world is "just playing to the diehards".
Agreed that they are not a valid comparison to U2 though.
Nah, other fans turn up obviously but a band who don't do videos, radio or singles are by default catering to their pre-existing fan base. Pearl Jam stepped off the traditional promotion rodeo a long time back.
Over the last couple of months, I have had the honor to see Paul McCartney, Biily Joel and Elton John in concert (B. Joel and EJ performed together). As one would expect they were all awesome. U2 360 tour setlist only has 23 songs on it, the other concerts I went to each artist performed around forty songs. Did anyone who has been to a 360 show feel they could have performed a couple of more songs, or did the whole concert mesh really well with only 23 songs. I am seeing u2 on Sept. 24 and would like to know other people's opinions on this subject.
FORTY songs? Seriously?
BTW: the Rolling Stones played about 20 songs per night the last tour
It's really hard to judge a setlist by "how many" songs. I would venture a guess and say that Elton and Paul abbreviate some of their songs quite a bit...
The Stones I would think probably extend some of their songs for solos and what not?
A night that has Bad and MOS you have 2 songs that clock in close to 7+ minutes...
and the other side is counting MLK as one of the songs every night, plus there are bono and edge only acoustic versions of songs and elevation and vertigo which are both barely 3 minutes.
I am not complaining, but its not like u2 is coming out and playing really long songs that are all extended. Their songs are pretty much average length.
the number of songs they are playing is a pretty true indicator for u2, especially when their shows are usually right at two hours.
Last year I went to the Cure(same age group as U2)
36 songs were played and the next night a completely different concert setlistwise. It is not that their songs are easier to play(on the contrary).
that is U2 I guess and I can "live"with it.. l