U2 360 Set List - what do you think?

[bigjohn2441]

between all the snippets and speeches there could probably be another 1-2 songs

 

[zwervers2]

I was just looking at the setlists of the vertigotour. Those were a lovefest (setlistwise) compared to the 360 tour. Who would have thought

 

[MMP]

U2 360 Set List - What do you really think? (One more time with feeling.)


How the hell we don't have this thread yet?

 

[popshopper]

Actually, that's a very interesting point, as i'm also a very big Cure fan! I like your analogy here..... but there are some differences, I think. Yes, The Cure are in the same age group, but are at VERY different stages in their career (and lineup). U2 are huge right now, although honestly I don't really remember a time post '87 where they really weren't (although arguments can be made for or against this point.....and this really isn't my point, lol), and The Cure, one can argue crested for their '89 World Prayer Tour (Disintegration)......they have carved themselves a nice little niche' these days but are definitely NOT the stadium world tour band that they were back in the late '80's. I think they maintain their fans right now, who really are the hardcore Cure fans by doing just that....mixing up their setlists every single night. They don't have to worry about selling out stadiums, pleasing multiple age groups of fans to the same extent that I think U2 has to. It's just a whole different thing with 2 different bands, attracting two different crowds at 2 different stages of their careers.

Interestingly enough, I did take a look at the setlists for the Cure during their '89 tour (Stadiums) and you know what? They went for multiple, multiple shows where they only changed up *one* song from evening to evening. There you had a band at the top of their career, one of the biggest grossing acts of 1989, huge ticket.....and they only modified their setlist by one song....every night.

Overall, I think U2 is doing a pretty good job with their setlist this tour.....now, should U2 ever *gasp* wane in their popularity and no-longer be able to play anything other than smaller summer venues then we might see completely different setlists from night to night!

(somehow I think this scenario will never happen....lol)

Just my rambling thoughts!

Cheers!

As I've said before. If you look at REM's Monster tour (arguably at the height of their success), the 360 tour is on course for more rotation played in fewer gigs, and most of the monster tour was arena sized. Popular relevant bands with new material to play, play pretty static setlists. Coldplay aren't exactly tearing it up every night, neither did Muse. If you are playing a lot of songs from a new album, a very large percentage of your setlist frankly needs to be the big hits, not fan favourites from some of their least popular albums. When you are playing a stadium show, there's even more onus on bands to play big hits.

Bands and artists who are on the down slope mix it up to keep their core customer, the loyal fan, interested. U2 aren't at that stage yet and they'll probably stop before they ever are. The hardcore tend to have a radically different perspective on what constitutes a good setlist or a popular song, and as I keep saying with a tour this size most people will attend one show and most people won't be pouring over setlists or be that disappointed when a song from pop or Zooropa isn't played.

Setlist rotation only matters to people who attend more than one show or to people who obsess over such things. To the vast majority of concert goers their just concerned with hearing the band, hearing the new songs and hearing the hits.

 

[chocky]

Interestingly enough, I did take a look at the setlists for the Cure during their '89 tour (Stadiums) and you know what? They went for multiple, multiple shows where they only changed up *one* song from evening to evening. There you had a band at the top of their career, one of the biggest grossing acts of 1989, huge ticket.....and they only modified their setlist by one song....every night.

I don't think that's a fair comparison though.

Firstly, in 1989 The Cure was only 10 years old, not 30 (like both The Cure and U2 are today).

Secondly, Distintegration was an album with it's own (very strong, moody) persona, one that was quite different to The Cure's previous 2 albums. At that time the band was trying to give the audience a particular experience. That would have been difficult to manage by changing setlists nightly.

I can't ever imagine U2 gambling on something like a The Cure's Trilogy Tour (wow!) or playing 100 different songs over the course of a tour or playing 3+ hours per night. Geez, U2 panic over playing particular songs (Drowning Man) whereas The Cure would be happy with an all request show. I guess they're just different bands.

But it would be nice to have U2 giving a little more variation, especially when they're playing multiple nights in one city (and they know many fans will be attending all shows).

 

[yenlard]

havent u2 always played about the same amount of songs on their recent tours? certainly elevation and vertigo. the number of songs is about right. maybe one or two more. however, i agree with perhaps having one more encore or lengthen the end of the show. if Paul McCartney..........who is pushing seventy can play that long then you would like to think u2 could as well. bono's voice seems pretty strong. then again maybe larry's hands would fall off.

 

[BVS]

havent u2 always played about the same amount of songs on their recent tours? certainly elevation and vertigo. the number of songs is about right. maybe one or two more. however, i agree with perhaps having one more encore or lengthen the end of the show. if Paul McCartney..........who is pushing seventy can play that long then you would like to think u2 could as well. bono's voice seems pretty strong. then again maybe larry's hands would fall off.

How long did he play?

 

[U2opra]

I think they should change Breathe with something else. I love Breathe, but I don't think it has the correct 'punch' for starting a show. They need something more edgier, rockier and atmospheric. I really liked the extended intro to GOYB I mean that would perhaps work nicely as an opener or maybe Fez being born.

 

[zwervers2]

How long did he play?

doesnt he play around 2,5 to 2,75 hours usually?

pretty impressive stuff.

 

[zwervers2]

I think they should change Breathe with something else. I love Breathe, but I don't think it has the correct 'punch' for starting a show. They need something more edgier, rockier and atmospheric. I really liked the extended intro to GOYB I mean that would perhaps work nicely as an opener or maybe Fez being born.

why they wont go the vertiowya with this tour is strange. they have at least 3 songs that can open the show just like the vertigoshows but they just stick to the same 5 song intro every night. They also did this with pop and zoo but ...well. yeah...

 

[U2opra]

I think part of the reason why Breathe and even Magnificent aren't cutting it for me atleast, is the sound mix. Every show so far has had Edge's guitar turned down when playing those 2 songs. NLOTH is fine, the guitar is quite loud and vibrant there but it's like for Breathe and Magnificent they've turned down the guitar so Bono's vocals are more prominent, which is ok I guess but it takes away the sound of the song.

 

[BVS]

doesnt he play around 2,5 to 2,75 hours usually?

pretty impressive stuff.

Not from what I've heard, but that's why I'm asking...

 

[yenlard]

last friday's concert in boston was two and a half hours. he seems to play more songs. but remember, many beatles songs were barely three minutes long. kinda like u2 playing boots, vertigo and desire all night

 

[tommycharles]

Beatles songs are shorter, but Macca concerts are usually pretty long (at least 2.5 hrs, probably more), however, if you look at setlists since 1989 (when he began including a lot of Beatles songs in his sets), I would be willing to bet that well over 10 songs have been played at every gig.

I doubt U2 have played any song at every gig in the last 20 years. Streets, perhaps?

 

[digitize]

Beatles songs are shorter, but Macca concerts are usually pretty long (at least 2.5 hrs, probably more), however, if you look at setlists since 1989 (when he began including a lot of Beatles songs in his sets), I would be willing to bet that well over 10 songs have been played at every gig.

I doubt U2 have played any song at every gig in the last 20 years. Streets, perhaps?

Nay - Streets was skipped at a handful of European shows on The Joshua Tree Tour (to which I say: WTF?), as well as a few early Lovetown shows. I *think* BTBS was played at every JT and LT show, though, but it was dropped in a few Elevation shows, and hasn't been played at all on this tour (PRAISE THE LORD). WOWY was spotty on LT, later Elevation, and early Vertigo. Pride was also skipped at a few early Elevation gigs.

To date, the only songs that have been played at every full U2 show since their live debut are One, Beautiful Day, Vertigo, City of Blinding Lights, Breathe, No Line On The Horizon, Get On Your Boots, Magnificent, Crazy Tonight (assuming you count the remix), and Moment of Surrender. I believe Unknown Caller has been skipped twice thus far on the tour, but is fairly regular in general. The most played U2 song is IWF; Pride will almost certainly overtake it on this tour, in theory, but there are possibly 100 instances of IWF being played that are undocumented, as opposed to only a few for Pride.

EDIT: Actually, as of two days ago, Pride tied IWF for performances in the U2Gigs database; they're both at 765 documented performances, with the third-place contender, NYD, at 669.

 

[roy keane]

I like 360 setlist. Overall pretty rocking. Not too many slow songs.

 

[torn vinyl]

Not from what I've heard, but that's why I'm asking...

he played a gig in Nova Scotia last month and played 35 songs. That is incredible.

 

[Batfink27]

fairly poor set lists for this tour.Could be so so better but arent.

 

[secretly alone]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I'm guessing this has been said before...

I don't feel it is 'my place' so to speak, to complain about the setlist. This is the first tour I will be seeing...I've never seen them play ANYTHING live, so to say 'do they HAVE to play One?' or something seems a little silly.

However, I do have songs I like more than others, and stuff that I would particularly like to hear, naturally. I am not going to gripe about the fact that they're not playing songs like Tomorrow, Rejoice, Like A Song, Out of Control, etc. That would be dumb, cuz we all know that aint gonna happen

For the most part the setlist is great. They brought back TUF, which is enough to make my entire life, seriously. The only 'complaint' I have is that, so far, they haven't played anything pre-War, and the only song FROM War is SBS (which btw I love dearly and could listen to them play 100 times). And some nights (like tonight) have just been downright 80s shunnage! They put out s-i-x incredible albums that decade!

And I know, casual fans, people want to hear the hits, People are always going to have different opinions on what they want to hear. This band is not our personal jukebox...and that's good. This is just my opinion. Just wish they would stop forgetting that War wasn't their first album...

 

[subnet]

if their setlist grew to 25-26 for next year, would you go?

i am sure we will see a specific intentional setlist changes on the third leg

 

[superblue]

I don't think that's a fair comparison though.

Firstly, in 1989 The Cure was only 10 years old, not 30 (like both The Cure and U2 are today).

Secondly, Distintegration was an album with it's own (very strong, moody) persona, one that was quite different to The Cure's previous 2 albums. At that time the band was trying to give the audience a particular experience. That would have been difficult to manage by changing setlists nightly.

I can't ever imagine U2 gambling on something like a The Cure's Trilogy Tour (wow!) or playing 100 different songs over the course of a tour or playing 3+ hours per night. Geez, U2 panic over playing particular songs (Drowning Man) whereas The Cure would be happy with an all request show. I guess they're just different bands.

But it would be nice to have U2 giving a little more variation, especially when they're playing multiple nights in one city (and they know many fans will be attending all shows).

Very fair point as to creating a "mood" for the Disintegration shows......also, it is well documented that all members of The Cure (especially Robert Smith) were heavily into drug use throughout most of that tour. That doesn't lend itself in many instances for mixing it up too much.....I think they relied heavily on a constant setlist. Not sure they would have made it through the tour if they hadn't.

Agreed that they are 2 very different bands.....it's a tough comparison. A Trilogy style thing would never work for U2.

See, i'm quite happy with how U2 has handled this setlist....but i'm coming from being used to seeing Rush on tour (more times than I can count) and they NEVER vary their setlist. It's exact. Night after night. Even the audience interaction is identical. It is about as precision perfect, musically, as you can get, and there just isn't any room for improvisation or even setlist mixes whatsoever.

Compared to them, the U2 setlist is like watching an old Dead show

 

[mikal]

not gonna lie. i've been pretty positive lately, but i'm growing concerned with this 22 songs thing. if anything, i was hoping U2 would increase the amount of songs they played. and MLK is more of a Bono speech and 1 verse of the song.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

They played about 22 songs on the stadium leg (europe) of the vertigo tour? (i am not including the 2nd vertigo here).

 

[mikal]

they mostly played 24 songs during Euro leg of Vertigo Tour.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Not during my show

 

[mikal]

Not during my show

yeah, there were a couple of exceptions. some had 22 and 23. interestingly enough, i noticed that in the 1st leg of Vertigo, the majority of the shows had 22 songs, and some had 23. so i wonder if it's just a first leg thing.

 

[zwervers2]

Not during my show

that's because they know you would be there and that you are pleased with everything they do, so they could take it easy and phone it in

seriously though, i also thought the amount of songs would increase not decrease as the tour progresses

 

[bigjohn2441]

they got a 160ft claw, who gives a shit about the setlist?!

 

[digitize]

yeah, there were a couple of exceptions. some had 22 and 23. interestingly enough, i noticed that in the 1st leg of Vertigo, the majority of the shows had 22 songs, and some had 23. so i wonder if it's just a first leg thing.

Probably.

 

[BVS]

he played a gig in Nova Scotia last month and played 35 songs. That is incredible.

Yes, but you must have missed my earlier post because I've heard he plays a lot of abbreviated versions to try and cram a bunch of hits in, so how long did he play?

and the only song FROM War is SBS (which btw I love dearly and could listen to them play 100 times). And some nights (like tonight) have just been downright 80s shunnage! They put out s-i-x incredible albums that decade!

And I know, casual fans, people want to hear the hits, People are always going to have different opinions on what they want to hear. This band is not our personal jukebox...and that's good. This is just my opinion. Just wish they would stop forgetting that War wasn't their first album...

Um, they've actually played NYD once as well. I'm not sure what you mean by "stop forgetting" they played a lot of Boy last tour, this is the first tour we haven't heard anything from Boy in awhile.