This is NOT what we wanted

[MrPryck2U]

Back in '94, Pink Floyd performed Dark Side of the Moon in it entirety. I never heard of one single person clamoring for them to mix up the track listing. Naturally, the title of this thread should be "This is not what I wanted".

 

[Tpsreports2442]

I think you'd be in error saying that Elevation and Vertigo, tours with albums that had hits, were tours that relied on older material for energy.


You had me till Exit, talk about a horrible way to open a show. That setlist doesn't have much of an arc, and you seem a little stuck in the this song has to be here because that's how they've been doing it.

You still think a tour with a whole b-side is being played, a new song, and passenger song is JUST about the classics? That's not the premise.

Pretty much the ONLY thing I agree with you on so far is that IWF would be a good opener.

Sorry, Exit was meant to be parenthesized over the loudspeaker. Trip Through The Wire would be a great opener.

Although not popular, I still consider the B-side to be classics, it's a loose term. I don't think this tour should just about the popular songs, but it's about mixing it up. I disagree about the arc, but hey we'll agree to disagree.

 

[miryclayu2]

WofS should have been played.

 

[BVS]

WofS should have been played.

Wave of fuckin Sorrow?!

 

[miryclayu2]

What? Who? When? Why?

 

[Tpsreports2442]

Wave of fuckin Sorrow?!

The second thing we can agree on

miryclayu2, too much blue crack?

 

[BVS]

The second thing we can agree on

miryclayu2, too much blue crack?

True

 

[BVS]

What? Who? When? Why?

You forgot 'how', like how acronyms work, normally you would write WOS or W of S.

But yes, I agree it would be a nice piece to rotate in, along with LT.

 

[coolian2]

THEY USED TO OPEN WITH STREETS
WITH OR WITHOUT YOU IS THERE BECAUSE HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE JOSHUA TREE OR LOOKED AT THE TRACK LISTING?



Aaaaahhhhhhmygod.

 

[Tpsreports2442]

THEY USED TO OPEN WITH STREETS
WITH OR WITHOUT YOU IS THERE BECAUSE HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE JOSHUA TREE OR LOOKED AT THE TRACK LISTING?



Aaaaahhhhhhmygod.

What's your point again ?

 

[david]

Starting with Popmart and on.

In The Edge's interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, he stated "It's funny, sometimes great songs ... Think of a live show as an ecosystem. You've got niches to fill. There are uptempo, fast, dramatic songs and those are crucial. Then there are sort of more medium-tempo songs and no matter how great they are, sometimes you just can't find a place for them."

The point I originally made, and still stick by, is that SBS is a horrible choice to start with, Streets shouldn't be shoved to the 4th song, and putting WOWY in the middle just doesn't make sense. The JT tour is really about celebrating the classics and therefore, they should have had a much stronger way of starting and ending the show without boring the audience. Sure, the whole "playing an album straight' is a cool concept, but in reality it just doesn't work. NOW that we have enough footage of different concerts, I can confidently say they don't look old or bored, but they look like they're trying to make this concept work and failing miserably at it.

Think I'm wrong? Using their setlist (with the exception of their concert killer Miss S.) , this makes more sense when considering the "tempo" of the concert:

1. I Will Follow
2. Exit
3. Trip Through Wires
4. Elevation
5. Beautiful Day
6. New Years Day
7. SBS
8. Still Haven't Found
9. Red Hill
10. God's Country
11. One Tree Hill
12. Bad
13. Bullet
14. Running
15. Streets
16. Pride
17. With Or Without You
---
18. Ultra Violet
19. One
20. Mothers of The Disappeared
21. 40

Here you have a mixup of everything, with the right tempo and you don't slow you concert down with an entire slew of B-tracks in the middle/end of the set.

I've previously made all of these points, so I really don't understand how I went in with the wrong premise.



21 is enough songs. If missing 3-4 songs helps Bono's voice for future touring, then so be it I have 0 problem with that. I mean look at Axl Rose and Paul Stanley now, we should only be so lucky Bono looks and sounds as good as he does....

Meh. The appeal of this tour is The Joshua Tree played in full, in album order. That set list just looks like a random generated set list show. I'm not on board.

 

[Hewson]

I'm pretty appalled it hasn't been a consistent staple to end their tours. The crowd still sings the chorus even when they don't play it, you'd think the lads would get a hint.

Somebody beside me in Pasadena was whispering it but it was faintly audible.

How did the band not pick up on this?

 

[miryclayu2]

They stopped the show mid-note. Bono gave a lecture about the importance of trash collection.

 

[coolian2]

If you don't like the setlist, you have two choices.

1. It's easy to whine when you're seeing it appear in text on a computer screen
2. You aren't obliged to attend every show on the tour

 

[BVS]

But if they only walked out to Exit and ignored one of the strongest moments of this tour, opened with the weakest song on JT, and then put the rest in their normal places; this tour would rock! That's how you celebrate an album apparently

 

[Tpsreports2442]

Saw them Chicago #2, I was wrong about SBS- fantastic song to open with. I don't necessarily agree with the uncreative production of the stage and show, but musically they were on point, as always.

My only issue with the concert was that they did the JT album in order. I understand what they were trying to do with the concept, but throwing a slew of b-side songs in the 2nd half of the concert really deflated the energy. Also, miss sarajevo was awful.

Great concert nonetheless, the guys still have it.

 

[corianderstem]

Glad you enjoyed it!





(and TOLD YA SO re Sunday Bloody Sunday! )

 

[BVS]

Saw them Chicago #2, I was wrong about SBS- fantastic song to open with. I don't necessarily agree with the uncreative production of the stage and show, but musically they were on point, as always.

My only issue with the concert was that they did the JT album in order. I understand what they were trying to do with the concept, but throwing a slew of b-side songs in the 2nd half of the concert really deflated the energy. Also, miss sarajevo was awful.

Great concert nonetheless, the guys still have it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Saw them Chicago #2, I was wrong about SBS- fantastic song to open with. I don't necessarily agree with the uncreative production of the stage and show, but musically they were on point, as always.

My only issue with the concert was that they did the JT album in order. I understand what they were trying to do with the concept, but throwing a slew of b-side songs in the 2nd half of the concert really deflated the energy. Also, miss sarajevo was awful.

Great concert nonetheless, the guys still have it.

This is not the post we wanted.

 

[Desert Dog]

Saw them Chicago #2, I was wrong about SBS- fantastic song to open with. I don't necessarily agree with the uncreative production of the stage and show, but musically they were on point, as always.

My only issue with the concert was that they did the JT album in order. I understand what they were trying to do with the concept, but throwing a slew of b-side songs in the 2nd half of the concert really deflated the energy. Also, miss sarajevo was awful.

Great concert nonetheless, the guys still have it.

What b-sides? Do you mean side 2 of the JT? Besides RHMT really needing guitar punch from Edge instead of piano, I thought the JT arc was fantastic when I saw them at the Rose Bowl. I personally could have done without hearing Elevation for the 10 millionth time and One is getting tired for me (thank God he added back in the coda).

 

[cleazer]

lol, what a silly thread

Mind you, I'm no new music hater, but whatever "hits" they have from their new album, they're likely going to pale in comparison to side 2 of The Joshua Tree.

 

[Tpsreports2442]

The B-sides are considered the 2nd part to the album. The 2nd part has songs that are considered "weaker" by the band. It's a music industry term.

lol, what a silly thread

Mind you, I'm no new music hater, but whatever "hits" they have from their new album, they're likely going to pale in comparison to side 2 of The Joshua Tree.

Mind you, I didn't say the songs were weak- but to any casual fan 5 of those songs in a row in the LATTER of the show is a horrible idea. This is why bands play their "classic" stuff towards the middle.

 

[aviastar]

The B-sides are considered the 2nd part to the album. The 2nd part has songs that are considered "weaker" by the band. It's a music industry term.









Mind you, I didn't say the songs were weak- but to any casual fan 5 of those songs in a row in the LATTER of the show is a horrible idea. This is why bands play their "classic" stuff towards the middle.

I have always considered b-sides to be the other sides of singles releases - usually non album tracks. Whereas album tracks on side 2 were usually stronger than b-sides (so to warrant inclusion on an album), but not usually the radio friendly hits. The side 2 of Joshua Tree has strong songs - heck, they were going to release Red Hill as as the second single back in 87. Honestly, I think the piano and horns arrangement of RHMT sucks some life out of the show though. But I think it comes back with IGC.

 

[Tpsreports2442]

I have always considered b-sides to be the other sides of singles releases - usually non album tracks. Whereas album tracks on side 2 were usually stronger than b-sides (so to warrant inclusion on an album), but not usually the radio friendly hits. The side 2 of Joshua Tree has strong songs - heck, they were going to release Red Hill as as the second single back in 87. Honestly, I think the piano and horns arrangement of RHMT sucks some life out of the show though. But I think it comes back with IGC.

They were going to until the record company said no, and put it on the B-side. This has been a strategy used by record companies since the beginning of time; I said the songs were great, but to put all 5 in a row in the latter stages of the concert is not the way to keep the energy up.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

I didn't notice any energy drop during side 2 of the Joshua Tree at the Rose Bowl. I actually did see some mental wandering during ASOH, which was infuriating, but it seemed to me the vast majority of the people there knew exactly what RHMT and OTH were, and those were the sides of the bridge, the posts that held the bridge up, not "out there" songs at all. In God's Country was virtually a single, and got its share of play. And the awesome versions of Exit and Trip carried the crowd who might have been otherwise ambivalent.


It HAD to be presented in order. I would have been very disappointed to have that run of songs as I listened to them so many times chopped up and put next to Elevation. The "JT" period of the show worked on so many levels.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

And I love the arrangement of RHMT...it is the revelation for me on this tour, and I keep checking in on Periscope every night, not to hear Streets or WOWY, but to hear RHMT. If I have nothing going on, I will stick around for the "B side" or side 2 (I think of B sides as the back side of singles, not side 2 of an album). I think the re-telling of RHMT is brilliant, and something about the way he sings the chorus and the delay like on the album 1st chorus...it just slays me.

 

[BVS]

The B-sides are considered the 2nd part to the album. The 2nd part has songs that are considered "weaker" by the band. It's a music industry term.

False.

They were going to until the record company said no, and put it on the B-side.

False again, are you just making shit up now?

 

[Hewson]

Albums aren't (weren't) commonly referred to as A side and B side. They were side 1 and side 2. And the material on side 2 was not automatically the weaker material on an album.

Singles have A and B and the B side is intended as space filler or a bonus as much as anything, not the case with albums.

just so happens in the case of Joshua Tree that Side 1 has the songs that are more popular with average folks, but its not industry practice to put weaker material on side 2.

 

[coolian2]

The B-sides are considered the 2nd part to the album. The 2nd part has songs that are considered "weaker" by the band. It's a music industry term.

No it's not.

Also based on my vinyl copy of Joshua Tree it's side three and four - but your results may vary.

 

[Axver]

Yeah, side 1 and 2 (and onwards) is used for albums and A/B side is for singles.

Bono's even been making a point of saying "welcome to side 2" every night after Red Hill.