Best Song Survivor: ATYCLB, Round Three

[LemonMelon]

New York is a legitimately creative composition with some memorable guitar work from Edge and an intense chorus. I don't know why U2 of all bands recorded Elevation. It's goofy and doesn't suit their strengths well at all. The production is a total failure too.

 

[Axver]

Honestly, it's just that I think New York has stupider lyrics, writing a song about New York is such a painfully boring cliche, and it really plays into the "Bono's Irish? Not any more!" gag.

 

[Nick66]

I wonder who keeps making hits of these songs like One and Elevation that U2 fans everywhere supposedly hate? And why does U2 insist on playing these songs that all those people in the crowd are sick of? Obviously they're way out of touch with their base and don't realize that 100,000 screaming people would rather be hearing Mofo and Mercy.

Though, you know despite all the enthusiastic jumping that surely can't be easy on a beer-filled bladder, I can't remember seeing many people head for the bathrooms during Elevation.

I'm beginning to think that "Interference World" is a better term than The Hive.

 

[intedomine]

I just want In A Little While to depart. Let's hang up on it next round.

Why oh why wasn't Summer Rain on the album? It could have even been a worthy single.

 

[OpenG180]

I wonder who keeps making hits of these songs like One and Elevation that U2 fans everywhere supposedly hate? And why does U2 insist on playing these songs that all those people in the crowd are sick of? Obviously they're way out of touch with their base and don't realize that 100,000 screaming people would rather be hearing Mofo and Mercy.

Though, you know despite all the enthusiastic jumping that surely can't be easy on a beer-filled bladder, I can't remember seeing many people head for the bathrooms during Elevation.

I'm beginning to think that "Interference World" is a better term than The Hive.

One is a top song. A perfect 10 song.

As for elevation.. It sucks donkey balls.

 

[LadySpinHead]

Nah, I like Elevation. Even the studio version. Screw y'all.

 

[LemonMelon]

stupider lyrics

Is this possible?

I mean, Bono is pretty much drooling on himself at that point.

 

[digitize]

One is a top song. A perfect 10 song.

As for elevation.. It sucks donkey balls.

Pretty much. There's a pretty enormous difference between them.

 

[FlyontheHorizon]

Elevation knows what it's supposed to be, and it's good at that. New York, or the lyrics anyway, don't, at least not as effectively.

 

[lemonfly]

Why oh why wasn't Summer Rain on the album? It could have even been a worthy single.

It's a great little song. I don't get the "waaaah waaaah it's boring" argument at all. They wanted to make a "pop album" and SR is pure unadulterated pop (minus the 40-year-olds-trying-to-sound-young-and-soulful cringe factor). There are several cringeworthy efforts that could have been jettisoned to make room for SR.

 

[liamcool]

New York is the only hint of darkness on this album. So, keep it around.

Stuck. As always.

 

[PennyLanePHINS]

Well songs like One getting booted on here isnt a surprise. Sometime hearing a song so often among the bigger fans can move it down.

Among the entire fanbase, casual included, album rankings would look vastly different than they would on here. ATYCLB, Rattle & Hum, and HTDAAB would be near the top. Pop, NLOTH, and Boy would be near the bottom.

 

[the tourist]

Stuck In A Moment.

 

[djerdap]

Elevation is the stupidest song they ever did.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Here's the thing! Even though a lot of us do not want them to play the same old tired songs like Elevation, Vertigo, Beautiful Day, SBS, Pride, One etc. in concert, a huge part of the audience goes to a U2 concert only to hear the few "hits" that they know! Alas, bigger fans like us have to hence put up with this shit.

I didn't know what the hell to vote for here as every song is as good or as bad as the next one. lol. I'm digging the sunny Wild Honey a bit too much right now, so I voted for Elevation. I do not hate it. But it is definitely one of their silliest songs ever!

And I do not necessarily get the hate for the album version of Elevation. It seems to me as good or bad as any other version including live ones.

 

[cartoonworld]

Here's the thing! Even though a lot of us do not want them to play the same old tired songs like Elevation, Vertigo, Beautiful Day, SBS, Pride, One etc. in concert, a huge part of the audience goes to a U2 concert only to hear the few "hits" that they know! Alas, bigger fans like us have to hence put up with this shit.

And there are always U2 fans who might have been fans for a while, but haven't seen them live yet and consequently never heard any of the 'warhorses' live. They'll always play them.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

And there are always U2 fans who might have been fans for a while, but haven't seen them live yet and consequently never heard any of the 'warhorses' live. They'll always play them.

Are you describing yourself here by any chance?

 

[Axver]

Yet U2 made their live reputation by playing songs to crowds largely unfamiliar with their work and winning them over by how awesome the songs are and how good the performances were. If a casual fan nowadays can't handle 5-7 songs out of 22-24 being obscure tracks not played on radio, and U2 can't perform them well enough to make the casuals interested, that's just sad. But we know they CAN pull it off - just see The Electric Co. tearing apart European stadiums in 2005. It's not like people are saying U2 should toss out ALL the singles and well-known songs, just that they don't need to make up the entirety of the setlist.

If your expectation on going to a concert is to know every song, stay home and make a custom playlist. Some of the best gigs of my life have been played by bands I'd never even heard of before, let alone knew any of their music.

Anyway, why all this talk about catering to the casuals? It seems strange to me to place the emphasis of the setlist on people who aren't that fussed about U2 and are just going because it's something to do ("ooh a big event - better join the crowd!") rather than the committed and rather large core of fans who've been with the band for ages and really do give a shit about them. That's a bit of a misplaced priority.

 

[Nick66]

And there are always U2 fans who might have been fans for a while, but haven't seen them live yet and consequently never heard any of the 'warhorses' live. They'll always play them.

It may seem an obvious thing to say, but sometimes it's necessary around here, where people seem to forget that the vast majority of those attending a U2 concert haven't been to countless shows and obsessively follow the set list night to night, complaining that the band keeps playing songs they're "sick" of hearing.

U2 throw bones in like YBR for the hard core, and to keep it interesting for them, but for the most part they're playing the the casuals who make up the majority of the audience.

 

[LemonMelon]

If you have 20-30 hits, and you have played them regularly for such a long period of time that anything beyond light rehearsal is unnecessary, why not rotate them? OK, fine, maybe play Streets every show. But why make WOWY a fixture every night when NYD and Bad are rarities on some tours? Swap some hits out for others and you still get the familiar material in there while preventing individual songs from growing stale. Rotation is tricky, but again, they would rotating the songs they are most familiar with.

 

[Nick66]

Well, I think most people coming to a U2 show expect to hear Streets, and One, and WOWY, and Elevation, and Vertigo, and BD, etc. etc. etc.

I agree there are some staples they can rotate in and out, but there are a core group of iconic songs people just expect to hear. I read somewhere, I think it was an article about Live Nation, that at least 70% of the people at a given major acts concert are first time goers (for that band). Imagine someone seeing U2 for the first time and not hearing those songs? I think people like that would be disappointed, and rightly so.

Look, as a long time fan who has been to quite a few shows and listened to countless bootlegs, I agree with you, I'd love to hear more variety. But for most people, the setlist is "new" to them when they're there. What difference does it make to most fans if U2 has played the same songs in the same order with even the same audience banter for the 50 shows before theirs?? It's a unique experience for them, that's all they care about. So I understand why U2 plays the songs they do, even though obviously there are favorites I have that I've never heard live and likely never will.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Anyway, why all this talk about catering to the casuals? It seems strange to me to place the emphasis of the setlist on people who aren't that fussed about U2 and are just going because it's something to do ("ooh a big event - better join the crowd!") rather than the committed and rather large core of fans who've been with the band for ages and really do give a shit about them. That's a bit of a misplaced priority.

Well, I think most people coming to a U2 show expect to hear Streets, and One, and WOWY, and Elevation, and Vertigo, and BD, etc. etc. etc.

I agree there are some staples they can rotate in and out, but there are a core group of iconic songs people just expect to hear. I read somewhere, I think it was an article about Live Nation, that at least 70% of the people at a given major acts concert are first time goers (for that band). Imagine someone seeing U2 for the first time and not hearing those songs? I think people like that would be disappointed, and rightly so.

You guys are saying 2 different things here. Axver is saying that U2 should not care about the casual fans and only focus on the core fan base which is the majority. And Nick is saying that U2 will of course care more for the casuals who are the majority. Well, which one is it?

 

[cartoonworld]

Are you describing yourself here by any chance?

Haha, a little bit too, I guess! But I'm 17 and have been a serious fan for few years only, what I meant were the fans who have been following U2's work for, say, 10+ years and haven't made it to a show yet.
I, personally, would loose my shit if I heard Out Of Control, Bad or Streets. You know what I mean?

 

[Nick66]

You guys are saying 2 different things here. Axver is saying that U2 should not care about the casual fans and only focus on the core fan base which is the majority. And Nick is saying that U2 will of course care more for the casuals who are the majority. Well, which one is it?

The answer's pretty self-evident, all you have to do is look at the set lists. U2 certainly knows the answer, and that's reflected in their set lists. You think they're playing One for the millionth time because they never get tired of it? Does anyone think people on Interference know better than U2 who their concert audience is?

I'm not sure Axver and I are saying different things anyway...unless I'm reading it wrong, he's just perplexed as to why anyone here would think U2 should cater to casuals. I agree. But it's not about what we'd like to hear, it's about why U2 makes the choices they do. I'd prefer they not cater to the casuals either, but I don't get a vote, except in that I can choose to skip a tour. U2 is, among other things, a business. They know who's coming to their concerts, and what they want to hear. If they were playing for only hard core fans, their set list would be much different. From U2's perspective, I understand why they're doing it...even if I wish it were otherwise.

I'd like to see U2 play smaller venues, ideally. I don't care that casuals can't get tickets. But U2 would look at that differently with different priorities.

In short, U2 are looking at what and where they play from a completely different perspective of the hard core fan.

 

[intedomine]

I'd say U2 found a happy medium on the last tour. Who saw Zooropa, Your Blue Room and Scarlet coming... And a bucketload of new songs?!

Some songs are dubiously staples though, namely Mysterious Ways, City of Blinding Lights, Elevation, End of World. Regardless of what we here think of the songs, would casuals cry at their absence? Not really, they are here for the radio hits (Desire, Pride, With Or Without You, Real Thing)...

I've always fantasised about the idea of a two-show tour of each city.. one stadium gig, and one (comparatively) smaller venue gig (Festival Hall in Melbourne) for hardcore fans, where anything goes with the setlist and it is only promoted via fan clubs, social media etc... And costed at a higher price to persuade casuals to go to the stadium gig.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

I'd prefer they not cater to the casuals either, but I don't get a vote, except in that I can choose to skip a tour. U2 is, among other things, a business. They know who's coming to their concerts, and what they want to hear. If they were playing for only hard core fans, their set list would be much different. From U2's perspective, I understand why they're doing it...even if I wish it were otherwise.

I'd like to see U2 play smaller venues, ideally. I don't care that casuals can't get tickets. But U2 would look at that differently with different priorities.

In short, U2 are looking at what and where they play from a completely different perspective of the hard core fan.

 

[Nick66]

I'd say U2 found a happy medium on the last tour. Who saw Zooropa, Your Blue Room and Scarlet coming... And a bucketload of new songs?!

They abandoned many of those new songs in the latter part of the tour when it became a greatest hits show. That should tell you all you need to know about who they are playing for.

 

[Vlaco]

They abandoned many of those new songs in the latter part of the tour when it became a greatest hits show. That should tell you all you need to know about who they are playing for.

I don't think it's as rigid as you're saying, but they obviously consider the presence of (lots of) casuals by assembling their setlists.

 

[digitize]

They abandoned many of those new songs in the latter part of the tour when it became a greatest hits show. That should tell you all you need to know about who they are playing for.

Not really. They abandoned a lot of new songs, but, by the end of the tour, there were probably more non-greatest-hits than greatest-hits among the non-new songs. That's certainly true by North American greatest hit standards (which would not include, say, EBTTRT), which is where the end of the tour happened.

I honestly think that U2 had a fantastic balance in the last leg of 360, except for the fact that more new songs would have been nice. But I have no desire to see U2 drop Streets or One or even Pride for something like Last Night on Earth in any size of venue.

 

[Salome]

Why do people always assume that the lack of rotating setlists = U2 wants to cater casual fans?

I'm sure that if they wanted to rotate their setlists, they would have by now.
As they don't seem to be willing to do that, I guess they don't want to.
And they probably like playing what they think are their best songs instead of their more obscure ones.

Cry me a river.