Has U2 Peaked?

[BVS]

Well you have acknowledged that joy matters more now than it used to, which is not a million miles away from what I have been saying. Of course, I would go further than you and say that joy has defined much of their 2000s work, but I am glad we are not poles apart. Your second point puzzles me. I have never said anything which implies that I 'hate' joy. For one who chooses his words so carefully; indeed for one who insists that others choose their words carefully, the word 'hate' is too strong. Joy has its place but in my view it works better as part of a complex whole. Take One for example. The element of joy in the line - 'we get to carry each other' strikes me as more authentic because it is surrounded with all of that murk and discord. It is probably nearer to real life, too.

"Hate" was tongue in cheek. You seem bothered by the joy which seems odd and never really explained why.

"Probably nearer to real life", very true, but sometimes we need art to not only reflect real life but to take us out of it...

 

[BSBONO]

Just a quick comment...

With the exception of the Love Town tour, U2 have always had a fairly static playlist. This is especially true from ZOO TV on, where video syncs are tied in. I say this respectfully, but just as you feel U2's setlist is getting old, I feel this complaint is also getting old. U2 have had static setlists for 20 years, encompassing 6 tours (if ZOO TV and Zooropa tours are counted separately), and this is how they operate.

Now that tour is underway again, U2 have now added some brand new songs to the set-list, something they haven't done before (or since their very early years or a token TV show). That alone is a significant change. Also, they added some older hits - not just the "usual". And when I saw them in '09, I noticed a few standards dropped from the playlist (like "Pride" wasn't always played). In other words, U2 are doing a better job at mixing now (they started this with the Vertigo tour).

Lastly, another classic point is that general fans want to hear those old songs. I took my sister to her first U2 concert last year. She was waiting for "With or Without You" to be played. While she loved a lot of new songs - including songs she hadn't heard (she loved the remix of "Crazy Tonight"), hearing that song was key. As a result, U2 really can't just drop all the old classics to please the die-hards. Because when there are 70,000 seats available, I can guarantee you the bulk of them are not for the die-hards.

Some good points by both you and Tim and others related to the tour and set lists. It is very true for the most part they have had relatively static set lists for 20 years mainly because of the scripted visuals for the shows. However its still no real excuse to be playing the same older songs for 20 years. I mean bringing back New Year's day again, are you serious? There are so many other older songs that are still huge that can be played. Secondly it is no excuse to be playing those older songs in static or unimaginative ways. Again no excuse to not be playing WOWY and MW to the best of their ability. No excuse to not come up with more interesting arrangements for the older songers. They are artists and they should be spending more time getting imaginative on those order tunes. Bullet and Running to Stand Still are perfect examples of songs that have been played many different ways over the years and each one imaginative, exciting, and fresh. Those were perfect balances between making both the casual fan and the die hards happy. We are not seeing that anymore and its frustrating for the many on this board that have been with them all the way. I just feel right now they are still more focused on appealing to the masses and not rewarding the ones that have been with them on every up and down. They have enough money to not have to worry about the masses. Now is the time to cement your legacy so do it.

 

[Rob33]

Some good points by both you and Tim and others related to the tour and set lists. It is very true for the most part they have had relatively static set lists for 20 years mainly because of the scripted visuals for the shows. However its still no real excuse to be playing the same older songs for 20 years. I mean bringing back New Year's day again, are you serious? There are so many other older songs that are still huge that can be played. Secondly it is no excuse to be playing those older songs in static or unimaginative ways. Again no excuse to not be playing WOWY and MW to the best of their ability. No excuse to not come up with more interesting arrangements for the older songers. They are artists and they should be spending more time getting imaginative on those order tunes. Bullet and Running to Stand Still are perfect examples of songs that have been played many different ways over the years and each one imaginative, exciting, and fresh. Those were perfect balances between making both the casual fan and the die hards happy. We are not seeing that anymore and its frustrating for the many on this board that have been with them all the way. I just feel right now they are still more focused on appealing to the masses and not rewarding the ones that have been with them on every up and down. They have enough money to not have to worry about the masses. Now is the time to cement your legacy so do it.

what do you think happened with UV and TUF?

 

[Tim Wallach]

Some good points by both you and Tim and others related to the tour and set lists. It is very true for the most part they have had relatively static set lists for 20 years mainly because of the scripted visuals for the shows. However its still no real excuse to be playing the same older songs for 20 years. I mean bringing back New Year's day again, are you serious? There are so many other older songs that are still huge that can be played. Secondly it is no excuse to be playing those older songs in static or unimaginative ways. Again no excuse to not be playing WOWY and MW to the best of their ability. No excuse to not come up with more interesting arrangements for the older songers. They are artists and they should be spending more time getting imaginative on those order tunes. Bullet and Running to Stand Still are perfect examples of songs that have been played many different ways over the years and each one imaginative, exciting, and fresh. Those were perfect balances between making both the casual fan and the die hards happy. We are not seeing that anymore and its frustrating for the many on this board that have been with them all the way. I just feel right now they are still more focused on appealing to the masses and not rewarding the ones that have been with them on every up and down. They have enough money to not have to worry about the masses. Now is the time to cement your legacy so do it.

Well said.

 

[cobl04]

Bullet... played many different ways over the years and each one imaginative, exciting, and fresh.

apart from the entire Vertigo tour, where one of their most rocking, hard-edged songs became an eight-minute long, plodding, boring piece of shit, okay...

 

[snugglemedoctor]

If its true love where is the fruit.

 

[corianderstem]

In my pants.

 

[BoMac]

In my pants.

How YOU doin'?

 

[snugglemedoctor]

call me when your ready to take it out.

 

[corianderstem]

Well, I'm glad he just got banned, because I was struggling to come with the perfect comeback.

Saved by the Sicy!

So. Anyway.

I can't say if U2 has peaked, but I do know that they all peeked at their Christmas presents under the stairs, and now they are on Santa's naughty list.

 

[quiltybones]

Some good points by both you and Tim and others related to the tour and set lists. It is very true for the most part they have had relatively static set lists for 20 years mainly because of the scripted visuals for the shows. However its still no real excuse to be playing the same older songs for 20 years. I mean bringing back New Year's day again, are you serious? There are so many other older songs that are still huge that can be played. Secondly it is no excuse to be playing those older songs in static or unimaginative ways. Again no excuse to not be playing WOWY and MW to the best of their ability. No excuse to not come up with more interesting arrangements for the older songers. They are artists and they should be spending more time getting imaginative on those order tunes. Bullet and Running to Stand Still are perfect examples of songs that have been played many different ways over the years and each one imaginative, exciting, and fresh. Those were perfect balances between making both the casual fan and the die hards happy. We are not seeing that anymore and its frustrating for the many on this board that have been with them all the way. I just feel right now they are still more focused on appealing to the masses and not rewarding the ones that have been with them on every up and down. They have enough money to not have to worry about the masses. Now is the time to cement your legacy so do it.

Also agree. I mean, technically they already toured NLOTH. Am I wrong or is the first time they've been touring for touring's sake? If so, then why not have a setlist that's nothing but balls out rockers, with no speeches by Bishop Tutu or Bono or anyone else, and just see how it goes over? Or, imagine a weird, trippy setlist with an awesome light show comprised of nothing but their weirdest, trippiest, most ambient songs. At this stage in their career, why the hell not? Whatever happened to having confidence in your own creations as creative artists and just ramming them down an unsuspecting audiences' throats! Have some balls, lads! Have some freakin' balls.

 

[65980]

This "Has U2 peaked?" topic is too complex. I think we need to break it down to its parts.

I'm going to start a new thread: "Has Adam Clayton peaked?"

After the band members, we'll move onto Paul McGuinness, the wives, and the producers.

The 18th thread on this subject will be: "Has Guggi peaked?"

Finally, we'll reach the final thread: "Has Ireland peaked?"

 

[digitize]

Also agree. I mean, technically they already toured NLOTH. Am I wrong or is the first time they've been touring for touring's sake? If so, then why not have a setlist that's nothing but balls out rockers, with no speeches by Bishop Tutu or Bono or anyone else, and just see how it goes over? Or, imagine a weird, trippy setlist with an awesome light show comprised of nothing but their weirdest, trippiest, most ambient songs. At this stage in their career, why the hell not? Whatever happened to having confidence in your own creations as creative artists and just ramming them down an unsuspecting audiences' throats! Have some balls, lads! Have some freakin' balls.

Maybe, just maybe, that's not what they want to play? Maybe politics is a part of U2, like always? Maybe creativity is more than loud rockers and trippy ambiance?

 

[LemonMelon]

I mean, technically they already toured NLOTH.

After two legs? Please.

 

[quiltybones]

Maybe, just maybe, that's not what they want to play? Maybe politics is a part of U2, like always? Maybe creativity is more than loud rockers and trippy ambiance?

No, you're right. I admit I was drunk and frustrated when I made my post. Politics has always been part of their thing, and truthfully I'm good with that. I just feel like there is a notable lack of imagination in what they're currently doing. To me it seems like they're playing things way too safe. NLOTH was a fairly adventurous album, but evidently it didn't "perform" as they hoped. I'm just worried that their reaction to this is going to be a retreat into BOMB territory. The new songs and the current setlist have increased my worry in this regard.

 

[quiltybones]

After two legs? Please.

Does the current leg of the tour feel like it's all about NLOTH to you? Are the casual fans (who they're apparantly so eager to please) going to run out and buy their very own copy of NLOTH based on what they hear on the current leg of the tour?

At their peak, a much more pugnacious U2 would not have whittled down their most recent album's input to four measly offerings per setlist.

 

[silkensky]

Good thing they didn't call it the Horizon Tour, Kiss The Future Tour or anything directly related to NLOTH. I've always thought it strange that the name they chose for this tour is really in no way connected to the album its supposed to be supporting, which is a first for U2 I think.

 

[digitize]

No, you're right. I admit I was drunk and frustrated when I made my post. Politics has always been part of their thing, and truthfully I'm good with that. I just feel like there is a notable lack of imagination in what they're currently doing. To me it seems like they're playing things way too safe. NLOTH was a fairly adventurous album, but evidently it didn't "perform" as they hoped. I'm just worried that their reaction to this is going to be a retreat into BOMB territory. The new songs and the current setlist have increased my worry in this regard.

Lol, that's more understandable.

 

[LemonMelon]

Does the current leg of the tour feel like it's all about NLOTH to you? Are the casual fans (who they're apparantly so eager to please) going to run out and buy their very own copy of NLOTH based on what they hear on the current leg of the tour?

At their peak, a much more pugnacious U2 would not have whittled down their most recent album's input to four measly offerings per setlist.

Realistically, they wouldn't be forcing Magnificent and Crazy Tonight into the set if they weren't still touring NLOTH. Only Vertigo and COBL survived the post-Vertigo tour sobering.

Otherwise, nice observation. I agree that U2 has been too quickly abandoning their newest material these days, particularly of the heavier variety. It's a damn shame too, because the set is already a snore, and now, with Breathe and NLOTH out of the picture, it's drifting even further into moody ATYCLB malaise.

 

[cseggleton]

POP = peak for me in regards to pushing the envelope. to remain "relevant" they are more interested in putting out a pop hit or a scorching 45 as bono has stated. ok with me as they still make really good music. i am just more into the AB Zooropa and POP

 

[david]

On the subject of people feeling the tour might turn into a greatest hits tour.

I was worried when I read some songs were dropped, but they did replace them with brand new songs.

But really, when you're a band that's been around as long as they have it's damn near impossible to play a show that isn't a greatest hits show.. Because you know they've written a crap load of awesome songs?

 

[U2girl]

Indeed. They may be down to 4 NLOTH songs at the moment but they also brought out 3 new songs.

 

[doctorwho]

Does the current leg of the tour feel like it's all about NLOTH to you? Are the casual fans (who they're apparantly so eager to please) going to run out and buy their very own copy of NLOTH based on what they hear on the current leg of the tour?

At their peak, a much more pugnacious U2 would not have whittled down their most recent album's input to four measly offerings per setlist.

I agree that the songs from NLOTH have been decreased on this portion of the tour. However, U2's setlist is definitely quite different. They still have four songs from NLOTH. I hope "Breathe" and NLOTH (the song) return - they deserve it. However, I can do without "Unknown Caller".

But we have had the addition of brand new songs; songs that haven't been played much this tour (COBL); and the songs that haven't been played at all this tour until now. We have a mix from "War" through NLOTH. The power-hits are there, but when was "Miss Sarajevo" a big hit? The new songs certainly aren't hits yet. As we all know, the NLOTH songs weren't exactly hits. In other words, this is a pretty good setlist.

Also, the fact that U2 are mixing it up is welcome, IMO. As I wrote, I would like more NLOTH songs too and perhaps those will return as the tour continues. But it really seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach here. If U2 mix-up the setlist, with new songs and songs they either have played infrequently or not at all this tour, die-hards complain that U2 should play more current songs. If U2 play only current songs, die-hards complain about the lack of infrequent songs. And if U2 only play current songs and rarities, I can guarantee you that they aren't selling out a stadium show.

Are U2 catering to casual fans too much? When there are 50,000+ tickets for sale at each show, I can assure you they are not. There are not 50,000 die-hards at each show.

Until U2 start playing small, personal shows where the audience is maybe 500 people tops, your dream set-lists will never materialize. And even in that situation, you may not get your dream set-list because every single one of those 500 people will have their own personal favorites. Each will be disappointed that a certain song wasn't played. It's the nature of a live show.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I agree that the songs from NLOTH have been decreased on this portion of the tour. However, U2's setlist is definitely quite different. They still have four songs from NLOTH. I hope "Breathe" and NLOTH (the song) return - they deserve it. However, I can do without "Unknown Caller".

But we have had the addition of brand new songs; songs that haven't been played much this tour (COBL); and the songs that haven't been played at all this tour until now. We have a mix from "War" through NLOTH. The power-hits are there, but when was "Miss Sarajevo" a big hit? The new songs certainly aren't hits yet. As we all know, the NLOTH songs weren't exactly hits. In other words, this is a pretty good setlist.

Also, the fact that U2 are mixing it up is welcome, IMO. As I wrote, I would like more NLOTH songs too and perhaps those will return as the tour continues. But it really seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach here. If U2 mix-up the setlist, with new songs and songs they either have played infrequently or not at all this tour, die-hards complain that U2 should play more current songs. If U2 play only current songs, die-hards complain about the lack of infrequent songs. And if U2 only play current songs and rarities, I can guarantee you that they aren't selling out a stadium show.

Are U2 catering to casual fans too much? When there are 50,000+ tickets for sale at each show, I can assure you they are not. There are not 50,000 die-hards at each show.

Until U2 start playing small, personal shows where the audience is maybe 500 people tops, your dream set-lists will never materialize. And even in that situation, you may not get your dream set-list because every single one of those 500 people will have their own personal favorites. Each will be disappointed that a certain song wasn't played. It's the nature of a live show.

Nice post, though I will say that Miss Sarajevo was quite a big hit in Europe, it made the top 5 in the UK, which back then actually meant something.

 

[LemonMelon]

Nice post, though I will say that Miss Sarajevo was quite a big hit in Europe, it made the top 5 in the UK, which back then actually meant something.

Also, COBL has been played literally every single night this tour.

Don't mean to pile on, but yeah.

 

[quiltybones]

I agree that the songs from NLOTH have been decreased on this portion of the tour. However, U2's setlist is definitely quite different. They still have four songs from NLOTH. I hope "Breathe" and NLOTH (the song) return - they deserve it. However, I can do without "Unknown Caller".

But we have had the addition of brand new songs; songs that haven't been played much this tour (COBL); and the songs that haven't been played at all this tour until now. We have a mix from "War" through NLOTH. The power-hits are there, but when was "Miss Sarajevo" a big hit? The new songs certainly aren't hits yet. As we all know, the NLOTH songs weren't exactly hits. In other words, this is a pretty good setlist.

Also, the fact that U2 are mixing it up is welcome, IMO. As I wrote, I would like more NLOTH songs too and perhaps those will return as the tour continues. But it really seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach here. If U2 mix-up the setlist, with new songs and songs they either have played infrequently or not at all this tour, die-hards complain that U2 should play more current songs. If U2 play only current songs, die-hards complain about the lack of infrequent songs. And if U2 only play current songs and rarities, I can guarantee you that they aren't selling out a stadium show.

Are U2 catering to casual fans too much? When there are 50,000+ tickets for sale at each show, I can assure you they are not. There are not 50,000 die-hards at each show.

Until U2 start playing small, personal shows where the audience is maybe 500 people tops, your dream set-lists will never materialize. And even in that situation, you may not get your dream set-list because every single one of those 500 people will have their own personal favorites. Each will be disappointed that a certain song wasn't played. It's the nature of a live show.

What you say is true, and I freely admit I'm venting based on personal taste. It just seems like something's different this time around. I mean, here we are on the third leg of the current tour and the setlist is almost exactly the same as on the first two legs. It smells like "product" instead of "art." It's like they're having staff meetings where they say, "well, we've got one slot at the beginning of the encore where we'll throw a bone to the hardcore fans. Last two legs we played 'Ultraviolet,' but we'd better change that up now or else they'll get bored." In my opinion they should be playing "Ultraviolet" and "Hold Me, Thrill Me," not replacing one with the other - especially when mediocre, overplayed songs like "Elevation" are making nightly appearances.

 

[doctorwho]

Also, COBL has been played literally every single night this tour.

Don't mean to pile on, but yeah.

If so, my bad. Maybe the shows I attended they didn't play it.

"Miss Sarajevo" wasn't really a big hit. It may have made the top 10 in some countries, but I think it was a one week deal followed by a quick fall.

I'm not really sure how one could improve the setlist too much. U2 has to promote the new record (even though it's now 1.5 years old). They have to pull out the catalog hits, like them or not, because of the nature of the show. They are trying to mix things up, even tossing in brand new songs. And they have a decent selection across their catalog.

I guess they could drop a few songs, like COBL, MW or NYD and bring in some R&H or early era songs. But even then, it would still be songs like "Gloria" or "I Will Follow". U2 tried a few rarities on the Vertigo tour and the casual fan left for beer. So...

 

[corianderstem]

If so, my bad. Maybe the shows I attended they didn't play it.

I don't think they've skipped it at any of the shows in the 360 show. It's always after TUF and before Vertigo.

It doesn't impact the gist of your comments, but I had to say it.

 

[monsieur fly]

Nice post, though I will say that Miss Sarajevo was quite a big hit in Europe, it made the top 5 in the UK, which back then actually meant something.

Yes- I think American fans forget that U2 remained a potent singles band in Europe for far longer than in their own country.

 

[65980]

Yes- I think American fans forget that U2 remained a potent singles band in Europe for far longer than in their own country.

Also in Canada -- 'Beautiful Day', 'Elevation', 'Stuck in a Moment', 'Walk On', 'Electrical Storm', 'All Because of You', 'Sometimes you Can't Make it on your Own', 'The Saints are Coming', and 'Window in the Skies' were all #1.

That's 9 number one singles in seven years.

Hell, even the crappy 'Get on your Boots' made #3.