U2 360 Set List - what do you think?

[BVS]

Does that make me self-interested? Yes, but no more self-interested than setlist defenders.

I think this pretty much sums up the tone of your arguments, which is an us against them type of mentality, and this one really just doesn't even make sense.

The only difference is that the interests and preferences of defenders coincide with the band's. Therefore, they can adopt a veneer of loyalty and selflessness in order to dismiss people like me as selfish. Also, quelle horreur, I genuinely think that the show would be improved for everyone if they played more 90s material (just 3 songs would do)

There may be one of two that defend on the premise that it's U2 and they can what they want and I'll back up their decision.

But the majority of "defenders" as you call them are just people based in reality. We know what to expect from U2. When it comes to setlist we know they don't vary them all that much, and that when they play stadiums they have to keep in mind the more casual fans. I think many of you are acting like this is a band new thing, and it's not. I notice you ignored my "brave" question to you. I think this is very telling.

Equally curious is your claim that "content wise it is extremely dated." Sonically, I don't think Pop sounds dated, certainly not in relation to the very 80s work you would like to retain. Very little of what U2 has done sounds dated to me.

Here you go with the "that I would like to retain", this just shows how much you do not understand my stance on this issue whatsoever.

Disco is dated lyrically(except maybe in parts of Europe), just like Playboy Mansion.

Sonically I think most of War(studio more than live) sounds dated I haven't wanted to hear NYD live since JT days, and I think EBTTRT sounds extremely dated.

 

[U2opra]

Can I just ask, when does it really matter how dated a song is? That reason alone hasn't stopped them pulling out older songs before, I would imagine there is more to it than that.

Whatever the reason, either ignorance is bliss or there's some complex technical reason behind some of the decisions to not revisit songs or they're still being rehearsed and ideas thrown around...

 

[U2girl]

Not forgetting... just, at the moment, intentionally ignoring.

If by "90's" you mean "Zooropa".

 

[monsieur fly]

quote=BVS;6319159]I think this pretty much sums up the tone of your arguments, which is an us against them type of mentality, and this one really just doesn't even make sense.


There may be one of two that defend on the premise that it's U2 and they can what they want and I'll back up their decision.

But the majority of "defenders" as you call them are just people based in reality. We know what to expect from U2. When it comes to setlist we know they don't vary them all that much, and that when they play stadiums they have to keep in mind the more casual fans. I think many of you are acting like this is a band new thing, and it's not. I notice you ignored my "brave" question to you. I think this is very telling.

Here you go with the "that I would like to retain", this just shows how much you do not understand my stance on this issue whatsoever.

Disco is dated lyrically(except maybe in parts of Europe), just like Playboy Mansion.

Sonically I think most of War(studio more than live) sounds dated I haven't wanted to hear NYD live since JT days, and I think EBTTRT sounds extremely dated.[/quote]

A thought-provoking post, BVS- thank you for taking the time to state your case . Nevertheless, you won't be surprised to know that I disagree with considerable parts of it. But first a clarification- though I can be confrontational, my term "setlist defenders" is not nearly as pejorative as "sheep" or "apologists", which have been used on this forum.

1) It is not telling that I didn't reply to your argument about U2s bravery. I merely didn't have the time to deal with all your points, so I will address this one now. I do not advocate a setlist dominated by obscure songs- the odd one or two is enough. But I do advocate a greater number of still- familiar, but slightly less obvious songs and in that category, I would include Discotheque and HMTMKMKM, and yes, I would also include a couple of more of their new songs including Being Born and possibly SUC. You will recall that ZOO Tv opened with an 8-song barrage of "new" material. Is that brave? In my subjective view, yes. To this they added 5 songs from Zooropa on the final leg. Yes, I know the album came out that year, but bearing in mind its sonic eccentricity, I still think it took some bottle. After all, they didn't play many of those songs on the outdoor European leg, which suggested they found it a challenge.

2) Regarding the issue of setlist variation, of course it is true that U2 have never changed their sets regularly but the more and more albums they produce, the less and less that justifiable that position becomes. Thus I am not surprised, but I think there is an argument for a change of approach.

3) It is not at all unreasonable or realistic to argue for the likes of Discotheque and HMTMKMKM- these were huge European hit singles- people talk as if they are obscure songs that only the anoraks must know. Also, it is not a given that casual fans necessarily want to hear Pride and WOWY etc. Some do but I know some who want to hear some different stuff. Indeed there is much to be said for U2 gently dipping these fans toes in the best parts of their back catalogue. I have been entirely consistent with that view throughout.

4) I stand by my original point- setlist defenders are no less selfish people than setlist critics, because I genuinely believe that yes, there are some people who want to hear 4 songs from ATYCLB per night and there are those who hated everything their 90s work stood for and were very happy with the direction the band took after 2000, both in terms of albums and setlists. And yes I think there would be calls for Beautiful Day (just an example) if it was replaced by Mofo.


5) I am puzzled by the argument that because Discotheque is "dated lyrically" it should not be included in the set. Firstly, it would be a pretty bizarre state of affairs if U2 sat down and picked songs to play on the strength of their lyrics. Casual fans (and yes, some emphasise their omnipresence more than I do) don’t make judgments about lyrics at a rock concert- they aren’t even audible sometimes! Secondly, on the very criteria you propose, Pride would have to go because it’s about Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968 and so too Sunday Bloody Sunday because it’s about a massacre from 1972 which was part of a war which has thankfully ended. I might not support the continued presence of these songs but to use the reasoning above is surely preposterous? So it is actually besides the point whether or not Discotheque is lyrically “dated”. As it happens, I see no evidence that it is- as Bono says, it’s a riddle about love and love is as important now in 2009 as it was in 1997. The same is true of its other arguable theme- hedonism.

 

[monsieur fly]

During the last three tours we have heard

- 8 AB songs
- 2 Zooropa songs (one of which didn't even get played on Zoo TV)
- 1 Passengers song
- 5 Pop songs

The only album possibly getting a bad deal since Popmart is Zooropa, and it actually got more songs performed on the 00's tours than the follow up tour after the album got released.

Out of those songs you listed, only the Batman song counts as a not-played big 90's song (Discotheque was played on Elevation and Vertigo). Consider also that we're only done with the first leg of 360 tour. Who knows what else they might decide to dig out from the back catalogue.

Mofo was rehearsed on the last tour, and If god will send his angels/Your blue room were soundchecked on this tour. No, I don't think U2 is forgetting the 90s.

I remain unconvinced. Firstly, it is irrelevant whether or not more Zooropa songs appeared on these tours than on Popmart. Stay is only ever played acoustically (and not regularly either) and The First Time made a handful appearances on Vertigo. That is hardly an "improvement" warranting a mention, especially as Zooropa's more musically adventurous songs continue to be ignored. It is also irrelevant that Mofo got "rehearsed" because rehearsal or no rehearsal it wasn't actually performed and that surely is what matters. I acknowledged in my previous post that Discotheque appeared on Elevation but it was a shortened version and was hardly a staple. And although you are factually correct that Discotheque was played on the Vertigo tour, I hardly think a grand total of two renditions adds much to the argument. Pop is getting a bad deal- it wasn't great on Elevation and it has got rather a lot worse since. On Vertigo and the current leg of 360 we have had 2 renditions of Discotheque- that is it.

I hope you are right that U2 add more of these songs to their set, U2 girl. Please don't mistake me on that. But if they do, I think it will be out of character with what has happend since 2000.

 

[monsieur fly]

If the supposed "majority" of the crowd loves the 00s, the majority of the concert should be geared towards them. However, if there is even a percentage that loves the early 80s and mid-late 90s, they deserve a slice of the pie as well. Certainly greater than 1 song from the four albums combined, as has been the case.

Great post

 

[popshopper]

Are you still using this argument? It really wouldn't kill U2 to fit in a song or two from Boy, October, Zooropa or Pop. No bias there, I don't even like October that much. But there is a sizable portion of the crowd that loves those albums, and I don't think it's a terribly outlandish request. If the supposed "majority" of the crowd loves the 00s, the majority of the concert should be geared towards them. However, if there is even a percentage that loves the early 80s and mid-late 90s, they deserve a slice of the pie as well. Certainly greater than 1 song from the four albums combined, as has been the case.

Ah the fabled box ticking approach to building a set list. Probably the worst way ever to construct a setlist.

For instance what if they decided to honour the 90's Big Girls are Best (which is when it was recorded).

You're creating false categories and whinging when the box isn't ticked to your satisfaction. NEWS FLASH they're playing songs from the 90's in the setlist, they're playing 3 or 4 most shows (One, UV, Stay, Until the end of the World). They're just not playing the songs you want to hear, fine but really does every second thread need to be about it. Perhaps they should just play a song from every album each night to please the purists, but what if they pick the wrong songs, and of course then the b-side category wouldn't be ticked. They only released two albums in that period and they're playing a track from one of them. The early 80's stuff got its moment in the sun last tour, and this time they've focussed on 1984, still managing to play two tracks every night from before that right enough. From a setlist of 23 songs a night, you've got sometimes got 6 tracks (NYD, SBS, MLK, BAD, UV, PRIDE) from before 85 with another being rehearsed which may yet find it's way into the setlist. They rehearsed POP stuff on the Vertigo tour, had a whole VT reel set up for it, tried some parts of it out and simply didn't like it...which is probably the reason nothing really from Pop has been played, yet If God will send his angels was still rehearsed.

Next you'll all be moaning that U2 aren't playing enough songs with the word Streets in the lyrics.

 

[BVS]

Can I just ask, when does it really matter how dated a song is? That reason alone hasn't stopped them pulling out older songs before, I would imagine there is more to it than that.

Whatever the reason, either ignorance is bliss or there's some complex technical reason behind some of the decisions to not revisit songs or they're still being rehearsed and ideas thrown around...

I am puzzled by the argument that because Discotheque is "dated lyrically" it should not be included in the set. Firstly, it would be a pretty bizarre state of affairs if U2 sat down and picked songs to play on the strength of their lyrics. Casual fans (and yes, some emphasise their omnipresence more than I do) don’t make judgments about lyrics at a rock concert- they aren’t even audible sometimes! Secondly, on the very criteria you propose, Pride would have to go because it’s about Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968 and so too Sunday Bloody Sunday because it’s about a massacre from 1972 which was part of a war which has thankfully ended. I might not support the continued presence of these songs but to use the reasoning above is surely preposterous? So it is actually besides the point whether or not Discotheque is lyrically “dated”. As it happens, I see no evidence that it is- as Bono says, it’s a riddle about love and love is as important now in 2009 as it was in 1997. The same is true of its other arguable theme- hedonism. [/FONT][/COLOR]

If a song soncially sounds dated, that can be fixed live...

My point is that American audiences are going to have a hard time connecting to Disco now, hell they had a hard time connecting then. I doubt many American college kids even know what a discotheque is. All the songs that reference cellular phones, bling, make pop culture reference will be irrelevant 10 to 20 years from now, and that's my point. Disco has a fun riff, but it wasn't a well written enough song to get past the relevance factors. NYD has a very specific time and place politically, but it was written well enough that a person can still make their own personal relevance.

Pride has a theme that will last a looooong time, unless somehow all racism and oppression ended tomorrow, that song will still have relevance.

SBS they always seem to find a way to make it relevant, this tour it's the Iranian election.

 

[LemonMelon]

Ah the fabled box ticking approach to building a set list. Probably the worst way ever to construct a setlist.

For instance what if they decided to honour the 90's Big Girls are Best (which is when it was recorded).

You're creating false categories and whinging when the box isn't ticked to your satisfaction. NEWS FLASH they're playing songs from the 90's in the setlist, they're playing 3 or 4 most shows (One, UV, Stay, Until the end of the World). They're just not playing the songs you want to hear, fine but really does every second thread need to be about it. Perhaps they should just play a song from every album each night to please the purists, but what if they pick the wrong songs, and of course then the b-side category wouldn't be ticked. They only released two albums in that period and they're playing a track from one of them. The early 80's stuff got its moment in the sun last tour, and this time they've focussed on 1984, still managing to play two tracks every night from before that right enough. From a setlist of 23 songs a night, you've got sometimes got 6 tracks (NYD, SBS, MLK, BAD, UV, PRIDE) from before 85 with another being rehearsed which may yet find it's way into the setlist. They rehearsed POP stuff on the Vertigo tour, had a whole VT reel set up for it, tried some parts of it out and simply didn't like it...which is probably the reason nothing really from Pop has been played, yet If God will send his angels was still rehearsed.

Next you'll all be moaning that U2 aren't playing enough songs with the word Streets in the lyrics.

I'm not creating categories; you're broadening existing ones to suit your argument, and frankly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. One does not represent 90s U2. TUF does not represent early 80s U2. I used the specific albums in my example to demonstrate the sheer volume of material the band has been ignoring, but stepping back from it a bit, U2 are actually ignoring entire periods of their history. Namely, everything not recorded with Brian Eno. This isn't terribly surprising; the material performed largely suits the new album, if not the setting, but (box-checking though it may be) shunning four albums almost entirely is simply ridiculous. SOMEONE in the crowd has to feel some enjoyment listening to those 33 songs the band has skipped over.

But hey, ultimately, it's the band's right to do whatever the fuck they please. It's also my right not to go. But I can't understand how skipping over a solid decade of the band's history is justifiable. Honestly, that's my biggest issue with the set at this point. Vertigo did a far superior job of representing the band's career up to 2005, and it wasn't exactly four guys in a room either; there was more than enough spectacle to distract from the set, and yet they actually bothered to craft a decent one.

 

[monsieur fly]

If a song soncially sounds dated, that can be fixed live...

My point is that American audiences are going to have a hard time connecting to Disco now, hell they had a hard time connecting then. I doubt many American college kids even know what a discotheque is. All the songs that reference cellular phones, bling, make pop culture reference will be irrelevant 10 to 20 years from now, and that's my point. Disco has a fun riff, but it wasn't a well written enough song to get past the relevance factors.
.

I'm sorry but I don't think this will convince many people. I can hardly imagine a college kid saying "y'know what, I was really with disappointed U2 last night because they did this song called Discotheque and I don't even know what a discotheque is- those tired 90s lyrics really prevented me from connecting with the experience." A more likely appraisal would be "awesome riff- great song" or something to that effect. And, needless to say many posters will dispute your contention that Discotheque's lyrics are in fact "dated". I see no reference to bling cell phones or pop culture in the song, which (I repeat) was described by Bono as a riddle about love, and there is nothing more timeless than that. Just because it isn't about saving the world doesn't mean its worthy of derision. Also it puzzles me why you think American audiences would struggle with it more than anyone else. Sometimes a great riff is just a great riff, whenever and wherever it is played.

 

[monsieur fly]

I This isn't terribly surprising; the material performed largely suits the new album, if not the setting, but (box-checking though it may be) shunning four albums almost entirely is simply ridiculous. SOMEONE in the crowd has to feel some enjoyment listening to those 33 songs the band has skipped over.
.

You talk a lot of sense.

 

[BVS]

Also it puzzles me why you think American audiences would struggle with it more than anyone else. Sometimes a great riff is just a great riff, whenever and wherever it is played.

Because I was there during Popmart and I was there at Vertigo when they brought it up and the audience went fucking dead.

 

[LemonMelon]

You talk a lot of sense.

I may speak sensibly on occasion, but I sure can't add. They've skipped over 43 songs from those four albums, not 33.

 

[U2girl]

Vertigo wasn't a great set - the Boy/War/Africa/Zoo TV trios of songs worked but the rest was just badly mixed hits+new songs.

And it was hardly a complaint-free tour, even with more songs played.

 

[monsieur fly]

Because I was there during Popmart and I was there at Vertigo when they brought it up and the audience went fucking dead.

That's not necessarily representative, I am afraid.

 

[popshopper]

I'm not creating categories; you're broadening existing ones to suit your argument, and frankly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. One does not represent 90s U2. TUF does not represent early 80s U2. I used the specific albums in my example to demonstrate the sheer volume of material the band has been ignoring, but stepping back from it a bit, U2 are actually ignoring entire periods of their history. Namely, everything not recorded with Brian Eno. This isn't terribly surprising; the material performed largely suits the new album, if not the setting, but (box-checking though it may be) shunning four albums almost entirely is simply ridiculous. SOMEONE in the crowd has to feel some enjoyment listening to those 33 songs the band has skipped over.

But hey, ultimately, it's the band's right to do whatever the fuck they please. It's also my right not to go. But I can't understand how skipping over a solid decade of the band's history is justifiable. Honestly, that's my biggest issue with the set at this point. Vertigo did a far superior job of representing the band's career up to 2005, and it wasn't exactly four guys in a room either; there was more than enough spectacle to distract from the set, and yet they actually bothered to craft a decent one.

One is a 90's song, Achtung Baby is 90's album. If you're saying that it doesn't represent the sound, then the Crazy Tonight remix, sonically is right beside Mofo as the most straight forward techno piece they've ever done, so they're certainly attempting to cover some of the same sonic ideas if not the actual song. By the One isn't a 90's track argument, then would IGWSHA adequately represent POP? ,

What you're asking for is simply box ticking, oh they're not playing a song from Pop, whats more it's further than that by oh they're not playing the right song from Pop. Perhaps you should just forward the band a list of songs you find acceptable?

 

[Salome]

But the majority of "defenders" as you call them are just people based in reality. We know what to expect from U2. When it comes to setlist we know they don't vary them all that much, and that when they play stadiums they have to keep in mind the more casual fans.

I would like to add that having been to the 360 Tour I feel this setlist just works
maybe it lacks when plotting setlist theories behind the computer, it just doesn't as an experience

 

[LemonMelon]

One is a 90's song, Achtung Baby is 90's album. If you're saying that it doesn't represent the sound, then the Crazy Tonight remix, sonically is right beside Mofo as the most straight forward techno piece they've ever done, so they're certainly attempting to cover some of the same sonic ideas if not the actual song. By the One isn't a 90's track argument, then would IGWSHA adequately represent POP? ,

What you're asking for is simply box ticking, oh they're not playing a song from Pop, whats more it's further than that by oh they're not playing the right song from Pop. Perhaps you should just forward the band a list of songs you find acceptable?

Your point about the Crazy Tonight remix is a good one. Just a shame it sounds completely out of place within the set because the band won't give anything from Pop a try. It's a fun idea, but that entire section of the show could be so much more. It's unfinished, but I'm sure it's a blast when you're there, which excuses a half-assed concept.

Your argument against "box-ticking" is a lame cop-out based on the idea that the crowd would collectively frown on the idea of hearing Last Night On Earth, Gone, Please, or anything that wasn't a monster hit single. But my point from the very beginning was that those tracks weren't intended for the 75% of the crowd that only wants to hear 00s U2 and choice singles from elsewhere. They already have the vast majority of the show to call their own.

Speaking for myself, just knowing the band is actually trying to craft a good set would shut me up. But they're not. They're perfectly content with what they created in show 1 and have only made the smallest adjustments since, most regarding the order in which to perform the same 23 songs. Vertigo was hardly faultless, but there were attempts to represent their vast catalogue at different stages in the tour, and sometimes an attempt is worth a lot. To me, anyway.

 

[Bruce]

Because I was there during Popmart and I was there at Vertigo when they brought it up and the audience went fucking dead.

Popmart I can agree with but I went to 6 Vertigo shows and never saw the audience go dead at anypoint. Could it just have been the show that you were at?

 

[U2girl]

I remain unconvinced. Firstly, it is irrelevant whether or not more Zooropa songs appeared on these tours than on Popmart. Stay is only ever played acoustically (and not regularly either) and The First Time made a handful appearances on Vertigo. That is hardly an "improvement" warranting a mention, especially as Zooropa's more musically adventurous songs continue to be ignored. It is also irrelevant that Mofo got "rehearsed" because rehearsal or no rehearsal it wasn't actually performed and that surely is what matters. I acknowledged in my previous post that Discotheque appeared on Elevation but it was a shortened version and was hardly a staple. And although you are factually correct that Discotheque was played on the Vertigo tour, I hardly think a grand total of two renditions adds much to the argument. Pop is getting a bad deal- it wasn't great on Elevation and it has got rather a lot worse since. On Vertigo and the current leg of 360 we have had 2 renditions of Discotheque- that is it.

I hope you are right that U2 add more of these songs to their set, U2 girl. Please don't mistake me on that. But if they do, I think it will be out of character with what has happend since 2000.

Fair enough. What did you think of the Vertigo tour - was that satisfying for you re: 90's songs ?

I think it's relevant as it shows the band are willing to play Zooropa songs; even if it's only an acoustic Stay or First time. And it's worth noting that's more than Zooropa got on Popmart. To these ears, nothing off Zooropa really worked live except Stay and maybe Dirty day. It's also questionable how much of the album Bono can sing now. (if UF now is any indication, I'd rather he passes on something like Lemon unless Edge takes over the falsetto)

Another factor to consider is Elevation and Vertigo were conceived as arena shows, and with U2 they get more setlist variation compared to stadium shows.

 

[BVS]

Popmart I can agree with but I went to 6 Vertigo shows and never saw the audience go dead at anypoint. Could it just have been the show that you were at?

Bruce, I think you missed the context of this post, I was purely talking about the playing of Discotheque.

 

[monsieur fly]

Fair enough. What did you think of the Vertigo tour - was that satisfying for you re: 90's songs ?

I think it's relevant as it shows the band are willing to play Zooropa songs; even if it's only an acoustic Stay or First time. And it's worth noting that's more than Zooropa got on Popmart. To these ears, nothing off Zooropa really worked live except Stay and maybe Dirty day. It's also questionable how much of the album Bono can sing now. (if UF now is any indication, I'd rather he passes on something like Lemon unless Edge takes over the falsetto)

Another factor to consider is Elevation and Vertigo were conceived as arena shows, and with U2 they get more setlist variation compared to stadium shows.

Interesting question. I thought U2 nearly got it right on Vertigo- I liked the AB-themed encore a lot, especially when Zoo Station appeared. All the set needed was two or three Pop or Zooropa tunes in regular rotation. Dirty Day would definitely work live, as would the title track and possibly Lemon though Bon's vocal issues would have to make that an occasional treat. I understand your argument about the venue and to an extent, I agree, but I sdon't think throwing in two or three songs from Pop or Zooropa would harm a stadium show- in fact there is an argument that those songs would be beneficial.

 

[LemonMelon]

I understand your argument about the venue and to an extent, I agree, but I sdon't think throwing in two or three songs from Pop or Zooropa would harm a stadium show- in fact there is an argument that those songs would be beneficial.

At least it would give The Claw an opportunity to do something more than take up space and increase ticket prices.

 

[popshopper]

At least it would give The Claw an opportunity to do something more than take up space and increase ticket prices.

Been to a show?...thought not, you're talking hogwash there.

 

[monsieur fly]

Ah the tired riposte, I see-

 

[LemonMelon]

Been to a show?...thought not, you're talking hogwash there.

Technology has ruined the illusion for more than just the sets. Every moment of every show has been taped by now; we've all seen the lighting cues. This is a slightly upgraded Vertigo. Themeless, hardly groundbreaking. I couldn't care less about that; I care far more about the songs performed than the shit going on behind them, but U2 hasn't exactly accomplished a lot with a little as they did on Elevation, or bothered to craft a brilliant concept complemented by special effects. All they've done is provide the fans with a fucking huge metal claw that lights up. Not that we would know when the show is dominated by songs like In A Little While and acoustic Desire.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, the two songs having a whopping total of 6/7 performances on 360, and not having been played since Gothenburg and Dublin, respectively. Truly dominating the current set.

This is hardly just "Vertigo updated" and the show is groundbreaking and with a theme. Then again you didn't see the show so...and avoiding videos/mp3s/photos/setlists would help increase the surprise.

 

[Tacvbo]

Yes, the two songs having a whopping total of 6/7 performances on 360, and not having been played since Gothenburg and Dublin, respectively. Truly dominating the current set.

This is hardly just "Vertigo updated" and the show is groundbreaking and with a theme. Then again you didn't see the show so...and avoiding videos/mp3s/photos/setlists would help increase the surprise.

What's the theme of the show in your opinion and how is it supported?

 

[U2girl]

It's being referred to in the show by Bono, the visuals allude to it, the pre-recorded song right before the encore and the intro song by Bowie.

 

[zwervers2]

What's the theme of the show in your opinion and how is it supported?

There is no theme. And please don't say space....