doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Compare that to the first night and last night of POPMART or ZOOTV. I guess you're saying that it's cool for U2 to do it since its how the Stones do it? To my mind, calling U2 the Stones is not a compliment to U2. Yeah, the Stones wrote some damn good songs, but only about a dozen that I've gotten into. (No, that's not ignorance, that's my opinion.) And they've toured for a few decades now based upon nostalgia and not their current work. I liked "Mixed Emotions," but that's the most recent song of theirs that got my attention, and that was the 80s. The last thing I want U2 to do is to be like them. They're kind of a joke.
Look, as I've said, I do actually expect a massive come-back from U2 next time. They will find that hit single which connects the way they need it to AND release one of their better albums. But I think the reason why they will is they're smart enough to realize that at this moment they NEED to in order to continue being the artists they want to be.
There were just two setlist examples from Springsteen and the Stones where maybe 4-6 songs off a new release started the tour. By the end, they played one song from their respective new albums.
In contrast, U2's last few tours started with seven songs from the new album. The 360 setlist bounces a bit, but usually still has four songs (GOYB, Magnificent, Crazy and MOS). So really, only three songs were dropped and NLOTH still has a fair representation.
Furthermore, being compared to The Stones is NOT an insult. The Stones are wildly successful, masters of touring, and are legends.
Lastly, U2 members are 50-ish. When one is a pre-teen, one rarely dives into music by 50 year olds. The fact that U2 can still connect with pre-teens, teens and 20-somethings is very impressive.
Therefore, I simply do not get your complaint.