U2 Unorganized on the Horizon / The U2 Machinery

[last unicorn]

So many times people have said this on here, but what the hell - im bored so ill say it again - What would you think as an average fan going to 1 gig of the tour, to come away not hearing them play any of those songs you listed? Granted you can find artists that sometimes go on tour with a new album and play nothing BUT that new album, but we know that u2 aren't one of them. They have too many fans to try and please.

Agree.

At every gig I've ever been of any large band - Oasis, Stereophonics, Radiohead, Manic Street Preachers, The Verve, Red Hot Chili Peppers and so on - they all play the majority of their big singles/well-known songs. This isn't just a lazy U2 thing - its excepted by all bands that if people pay 40-50pounds or however much, they want to hear those staple songs. Just because the hardcore fans may be bored of them, means nothing - if you don't want to hear those songs then don't go. I'm anticipating my first U2 gigs this summer and whilst I'll be ecstatic with anything they play - I might be a tad disappointed if they didnt play WOWY, NYD, Streets, SBS etc

Agree 2.

Some fans will never understand that there are also casual music fans and concert goers at U2 shows and that they, in fact, make out the majority of the audience. Vertigo tour, maybe except the very last leg, was not at all a Greatest Hits show.

And the album cover discussion is getting tired, we already have a couple of threads where that is discussed.

Of course if you spend your day analysing everything U2 has done you will always find mistakes. But they are still big and successful, so I guess they must have done something right.

 

[last unicorn]

Ok, u2.com sucks. Let's hope it will get better with the release of the new album.

Apart from that I don't see what's so unorganised about u2 these days. They announced the album properly, released a single, gave some great interviews including a Q cover story, announced first performances. We have the album's title, tracklist, artwork, most of us have already ordered it and know which editions come out. So what's the problem? The album isn't out, yet people seem to look for hundreds of reasons to complain.

 

[Axver]

So many times people have said this on here, but what the hell - im bored so ill say it again - What would you think as an average fan going to 1 gig of the tour, to come away not hearing them play any of those songs you listed? Granted you can find artists that sometimes go on tour with a new album and play nothing BUT that new album, but we know that u2 aren't one of them. They have too many fans to try and please.

I've laid my position on the table many times before, but I'll do it again. I think there are three flaws with "average fan" arguments:

1. U2 have a shitload of big hits. Enough to fill over one setlist without even considering new material. Thus I find it surprising that they rotate the hits as little as they do. A casual fan who only knows the band from the radio is going to be just as happy if the first encore is Vertigo/EBTTRT/MW or Beautiful Day/Angel Of Harlem/Pride, while that kind of variety will make more serious fans happy. Plus, come on, not every song has to be a huge hit. 10 big hits and the casual punter is going to go home happy, thinking "yeah, they played NYD and Streets and Mysterious Ways, how cool!" or whatever. That leaves plenty of room, 12+ songs, for new material (including the recent singles average punters will know) and lesser known songs, which leads me to my next point ...

2. U2 made their live reputation playing songs to crowds that likely didn't know much of the band's material. They gained such a good live reputation because they were able to engage audiences with any material they chose to play. Now, I doubt anybody on this forum is going to say U2 can't do that any more; in fact, I would say they are more skilled at engaging an audience than ever. So why not engage the audience with some songs casual fans might not know and expose them to U2's catalogue beyond the radio hits? (Indeed, it seems the band did well engaging European stadium audiences with The Electric Co. on Vertigo) Instead of just playing the Prides and Ones of this world, have less well-known songs through the set to promote them to the casual fan. Odds are, some of them will go home and say "hey, there were some really awesome songs there I didn't know; I better go buy some more U2 stuff". That's not going to happen if they're just spoonfed things they already know, as if they're morons. Which leads to my final point ...

3. This whole thing that "U2 need to play hits or else the casual fans won't be happy" implicitly assumes that casual fans are idiots. It assumes that not only do they not know anything other than #1 hits, but that they don't care to hear anything else either. Yet I've spoken to casual fans who identify tracks like Gloria, An Cat Dubh, Party Girl, One Tree Hill, and Kite as highlights that left Pride or WOWY for dead, and other casual fans who wondered why songs like Silver And Gold, Discotheque, or In God's Country weren't played. My mother had seen Silver And Gold on RAH and assumed it was the kind of song Bono would want to sing every night!

 

[AndrewCowley]

At every gig I've ever been of any large band - Oasis, Stereophonics, Radiohead, Manic Street Preachers, The Verve, Red Hot Chili Peppers and so on - they all play the majority of their big singles/well-known songs. This isn't just a lazy U2 thing - its excepted by all bands that if people pay 40-50pounds or however much, they want to hear those staple songs. Just because the hardcore fans may be bored of them, means nothing - if you don't want to hear those songs then don't go. I'm anticipating my first U2 gigs this summer and whilst I'll be ecstatic with anything they play - I might be a tad disappointed if they didnt play WOWY, NYD, Streets, SBS etc

Well you can go and watch Pearl Jam and shock horror they may not play Alive. But they'll play a darn good show with enough hits to make it memorable for a passing fan but also usually with something special too for the hard core fans. U2 set lists are too much about pleasing the lowest common denominator. I love them, but wish they would take more risks with their setlists. I think the paying public are smart. They go into a concert hoping for certain songs. But if the concert is good then they'll walk out having loved it anyway, even if some their chosen songs weren't played.

 

[chrissybaby]

Agree with everything there Ax, this whole casual fan schtick is extremely patronizing. I went to two shows with "casual fans" in 2005 and they were utterly amazed by the Electric Co. For "casual fan" don't read dumb or closed minded. I've been to shows of artists where I've been the casual fan and I've loved the feeling of discovery and the element of suprise that it brings.

 

[AndrewCowley]

The other possibility is that they wish all these things would be ready or done properly but in the end these things are being handled by other people who are a bunch of incompetants. This might be closer to the truth when you see the state of the music industry in general.

Yep, that's it. The record companies are too busy preparing their next court case, filing for damages of tens of thousands of dollars, against some lowly wage earner who happened to download a few mp3 files.

 

[chrissybaby]

Ok, u2.com sucks. Let's hope it will get better with the release of the new album.

Apart from that I don't see what's so unorganised about u2 these days. They announced the album properly, released a single, gave some great interviews including a Q cover story, announced first performances. We have the album's title, tracklist, artwork, most of us have already ordered it and know which editions come out. So what's the problem? The album isn't out, yet people seem to look for hundreds of reasons to complain.

OK, when have they properly announced clearly all the formats and extra tracks?
When was the single released? What are the B-Sides? Mixes, alternative versions of the album's title track? Fill me in if you know?
How many bands of U2's size have used an album cover that another band(s) have already used and not known about that?

 

[MikeyJB]

Well you can go and watch Pearl Jam and shock horror they may not play Alive. But they'll play a darn good show with enough hits to make it memorable for a passing fan but also usually with something special too for the hard core fans. U2 set lists are too much about pleasing the lowest common denominator. I love them, but wish they would take more risks with their setlists. I think the paying public are smart. They go into a concert hoping for certain songs. But if the concert is good then they'll walk out having loved it anyway, even if some their chosen songs weren't played.

I myself am not really into Pearl Jam, although I am aware of their reputation of ever-changing setlists and all that. Thats fine for them, all I'm saying is that the bands I have been to see tend to follow the U2 trend more.

 

[AndrewCowley]

I myself am not really into Pearl Jam, although I am aware of their reputation of ever-changing setlists and all that. Thats fine for them, all I'm saying is that the bands I have been to see tend to follow the U2 trend more.

R.E.M. don't have fixed setlists as far as I know. Nor Springsteen. There's two big acts.

I think the way forward for U2 should be to have 'spots' in their setlist for older hits and simply rotate those more often. Maybe 5 spots. And fill the rest with the past few albums, focussing on the current one of course.

 

[MMP]

R.E.M. is one of the best bands concerning setlists. They manage to please casual and harcore fans really well.

 

[chocky]

One of U2.com's recent articles boasts that they've had almost 50 singles. So I suppose they could play for 4 hours using just singles!

I remember reading during the 1984 Australian tour that Edge forgot all their old songs and had to buy a copy of War (or maybe it was Boy) to refresh his memory. While that may have been an urban legend, I figured difficulty in memorizing so many songs could justify their lack of creativity/rotation in their set lists.

But then I look at acts like Springsteen and the Cure who often perform up to 40 songs per night over 3+ hours and still manage to change their setlists nightly.

Maybe they're just lazy

I'd love them to dig out older singles like A Sort of Homecoming, Fire, Unforgettable Fire etc or great album tracks like Rejoice, Hawkmoon 269, God Part II, Ultra Violet. I'm happy to keep the staples (One, SBS, BTBS) but rotate the others much more often.

 

[onyourkneesboy]

I was a little in doubt if I should get the part about the live-show in... It seems that that gets the only attention!

I'm far more curious about the point I was trying to make as a whole. The blindness of the U2 Machinery!

Anyone?

 

[BoyOnTheHorizon]

I think that on ATYCLB was the last time the band seemed in line with reality. The visual theme of that album was good; there was a sense that everything was carefully thought. The website had those 30 sec clip of the songs. But on Bomb and Horizon everything seems a little too numb. Too lazy. We don't see sparkles in anything. There is nothing about that super detailing thing that we saw in the previous work, visually artistic speaking.

About the setlist i think it's fair to them to play the big hits everynight, although they could be more adventurous sometimes, playing some gems more frequently.

That bold atitude that i miss from them in everything and that i thought the got it back on this album, but the cover art and the first single indicates otherwise so far...

 

[AndrewCowley]

One of U2.com's recent articles boasts that they've had almost 50 singles. So I suppose they could play for 4 hours using just singles!

I remember reading during the 1984 Australian tour that Edge forgot all their old songs and had to buy a copy of War (or maybe it was Boy) to refresh his memory. While that may have been an urban legend, I figured difficulty in memorizing so many songs could justify their lack of creativity/rotation in their set lists.

But then I look at acts like Springsteen and the Cure who often perform up to 40 songs per night over 3+ hours and still manage to change their setlists nightly.

Maybe they're just lazy

I'd love them to dig out older singles like A Sort of Homecoming, Fire, Unforgettable Fire etc or great album tracks like Rejoice, Hawkmoon 269, God Part II, Ultra Violet. I'm happy to keep the staples (One, SBS, BTBS) but rotate the others much more often.

It is widely known that U2 don't like rehearsing. They like to rehearse a minimal number of songs for a tour and stick to that. This is why for a whole tour they don't play many different songs. Vertigo was actually pretty good in that regard, by U2's standards.

Could well be laziness. They've been doing this for so long, with success, that they aren't motivated enough to try something else. It suits them, the people come anyway, so why move out of their comfort zone?

Other artists probably get bored and see varying setlists as something to add variety into a tour.

 

[onyourkneesboy]

One of U2.com's recent articles boasts that they've had almost 50 singles. So I suppose they could play for 4 hours using just singles!

I remember reading during the 1984 Australian tour that Edge forgot all their old songs and had to buy a copy of War (or maybe it was Boy) to refresh his memory. While that may have been an urban legend, I figured difficulty in memorizing so many songs could justify their lack of creativity/rotation in their set lists.

But then I look at acts like Springsteen and the Cure who often perform up to 40 songs per night over 3+ hours and still manage to change their setlists nightly.

Maybe they're just lazy

I'd love them to dig out older singles like A Sort of Homecoming, Fire, Unforgettable Fire etc or great album tracks like Rejoice, Hawkmoon 269, God Part II, Ultra Violet. I'm happy to keep the staples (One, SBS, BTBS) but rotate the others much more often.

Also: good point! More and more there are sounds from people who notice that with a lot of songs U2 seem to be on auto-pilot. So songs like BTBS, MW, BD, Pride, One, seem to get flatter and flatter.. They just get performed..

I think the only reason that justifies SBS, Pride, BTBS, One, ISTHFWILF, and even The Fly (from the last tour!, Elevation-tour version kicked ass!) still being in the regular setlist, should be old-fashion U2 passion!

 

[AndrewCowley]

On the bright side, pulling out Gloria, An Cat Dubh / Into The Heart, Electric Co. for the Vertigo tour was awesome. Pity they all fell out of the setlist by the time I saw it in Australia (by then it was the U218 tour!). Maybe they'll do this again. It is a sign that they are prepared to play with acknowledging the past.

 

[Irishteen]

3-5 fixed spots for their biggest hits
5 spots for other hits rotating
8-10 from new album
3-7 Rarer songs


That would probably be the U2 setlist that would make me most happy. Seriously they should be rotating at least half the set regularly

 

[boystupidboy]

I find it really disapointing that you can go to a U2 gig and almost 100 percent predict what the next song is going to be due to people posting the setlist on the internet.
Just wish they would live dangerously and mix it up a bit more...stop being so 'routine'.

Having said all that im still gonna go to the Melbourne gig tho'

 

[U2girl]

At every gig I've ever been of any large band - Oasis, Stereophonics, Radiohead, Manic Street Preachers, The Verve, Red Hot Chili Peppers and so on - they all play the majority of their big singles/well-known songs. This isn't just a lazy U2 thing - its excepted by all bands that if people pay 40-50pounds or however much, they want to hear those staple songs. Just because the hardcore fans may be bored of them, means nothing - if you don't want to hear those songs then don't go. I'm anticipating my first U2 gigs this summer and whilst I'll be ecstatic with anything they play - I might be a tad disappointed if they didnt play WOWY, NYD, Streets, SBS etc

Vertigo tour did a nice mix of "hits" and the less known songs.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

OK, when have they properly announced clearly all the formats and extra tracks?
When was the single released? What are the B-Sides? Mixes, alternative versions of the album's title track? Fill me in if you know?
How many bands of U2's size have used an album cover that another band(s) have already used and not known about that?

To be fair the band that used the cover are very very obscure, and litrally only pressed about 1000 copys of it, the only reason people found out about it was becuse one of the people who made the album made a big fuss on a blog, but for some reason wouldnt press it any further, so of course the band have asked if they can use it,

people litreally are just finding things to bitch about out of nothing these days.

 

[santiago]

Without wanting to defend the band too much...

OK, when have they properly announced clearly all the formats and extra tracks?

errr...does that matter really? As long as they announce it before release (so that people can order and pre-order accordingly) that should be fine.

It's not the Normandy landing, it's a CD release.

When was the single released? What are the B-Sides? Mixes, alternative versions of the album's title track? Fill me in if you know?

...ditto. They have announced the relase of the single (February 18th if I'm not wrong).

But once again, not a big issue, is it?

How many bands of U2's size have used an album cover that another band(s) have already used and not known about that?

Many, I suspect. For one, Bob Dylan's last album Modern Times' cover featured a the picture "Taxi, New York at Night", 1947, by Ted Croner. The image was previously used as a CD cover by the band Luna, on their 1995 single "Hedgehog/23 Minutes in Brussels".

When you choose a famous iconic picture as your cover, it's very likely that someone will have used it before.

Apparently the UF cover by Corbijn was in the style of a picture by a different photographer (a book on Irish castles), which resulted in U2 having to pay handsome royalties to that photographer (as read in U2 by U2).

I mean, I think you are right in your points and I think the other critics in these points also have a point (ie: U2 should be careful with these issues and market their music more carefully! Good marketing has played a great part in their longterm artistic survival and, as fans, we want that to keep going)

But at the same time, I think the reaction should be mild annoyance rather than the wild outrage in this thread.

Do you all really care so much for all this?

Santiago

 

[phillyfan26]

They're absolutely unorganized, but this is in no way a surprise, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

[clipper699]

They're absolutely unorganized, but this is in no way a surprise, so I'm not too worried about it.

Quite right. It is rock-n-roll afterall, isn't it?

 

[chrissybaby]

Without wanting to defend the band too much...



errr...does that matter really? As long as they announce it before release (so that people can order and pre-order accordingly) that should be fine.

It's not the Normandy landing, it's a CD release.



...ditto. They have announced the relase of the single (February 18th if I'm not wrong).

But once again, not a big issue, is it?



Many, I suspect. For one, Bob Dylan's last album Modern Times' cover featured a the picture "Taxi, New York at Night", 1947, by Ted Croner. The image was previously used as a CD cover by the band Luna, on their 1995 single "Hedgehog/23 Minutes in Brussels".

When you choose a famous iconic picture as your cover, it's very likely that someone will have used it before.

Apparently the UF cover by Corbijn was in the style of a picture by a different photographer (a book on Irish castles), which resulted in U2 having to pay handsome royalties to that photographer (as read in U2 by U2).

I mean, I think you are right in your points and I think the other critics in these points also have a point (ie: U2 should be careful with these issues and market their music more carefully! Good marketing has played a great part in their longterm artistic survival and, as fans, we want that to keep going)

But at the same time, I think the reaction should be mild annoyance rather than the wild outrage in this thread.

Do you all really care so much for all this?

Santiago

Hi Santiago,

Good post and you answered some of my points well. The question about the physical single release and the B-sides came about because no one knew that iTunes USA would leak(!!) the song on Monday morning, in the UK i couldn't get it. So, has the single actually been released? What are the B-Sides? Are they remixes, I dunno and I do want to pre-order. I also don't know how I can get all of the songs that the album release brings with it? Can I get them all by pre-ordering the box? Do I have to pre-order the iTunes album to get another track? You must admit, it is a bit confusing?!

What would be wrong with all this being sorted out in one clear electronic press release like everyone else does?

Don't get me wrong, there isn't smoke coming out of my ears as i write this, it doesn't bother me hugely, it's just a little bit ramshackle. But then again, if they were an incredibly slick machine I'd probably think that it was all a bit inhuman!

 

[last unicorn]

Where humans work, mistakes are made. It would be shocking if everything went perfectly. Then I'd really be worried about the whole U2 thing becoming a "machine".

 

[intedomine]

Bollocks U2 setlists are full of greatest hits.

The most recent Australia tour, for the most part, was, but it needed to be, people expected it to be, they hadn't been in the country for 8 years.

The North American tour for Vertigo on the other hand, particularly if you look at the ChiCago DVD, features plent yof non-hits, An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart, Electrico, Running To Stand Still, Zoo Station.....not bad, on top of 7 or so HTDAAB album tracks, and bear in mind The Ocean, Gloria, Party Girl, The First Time and Disctheque also featured on the tour at times...

 

[last unicorn]

I find it really disapointing that you can go to a U2 gig and almost 100 percent predict what the next song is going to be due to people posting the setlist on the internet.
Just wish they would live dangerously and mix it up a bit more...stop being so 'routine'.

Having said all that im still gonna go to the Melbourne gig tho'

Umm, the Vertigo tour was very "mixed up", and taking part in setlist parties is your own problem, you can as well avoid them.

 

[last unicorn]

I think that on ATYCLB was the last time the band seemed in line with reality.

Yes because they're so out of touch with reality.

I think you confuse them with someone else. Err, maybe some of their fans?

 

[ndmaxfield]

How can such a "well oiled machine" be so piss poor when rolling out certain elements of their new album?

Things that make you go

Why not have the website updated to at the very least some sort of temporary setup that reflects the new album/single not some five year old graphics and theme.

Who's idea was it to announce that the single would not be available for download until February the 15th, who's the genius that thought that was a good idea in the first place? so after all the news outlets gave U2 a shit load of free advertising the past week U2 corp. gives out bad info.

This one they may not be able to control but the way the whole itunes chart thing works is really going to hurt them. Having the two copies of GOYB hovering on the top 30 where if they had them combined it would be breaking the top ten and as far as itunes goes once you break the top ten the sales are expediently bigger due to the exposure the top ten gets. Maybe they don't care about chart positions and sales anymore and if thats the case that's cool but i have a hard time believing that.

Is it that hard to send out one image of the album cover ?

When using someone else's non original art work how do they not ask the question " Mr. Sugimoto, has this image been used on any other albums" or for that matter are we going to see this image on a poster at ikea next year?

I could go on and I know its kind of nitpicking but they've had 4 years to get this shit ready, Paul McG needs to start busting some balls and get this straight.

As a serious fan since 1990, hearing Bono brag over the years about U2 harnessing technology, and having paid this band major bucks to buy their products, see their concerts and join their fan clubs...I agree they need to do things much more professionally. Bottom line: They're gonna make some major bucks like they always do. Fans need to be happy with the music, but we also need to be able to enjoy being fans (or else it isn't entertainment...I'm not a U2 fan because I like to be annoyed by U2...I want to be able to relax and enjoy U2). Some people defending U2 on this thread act like the band (and band's management) were born yesterday. U2's team has repeatedly orchestrated some of the biggest, amazing, most successful, worldwide concert tours in history. They have plenty of resources to roll-out new albums in a much more coherent manner. As fans like me mature, I guess our expectations get a little higher, and I don't think that's unreasonable. U2 already stutter-stepped last Fall. Staying up 'til 3:10 a.m. the other night was fun, but I worried the whole damn time that Dave Fanning would cut the internet feed because there was no clear information on what was going to happen. People gripe about U2's musical choices on the past few albums - I personally love just about anything they produce musically - but I think it was some of their business decisions that tarnished U2's reputation over the past decade (such as the ticket debacle). It IS confusing to read that a single will be released February 15 and then be able to download it January 20. It IS annoying to renew my fanclub membership early-Fall, in anticipation of a new album after a summertime of hype, and then learn the band isn't releasing the album until March. Etc...etc... The website should have been updated with the announcement of the new album release (I paid my fanclub dues, the announcement came out, I do expect new promotional material the day the album is announced). Maybe they should hire Sicy or some of the other moderators on this forum, who seem to be much better organized in anticipation of forthcoming U2 events than the U2 web team. We'll see what happens with the rest of the new album roll-out and tour, but things do feel disorganized right now.

 

[chrissybaby]

^ Good Post.