Set list variation...this is how all bands should do it no matter how big or small

[quasi1970]

Set list variation...this is how all bands should do it no matter how big or small (provided they are experienced enough and with a large back catalogue)...and if the technical aspects of the show start to overwhelm the ability to do this...I can do without the special effects.

"How does Pearl Jam decide on the set list every night? I think a lot of Pearl Jam fans would say that half the fun of going to see your shows is the surprise of not knowing which songs you're going to pull out of your hats. — Lauri Mancinelli, Cambridge, Mass."

"We like to keep the fans surprised, and we like to keep it fresh for ourselves, too. A lot of the times Ed will sit down an hour before the show and look over the previous night's set. We will add or subtract songs according to how we feel or what we think will feel right in that particular town. At some shows, the set list gets changed while we are on stage. I know Ed thinks about the set very hard throughout the day in order to make the best show possible for the fans and for us."



http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/popcandy/2005-07-12-pop-candy_x.htm

 

[KUEFC09U2]

why? simply why? the band ARE NOT playing to the same crowd every single show, so really whats the point?

if you want to be suprised simply dont read the setlists, and then you wont know whats gonna happen at your show,

and for the record, pearl jam simply arent as big as U2, no matter what people say, come here to the UK, and ask someone who they are, and not many will have heard of them trust me

 

[Harbinger]

Sounds great, but...

One of the things this requires is that the band (or certain specific menbers of the band *cough*Bono*cough*) need to make sure they're well prepared to perform a number of different songs.

One way around some of the difficulty is having a lyrical prompter (i've seen several artists use this - Sarah McLachlan comes to mind at the moment) where the lyrics are displayed on a laptop and scroll along as needed. U2 certainly has the technical capabilities to pull this off, and it could probably be done surropticiously enough to not spoil the "spontenaity" of anything...

From what i've read recently, and I'm not entirely sure how accurate it is, U2 and Bono in particular, don't like rehearsing. This is a problem for varied setlists, unless you want the show to turn out like crap.

On the other hand, I don't see rehearsing a few different songs every night or couple of nights would be that difficult. Listen to the album version a couple of times, play it a couple of times, and put it into rotation - then it'll get played at least once every few days to keep it fresh.

And not only that (and I'm trying hard not for this to turn into a "Why don't U2 change up their sets" post, but it's not going as well as I'd hoped...) If you've practiced/soundchecked a couple of different songs over the course of a few nights, and after the tech crew's figured everything out after a couple of performances, it shouldn't be that difficult to adjust the cues (from what I understand, and I'm no expert) it is possible to have groups of lighting/sound cues and t obe able to rearrange them - which seems to be the other major "obstacle" of U2 changing their setlists. Just tell the crew "OK, we're gonna play Vertigo, I Will Follow, Electric Co, Elevation, New Years Day" tonight and then tomorrow tell them that "Tonight we're gonna play City of Blinding Lights, Vertigo, Elevation, Gloria, The Ocean" or whatever.

I can understand the "radical" changes that Pearl Jam makes in their sets, and would welcome them from U2, but I can also understand the band's desire for a more structured show. But there is still plenty of room for change... *sigh*

 

[theu2fly]

If anything, I would expect U2 to extend their setlist a few more songs for the stadium / foreign crowds...

 

[typhoon]

and for the record, pearl jam simply arent as big as U2, no matter what people say, come here to the UK, and ask someone who they are, and not many will have heard of them trust me

What does being big have to do with it? Pearl Jam plays a ton of songs every tour, and they play even the rare ones pretty well. There's no reason U2 can't do the same except that they don't want to. You really don't need to make excuses for them.

Oh, and Pearl Jam's concert prices are reasonable, so you can see them a few times each go-round without dipping into the college fund, and they release official "bootlegs" of every show, so the "playing for a different crowd every night" theory isn't bullet-proof.

 

[Harbinger]

the band ARE NOT playing to the same crowd every single show

So what? That seems to be part of the point - Pearl Jam are tailoring their show to the city/venue/crowd they're playing to, instead of playing the exact same (or nearly so) thing to everyone. To use an (admittedly odd) analogy, it's like Chips Ahoy cookies vs. Your Mother's Homemade cookies - Rather than syaing that everyone gets the exact same thing, they're putting energy into crafting something that will be special for those who attend a particular concert.

Hell, it seems logical to me that if a band were to make each show somehow different or special, it might actually increase attendance because you wouldn't be getting the same thing every time.

 

[Chizip]

Bono does use a teleprompter, many people have reported seeing it

 

[Harbinger]

Oh, I didn't know that.

 

[Axver]

Bono does use a teleprompter, many people have reported seeing it

More precisely, people have reported seeing a teleprompter Bono doesn't use much.

 

[MTEdge]

More precisely, people have reported seeing a teleprompter Bono doesn't use much.

 

[PopFly]

Well, then he should take off his sunglasses.

I like how Bob Dylan does it. He plays his usual sets including most of his big hits (Like A Rolling Stone, Blowin in the Wind, etc.) but he always leaves 1-2 slots open for a totally random, out of nowhere selection, like some B-side from 1971 or something. It would be cool if U2 were to do this some night......play the usual Vertigo Tour setlist except with, out of nowhere, Promenade thrown in during the encore or something.

 

[neilm]

why? simply why? the band ARE NOT playing to the same crowd every single show, so really whats the point?

if you want to be suprised simply dont read the setlists, and then you wont know whats gonna happen at your show,

and for the record, pearl jam simply arent as big as U2, no matter what people say, come here to the UK, and ask someone who they are, and not many will have heard of them trust me

Some bands like to mix the set list up each night, not only to keep the fans guessing but also to make each night a bit different for themselves. On the other hand, some bands such as U2 do not, preferring to have 4 or 5 set lists that are played on different nights. And, I should add, there is nothing wrong with either option.

Pearl Jam, although maybe not as big as U2 are still a big draw in most parts of the world, especially the US and the UK/Europe. I saw Pearl Jam live in London a number of times over the years before I moved out to Oz (May 2000 was the last time I saw them in the UK).

If you mention U2, I agree most people know who you are talking about, but believe me, Pearl Jam have a very large army of fans in the UK, consistently sell out arena sized tours and they are well known, so I don't agree with your comment that 'not many people have heard of them.'

 

[Chizip]

, Promenade thrown in during the encore or something.

 

[EmitFlesti]

I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how predictable the set-list has been most of this tour. In an odd twist for U2, the U.S. setlists were better than the European ones so far. Does anyone really want to hear Vertigo twice every night? And, as much as I like songs like Pride and Where the Streets Have no Name, they could use a rest for a while. U2 has such a brilliant back catalog at this stage in their careers, yet they always rely on the same predictable songs in their live shows). I keep seeing people say they have to rely on hits because people at live shows aren't necessarily big fans and might not know the older stuff. Bollocks! I find it hard to believe a most people at their shows aren't long-time fans who know lots of the older stuff. Who do they think are going to their shows? 13 year-olds who went to Ashley Simpson or Justin Timberlake the previous weekend? And even if a lot of the people aren't as familiar with the older stuff or non-singles, what a great time to introduce them to some new stuff!

Occasionally they'll throw an odd one in - I've been pleasantly surprised at hearing songs like The Ocean, The Electric Co., An Cat Dubh, Into the Heart, and 40 again this tour - but generally, they just stick with the same "greatest hits". Take a look at the songs they've played this tour by album (just looking here at past albums, not the newest LP - though I am shocked they haven't played Crumbs yet, or a full band Yahweh!):

From ATYCLB: the only two songs they've played from it this tour are Elevation and Beautiful day - the first two singles and the two least impressive songs on that album. Where's Walk On, or Kite, both far superior songs? For that matter, why have they never played When I Look at the World live?!

From Pop - they've played nothing. A criminally underrated and unjustly maligned album, even though songs like Gone, Please, Staring at the Sun, Wake Up Dead Man, MOFO, and If God Will Send His Angels deserve to be rated among their best stuff.

From Zooropa: Stay is a great tune, they could throw that in the setlist evey now and then.

From Achtung Baby: they've done a bit better on this one - I was surprised to see Zoo Station and The Fly as mainstays again, but how about Love is Blindness or Ultraviolet every once in a while instead of always just One, plus the occasional Mysterious Ways, or Until the End of the World? Of course, what I really want is Acrobat live!

From JT: the usual Streets, Bullet, Running, and the occasional Still Haven't Found, and WOWY. Why not throw in Exit, In God's Country, One Tree Hill, or Mothers of the Disappeared every now and then? Which reminds me also: Why have they never once played Red Hill Mining Town live, even back during the JT tour? Strange.

From UF - Pride, as usual, with Bad thrown in a few times. Why not bring out A Sort of Homecoming or The Unforgettable Fire? Both are better songs than Pride and haven't been played to death. Or - if they really want to get crazy - Elvis Pressley and America!

From War: good to see 40 back early in the tour - should have kept it as the closer rather than repeating Vertigo (the worst song on Atomic Bomb). Personally, I'd also like to hear Surrender again, and Sunday Bloody Sunday could use another break. My dream, of course, is to hear them play Drowning Man live.

From October: Good to see Gloria back again a few times. How about preceding New Year's Day with the October title track again?

From Boy: good to see Electric Co. back rather than always just I Will Follow from this album, as has been the norm the last several tours. An Cat Dubh, Into the Heart, and The Ocean also a pleasant surprise. Throw in Shadows and Tall Trees, even just once, and I'll forgive all of the above!

Pre-Boy: Where has 11 O'Clock Tick-Tock been this tour?

 

[Numb1075]

I'd say that less than 1% of fans attending concerts actually go on sites such as this one and follow and monitor each show's setlist.

I think for the majority of people attending shows, they have no idea what the band will play.

As far as the band goes, I would wager if they change the setlist at all, it's just to keep it fresh for themselves and have more fun up on stage.

 

[Muad'zin]

I'm game either way, fixed or fluid. Although I have to confess that when faced with having to choose which concert to attend I NEVER go the first night. Who really wants to see a show thats predictable from start to finish when he (or she) can get a little surprise/variation on nights 2 and on?
But then again, with U2 its never about expecting massive setlist variation, or that basically after 25+ years as musicians they still don't really know how to play their instruments. Its about the almost magical semi-religious connection between band and audience. About 4 overpaid millionaires being able to make their audience forget that fact and become as one live. Not a mean feat in my book.

 

[zwervers2]

I'm game either way, fixed or fluid. Although I have to confess that when faced with having to choose which concert to attend I NEVER go the first night. Who really wants to see a show thats predictable from start to finish when he (or she) can get a little surprise/variation on nights 2 and on?
But then again, with U2 its never about expecting massive setlist variation, or that basically after 25+ years as musicians they still don't really know how to play their instruments. Its about the almost magical semi-religious connection between band and audience. About 4 overpaid millionaires being able to make their audience forget that fact and become as one live. Not a mean feat in my book.

Was there yesterday and you are completely rigth. It is almost some sort of religious experience. I'm torn really esp after seeing them live..Bono sounds amazing they play tighter than ever and yet I have to agree with every point EmitFlesti except for red hill mining town which bono could just not sing live so they didn't do it. It is also true that 99% doens't know which song will be next but that isn't really the issue here. they depend too much on the easy to play songs and, as a musician myself, I do not get it some time..plaing it safe isn;t what made this band big...

I really really enjoyed last night, the concert was unbeleivable..It would have even been better if the set I wrote down earlier that day wouldn't have been played...

 

[Lone Justice]

... My dream, of course, is to hear them play Drowning Man live.

Mine too. Do you think Bono could pull it off? It goes somewhere where I don't think they have been able to get back to since. I'm not sure how they got there then.

 

[OffAxis]

On the other hand, some bands such as U2 do not, preferring to have 4 or 5 set lists that are played on different nights.

U2 has one set list with a few variations. I would not call swapping out two songs a different setlist. Now DMB or Pearl Jam, those guys have different set lists.

I think the biggest reason why they don't vary setlists is quality. U2 have always said they are not that good of musicians. They practice the hell out of their 24 songs and stick to it. Other bands can sit there and play anything, hell Pearl Jam could probably draw songs out of hat (even covers they've never done) and play them perfectly. U2 couldn't do that. This is why I like them, it gives average musicians inspiration.

 

[zoopop]

U2 has one set list with a few variations. I would not call swapping out two songs a different setlist. Now DMB or Pearl Jam, those guys have different set lists.

I think the biggest reason why they don't vary setlists is quality. U2 have always said they are not that good of musicians. They practice the hell out of their 24 songs and stick to it. Other bands can sit there and play anything, hell Pearl Jam could probably draw songs out of hat (even covers they've never done) and play them perfectly. U2 couldn't do that. This is why I like them, it gives average musicians inspiration.

I'm not so sure about U2 not being great musicans. There more than capable to play a song on the spot. U2 music is not rocket science to play. But it doesn't have that free flow type sound to it. U2 has never been one to venture off by making a 4 minute song into a 7 minute jam fest. This isn't because of U2's non musical abilities, there music doesn't fit that genre.

I really think U2 tries to put on the best show possible. And by doing this things get a bit structured. I really don't understand why U2 does not mix up 4-5 songs a night. The 1st leg of Vertigo was pretty decent at U2 mixing things up. To be honest though U2 could have used some more time rehearsing. With the 1st leg delay I think rehearsal time was cut short. I'm expecting the 3rd leg to reflect the 1st legs setlist with some more songs. We'll see about that though

 

[Miricale_Drug]

U2 do get a lot of casual people go so they can say they've heard U2 live. and for this reason there are some songs that will forver be played (Streets, wowy, one, beautiful day you know the rest)

But there are a second set of 'year on year' songs that have on real reason 2 be in a concert except that of a band nodding back too past concert glorys. With U2 this includes Bullet the Blue Sky (When did you last NOT hear it? Axver?) Elevation (it wasn't a Massive hit and whoever mentioned it was the 3rd UK single. Stuck was the 2nd) and so on

There is then the Album to cover that is being toured (The Bomb) and after this there are very few slots left

But there is no reason to play every hit and especially those from group 2 as i call it to be played every night. And it is not to much to ask for a band to have 2 or 3 slots that are on a very constant rotation with up to 10 songs (Think Gone etc) that can tilt a nod towards songs that are a bit more obscure.

After all on this tour how many times have we seen Mircale Drug - Sometims - LaPOE / SBS / BTBS/ Running / Pride / Streets/ One.

Its happened in almost every show and takes up almost half of the show. Is Pride (Not a breakthrough hit just a big one) and SBS (the big radio hit in THe US) both necesary? after all if New years Day can be dropped those three could be put in rotation. BTBS has no need to be a staple and could be swapped with Running which has been a regular appearer over the years.

The current album songs will stay as it is 'their' tour.

Possibly even more Boy Songs could be had, with a 3 songs 'Boy/October' Slot with 7 or 8 songs in rotation (IWF / OOC / TEC / Gloria / ACD / ITH / Gloria / The Ocean and one more - October?)

Nods to the Elevation Tour could be given in a new 2 song space which is made from clearing the clutter of the middle of the set as outlined above allowing a rotation of 2 songs from Elevation/Walk On / Kite / Stuck (It was a hit whatever people here think of it) or even In a Little While with occasional Outings of New York.

As one of the Bands big hits a full band version of Stay Could be brought back in giving a nod to the Zooropa Era, as well as maybe 2 or 3 Pop songs in rotation such as Gone, LNOE and IGWSHA.
This would give a very full cover of U2's career, and make every show diffrent, with diffrent combinations of these songs. It might sound radical but this is NOT that radical, and only involves re-learning 5 or 6 songs.which could be done during a break between tour legs 2 and 3 or even 3 and 4.

Just some thoughts let your feelins known .

dave

 

[Blue Room]

What does being big have to do with it? Pearl Jam plays a ton of songs every tour, and they play even the rare ones pretty well. There's no reason U2 can't do the same except that they don't want to. You really don't need to make excuses for them.

Oh, and Pearl Jam's concert prices are reasonable, so you can see them a few times each go-round without dipping into the college fund, and they release official "bootlegs" of every show, so the "playing for a different crowd every night" theory isn't bullet-proof.

I wasnt going to comment on this thread but this post made me want to.

Your first paragraph. Being a more popular artist DOES have alot to do with it. You are playing to larger more diverse crowds and alot less die hards and more casual fans that came to hear the hits. U2 have said before they like to play the best setlist they feel they have on single nights in a city so each city gets what they feel is their best show. You may disagree that its their best setlist, but thats why the band does it that way. Its not making excuses, and you may not care for them doing it, but its a legitimate reason. I hate it when people turn what they dislike into some type of fact, like there can be no legitimate reason why its being done if "I" dont like it. That line always gets blurred on these type of threads it seems.

The second paragraph. Pearl Jam charges way loss because they have little to no production costs with their staging. U2 has very large production costs. Pearl Jam also only charges what their market will bare. They are pricing their tickets properly or they would find themselves playing to half empty venues and they want butts in the seats to purchase merchandise, where the real profits are made for the band.

I actually do like Pearl Jam and hate sort of bashing them but I dont get why they are EVER compared to U2. They are not alike in any way. Same can be said for DMB, nothing like U2. So why compare them and say that is how U2 should do it? U2 developed their live reputation by doing it just like they are now for the last 20 years. Obviously they are doing something correct, even if you dont like it yourself.

 

[OffAxis]

I'm not so sure about U2 not being great musicans. There more than capable to play a song on the spot. U2 music is not rocket science to play. But it doesn't have that free flow type sound to it. U2 has never been one to venture off by making a 4 minute song into a 7 minute jam fest. This isn't because of U2's non musical abilities, there music doesn't fit that genre.

I agree that U2 isn't going to do jam fests, and I don't want them to, but if Bono all of a sudden said on stage (with no rehearsal) let's play Acrobat, they couldn't do it. Larry forgot where to come in on the drums on OOTS in San Jose. Pearl Jam could pick up something they haven't played in 12 years and pull it off, a lot of bands could, that would make them better musicians in terms of live performance. But for what U2 lacks in live performance, they make up for in songwriting. And like I said, they practice the hell out of the songs they do play so they sound tight.

I think my frustrations are the same as everyone else's. Most of the people complaining about the setlists are people who have seem them numerous times. We no longer feel that "magic" that we felt early on (at least I don't), and I think some of that magic could come back if I heard some new songs. It's just frustrating b/c the setlists are so stagnant that I really don't want to go to that many shows (and I'm not), but then they throw a random performance of Who's Gonna Ride... and you feel like you were jipped. If they're going to stagnant setlists, then don't change them at all, these random changes just get me pissed. That ends up being half the reason I go to multiple shows, hoping to see something different, and then I walk away pissed off at the end of the night b/c I chose to go to Boston 2 instead of Boston 3. They need to be either stagnant or constantly doing something different (even if only slightly), but this throwing in a random new song every 10 shows or so just pisses me off. Am I supposed to buy tickets to 10 shows for a legitimate chance to hear Wild Horses once? They wonder why they see the same faces all the time, well it's because you have to attend 15 shows if you want to hear something different.

For me it's love/hate with this band. I either love them or I hate them.

 

[Hawkfire]

Another reason that has not been mentioned with regards to Pearl Jam live vs. U2 live is that U2 (sadly) relies on a bevy of backing tracks to recreate their songs live, added by a keyboardist under the stage and a click track so Larry can keep time. Unfortunately, they can't just say "Ok now we're going to do Promenade" (even though that song is 1000% cooler than anything in the current setlist) because they (1) don't have a backing track for it, (2) don't have a click track for Larry, (3) haven't rehearsed a keyboad part for the guy under the stage. Much like the lighting excuse, U2 claims its not possible to just do this on the fly because it would throw the lighting people off as well as the soundbooth. With Pearl Jam, all the sounds you hear are coming from the 5 guys up on stage playing their instruments, and the lighting is totally extraneous. Therefore, if they just happen to want to break into Elderly Woman or Release or Off He Goes...nothing is stopping them.

 

[Blue Room]

Hawkfire I think you need to find a new hobby and band, if it bothers you THAT much, its time to move on. seriously. Its a rock band and a rock concert. Its obviously not fun for you any longer.

U2 has pulled some spontaneous moments in the past. No, nothing like Pearl Jam or DMB would do. We just discussed this in the other forum. Off the cuff at a couple of Elevation shows Bono decided they needed to do Out Of Control at the end of the show. Wasnt planned, but the played it very well. U2 prefers to use metronome and some backing on some songs, but they do get by without it when needed. They just dont care to.

 

[U2Man]

Hawkfire I think you need to find a new hobby and band, if it bothers you THAT much, its time to move on. seriously. Its a rock band and a rock concert. Its obviously not fun for you any longer.

U2 has pulled some spontaneous moments in the past. No, nothing like Pearl Jam or DMB would do. We just discussed this in the other forum. Off the cuff at a couple of Elevation shows Bono decided they needed to do Out Of Control at the end of the show. Wasnt planned, but the played it very well. U2 prefers to use metronome and some backing on some songs, but they do get by without it when needed. They just dont care to.

Ok, everybody seems to agree that U2 just isn't great enough musicians to be able to improvise any song on stage like some other bands and musicians can. That doesn't make them suck, though. What is really annoying is that, although they can't improvise and pull whatever they want off, they could at least rehearse a few more songs besides the really standard set songs that we've heard a million times. I know we do get some from HTDAAB, we do get Zoo Station.....but since the setlists are soooo static, one can't help feeling that they should rehearse more songs before going on tour......

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

I fear that U2 can't just throw songs whenever they want.... they don't remember how to play them. Bono doesn't remember the lyrics.... they are not the most talented guys out there, they work hard to get to the right sound, they don't want to play a bad song out of chord. That's why we will (with the exeption of Party Girl, People get ready) never seen U2 play suddenly a song like Mofo, or The Unforgettable fire, without having worked hard on it!

But I love them to death!!!

 

[The OOTS]

I actually do like Pearl Jam and hate sort of bashing them but I dont get why they are EVER compared to U2. They are not alike in any way. Same can be said for DMB, nothing like U2. So why compare them and say that is how U2 should do it? U2 developed their live reputation by doing it just like they are now for the last 20 years. Obviously they are doing something correct, even if you dont like it yourself.

Pearl Jam is compared to U2 for the simple fact that...like them or not...they are one of the best live bands going....just as U2 is. They are great...not because of their stage production or interaction with the audience...but because they are unpredictable live and very good musicians.

 

[The OOTS]

I fear that U2 can't just throw songs whenever they want.... they don't remember how to play them. Bono doesn't remember the lyrics.... they are not the most talented guys out there, they work hard to get to the right sound, they don't want to play a bad song out of chord. That's why we will (with the exeption of Party Girl, People get ready) never seen U2 play suddenly a song like Mofo, or The Unforgettable fire, without having worked hard on it!

But I love them to death!!!

I agree with this post.
That is the reason why U2 sticks with the 25 to 30 songs per tour.

 

[Blue Room]

Pearl Jam is compared to U2 for the simple fact that...like them or not...they are one of the best live bands going....just as U2 is. They are great...not because of their stage production...but because they are unpredictable live and very good musicians.

Exactly, and U2 are a great live act for different reasons. So why say they should do it the way Pearl Jam does when they are not the same live and their style of music is not the same? Thats why I'm saying they shouldnt be compared to them. I'm sorry, PJ are good, but they are not globally popular like U2 are, not even close. I know some of you say that doesnt make a difference but I think it does and I indicated why. If you are going to compare U2 to anyone, the Rolling Stones would be WAY closer to U2's level than Pearl Jam. U2 has similiar reasons for their approach to their concerts based on what I indicated before. You may not like it, but I dont get how complaining about it or indicating you dont understand why they do it that way (when you know 90% of us here know EXACTLY why) is doing any good to anyone.