Should they end the show with an extended 10-15 minute long jam?

[TheRat]

Imagine.. they extend 'Original Of The Species' (my pick for best closer) or whatever song they close with to just rock out for 10-15 minutes. That would be sweet, especially if this moving stage rumor is true. Imagine them flying around while they're jamming.

[RA-D]

You've been listening to Muse live then, haven't you? ("We'll see you next time, this one's called Stockholm Syndroooooooome")

No, the end of U2 is more of a farewell, for lack of a better word, spiritual thing. Walk On and 40 were both stunning closers, both left you with a tear in your eye. Other bands may get away with it, others have signiture closing tunes that are more upbeat but I hope they stick to a good close.

*scurries off to find Muse bootleg*

[Axver]

We need a return of 15 minute long performances of 40.

[BWU2Buffs]

15 minutes of 40, sure why not.
15 minutes of anything else sounds like a bad idea to me... just my opinion, but a two minute Edge solo is more than enough --- if they have the energy for 15 more minutes, bring on two or three more songs instead of U2 does Freebird.

[TheRat]

No I wasn't thinking of Muse.

I was thinking more of Pink Floyd, Lynyrd Skynyrd, or Zeppelin style jamming.

I think that would be sweet. Especially if they used '40' as a coda to the whole thing.

[yimou]

They should just play more songs, instead of wasting time on some awful jam.

[TheRat]

Even you have to admit that you'd be in convulsions of happiness if they did that.

[allbecauseofu2]

i love u2, obviosly, but u2 is not capaple of jamming. not the zeppelin/allman bros/dead style. thier songs arn"t jamable. 40 is more a extenstion of a song, not realy"jamming". it realy wouldn;t work.

[theoeiii]

Pearl Jam is said to not be a jamming style band either - but until you've seen a 10 minute Rearview Mirror or Immortality, you haven't seen them really hit their stride.

In the REALLY good jams live, you're paying such close attention and it sounds so amazingly good and so interesting - and you're so completely in that moment - that you don't realize that more than like a minute has gone by. Then you tap your buddy "holy shit - they've been ROCKING this for 10 minutes now!!"

U2 is CERTAINLY capable.

[Zootomic]

Originally posted by Axver
We need a return of 15 minute long performances of 40.

Axver, don't take this the wrong way but I think you have an idealized vision of what U2 was like in the eighties. U2 was a great live band back then but they never performed 15 minute versions of any song. The crowd would continue to sing 40 long after the band had left the stage but that's not the same as the band performing it for that long.

[Axver]

Originally posted by Zootomic

Axver, don't take this the wrong way but I think you have an idealized vision of what U2 was like in the eighties. U2 was a great live band back then but they never performed 15 minute versions of any song. The crowd would continue to sing 40 long after the band had left the stage but that's not the same as the band performing it for that long.

Go listen to the bootlegs from 25 and 31 January 1985. 14:57 and 16:45 performances of 40 by the band. There were plenty that went past the six or eight minute mark.

Bad regularly clocked in past double figures. The longest Bad was 16:16. Then there were performances of All I Want Is You that just about made it to ten minutes (I think the longest I have is 9:37), With Or Without You to nine minutes, and so on ...

[ZeroDude]

I would welcome a 15 minute version of Bad or 40 or All I Want Is You, it would be great imo

[Zootomic]

Originally posted by Axver


Go listen to the bootlegs from 25 and 31 January 1985. 14:57 and 16:45 performances of 40 by the band. There were plenty that went past the six or eight minute mark.

Bad regularly clocked in past double figures. The longest Bad was 16:16. Then there were performances of All I Want Is You that just about made it to ten minutes (I think the longest I have is 9:37), With Or Without You to nine minutes, and so on ...

I can go and dig up bootlegs where they played only a five or six minute version of 40. Usually the band played it for a little longer than that and then the audience took over.

I should not have stated that U2 never played 15 minute versions of any song. Once or twice in the nearly ten years that they closed with 40 they played it longer. And yes there were occasions when Bono got delayed in the audience during Bad so the band kept playing and playing until he got back to the stage to continue. So I should have said that U2 never regularly played 15 minute versions of any song.

But, Axver, in your post you state that U2 should go back to playing 15 minute versions of 40 as though that were something they did all the time. They did not. I know that you're young and never saw U2 in the eighties and are basing your statements on bootlegs of their concerts but, as someone who saw them perform back then, I think that you're placing the U2 of the eighties on too high of a pedestal. They were great live back then. BUT they are great live now too.

[jammin909]

Pearl Jam is my favorite band but I think the 10-15 minute Pearl Jam RVM is boring sorry. It lacks intensity in the middle.

[Axver]

Originally posted by Zootomic

I can go and dig up bootlegs where they played only a five or six minute version of 40. Usually the band played it for a little longer than that and then the audience took over.

I should not have stated that U2 never played 15 minute versions of any song. Once or twice in the nearly ten years that they closed with 40 they played it longer. And yes there were occasions when Bono got delayed in the audience during Bad so the band kept playing and playing until he got back to the stage to continue. So I should have said that U2 never regularly played 15 minute versions of any song.

But, Axver, in your post you state that U2 should go back to playing 15 minute versions of 40 as though that were something they did all the time. They did not. I know that you're young and never saw U2 in the eighties and are basing your statements on bootlegs of their concerts but, as someone who saw them perform back then, I think that you're placing the U2 of the eighties on too high of a pedestal. They were great live back then. BUT they are great live now too.

OK, maybe 15 minute performances of 40 were a rarity, but you have proven my point that U2 in the eighties were a lot more spontaneous and would drag out songs. 31 January 1985 has 40 at 16:45, 5 February 1985 has 8:39. You can pull out bootlegs with six minute 40s and I can pull out nine minute ones. You can pull out an eight minute Bad (like RAH) and I can pull out one in double figures (and not necessarily just because Bono went wandering, but because of snippets too).

Now, let's look at the last 15 years or so. The songs are static. How about Beautiful Day from Elevation? I doubt the lengths of any performances vary by more than a minute from shortest to longest. How about UTEOTW? Edge could really solo there, but the song length is relatively the same and has been since 1992. In fact, I am having trouble thinking of any one song recorded post-1990 that saw significant length variation and spontaneity live - some may have been significantly different to their studio length (One's additional verse being a case in point) but comparative live performances do not significantly differ.

I'm not by any means saying U2 aren't great live, though. Don't get me wrong. There are bootlegs from the last three tours that I absolutely adore and I'm sure that I'll have as much of a blast at shows on this tour as I would have if I were at a Lovetown gig.

In any case, what I should have said is that I would like a return to variability and spontaneity in songs and length, particularly in relation to the closer, which should be 40.

[financeguy]

The version of Bad they did for Live Aid many years ago went on for ages, so I don't think they're incapable of doing a jam. But they have so much good material that it's a tough enough job fitting it all in to one concert.

[Zootomic]

Originally posted by Axver
In any case, what I should have said is that I would like a return to variability and spontaneity in songs and length, particularly in relation to the closer, which should be 40.

I agree with most of that comment. I'm not really that interested in hearing extended jams of songs but I would like to see some more variety in the setlist on a night to night basis. U2 now has such a vast catalog to draw on that it's a shame they don't use it more. That said, I don't think it will happen. For over a decade they have repeated the same pattern of developing a setlist that they are comfortable with and pretty much sticking to it throughout the tour with a few changes along the way. I expect that will happen this tour as well. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[TheRat]

I'd rather see them improvise onstage and have some fun playing then just have them spew out exact replicas of the album versions and leave.

[allbecauseofu2]

i could for a 10 min version of "numb". ok i think i have to clear up what i said about u2 not being able to jam. I see jamming and adding on to the song two different things. that 13 14 min of "bad" from live aid, isn;t realy "jammiing". 6 mins of that extened part between bonos last vocals and when he starts singing ruby tuesday, isn;t "jamming". thier just playing the same riffs and fills over and over,lol. wich is fine by me, but its no grateful dead/phish. bono might be improvising stuff over a repeat of the songs notes and riffs, i never saw that as jamming. bono jams on lyrics, i guess. the versions of 40 is just them continuring to play the song, more then jamming. playing the same parts of songs over and over without realy going off on a tangent isn't realy jamming.

[MsMofoGone]

If you want a song that ROCKS as a closer, than it definitely could be "Gone". That song would kick us all in the butt, wouldn't you say?? Makes sense to me...(you know.... when the concert's over than U2 are gone...) LOL