Why did U2 place it 'safe' for 5 nights???

[AtomicBono]

If they brought out Electrical Storm and permanently replaced it with something else for the rest of the leg, I swear w/in a month, a bunch of people on here would be bitching about it.

All in all, I think the tour did a pretty damn good job of mixing things up on the whole. Maybe people aren't looking at the big picture enough. There've been probably close to a dozen songs played on this tour (with some regularity) that hadn't been played in a decade or so, including some that haven't been played in 20 or so years. Plus, to date, they've played all but 2 songs from HTDAAB, including the bonus track! I don't think that's necessarily anything to dismiss so passively.

It's funny how people are tired of The First Time already...a song they hadn't played EVER from a decade plus year old album... of course, to be honest, I would rather see Discotheque live than see The First Time for the very first time, because Discotheque is the song that got me into U2, remains one of my favourite songs ever, and is the best it's ever been this tour. And yeah, it'd be nice if they played OOTS more and dropped Pride (for Please, maybe? ) and this and that, but the fact is looking at a setlist and being at a show are two entirely different things. When I saw them in Chicago, I loved singing along to Pride, and the Streets/One combo was a highlight for me. In fact, One and Streets are my two favourite songs ever, and I consider myself a pretty diehard fan. Classics are classics for a reason. Sure, I would have liked to hear something from my favourite album (Pop, for anyone who doesn't know that by now), but I was not disappointed in the least. Despite apparently being one of the "worst shows of the tour," I LOVED Chicago 1 and Bad was stunning.

I think we need to stop and look at the big picture here. An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart, The Ocean, The Electric Co., Gloria, Zoo Station, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, The First Time, Miss Sarajevo... before the tour started, who expected those to show up at all? Hell, who expected Fast Cars, which was a BONUS track? And don't forget new arrangements, like The Fly, Discotheque (that fucker'd better be back), Stuck in a Moment, the many versions of OOTS...

I wouldn't despair yet. As other haves said, there are still two more MSG shows. I'd expect a little more variation there. If not, that will be a shame, but you know what? I won't care that much. I'm just happy U2 are touring and playing great songs and that I'm seeing them DECEMBER 10TH IN CLEVELAND!!!

Bottom line: Could U2 vary their sets more? Yes. Do I wish they would? Of course. Are complaints about the set legitimate? Perhaps, a 5 show stint in MSG with no huge surprises is slighty disappointing. But how many of the people complaining were actually there? Seems the people that were there are posting positively, for the most part. And it's not over yet... there are two more MSG shows and we're, what, halfway through the third leg? Maybe just a third of the way? There's time for more surprises, and the fact is this tour is probably the most varied U2 has ever done, besides maybe Lovetown, which was a decade and a half ago.

I love Vertigo Tour.

 

[clerks]

I keep saying U2 is like a broadway play... it's rehearsed to perfection for the most part. They literally have curtains that go up and down at the right time to give you a feeling. It's all down for effect. The curtain coming down for COBL and STREETS makes the songs, even better. It's all thought out.

If you see enough shows (I saw 4 out of 5 NYC shows) you notice how much so.

Even when they talked to each other or how they wave is almost exactly the same each night... literally Edge will play to the crowd in the backstage for like 10 seconds when the lights go up during STREETS and Bono will throw water at the edge during ELECTRIC CO.

Their movements are the same. Bono and the band are doing their JOB. And they are performing.

That's why U2 shows are so good, they have great energy and are great PERFORMERS.

The reason U2 doesn't change the setlist is the same reason a lot of PERFORMERS don't even sing live because they are too tired from dancing. It's because, it's HARD to change the setlist and it's unnessasary to the overall experience.

If you go see a play like THE ODD COUPLE, it's the same words each time. Maybe with slight variations due to human error or improv or different actors some nights.

U2 shows will never been like a Springsteen show because they are just more about the experience than the songs to be honest if that makes any sense.

You go to a U2 show to feel alive, to hear great music, to be amazed by their energy.

It's not easy.

I think they ticket prices are so high to discourage crazy fans like me seeing 20 shows and ruining the MAGIC. I heard him say Friday night "you've been here before" after someone didn't react during ELEVATION when U2 doesn't break into the song, but instead slows it down again before busting out. These little things are very cool, but if you see them a lot of times, you realize that what they make look spontaneous has a lot of thought behind it.

That being said, Bono does mix up the lyrics a lot and throw in things, but for the most part, where he stands on stage and how the concert flows is always the same.

PUMP UP THE CROWD, BRING THEM DOWN, TOUCH THEIR HEARTS, DARK TERRORITY, DEEP THOUGTHS, ENCORE TIME.

A U2 show has a nice flow. But if you look at last tour, it had the same flow and structure. Just change the songs.

Again, it's about the EXPERIENCE.

And U2 does change the setlist up -- every tour. Seriously these "old" and "boring" songs have only been in our lives for not even a year yet (november). We are just crazy fans who have seen them perform Vertigo like 10 times in concert, at the bridge, on Conan, on SNL, and probably played it 1000 times on the way to work. But for every 1die hard U2 fan, thre are a 100 people at the show that dont' even know what album it's off of. They refer to it as that iPod song.

That's my $4,500 dollar thoughts (just trying to please people upset with other people's cliche sign offs)

 

[kellyahern]

First of all, why is "girl on stage" becoming nausea-inducing?

Plus, I'm sure all the girls on stage who are from this forum would love to read that comment.

Was the girl onstage for the Zootv tour during TTTYAAW and WOWY also nausea-inducing?

 

[Axver]

arent there 2 more shows to be played at MSG next month? could they be the shows where we see the shake up?

And I'm expecting those two shows to be treated as nights one and two rather than nights six and seven.

Now, regarding setlist variety, I think it's a very important part of the show, even if you're only seeing a single concert. Besides the obvious that thousands of people look online at the setlists, a varied setlist can create a genuine sense of spontaneity, unpredictability, excitement, and surprise. I saw the Finn Brothers in Brisbane back in July, the only show of their tour that I saw, and they played a very unpredictable setlist with surprises - indeed, they even played a request from the crowd! Although I'm only a casual fan and didn't know all the songs, I had a great time because of the atmosphere that anything could happen on stage. I wasn't watching a theatre show with a script, I was watching a rock show full of energy and a GENUINE sense that anything could happen. U2, however, talk about trying to engineer that spontaneity every night - well, they could stop worrying about that if they switched up their setlist!

Also, I think setlist variety is important for U2. They have a GIGANTIC catalogue with a whole number of classics, hits, and fan favourites that they are not playing this tour, and if they would do more variety, they could bring in a lot of these songs. Their huge catalogue certainly needs more greater representation.

Here's an example of what could be done, just using the encores, just using material played since 2004 and famous songs.

Night One

Zoo Station
Until The End Of The World
Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
With Or Without You

All Because Of You
Yahweh
The First Time
40

Night Two

Discotheque
The Fly
Mysterious Ways
Fast Cars

Desire
Out Of Control
Original Of The Species
Bad

It would be so easy to do that - and not a single song is repeated! Variety, spontaneity, excitement, and catalogue representation would all be achieved. At the end of the day, this is a rock show and not theatre. It couldn't be allowed to become theatre.

 

[ascender_RS]

The main point though is thatU2 will play (and have to?) the same core of songs which are very well rehearsed because they are assuming most people will only get to see them once on the tour. But we know that's always been the case for how long now???

Look at some of the songs that have been put into the setlist. We'd have been delighted if we'd known they'd all appear at some point, because us, as the "hardcore" fans will download the bootlegs of these rare songs and have them to keep.

Bit controversial, but here you go... if you are going to see U2 multiple times on a tour, you're obviously a fan who knows their stuff. So you also know they're not going to change the set list greatly from night to night or from city to city. So why moan about it afterwards?

Especially considering you're lucky enough to see them more than once every 4 or 5 years or so in the first place.

 

[U2Man]

Plus, I'm sure all the girls on stage who are from this forum would love to read that comment.

Was the girl onstage for the Zootv tour during TTTYAAW and WOWY also nausea-inducing?

no

and neither are the ones today

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

And I'm expecting those two shows to be treated as nights one and two rather than nights six and seven.

What do we make of the 2 Chicago shows this fall then? They seemed to be treated as 5th and 6th nights. I wonder what changed in NYC?

 

[mabel]

I agree that NYC in November are likely going to be treated as a new set of shows. I think anyone that is getting themselves hyped up thinking otherwise is likely to be in for some disappointment. Sure, by that point, an additional song or so may have been rotated into the mix, so they probably won't be carbon copies of the show from this stint. However, I highly, highly doubt that 11/22 would include any signifcant amount of variety.

And Axver, if you're just looking at variety in the encores, and the encores alone, U2 played 14 different songs in their encores this week. While I see where you're coming from, would you actually expect them to do a multi-night stay in a city and have 20 or 30 different songs in the encore alone? I think 14 is pretty reasonable.

And on the variety, spontenaity front...as long as U2 (along with the audience) are keeping it fresh, energy-wise, playing mostly the same songs, I really dont' see what the problem is. I realize that this is totally debatable, but I think the U2 "essentials" (Pride, Streets, One, Beautiful Day, etc) consistantly get more of a reaction from the crowd than the newly added songs, like Gloria, Miss Sarajevo, etc. As much as I'd love to have heard 40 different songs at the 3 shows I went to, there's only so much shifting that can be done (w/ stuff like the War section, the handful of must-have classics, the Bomb songs, etc). Though, my one little * to that would be in the acoustic set. I'd imagine that it's worlds easier to rotate in a different acoustic song, and if they're keeping this as part of the show in the encore, I don't think it'd kill them to slip in SATS, Stay, Desire, Walk On, etc every once in a while, rather than sticking w/ the same 2 or 3.

 

[mabel]

What do we make of the 2 Chicago shows this fall then? They seemed to be treated as 5th and 6th nights. I wonder what changed in NYC?

I don't think the October Boston shows look much like 4th and 5th shows though...No Bad at either show, and the 2nd Boston show only had 5 songs in the encore!

 

[Utoo]

And I'm expecting those two shows to be treated as nights one and two rather than nights six and seven.

Now, regarding setlist variety, I think it's a very important part of the show, even if you're only seeing a single concert. Besides the obvious that thousands of people look online at the setlists, a varied setlist can create a genuine sense of spontaneity, unpredictability, excitement, and surprise. I saw the Finn Brothers in Brisbane back in July, the only show of their tour that I saw, and they played a very unpredictable setlist with surprises - indeed, they even played a request from the crowd! Although I'm only a casual fan and didn't know all the songs, I had a great time because of the atmosphere that anything could happen on stage. I wasn't watching a theatre show with a script, I was watching a rock show full of energy and a GENUINE sense that anything could happen. U2, however, talk about trying to engineer that spontaneity every night - well, they could stop worrying about that if they switched up their setlist!

Also, I think setlist variety is important for U2. They have a GIGANTIC catalogue with a whole number of classics, hits, and fan favourites that they are not playing this tour, and if they would do more variety, they could bring in a lot of these songs. Their huge catalogue certainly needs more greater representation.

Here's an example of what could be done, just using the encores, just using material played since 2004 and famous songs.

Night One

Zoo Station
Until The End Of The World
Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
With Or Without You

All Because Of You
Yahweh
The First Time
40

Night Two

Discotheque
The Fly
Mysterious Ways
Fast Cars

Desire
Out Of Control
Original Of The Species
Bad

It would be so easy to do that - and not a single song is repeated! Variety, spontaneity, excitement, and catalogue representation would all be achieved. At the end of the day, this is a rock show and not theatre. It couldn't be allowed to become theatre.

Ax--

I think that's a good compilation & a good pair of encores. One thing to point out, though, is that other than Desire, all have been played on this tour so far---which means that these encores are actually feasible. I think the argument of mixing up the encores like you've done is better than the one about adding in brand new "surprise" songs. The former is much more likely to happen than the latter, and if we bitch that there are no surprise songs, we're just fooling ourselves.

 

[doctorwho]

U2 "played it safe" because that's what they do for EVERY tour. Some rant and rave about the LoveTown tour, but really, it was mostly the same songs, just the order mixed up a bit. Adam once said that if they had to keep doing the JT/LoveTown tour, he'd have gone crazy.

But when I look at the setlists throughout U2's career, I don't really see any major changes from night to night. There are token exceptions, but oftentimes it's either the order that has changed (which U2 have done on this tour) or a few extra songs added (which U2 have also done on this tour).

Bottom line, U2 don't really mix up their setlists - never have and most likely never will. U2 are perfectionists and try to perfect the setlists they have. They do add some changes here and there to keep things fresh for both themselves and their audience - but again, that's usually a token song or two.

Therefore, I would claim that U2 is doing what they always have. Call it a weakness, if you must, but I label it as a band idiosyncracy.

 

[Chizip]

they probably did more harm than good by mixing it up so much at chicago 4, theyve created false hope

theyve shown they can mix it up if they really want but still refuse to, even for 5 dates in one city

 

[Bono's shades]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but here goes:

I'm sick to death of people bitching about lack of variation in the setlists. I admit, I'm disappointed in some aspects of present-day U2, but I honestly don't understand this particular criticism. If you aren't going to more than one show (which most people aren't - yes, including some die-hard fans) it shouldn't make any difference. And if you are lucky enough to be able to go to multiple shows - well, maybe you should just be grateful that you are in the position to do that and quit complaining.

I was very happy with the one show I saw on this tour. I did have some idea of what was going to happen, but it certainly wasn't totally scripted or lacking in emotion or energy.

Maybe some of you need to just limit yourself to one or two shows each tour. You might enjoy the concerts you go to more, and it might open up opportunities for those who have never seen U2 before to go.

 

[cdparky]

they probably did more harm than good by mixing it up so much at chicago 4, theyve created false hope

theyve shown they can mix it up if they really want but still refuse to, even for 5 dates in one city

Most nights at MSG had something not played any other night. The 1st 3 nights saw 5 changes from the night before. Not really any different to Chicago 4 on the 1st leg and as mixed up as they will get. I just don't get the complaining - 33 complete songs (not snippets) over 5 nights is not exactly a poor display! But forget the set-lists, just focus on the fact they played some rocking shows (well the 1st 4 anyway, I can't comment on the 5th as I had to go home).

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Plus, I'm sure all the girls on stage who are from this forum would love to read that comment.

Was the girl onstage for the Zootv tour during TTTYAAW and WOWY also nausea-inducing?

It's getting possibly more "nausea-inducing" in that the girls are getting younger and Bono's getting older. If it wasn't "Bono the rock star" but "Paul the married 45 year old father of 4" it would be perceived much differently.

Just my 20 cents.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

I'm going to venture that they're trying to pace themselves. They've still got a solid 2 months left of touring; I think to pull out all the stops now might be too much too soon. I expect more from the November MSG shows.

Also, maybe the boys want to spread the love--and the surprises--to some cities they didn't hit on the first leg. And Philly. Philly will get all the surprises. Okay, maybe not. Maybe I'm a wee bit partial

 

[corianderstem]

It's getting possibly more "nausea-inducing" in that the girls are getting younger and Bono's getting older. If it wasn't "Bono the rock star" but "Paul the married 45 year old father of 4" it would be perceived much differently.

Yeah, I don't know ... it's not like he's pulling them onstage and making out with them.

 

[JOFO]

there is just no excuse under the heavens for them playing vertigo twice in one concert.

I've seen it; it's dumb, and everyone around me thought so too.


they're playing this whole "we've still go relevance" game with theirselves, and by playing vertigo twice it makes them feel like the old days when they only had 10 songs to play so they would repeat one or two. it's egomaniacal and they're the only ones benefitting from it.

and for them to finish 5 straight msg shows with it......well, what can I say?

 

[JOFO]

and what's worse is that when they first started playing vertigo twice, I was like "that's lame".

but there are people on this board who screamed at me saying I was a jerk and that I wasn't even there and how dare I talk about something I hadn't seen and it was AMAZING if you were THERE.......

well, you can all continue to kiss u2's ass and I'm happy that you are so easily pleased. vertigo x2 sucks.

 

[kellyahern]

It's getting possibly more "nausea-inducing" in that the girls are getting younger and Bono's getting older. If it wasn't "Bono the rock star" but "Paul the married 45 year old father of 4" it would be perceived much differently.

Just my 20 cents.

I still don't think it's a nice thing to say, especially given that some of the women on stage are members here who've been nice enough to post about their experiences and share them with us. You make it sound like something unseemly also, and it's not.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

and what's worse is that when they first started playing vertigo twice, I was like "that's lame".

but there are people on this board who screamed at me saying I was a jerk and that I wasn't even there and how dare I talk about something I hadn't seen and it was AMAZING if you were THERE.......

well, you can all continue to kiss u2's ass and I'm happy that you are so easily pleased. vertigo x2 sucks.

well theres people who were at the show on u2tours, and here, that have posted how much it "rocked", , but yep your correct we are all just easily pleased

 

[Axver]

Ax--

I think that's a good compilation & a good pair of encores. One thing to point out, though, is that other than Desire, all have been played on this tour so far---which means that these encores are actually feasible. I think the argument of mixing up the encores like you've done is better than the one about adding in brand new "surprise" songs. The former is much more likely to happen than the latter, and if we bitch that there are no surprise songs, we're just fooling ourselves.

The point was that they've already been played, so U2 can easily do them, and the order's totally different! Essentially, I was illustrating how EASY it would be for them to have variety and that there's no excuse not to do it. It keeps you on your toes, keeps a sense of surprise and spontaneity both in the audience and the band. The show's scripted now, you can tell it especially from LAPOE to One, I doubt the casual fan is blind to this. If U2 were willing to jumble the order, it would remove the theatre element and keep the energy of a rock show.

All I'm really saying is that when U2 play Beautiful Day, I shouldn't be able to accurately predict the next ten songs, and I shouldn't be able to easily guess the songs in the encore (with only a few minor order adjustments from the previous night if we're lucky).

Same setlist, night after night = theatre. I'm going to a rock show, not theatre.

 

[Axver]

And Axver, if you're just looking at variety in the encores, and the encores alone, U2 played 14 different songs in their encores this week. While I see where you're coming from, would you actually expect them to do a multi-night stay in a city and have 20 or 30 different songs in the encore alone? I think 14 is pretty reasonable.

5 shows, an average of 7-8 songs an encore, and all they can do are 14 different songs in the encore? Seven of those 14 only appeared in ONE encore (Zoo Station, The Fly, Who's Gonna Ride, Original Of The Species, Bad, Party Girl, Vertigo). On the whole, the song selection was very static. Couldn't they have put ABOY in the main set and IWF in the encore one night? How about Pride in the encore and Crumbs before Streets? Really, not very hard.

 

[cdparky]

there is just no excuse under the heavens for them playing vertigo twice in one concert.

I've seen it; it's dumb, and everyone around me thought so too.


they're playing this whole "we've still go relevance" game with theirselves, and by playing vertigo twice it makes them feel like the old days when they only had 10 songs to play so they would repeat one or two. it's egomaniacal and they're the only ones benefitting from it.

and for them to finish 5 straight msg shows with it......well, what can I say?

Hmm, they finished with Vertigo 2 on the last night, not the other 4 (With or Without You once, 40 the others). Nothing like getting your facts straight before moaning about it. What can you say? They shockingly ended with 3 different songs over 5 nights at MSG.

As an occasional thing Vertigo 2 can actually work - even being played as a regular it worked extremely well in Europe (though I'm not sorry to see it go). Besides, this thread isn't really about Vertigo x2, that has been done to death elsewhere.

 

[GibsonGirl]

Hmm, they finished with Vertigo 2 on the last night, not the other 4 (With or Without You once, 40 the others). Nothing like getting your facts straight before moaning about it. What can you say? They shockingly ended with 3 different songs over 5 nights at MSG.

I don't think that's what JOFO meant.

 

[corianderstem]

I completely understand why a lot of people don't like Vertigo twice, but I have to admit, at the Monday MSG show, while everyone was in ecstasy during Bad, I thought: "You know, that second Vertigo would be pretty freaking awesome right after this."

But me, I just like jumping up and down and screaming a lot.

 

[Axver]

Why a second Vertigo? Why not another intensely rocking song? It's not as if U2's catalogue is exactly lacking in that department.

 

[corianderstem]

Because I was being realistic and figured they were more likely to play Vertigo again rather than another, rocking song.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Because I was being realistic and figured they were more likely to play Vertigo again rather than another, rocking song.

This is so, so true.
nice call.

 

[NHChris]

As has been mentioned, the main set list needs to stay as-is because of the choreography with the lighting and graphics. The encores are where deviations can be expected, but even here you don't always get that. Case in point in Boston on October 10/4, the set list showed (I think) 'Yaweh' and 'Bad' as the two closers, but it ended up being '40' instead...same as the night before. The 'Why?' was a topic of much debate, ranging from 'Larry was in pain' to 'the concert was running long.' Who's really to say? In the end, Boston didn't get 'Fast Cars' either night, so this isn't a time for 'Woe is NY.' I was thrilled to see U2 both nights, regardless of the songs they played.

Chris in NH