I want your opinions on this previous set list idea ever being used again

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

usamilo

The Fly
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
230
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I have seen a lot different artists in concert, but I have never seen anyone open a show with 8 consecutive tracks from their current release like U2 did during the opening leg of ZOO TV. I thought it was a bold statement about the bands confidence in their new material. I also figured the fact that Achtung Baby sounded so different from everything that came before, it would have been harder to place older tracks next to the newer material throughout the show. It also unfortunately lead to little set list variation which I hate.

Just curious what others thought about a block of new tracks opening the show back then and would they be receptive to it this time around.
 
I thought it was awesome and that truly shows that they had confidence in that album. They knew ot was a great album and that many fans would love it too. They really rolled the dice with that album and tour and really came out winners.
 
I desperately hope they never do anything like that ever again. In terms of setlists, ZooTV was terrible - it killed setlist variety and the chance of many songs ever being performed again. I still cannot believe U2 went straight from Lovetown to ZooTV.
 
honestly I've never been dissapointed by a u2 show at all. I really think that from what they've done live over the last 20 something years I'm more than willing to put my faith in their hands on the issue.
 
ZooTV setlists weren't that repetitive. Actually, the Outside Broadcast leg had some mixed setlists in there. The middle part was changed very often. And there were some rarities, like Spanish Eyes and Party Girl.
 
djerdap said:
ZooTV setlists weren't that repetitive. Actually, the Outside Broadcast leg had some mixed setlists in there. The middle part was changed very often. And there were some rarities, like Spanish Eyes and Party Girl.

I guess I was thinking of the first leg of ZOO TV when they toured arenas in North America when I made the comment about little set list variation. You are right about the variation getting better when they took it outside. Still, I was disappointed that the gems they did play were usually confined to the b-stage and many never got the full band treatment from the main stage like Out of Control did last time around.
 
djerdap said:
ZooTV setlists weren't that repetitive. Actually, the Outside Broadcast leg had some mixed setlists in there. The middle part was changed very often. And there were some rarities, like Spanish Eyes and Party Girl.

That's not really all that true. ZooTV basically killed the chances of most of U2's eighties catalogue of ever being played again. There was almost no variety except for the middle section, and even that barely changed. The two examples you cited were played for special occasions ... I still cannot comprehend why U2 didn't do something like playing In God's Country a few nights instead of Pride.

I'm still not sure whether I would say ZooTV or Popmart had the greatest lack of variety. The lack of variety on Popmart was a direct consequence of ZooTV. Many of the current setlist problems and the lack of early material in sets is a direct result of ZooTV. It's part of the reason why I don't like nineties U2 as much as eighties U2. If the music didn't sound so good, I would probably say I do not like ZooTV.
 
Axver said:


That's not really all that true. ZooTV basically killed the chances of most of U2's eighties catalogue of ever being played again. There was almost no variety except for the middle section, and even that barely changed. The two examples you cited were played for special occasions ... I still cannot comprehend why U2 didn't do something like playing In God's Country a few nights instead of Pride.

I'm still not sure whether I would say ZooTV or Popmart had the greatest lack of variety. The lack of variety on Popmart was a direct consequence of ZooTV. Many of the current setlist problems and the lack of early material in sets is a direct result of ZooTV. It's part of the reason why I don't like nineties U2 as much as eighties U2. If the music didn't sound so good, I would probably say I do not like ZooTV.

I think the lack of set list variation during ZOO TV and Popmart might be attributed to the use of the video screens during those tours. What was done with the screens (and also with the lighting to some extent) was tied to the song being performed on stage. (Before it was just a band and a stage). This lead to a more choreographed show. The reason the small changes were made to the middle of the show was because that was when the b-stage segment occurred. The b-stage segment did not make as much use of the screens and allowed the song selection to be changed easier.

I don't think lack of set list variation became a problem with the nineties. Look at the set list for show after show during the War tour. Granted they only had three albums out at the time and had probably grown tired of playing some of the things on the first one. Lovetown was truly the high water for set list variation. Third show of the tour they open with In God's Country! I don't believe they had ever done that before or since.
 
usamilo said:


I think the lack of set list variation during ZOO TV and Popmart might be attributed to the use of the video screens during those tours. What was done with the screens (and also with the lighting to some extent) was tied to the song being performed on stage. (Before it was just a band and a stage). This lead to a more choreographed show. The reason the small changes were made to the middle of the show was because that was when the b-stage segment occurred. The b-stage segment did not make as much use of the screens and allowed the song selection to be changed easier.

I don't think lack of set list variation became a problem with the nineties. Look at the set list for show after show during the War tour. Granted they only had three albums out at the time and had probably grown tired of playing some of the things on the first one. Lovetown was truly the high water for set list variation. Third show of the tour they open with In God's Country! I don't believe they had ever done that before or since.

I think your analysis is correct. Popmart and Zoo didnt have as much variety because of the stage show itself. They couldnt use as much variety as a result. It was a bold move at the time and a welcome one, the unfortunate down side was a much more static setlist on a consistant basis. I thought Elevation was more of a happy medium between the two. Hoping next year they head more in the variety direction.

U2 seem to be creatures of habit though. They seem to like to get a flow or feel going with a setlist and they like to stick with it once they get comfortable with it. Really, when they are only playing one night in a city this is the best thing to do for an artist of U2's stature. Most people are not multiple concert goers or diehards like us. So U2 tries to give them the best setlist they think they have. U2 are not a jam band like some artists that mix it up all the time, and some diehards seem to expect that, I see that as unrealistic. I dont think that will ever happen at that level. That being said, I'm optimistic about the changes that may occur on the next tour based on what Edge has said here. But I wouldnt expect a completely different setlist each night by any means.

My hope for the next tour is a few gems (as mentioned by Edge, Electric Co and Ultraviolet would be awesome) and maybe some song order changing here and there. Then again, they could do almost the same setlist at every show I go to and I would still have a great time. Its U2! you have to remember to look at the big picture. My greatest wish though would be for U2 to do official bootlegs like alot of other artists. THAT would be my dream come true and I think it would be for alot of other people as well!! Alot of major artists are doing it and with the current technology it would be very easy for them to do it. Not holding my breath, but my fingers are crossed! ;)
 
Blue Room said:


My greatest wish though would be for U2 to do official bootlegs like alot of other artists. THAT would be my dream come true and I think it would be for alot of other people as well!! Alot of major artists are doing it and with the current technology it would be very easy for them to do it. Not holding my breath, but my fingers are crossed! ;)

The Who have been making CDs available of their shows begining in 2002 available for purchase on line. There is a wait time of a couple of months between the date of the show and when they ship the CD. I'm wondering if anyone has seen an artist that bypasses the pressing to CD step and allows fans to download the show within days of the concert.
 
usamilo said:


The Who have been making CDs available of their shows begining in 2002 available for purchase on line. There is a wait time of a couple of months between the date of the show and when they ship the CD. I'm wondering if anyone has seen an artist that bypasses the pressing to CD step and allows fans to download the show within days of the concert.

A friend of mine is a Kiss fan. You could pick up your soundboard copy of the summer tour about 15 minutes after the show you just saw. Thats the quickest that I'm aware of. Most artists doing this you could get a copy of the show you attended a couple of weeks after the show.

Artists that have done this so far that I'm aware of are:
Pearl Jam, The Who, Peter Gabriel, Duran Duran, Barenaked Ladies, and some others I cant think of off hand. The Who donated the profits to their bootleg shows to charity. U2 record every show anyway, why not let the fans purchase a copy of it and eliminate professional bootlegging and fullfill a huge demand by alot of fans? I'm skeptical it will happen though. But like I said, it would be a dream come true for me personally. I think ALOT of people would feel the same way. The question I submitted to Edge was asking if they were considering doing this or were planning to do it. But it was not deemed worthy to pose to Edge :(
 
Last edited:
Blue Room said:


The question I submitted to Edge was asking if they were considering doing this or were planning to do it. But it was not deemed worthy to pose to Edge :(

Excellent question Blue Room, even if it never made it through to the Edge. Don't you feel like the Edge was probably the one that was responsible for the Notre Dame webcast being done. His presence on this site only demonstrates to me that his interest in the internet and the fans is just as strong as it has ever been.

I think there is a chance we might see something done with the next tour. I doubt it will be complete soundboards of every show. But, I could see the band posting one track from each show as the tour progresses or something like that. Of course if the band did answer our wishes and made available seconds after the show complete soundboards, I would then have no choice but to long for video as well.
 
I thought I remember hearing that Clear Channel had bought the rights to that technology and there were a bunch of issues with bands having to go through them in order to produce cds from the shows.

Am I talking out of my arse, or do any of you know of this?
 
And, by the way, I will cast my vote for enjoying the Zoo Tour. I caught the Outside Broadcast leg and had no problem with the set-list. Then again, I loved the new material (Achtung Baby) and didn't mind that they didn't run through all of their classics. The show I caught had a fair amount of old favs. in it for me, as I recall.

Developing a set-list has to be a huge task before the start of a tour. You're never going to please everyone. They have to develop a theme and chose the tracks that fit into the set cohesively. Everybody probably has various opinions about it. What fits - what doesn't. Having such a huge library to chose from can't make it too easy either.

I go to their shows with an open mind and almost always enjoy whatever they give me. I have yet to be disappointed.
 
username said:
I thought I remember hearing that Clear Channel had bought the rights to that technology and there were a bunch of issues with bands having to go through them in order to produce cds from the shows.

Am I talking out of my arse, or do any of you know of this?

I dont think so, whats the technology, burning and releasing CD/CDR's?? I dont think Clear Channel has any type of patent on that. There are actually several companies that do these. Clear Channel may have a say as far as what venues they can be recorded from (IE is it a Clear channel venue). But the actual recording and releasing they have no patent on that I'm aware of. All the artists I listed had no problems releasing them. So why would it be different now? U2 went through Clear Channel on the last tour, if they do again and what you say is correct, I doubdt they would have a problem there either.

I know Metallica also had their shows available, except they did them as downloads. They had both MP3 and FLAC downloads available of every show on their last tour. If these other major artists did it, there is no reason U2 cant except that they may not want to for whatever reason. Thats why I would be curious as to what Edge would have to say about it. I think someone asked him about it on the ND Webcast chat in 2001 and he said it was something they were interested in back then. I have heard the Stones started to consider it but it was to late in their last tour. I would expect they will do it on their next tour. Mick loves to have as much merchandise available as possible, so I wouldnt be shocked there! ;)

The demand and money to cover it is there. I mentioned Kiss before, they averaged about 8000 per show this summer. They made 2500 boots available of each concert after each show. Every single one of the boots soldout at each show. Now, factor in U2's average audience size for an arena is probebly around 18000. Then factor in that the demand for U2 live is HUGE (I read that they are the 2nd most heavily bootlegged artist behind Led Zeppelin) and you can do the math. I know I would probebly purchase a copy of every single show!! :)
 
Last edited:
open with 3 or 4 from new album and then throw in anothr 3 or 4 for the rest of the setlist i reckon
 
Back
Top Bottom