Is U2 so different???

[fandangamoq]

Before we even start, the answer is yes.

The question is much more complicated. See, I just recently obtained the audio for the Dave Matthews Band's three night stand at The Gorge in the States, and besides being a fantastic shows, they are all completely different. Three nights, back to back, three different openers, three different closers. The encore every night contained completely different songs than the encores of every other night.

In fact, during the three nights at the Gorge, only one song was played all three nights, and only four more were played on two of the three nights.

Why, after 26 years of being together, did U2 take such a different path?

I understand the usual arguments, and to be honest I really don't know how the DMB is usually seen around here. This isn't a versus thread. I don't really care who anyone thinks is better. I just want to know whether U2 is really that much different, and why?

In other words, why can we go to three different shows in three different cities with very little change in setlist? Why can we go to three shows in one city and see the same song more than once (er....possibly even 5+ times)?

On the other side of the coin, why can't a Dave Matthews fan benefit from the marvels of stage design and video technology? What goes through the mind of a casual fan who cries every time that they hear Crash Into Me when it isnt played that particular night (it was played only once at the Gorge)? Also take into consideration that many of the songs that are DMB's biggest (Crash, Space Between, Where Are You Going) are far from live classics, and are seldom played anymore.

Is there a middle ground? What would we as U2 fans sacrifice for a little variation? Would we sacrifice the songs we love? Would the casual fans be wooed by simply a steller performance, or do they need the classics, the stages, the lights?

Please, please, discuss. I'd love to hear a lot of talk on this. But no fighting. Please.

~A.j.~

 

[AndrewCowley]

At risk of overdoing the whole fixed setlist argument...

I think the situation with U2 is that they do fixed setlists because they don't like rehearsing and also so as to work within their musical limitations. This is a band that likes to rehearse as few songs as possible and then go out and nail each one night after night. Musically I don't think they are confident enough to do a Pearl Jam or a DMB with their setlists. As proof of this I cite how little they improvise on stage, and when they do improvise it gets pretty messy and generally doesn't go anywhere. If they were more confident musically we'd see them improvising more within their chosen setlist and then from this confidence they would learn to change up the setlist more. One would lead to the other. Note I am not offering up the excuse that their big and complex stage production causes them not to change things up because I think this is a complete smokescreen. Early tours, War and Unforgettable Fire say, did not have complex productions and yet they had fixed setlists too.

 

[Pero]

I think the reason is the edge. His effects are great stuff,but when playing you have to turn them on or off, so Edge cannot improvise his stage positions. On the other hand some songs need few effects more than usual so he has to turn them ond and be more concentrated on playing. Beautiful day is one of the most played songs this tour-it's easy and has 1 or 2 effects. i could go on but i don't want to think.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think technology has anything to do with it. It has more to do with U2 wanting to offer the best possible show each night, so they'd rather to a great show with a static setlist than changing the setlist all the time and risk a worse show.

 

[discothequeLP]

I think the reason is the edge. His effects are great stuff,but when playing you have to turn them on or off, so Edge cannot improvise his stage positions. On the other hand some songs need few effects more than usual so he has to turn them ond and be more concentrated on playing. Beautiful day is one of the most played songs this tour-it's easy and has 1 or 2 effects. i could go on but i don't want to think.

this is wrong. Edge's effects are set up so that he can press a single button and any effect he needs is turned on or off. . . and Dallas has been helping Edge in switching effects (in his underground workstation, he has the exact same ground control that Edge has on stage) -- for example, Electric Co., after the solo, when Edge is out on the catwalk. Edge can do whatever he needs to.




i think the reason for the fixed shows is that U2, on each tour, tries to put together the best setlist possible (with a couple of variations). . . so why not play the best setlist possible for every person who comes to see a show on the tour?

 

[ntalwar]

I think the only people who notice the static setlists are setlist watchers and those attending multiple shows. Those are a small minority of the fans. I think U2 would rather cater to the majority who see only one show instead of multiple shows.

 

[gherman]

DMB is a jam band and that is the kind of show they play. Its a layed back, chill kind of show for people to go and listen to the music. U2 on the other hand, their shows are the music, the display and the the personal conection with the crowd. Plus they have a lot more GREAT songs than DMB. DMB has a lot of good songs but not as many great songs. Also I belive what ntalwar said about who they are trying to reach. DMB fan base is large but not even close to as far reaching as U2. I went to the 3 gorge shows and it was the same people at all three. Multiple U2 shows tend to have different fans show up because so many people want to see then. The Vertigo ticket was the hardest ticket to get last year. DMB tickets are a lot easier to get. Ive been to 23 DMB shows and only 4 U2 shows even though I love U2 a lot more.

 

[cobl04]

Would we sacrifice the songs we love?

I know I would. As I was saying in my other thread to which no one replied, some songs IMO need to be given a rest. I would happily sacrifice One or Sunday Bloody Sunday, Bullet the Blue Sky or Pride for Acrobat, Drowning Man, Red Hill Mining Town or Wire. But I know it won't happen because as ntalwar said, U2 are not going to cater for those of us who attend more than one show. And besides, a large majority of the people who attend U2's shows aren't obsessed fans who need to own everything U2 have ever done. Luckily, I am not one of them.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I think the only people who notice the static setlists are setlist watchers and those attending multiple shows. Those are a small minority of the fans. I think U2 would rather cater to the majority who see only one show instead of multiple shows.

Bingo.

The vast majority of U2 fans are not setlist watchers and don't go to multiple shows.

 

[Niceman]

Because most people who go to a U2 show will be disapointed if certain songs are NOT played. The songs are just that big and important. What song by U2 or anyone else can be substituted for With or Without You? Sunday Bloody Sunday? Bad? Until the End of the World? Bullet the Blue Sky? There is a lot of pressure to play the best-ofs.....

 

[kimby]

I think the only people who notice the static setlists are setlist watchers

When I first read that I thought it said "setlist wankers"!


Come to think of it, that's probably a more accurate description of some of them...

 

[U2DMfan]

They play to a click track for the video sequencing, that doesn't lend itself to many changes or improvs. Dave Matthews and Pearl Jam vary their setlists each night but have almost no production value. U2 decided long ago that touring had to be an event each night, a spectacle to be even worth doing it. Why? I don't know, I guess just doing the songs with no production became a bore to them.

That and Bono can't remember the words and Adam can't remember the chords.

Finally U2 has a mass appeal across many genres and they understand that maybe 3/4 of all people attending their shows will be seeing it for the first and maybe only time, so give them the best bits and the hits, in other words their money's worth.

It's a different audience and a different band. The hardcores on forums such as this are in the minority of their concert fanbase.

 

[doctorwho]

Because most people who go to a U2 show will be disapointed if certain songs are NOT played. The songs are just that big and important. What song by U2 or anyone else can be substituted for With or Without You? Sunday Bloody Sunday? Bad? Until the End of the World? Bullet the Blue Sky? There is a lot of pressure to play the best-ofs.....

This, IMO, is the #1 reason why U2 don't have enormously varied setlists. They do mix up the order some and they'll throw in some new songs, but, as we all know, the set-lists themselves are similar. Even those who claim how the Love Town tour was different every night are wrong - just the song orders were different, with again, a few new songs tossed in (just like with the Vertigo tour).

I recall hearing a colleague of mine complain when she saw them during PopMart. She only saw the one show in Chicago. When I mentioned how U2 played "All I Want Is You" the next night, she was so irate - she wished they had played it at the show she attended!

And therein lies the problem. Those who only see one or two shows want to hear their favorites. They fully accept that U2 is touring their new material and that will be showcased. So one expected a lot of HTDAAB songs played. But the other songs should be "fan favorites" - at least in their minds. Despite that, U2 still threw in some rarities (like "An Cat Dubh"). Given that U2 has been around for so long and has had so many hits and fan favorites, what does one leave in or leave out? Toss out "With or Without You" for "Bad"? Toss out "Streets" for "Unforgettable Fire"? Toss out "Mysterious Ways" for "Staring at the Sun"?

I do think practice time is limited too. U2 are a band that needs plenty of rehearsal. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Some bands are more talented than others musically and they can just jab. U2 is not that type of band, but clearly their practice pays off.

And while U2 may not necessarily be spontaneous, their live performances are always an improvement, IMO, on the studio version. The added endings to WoWY, MW and "One" are just a few treats. Bono's speeches or added lyrics are another. Sometimes he does repeat himself, but other times, they are very spur of the moment and work brilliantly.

Of course, even if U2 could be spontaneous, it goes back to the first issue - would fans want that? I've heard some Springteen jokes about his 3 hour concerts. And often U2 is stuck with a time limit (a show must end by 10 or 11 for various zone ordinances). Would the average fan want to sit for 3 hours? Can Bono sing that way night after night for 3 hours?

Maybe U2 will do a "Greatest Hits" tour some day and they'll mix up the setlists on various nights. That is, if they perform 2 nights in a city, the fan best get tickets for both nights if he/she wants to hear all their favorite songs. In fact, that could be a selling feature! But for now, I think slight variations in the order or new songs are the best we'll get. And really, I don't mind.

 

[mofo82]

This, IMO, is the #1 reason why U2 don't have enormously varied setlists. They do mix up the order some and they'll throw in some new songs, but, as we all know, the set-lists themselves are similar....

I do think practice time is limited too. U2 are a band that needs plenty of rehearsal. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Some bands are more talented than others musically and they can just jab. U2 is not that type of band, but clearly their practice pays off.

And while U2 may not necessarily be spontaneous, their live performances are always an improvement, IMO, on the studio version. The added endings to WoWY, MW and "One" are just a few treats. Bono's speeches or added lyrics are another. Sometimes he does repeat himself, but other times, they are very spur of the moment and work brilliantly.

Of course, even if U2 could be spontaneous, it goes back to the first issue - would fans want that? I've heard some Springteen jokes about his 3 hour concerts. And often U2 is stuck with a time limit (a show must end by 10 or 11 for various zone ordinances). Would the average fan want to sit for 3 hours? Can Bono sing that way night after night for 3 hours?

Maybe U2 will do a "Greatest Hits" tour some day and they'll mix up the setlists on various nights. That is, if they perform 2 nights in a city, the fan best get tickets for both nights if he/she wants to hear all their favorite songs. In fact, that could be a selling feature! But for now, I think slight variations in the order or new songs are the best we'll get. And really, I don't mind.

Amazing post, doctorwho. I like the depth of your answer...

I just want to add to the last post that U2 are uber-perfectionists. As evidenced by the length in time between album releases. as well as the time between the album release and tour kick-off. They truly master their work to the finest detail, and that's where they want to separate themselves from the rest. For the fans who only saw them that one time in their lives, they don't want them to remember a show filled with errors, missed notes or lyrics. They want the spectator going home telling everybody their fondest memories, such as for example, 'Holy shit the Edges solo kicked during 'Bullet Blue Sky', and then there was a fighter plane, larger than life on these sweet light curtains like Ive never seen before'.

As a world-class band, U2 takes great pride in their craft and play rock in roll music as formal as they can without actually wearing tuxedos. It is a success to them if they can impress old fans and win over new ones. Formality is U2's strength- formality in setlist, special effects, tour schedules, etc. and those formalities also happen to be some of the greatest songs written in the last 25 years. Hard to throw those away when you have U2's reputation, especially now at another peak in their career.

 

[maycocksean]

I was supposed to go to my first U2 show ever, in Japan last April and before they postponed their tour I'd go on U2.com to look at the set lists of their South American dates. It gave me a sense of what to expect--what I could look forward to as well giving me a chance to adjust to the disappointmentthat certain favorites clearly weren't being played on this tour (e.g. "40"). I also noted that they were throwing a couple of "surprises" in each night. . .songs that didn't appear at show after show, and that was nice because I knew there'd be something unexpected at the show as well.

So, yeah, I think the less varied set list is helpful. The comments on this topic on this thread have been really insightful.