Songs of Ascent: the lost album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolling Stones and U2 are the same band. Keith Richards transforms into the Edge after he has his blood tranfusions to clean out his kidneys.

That's a confirmed rumor bitches.
 
14 of 24 songs on the 360 show were from this decade.

some would argue that this isn't neccesarily a good thing.


ya know what would have been ambitious for 360 as far as the setlist goes? if they had stuck with playing drowning man.

the tour staging it's self is highly ambitious. the setlist, not so much.
 
Is what looks like a glimmer of hope really being overshadowed by Rolling Stones/U2 debate?

Don't the Stones have their own board?
:huh:
 
:sigh:


360 had close to 30,000 extra tickets per show, give or take.

They couldn't possibly set the tickets to be the same price with that many extra seats. They wouldn't sell.

I would venture to guess that 360, despite lower prices, made more money per show.


my contention with this stones vs. u2 debate is the misguided notions that

a) most people at a 360 show come for the new music

and

b) u2 isn't doing it for the money like the stones are.


secondly... i never said that what u2 does by making more tickets available is bad. actually quite the contrary... i think it's great. i'm only saying that it's still about making money, and if it didn't make money, they wouldn't do it. and the only reason i bring it up is because of all the bashing about other acts prices.


and if holding the best tickets in the house for fan club members, or making sure that GA tickets can only be picked up at Will Call to stop them from being gobbled up by scalpers, or any of the other things that many other big name artists have done and continue to do is "snobby elitism" to you, then i really don't know what to say.

U2 has lower prices than Stones period, whether or not they play in the round. 360 has nothing to do with it.

a) no one said that (a lot of them do). Although I think on average more people at the U2 show do come for the new music, compared to the Stones show. Granted Stones are 15 or so yrs older, and who knows how much new stuff U2 will play in that time span but right now...U2 is far ahead in this argument. That's not even factoring the recognizability of Vertigo or BD compared to ____ (insert the biggest Stones' single in this decade) to an average guy on the street.

b) rock bands do make money, yes. No one said otherwise, again. But as has been pointed out, there is a difference how U2 (who also have been critisized for the top prices) approaches touring, and how Stones do it. As long as U2 doesn't crank up the prices into Stones/Macca/Madonna teritorry, this reeeealllly isn't an argument.

U2 already has the presale for the fanclub members (and they had a very good system going with Propaganda members getting tickets). But yes, I think other people should have an opportunity to get inside the ellipse, not just the die hards.
 
I hate to interrupt this off-topic Stones discussion ( :| ), but I found this article via U2Log.com: The East African: �- Magazine�|Bono: Celebrity is a currency to be used to bring about change

Sorry if it has been posted about already; in case it hasn't, it says the following: “'We have recorded a new set of songs and we are going on tour in June and July. The mood in the band is good,' the singer said in a recent interview with The EastAfrican in Nairobi."

It's been a few weeks since Bono went to Africa, but it's still a pretty recent quote.

Yeah I've mentioned Bono saying they will have new songs for the tour while he was in Africa too (buried somewhere in this thread I'm sure), but I guess until he proves it, nobody really cares. :wink:
 
Things to me are pointing to holidays 2010. And I can see U2 playing 2 (maybe 3) new songs this leg coming up just to create some buzz with crowds & concert reviewers.

With youtube U2 can let the song do the marketing itself.
 
some would argue that this isn't neccesarily a good thing.


ya know what would have been ambitious for 360 as far as the setlist goes? if they had stuck with playing drowning man.

the tour staging it's self is highly ambitious. the setlist, not so much.

Yes I agree. ATYCLB might have been recent but it's also conservative.
 
that was enough on topic stuff...

Was anyone here able to attend that secret U2 gig today? I am curious about the setlist.

It's tomorrow. However, a source of mine did leak the planned setlist to me:

1. Beautiful Day / Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (snippet) / Whaling (snippet)
2. No Line On The Horizon / Highway To Hell (snippet)
3. Vertigo / Stories For Boys (snippet) / She Loves You (snippet)
4. The Electric Co. / Bullet With Butterfly Wings (snippet) / Break On Through (snippet) / I Can See For Miles (snippet)
5. 11 O'clock Tick Tock / Drowning Man (snippet)
6. MLK (snippet) / The Unforgettable Fire
7. She's A Mystery To Me
8. Flower Child
9. Wave Of Sorrow (Birdland)
10. Stay (Faraway, So Close!)
11. Walk On / You'll Never Walk Alone (snippet)
12. Crumbs From Your Table / Electrical Storm (snippet)
13. Mercy
14. Exit / Riders On The Storm (snippet) / Van Morrison's Gloria (snippet)
15. Please
16. Moby Dick (snippet) / Where The Streets Have No Name / Pride (snippet)

17. Mofo
18. The Fly / Billy Boola (snippet)
19. Desire / Not Fade Away (snippet) / So You Want To Be A Rock 'n' Roll Star (snippet)
20. Angel Of Harlem / Suspicious Minds (snippet) / Young Liechtensteinians (snippet)
21. Fast Cars
22. Seconds

23. One (snippet) / One Tree Hill
24. Heartland
25. Bass Trap / Rowena's Theme (snippet)
26. A Sort Of Homecoming
27. Station to Station (snippet) / Bad / Let It Be (snippet) / Come Together (snippet) /Help! (snippet) / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (snippet) / Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! (snippet) / Young Americans (snippet) / Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) (snippet) / The First Time (snippet) / Revolution 9 (snippet) / Drunk Chicken/America (snippet) / Norwegian Wood (snippet) /( Don't Fear) The Reaper (snippet) / John, I'm Only Dancing (snippet) / Gypsy Biker (snippet) / Candle in the Wind (snippet) / All Star (snippet) / Yellow Submarine (snippet) / "40" (snippet)
 
Dig, one problem with the set that just makes it totally unrealistic...

U2 don't typically cover Paul songs. Helter Skelter and Sgt Peppers and Blackbird are about it. They have done way more John songs. Dear Prudence, Instant Karma, Help, Norwegian Wood, Don't Let Me Down, Give Peace a Chance, Hard Days night, Cold Turkey, Happiness is a Warm Gun, and Rain off the top of my head.

Down with Paul!
 
The Station to Station snippet in Bad provides too much drugged-out-snippetry by itself for any of John Lennon's work to be necessary.
 
I enjoyed reading your post, War Child. I agree with some parts but disagree at other times.
I don’t agree with your first point. You seem to be implying that the Stones do not want to make the best records they can, which I doubt. Every band wants to do their best but wanting to be good doesn’t really amount to ambition. And I do not think HTDAAB was an ambitious album. There was certainly no attempt to do something fresh with rock n roll. In fact Miracle Drug, COBL, and Yahweh sound dangerously close to self- parodies in my opinion. I accept your point that HTDAAB did objectively better than A Bigger Bang but there has been a backlash too- as you can tell from the reviews of NLOTH.



NLOTH might sound radical, but that doesn’t say much for ATYCLB or HTDAAB. I agree that they wanted to be more left-field after 2005 but were they REALLY committed to that route? Those three songs in the middle of the record (and I actually like Boots) suggest a certain hedging of bets. That said, I agree that it was brave to play 6 or 7 songs a night. That is why I still consider U2 more ambitious than the Stones. My argument is about extent.

You ask an interesting question about post-Exile Stones. I agree that the Stones have been more patchy than the U2 (drug abuse being the reason) but I think Some Girls and Tattoo You stand up well to Exile, the former especially.


I agree that the Stones play more of their older stuff than U2. Your statistics bear that out. But some things need bearing in mind. Firstly, the Stones have a bigger back catalogue than U2, which must have some effect. Secondly, you are equating ‘recent’ with ‘ambitious’ but is it more ambitious of U2 to play 5 songs from ATYCLB than 5 songs from Pop? ATYCLB may been more recent but I think U2 would have been more daring had they played the likes of Discotheque and Mofo instead.

In short I agree with you that U2 are more ambitious than the Stones. My disagreement is about the margin of difference.

Thank You!

Please do not get me wrong, I am not trying to say either of the following 2 things.

1.)HTDAAB was ambitious for U2- This has been discussed for years, there is some stuff that is fresh sounding, but overall, its U2 making a pretty blatant attempt at going back to the early days. I love the album, but let me suggest that the early material accomplished that goal much, much better without the horrible production and layers of cheese so to speak!

2.)Playing 5 ATYCLB is ambitious- Far from it, it is my biggest complaint about the 360 set list. Point well taken, of course I think playing more from Pop would be 1000% more ambitious. I was focusing my ambition discussion on the NLOTH material they were playing. This is not a knock on the Stones, far from it, but I do sometimes wonder if they would have consistently played 6-8 from their equivalent of Pop or NLOTH on their respective tours.

1 and 2 are not ambitious albums, my point was simply that the focus from U2 at each time was on those albums and making the songs come across as well as possible. And playing them in shows.

Points well taken with Some Girls and Tatoo you. I have not heard Some Girls in a while(2007 maybe) but Tatoo you, :up::up:

We can agree to disagree in parts, and know that you have posted plenty I agree with here and elsewhere.

I think I will note the annoyance of some that this thread has turned into a Stones discussion and ditch the topic here!!

________________________________________________________________
(Big Line indicating change in subject)

FINGERS CROSSED on Bono's comments. Seemed to suggest that they will be playing officially unreleased material on the tour as opposed to putting out anything formally. I will take new material any way I can get it, and this could be interesting, as U2 has either done this never or very few times(October, UF, Axver, paging Axver!!).
 
(Big Line indicating change in subject)

FINGERS CROSSED on Bono's comments. Seemed to suggest that they will be playing officially unreleased material on the tour as opposed to putting out anything formally. I will take new material any way I can get it, and this could be interesting, as U2 has either done this never or very few times(October, UF, Axver, paging Axver!!).


there was that song "we love you"

YouTube - U2 - We Love You - [Unreleased Song] (Elevation Antwerp)

i don't think this turned into anything official but this was a rare occurence that U2 played something unreleased. I am not sure if they played any Zooropa before is was released...Ax?
 
i don't think this turned into anything official but this was a rare occurence that U2 played something unreleased. I am not sure if they played any Zooropa before is was released...Ax?

I'm not Axver, but you are correct.
 
I believe they also started playing UF songs before the album came out.

Yes, they played TUF and Pride before TUF was released. NYD and SBS, if I remember correctly, were also both played on the pre-War Tour, before War was released. And it's rather common for U2 to play their lead single live before the album is released, but after the single was released.

Also, may we never forget when Trip made its debut.
 
Yes, they played TUF and Pride before TUF was released. NYD and SBS, if I remember correctly, were also both played on the pre-War Tour, before War was released. And it's rather common for U2 to play their lead single live before the album is released, but after the single was released.

Also, may we never forget when Trip made its debut.

Haha! I never will! I've had it on bootleg LP since high school! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom