The static setlist arguement.

[elevated_u2_fan]

It was also done full band in Toronto.

I was at that show and I can concur this is correct.

 

[Cigar]

None of the songs I put on the list were snippets. I deleted all of the snippets, those were full songs.

The only one that you could have mistaken for a snippet was "In A Little While", but the 2nd night in Vegas they played the whole song with Brandon Flowers.

I wasn't refering to your list ,Ramblin Rose, but U2's gimmick itself.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Cigar]

And don't forget.Since the band is performing 1/3 of their new album when they go on tour,that leaves around 14-15 songs from their back catalogue to use.Considering you'll get for sure "One","Mysterious ways","Bullet","Streets","With or without you","Beautiful day","Pride""Until the end of the world",that leaves about 6 songs that you can flip flop here and there.6 out of a 23 songs setlist from a 100+ songs of your catalogue, that's doesn't leave much room for variety.

 

[coolian2]

for god sake, does anyone still have tears down their cheek that's dropping when the hear "One"?Do you still have goose pump when it's time to "Pride"?

Yes

 

[coolian2]

I wasn't refering to your list ,Ramblin Rose, but U2's gimmick itself.

Sorry for the confusion.

I like it. You can't tell me Beautiful Day is worse off with Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and Blackbird, or Vertigo Bullet would have made its point without When Johnny Comes Marching Home.

Unless you're referring to snippeting U2 songs, which is a little weak, but i'd rather hear a few lines of In A Little While after ISHFWILF than nothing at all.

Perhaps i'm not spoiled enough to be able to attend multiple shows in multiple cities.

 

[Blue Room]

Chicago, 6 shows from 2 different legs.Same with Boston.Toronto was the start of the leg.

If you need 4+shows in the same city to see the shadow of the beginning of some variety,then why bother going everywhere else?.Do like Madonna does and do only the major markets.It woulb be a better reflect of what they think of the importance of their audience outside of New-York,Boston,L.A.Chicago,Philly and Toronto.

Wait a minute, you cant have it both ways. You are the one that pointed out the 5 nights in NY was weak. I just refuted that. But then you have more criteria to add to make your point?? (whatever that is). I get it, you think U2 are terrible live because they dont mix it up enough for you. The solution is simple. Dont go. Save yourself the agony and torture.

Madonna? At least U2 actually plays and sings all their songs. I would'nt throw her out there. If you are lip syching to half your songs its pretty easy to throw variety out there. Plus your point is rather elitist. U2 should only play the major markets so people in places like Omaha, Portland, Buffalo dont deserve to be able to see them. BS! The Madonna example was like comparing apples to peanuts.

AGAIN, read the article I referred to twice previously. You will have your answer to your first paragraph. Somehow I doubt you will or if you do you wont acknowledge it. Any point made that isnt in your favor you seem to skip over and/or add additional caveats to your original post.

 

[toscano]

Madonna? At least U2 actually plays and sings all their songs.

Um, actually, not the whole thing they don't. Most songs have some taped backing, keyboards, pre-recoded backing vocals (beautiful day for example, the "woo-hoos" on Elevation on the elevation tour, etc.). Larry has had pre-recorded drums for years on WOWY, and another guy is clearly hitting an additional snare on LT 'Desire" for example juat off stage left.

No, they don't out and out lip synch an entire song, but theres a helluva lot of memorex in a typical show

 

[Blue Room]

Um, actually, not the whole thing they don't. Most songs have some taped backing, keyboards, pre-recoded backing vocals (beautiful day for example, the "woo-hoos" on Elevation on the elevation tour, etc.). Larry has had pre-recorded drums for years on WOWY, and another guy is clearly hitting an additional snare on LT 'Desire" for example juat off stage left.

No, they don't out and out lip synch an entire song, but theres a helluva lot of memorex in a typical show

U2 are always playing live. They have additional effects that enhance what they do. But the 4 members are always actually playing their instruments and Bono is singing. So its nowhere near what Madonna does and I dont think its a valid comparison in any way shape or form.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I attended two shows from the Vertigo Tour, and counted myself extremely lucky that I could see more than one show. I can understand that someone who sees 4 or 6 shows on a given tour might be offput by the static setlists, but they are in the very very small minority.

I would hazard a guess that most people at an individual U2 show are seeing that show only and want to hear Pride, Streets, and WOWY to go home happy. U2 has an obligation to them.

And as far as them appearing to "go through the motions", you try playing the same songs night after night you've been playing, in some cases, since you were 18.

 

[Infinity]

I think that U2 can cater to diehard fans and average fans at the same time. Lets say there is a 24 song setlist. Seven songs can be from the new album. That leaves 17 songs. Seven or eight of them can be rarities and nine or ten can be hits.

There are many U2 hits from a 27 year history and even more rarities. They don't have to have the same rarities every night because the diehard fan would be at more than one show. But here is the point that people are missing...they don't even have to have the same hits every night because they have so many of them that they can switch them around from night to night. That way, the diehard fan wouldn't have to listen to the same songs (not even the same hits) every night and the casual fan will at least get nine hits per night.

So how many U2 songs can be considered hits that are wanted by casual fans? I think:

1) I Will Follow
2) Out of Control
3) Sunday Bloody Sunday
4) New Year's Day
5) Pride
6) Where the Streets Have No Name
7) I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
8) With or Without You
9) Bullet the Blue Sky
10) Desire
11) Angel of Harlem
12) All I Want is You
13) Even Better than the Real Thing
14) One
15) Until the End of the World
16) Mysterious Ways
17) Beautiful Day
18) Elevation
19) Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of
20) Walk On
21) Vertigo
22) City of Blinding Lights

I'd say those are 22 of the most famous U2 songs and plenty to choose from.

Now, we know that there are many other U2 songs that would appeal mostly to diehard fans.

So what I'm saying is that in a 23 or 24 song setlist, if 7 songs are fixed new album songs, the rest can be rotated and as long as 9 or 10 of the rest are famous songs, the casual fans should be entertained and the diehard fans would also be entertained because even though U2 would be playing their hits every night, it wouldn't be the same ones every night and they would also play different rarities.

Not only should the songs be rotated, but the song order in the setlist should be rotated also, if possible. That would be great. Or they should have like 5 different setlists.

 

[cobl04]

Hmm... I like that!

I think the only thing they'd have to do would be make stellar performances of the lesser-known songs be a top priority, and the other thing would be to keep the rarities in between the more famous songs. I would think the crowd enthusiasm would wane slightly if U2 played four or five rarities in a row.

 

[Cigar]

Wait a minute, you cant have it both ways. You are the one that pointed out the 5 nights in NY was weak. I just refuted that. But then you have more criteria to add to make your point?? (whatever that is). I get it, you think U2 are terrible live because they dont mix it up enough for you. The solution is simple. Dont go. Save yourself the agony and torture.

Madonna? At least U2 actually plays and sings all their songs. I would'nt throw her out there. If you are lip syching to half your songs its pretty easy to throw variety out there. Plus your point is rather elitist. U2 should only play the major markets so people in places like Omaha, Portland, Buffalo dont deserve to be able to see them. BS! The Madonna example was like comparing apples to peanuts.

AGAIN, read the article I referred to twice previously. You will have your answer to your first paragraph. Somehow I doubt you will or if you do you wont acknowledge it. Any point made that isnt in your favor you seem to skip over and/or add additional caveats to your original post.

I'll summarize my point into one sentence:A rock concert isn't a broadway musical play.it's not "Cat"

Is it more clear now ?

Yes i have read the article you are refering to.And even though U2 isn't the only band or artist who are guilty for taking that approach(Red Hot Chilli Peppers is also guilty of that) for their setlist on a tour,it's in my own personal opinion (God forbid for an individuel to have one!,..apparently)that went you pay 165$ for your ticket,you want it to be special in some ways.Not having the feeling that the band is going through the motions on show number 53 or 86.When Bono was yelling "Wow!","Wow!","wow!" everyime,on each show, after "Street",or trying to look spontanious with his little story about Edge coming from the future before Miracle Drug,or bringing a kid on stage during Sunday Bloody Sunday and make he or she, shoutting "No more!"all those parts had the word script written all over the place.It annoyed alot of people,and from judging the reaction of the fans on the setlist party that was going on here each night of a show,it was becoming a joke...refering to "One" with the blah! blah! blah! Africa speech.

Same goes with the songs selection and the static setlist.Maybe it because i'm been spoiled with Pearl Jam(Again,i don't ask the band to be like them)but they are really making the show special whether they play in New York or Kalamazoo.U2's "broadway musical play" approach on their part is less exciting,compare to PJ at least.It doesn't make U2 shows boring by any means,but being more creative in their setlist isn't a impossible task.There are songs in their catalogue that have the same theme that they could interchange.Some nights play "Please" instead of "Bullet","Stay" in place of "One","Seconds" instead of "Sunday Bloody Sunday"...ect..In the same slot if they want to, but at least,AT LEAST!! flip flop a little and be more imaginative.

As for us fans who dare to be critical of the band,telling us not to go the shows if it's a torture,well i hope not everyone follow your suggestion,because the venues would be 1/3 empty in many cities....And where did i say it was torture????

P.S...Say what you want about Madonna and her lipsynch,i'll suggest you to rent her last DVD of her last tour,and you tell me who's more energic on stage ,now these days, between her and the B-man.Both have the same age, in case you wondering.

 

[last unicorn]

^ First of all, I am completely sure U2 would sell out venues if the so-called die hard fans stopped going to multiple show. Some people are clearly deluded about their importance.

And please don't compare Madonna to U2. I like Madonna, used to love her, but I see her more like a variety kind of artist, not a real singer or musician, and I'm sorry, I find today's shows of her more embarrassing than anything else.

 

[jimjam]

I'll summarize my point into one sentence:A rock concert isn't a broadway musical play.it's not "Cat"

It may not be a musical play but it is a show and most shows do follow the same format every night. In u2's case they had set parts e.g Pride Streets and One or LAPOE, SBS, BTBS and RTSS. These are songs that 90 percent of the crowd came to hear. They do mix the rest of the show slightly but that's only for themselves so they do not get bored or for the people who probably will go to the show more than once when it's in the same city.

As far as I can see the people who complain about the static setlists are the people who keep up to date with the setlists on u2tours.com who probably will go to see the show only once or twice anyway, they're no paying any money to see the rest of the shows so U2 dont owe them anything and people who follow the band around the place but these people are idiots who should know better by now and should just go get a life.

 

[Cigar]

^ First of all, I am completely sure U2 would sell out venues if the so-called die hard fans stopped going to multiple show. Some people are clearly deluded about their importance.

And please don't compare Madonna to U2. I like Madonna, used to love her, but I see her more like a variety kind of artist, not a real singer or musician, and I'm sorry, I find today's shows of her more embarrassing than anything else.

I was comparing Madonna to Bono in terms of energy and movement on stage.If you don't like my choice of Madonna, how about Mick Jagger then?Almost twice Bono's age and moving like he's 25.

 

[U2girl]

A grandpa that should have retired ages ago and a middle-aged woman that is desperately trying to keep up with competition half her age.

 

[LMP]

They both sell-out shows across the world, if that means anything.

 

[toscano]

A grandpa that should have retired ages ago and a middle-aged woman that is desperately trying to keep up with competition half her age.

Why are you referring to Bono as a woman ?

 

[Cigar]

A grandpa that should have retired ages ago and a middle-aged woman that is desperately trying to keep up with competition half her age.

Wonder if you'll call Bono a grand daddy when the band keeps touring in their 60's.And like it or not,Jagger is still one of rocks greatest performer to date....vocaly and physically.

Madonna? Rent her last tour DVD,you'll see she still got the swagger.

 

[catlhere]

Maybe they like playing the songs they always play.

 

[pepokiss]

just frop Bullet...

no "casual fan" wants that... or knows... or likes...



LIKE A SONG ftw

 

[coolian2]

It's because most hardcore fans take themselves to seriously and seem to forget that they are not the majority of people going to a U2 concert.

 

[Blue Room]

^ First of all, I am completely sure U2 would sell out venues if the so-called die hard fans stopped going to multiple show. Some people are clearly deluded about their importance.

exactly!

To Cigar, I have never said U2 are not above criticism. In this very thread I said they could move around the "set" parts of the setlist to create more variety. I see no reason why they couldnt do that. You seem to have a very negative attitude about their live performances. I'm just suggesting you save yourself the agony of getting so pissed off about it and not go. Its suppose to be fun. Not cause you intense sorrow. I guarantee you that if all the people that are so obviously upset with U2 over their setlist decided not to attend. U2 would still sellout every single show.

I love how when a person here tries to make a point thats in support of the band automatically the "critical" people get all defensive about it. Like its a conspiracy against them. The old "you cant say anything critical here" or the "I'm not sheep", those are code for I have no answer to your points and I'm lashing out now. Good luck with that.

 

[Saracene]

I've seen three Vertigo shows last year and I wouldn't deny that one of the reasons I loved the second Melbourne show the most was because U2 mixed up their setlist a bit - throwing in The First Time was a particularly nice surprise.

But as a general rule I try not to concentrate on setlists too much, for U2 or any other bands/artists - I'd rather concentrate on things that I got from the show than the things that I didn't.

 

[U2girl]

Wonder if you'll call Bono a grand daddy when the band keeps touring in their 60's.And like it or not,Jagger is still one of rocks greatest performer to date....vocaly and physically.

Yes, I will.

Especially if at that time, all U2 will have is their live show and the glory past to rest on.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

Even, if you hear the same arguments a zillion times pro "static setlists" (yes, us fans are not the normal people, who go to see the same show one time, bla bla bla) and "contra" (be Springstee, Dylan, Pearl Jam experimenting more bla bla bla), I'm against (too) static setlists – like U2 did in '93 and much more in '97 at least on my continent (Europe). Because statistically it's nice to hear, U2 played Slow Dancing, One Tree Hill or Mothers Of The Disappeared – but when it's only less than a handful times and in a place, that is 10 hours plus by plane away from you, it's not, what you might want to call your own live experience.
On the other hand I am one of those attending more shows (as many others here) and when you get to hear a nearly identical setlist night after night (even with the same speeches, so called improvsed 'jokes'), it's a bit sad for a band with this back catalogue. And that's why I loved especially the last two tours, where the band varied a bit more. Nothing more, nothing less...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i think you hit on something that i dislike the most... it's not neccesarily that they play the same songs with only minor variation. i can deal with that... but the "improvised jokes" and speeches that are exactly the same night in and night out irk me a bit.

example... at my first vertigo show i thought the whole "my name is paul but people call my bono" thing was a great, touching moment in the show... until i saw it 4 times in a week, at which point it became quite lame.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I think Willie Williams once commented on the ZooTV tour that if something seems spontaneous or improvised, it means it probably isn't

 

[Mofo]

I was comparing Madonna to Bono in terms of energy and movement on stage.If you don't like my choice of Madonna, how about Mick Jagger then?Almost twice Bono's age and moving like he's 25.

are you serious about comparing Madonna and Bono live?? as for Mick Jagger he's great live and you are correct the man dances around like no one but his songs don't require the high notes that a lot of U2's songs do

 

[david]

I think the reason they don't mix up their set list drastically is because it's a pain in the ass for them to remember how to play their older songs.