Why didnt U2 like Vertigo Discoteque

[FitzChivalry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAO9HjFOq50

That may be the best version of Discotheque I've ever heard! Kick ass!

Okay, well, it lost a little steam there towards the end. You could tell they hadn't fully worked it out. But I think if they had given it a chance, it could've been really mind-blowing by the end of the tour.


Thank you, Chizip!

 

[Justin24]

I will see about converting this into an MP3 Tonight if you all would like.

 

[Justin24]

It is now converted. If you would like it. e-mail me (e-mail only) at marine22@sbcglobal.net

 

[dr. zooeuss]

I like this version- thanks for posting it! It's good to see them carrying on with good songs that weren't popularly embraced. Wish they'd played that when I saw them. ;-)

 

[bonoishot]

Toronto and Chicago, I wanna say Toronto 4 and Chicago 1, on the third leg.

Yes it was those 2 shows. I was there front of the ellipse. It was so awesome. All the die hard fans went nuts but i think alot of casual fans were like wtf?!?!

It was one of my tour highlights.

 

[schnumi]

The end is just rocking.

Defenitly the best live version of Discotheque for me.

 

[hughfan_1]

It's probably because they want to forget 1996-1999.

That may be true, and I cannot understand it either. Maybe because Pop was not recieved well (me included). But I was so wrong about that. This album aged so well, it stands up to all their other stuff and is, no doubt, a great album and is my second favorite U2 album.

Maybe it is not the music they want to forget from that era but instead just the fashion/clothes they wore during that time.

 

[jedi Larry]

This album aged so well, it stands up to all their other stuff and is, no doubt, a great album and is my second favorite U2 album.

It has aged well, I agree. SATS,LNOE and Gone.....

 

[theu2fly]

Just take a look at the crowd and you'll see why.
Along with The Fly and The Electric Co. it was the best thing that happened to the Vertigo Tour.

And Zoo Station... lousy crowds had to ruin it for the later legs

 

[theu2fly]

Discotheque was revamped in a way that was matching Franz Ferdinand, the Killers and the Bravery. I think U2 wanted to perform it this way, as compared to POPMart...

 

[GibsonGirl]

And Zoo Station... lousy crowds had to ruin it for the later legs

I'm so glad I managed to see the Zoo Station/The Fly encore before they scrapped it on that leg of the tour. God, I swear if I had been in the ellipse when they ripped into Zoo Station, they would have thought twice about dumping it. The 'fans' around me in my section (most of whom apparently only seemed to know Beautiful Day and Elevation) looked completely bored and clueless. Reason #5980209 to hate casual fans who turn up to shows just to say they were 'there' or to hear 'those guys who do Vertigo.'

 

[Axver]

The 'fans' around me in my section (most of whom apparently only seemed to know Beautiful Day and Elevation) looked completely bored and clueless. Reason #5980209 to hate casual fans who turn up to shows just to say they were 'there' or to hear 'those guys who do Vertigo.'

And yet U2 somehow seem to think these people are more important than those of us who actually KNOW MORE THAN A COUPLE OF THEIR SONGS!

 

[coolian2]

And yet U2 somehow seem to think these people are more important than those of us who actually KNOW MORE THAN A COUPLE OF THEIR SONGS!

Bastards!

 

[GibsonGirl]

And yet U2 somehow seem to think these people are more important than those of us who actually KNOW MORE THAN A COUPLE OF THEIR SONGS!

Odd, isn't it? It's such a pity that U2 appear to gauge a lot of their setlist additions/subtractions on the reactions of the top-40 hits orientated crowd. Prior to 2005, it had been a dream of mine to hear Zoo Station in concert. I would have been crushed if they had removed it from the setlist, based on poor crowd reaction, before I got the chance to hear it. Just as a casual fan would likely be crushed if they had turned up expecting to hear Vertigo and didn't, hearing all these strange songs they'd never heard on the radio instead. [sarcasm] But of course, these fans are of much greater importance, never mind those of us who have bought the entire back catalogue. [/sarcasm]

 

[Axver]

Odd, isn't it? It's such a pity that U2 appear to gauge a lot of their setlist additions/subtractions on the reactions of the top-40 hits orientated crowd. Prior to 2005, it had been a dream of mine to hear Zoo Station in concert. I would have been crushed if they had removed it from the setlist, based on poor crowd reaction, before I got the chance to hear it. Just as a casual fan would likely be crushed if they had turned up expecting to hear Vertigo and didn't, hearing all these strange songs they'd never heard on the radio instead. [sarcasm] But of course, these fans are of much greater importance, never mind those of us who have bought the entire back catalogue. [/sarcasm]

I can respect that U2 want to draw a decent sized crowd and that's going to include a sizeable bunch of casual fans, but U2 really do need to learn a thing or two about balance. Casual fans aren't going to piss on a show just because they didn't recognise 5 or 10 songs out of 20-25, and I think U2 underestimate the casual fan: I've friends who are casual fans who will name songs such as An Cat Dubh, Kite, and One Tree Hill as their favourite songs of the night.

In any case, every other band I follow without exception manages to please both the casual fan who knows the hits and the diehard fan who buys the limited editions and can sing the band's demos backwards in Swahili. Hell, Porcupine Tree - who have largely static setlists - play songs live that were on editions limited to only 100 or 200 pressings! At the moment, a staple of their set is a song whose most well known release was an EP that was never available for commercial purchase. U2, on the other hand, seem to think even top ten hits are anathema just because they're from Pop. My advice to anyone seeing U2 is to make sure you catch them on the first leg, before the rarities get ditched and casual fan hits are re-introduced.

 

[Screwtape2]

I can respect that U2 want to draw a decent sized crowd and that's going to include a sizeable bunch of casual fans, but U2 really do need to learn a thing or two about balance. Casual fans aren't going to piss on a show just because they didn't recognise 5 or 10 songs out of 20-25, and I think U2 underestimate the casual fan: I've friends who are casual fans who will name songs such as An Cat Dubh, Kite, and One Tree Hill as their favourite songs of the night.

You know, I don't think that the setlist would affect the size of the crowd. The absence of rarities seems more likely due to the band simply not wanting to learn how to play stuff that they haven't played in a while. Unfortunately, Pop and Zooropa don't exist and outside of Pride the early 80's don't either. An almost thirty year body of work is limited by the band's selective memory. With little to play and little effort, the band isn't going to surprise us and when they do (in the case of Discotheque) that selective memory tends to kick in.

 

[Axver]

You know, I don't think that the setlist would affect the size of the crowd. The absence of rarities seems more likely due to the band simply not wanting to learn how to play stuff that they haven't played in a while. Unfortunately, Pop and Zooropa don't exist and outside of Pride the early 80's don't either. An almost thirty year body of work is limited by the band's selective memory. With little to play and little effort, the band isn't going to surprise us and when they do (in the case of Discotheque) that selective memory tends to kick in.

It seems a lot of people here think the setlist somehow affects the crowd though, and that if U2 want to keep playing venues as large as they currently play, they need to keep performing every casual fan hit they can muster - not just WOWY or One or Pride, but all three, and so on. I contend tracks such as Spanish Eyes, Treasure, The Three Sunrises, and Twilight would be perfectly appropriate for U2's current venues, give balance to the set, and would go down well with many fans.

But we all know U2 have become hyper-sensitive about how they are perceived. I'm sure they could draw huge crowds if their set was just their current album and the UF album with an encore of five tracks from the Best Of b-sides discs, but I bet they'd be paranoid of not getting glowing reviews. I do have to wonder how much U2's self-perception and hyper-sensitivity impacted their choice to swiftly ditch Discotheque. After all, it seems almost every journalist's joke about late-90s U2 involves boom-cha or Discotheque in general somehow.

 

[U2lunatic]

 

[schnumi]

But we all know U2 have become hyper-sensitive about how they are perceived. I'm sure they could draw huge crowds if their set was just their current album and the UF album with an encore of five tracks from the Best Of b-sides discs, but I bet they'd be paranoid of not getting glowing reviews. I do have to wonder how much U2's self-perception and hyper-sensitivity impacted their choice to swiftly ditch Discotheque. After all, it seems almost every journalist's joke about late-90s U2 involves boom-cha or Discotheque in general somehow.

And there you have it, that's the problem i believe. In the 90's they had the balls, the last couple of years they lost of lot of it.

Discothque got dropped way to quick, it would have been a killer. Same goes for Electric Co. That song should have been played every show.

 

[Blue Room]

And there you have it, that's the problem i believe. In the 90's they had the balls, the last couple of years they lost of lot of it.

Discothque got dropped way to quick, it would have been a killer. Same goes for Electric Co. That song should have been played every show.

What alot of you fail to realize as well is that U2 will play what they feel like playing personally. So its not always what the fans want either. If they dont enjoy it or think it works with what they are doing, they will drop it or not play it. That is what happened with Discotheque. Had nothing to do with the crowd.

Electric Co was played at most shows for 3 full legs. I dont think that fits the discussion here at all. They just didnt want to play it any longer for the final two legs.

Also, An Cat Dubh was pointed out. That was played for a full leg. Everytime I saw it most of the crowd looked bored. Personally I love the song but it was a setlist pacing killer. Yet U2 continued to play it for a full leg. Why? because THEY liked it and thought it fit what they were doing. They dropped it because they thought The Ocean (which is no casual fan song itself) worked better. Again, nothing to do with the crowd.

The casual fan thing comes in when diehards ask why they continue to play certain hits. Like WOWY, Pride, etc. The casual fans are there for those songs. That is why alot of those get played most of the time. Plus despite the fact that everyone on this board bitches about alot of these type songs. There is still a much larger percentage of the diehards that still enjoy them as well. Its just that the bitchers tend to be remembered more because, well, they are bitchers. Its the old squeaky wheel gets the most attention deal.

 

[U2girl]

Funny how the brave band of the 90's tours looked fondly on their back catalogue compared to the selective memory band of the last two tours.

 

[Blue Room]

 

[jinn77]

When did Bono become Disco Stu? He needs to keep dance moves to a minimum.

 

[catlhere]

What alot of you fail to realize as well is that U2 will play what they feel like playing personally. So its not always what the fans want either. If they dont enjoy it or think it works with what they are doing, they will drop it or not play it. That is what happened with Discotheque. Had nothing to do with the crowd.

Electric Co was played at most shows for 3 full legs. I dont think that fits the discussion here at all. They just didnt want to play it any longer for the final two legs.

Also, An Cat Dubh was pointed out. That was played for a full leg. Everytime I saw it most of the crowd looked bored. Personally I love the song but it was a setlist pacing killer. Yet U2 continued to play it for a full leg. Why? because THEY liked it and thought it fit what they were doing. They dropped it because they thought The Ocean (which is no casual fan song itself) worked better. Again, nothing to do with the crowd.

The casual fan thing comes in when diehards ask why they continue to play certain hits. Like WOWY, Pride, etc. The casual fans are there for those songs. That is why alot of those get played most of the time. Plus despite the fact that everyone on this board bitches about alot of these type songs. There is still a much larger percentage of the diehards that still enjoy them as well. Its just that the bitchers tend to be remembered more because, well, they are bitchers. Its the old squeaky wheel gets the most attention deal.

^This

Also, I'm not getting the logic where someone who likes really popular U2 songs are "casual" and people who like random b-sides off Pop or whatever are "hardcore". Seems like that's just difference in musical preferences. Your top 10 favorite U2 songs can all be singles and you can still be a "hardcore" fan. There's no guidelines in liking a music artist that says you aren't a true fan if you happen to like mostly singles.

Just because someone wants to hear them play Sunday Bloody Sunday over Tomorrow, doesn't mean they are ruining the tour experience. To a majority of fans, most of the hits are more entertaining songs than some of the things that get left off albums, so it's normal for more fans watching to be interested in those tracks. Why is that a bad thing?

And I don't believe that whole idea that they were braver in the 90's. How so? The ZooTv and Popmart sets were just as similar night after night as the Elevation and Vertigo sets. Actually, I'm sure Axver knows more about this but wasn't the Vertigo tour one of the most variety-filled tours they've ever done?

 

[randy5554]

Yeah, I don't buy into the theory that they were braver setlist-wise in the 90s. The setlists for the last two tours are way more varied than those of ZooTV and Popmart.

 

[phillyfan26]

^This

Also, I'm not getting the logic where someone who likes really popular U2 songs are "casual" and people who like random b-sides off Pop or whatever are "hardcore". Seems like that's just difference in musical preferences. Your top 10 favorite U2 songs can all be singles and you can still be a "hardcore" fan. There's no guidelines in liking a music artist that says you aren't a true fan if you happen to like mostly singles.

Just because someone wants to hear them play Sunday Bloody Sunday over Tomorrow, doesn't mean they are ruining the tour experience. To a majority of fans, most of the hits are more entertaining songs than some of the things that get left off albums, so it's normal for more fans watching to be interested in those tracks. Why is that a bad thing?

And I don't believe that whole idea that they were braver in the 90's. How so? The ZooTv and Popmart sets were just as similar night after night as the Elevation and Vertigo sets. Actually, I'm sure Axver knows more about this but wasn't the Vertigo tour one of the most variety-filled tours they've ever done?

No, it's not the people who LIKE those songs, many do, but it's the people who ONLY know the hits.

We're not saying no hits, we're saying more rotation. Mix it up. Play different hits instead of causing a slow death with Pride at the tempo of a snail and about 12 steps down in key every night. And they do play too many singles, remove a couple in turn for good album songs.

And to say "a majority of the fans" find the singles much more entertaining isn't accurate either. I'd personally rather have Zoo Station, Gone, Electric Co., Bad, and One Tree Hill (non-singles) than Pride, Elevation, One, ISHFWILF, and Sunday Bloody Sunday, because I find those songs more entertaining. Many agree that Pride, ISHFWILF, One, and SBS have all lost the greatness they once had.

Vertigo was more variety filled than Zoo TV and PopMart. This is true. Quite frankly, that's not saying much.

 

[doctorwho]

It seems a lot of people here think the setlist somehow affects the crowd though, and that if U2 want to keep playing venues as large as they currently play, they need to keep performing every casual fan hit they can muster - not just WOWY or One or Pride, but all three, and so on. I contend tracks such as Spanish Eyes, Treasure, The Three Sunrises, and Twilight would be perfectly appropriate for U2's current venues, give balance to the set, and would go down well with many fans.

But we all know U2 have become hyper-sensitive about how they are perceived. I'm sure they could draw huge crowds if their set was just their current album and the UF album with an encore of five tracks from the Best Of b-sides discs, but I bet they'd be paranoid of not getting glowing reviews. I do have to wonder how much U2's self-perception and hyper-sensitivity impacted their choice to swiftly ditch Discotheque. After all, it seems almost every journalist's joke about late-90s U2 involves boom-cha or Discotheque in general somehow.

I don't know about the journalist jokes, but I do agree with the rest.

After the "beating" U2 took with "Pop", I can understand the sensitivity. When U2 took some heat with R&H, they came out with a new image and sound. They gambled and won - mostly because their new sound had great songs and their image was fun!

When U2 took heat with "Pop", I think they scratched their heads wondering why. R&H, in many ways, was a JT-Part 2. Much like "Zooropa" was in '93, R&H seemed to be new songs for U2 to have on the second part of their tour. And, given U2's wild popularity, it gave fans who didn't have a chance to see U2 in concert perform "live". But U2 probably understood taking heat for R&H. Some songs were brilliant, but others were a stretch. And the thought of U2 feeling "equal" to other great artists - while fully unintentional - can be understood.

However, with "Pop", U2 continued their experimenation while retaining many elements of classic U2. It had the makings of what should have been a classic album. The tour, while overly grandiose, continued in the vein of ZOO TV. So what happened? Why the backlash? Why the poor reception?

Hence, I get U2's sensitivity about "Pop" and the need to "return to roots".

But now, after two massive albums and tours leading to U2's "return to glory", I also feel it's time U2 stopped being so hyper-sensitive about their perception. While the band has to keep some classics in their set-list, there should be more than just the rare "tid bit". It shouldn't be news to hear "One Tree Hill" or "Discotheque". There should be an element of surprise to EVERY show! U2 could have 10 (or if they are really ambitious, 15) extra songs that they could rehearse and mix 2 or 3 different ones into each concert. In other words, fans should never know what songs U2 will play on a given night. As it stands, we can all pretty much predict the setlist (and most of us hope and pray for that one extra "something" that usually doesn't arrive).

I'm not opposed to some songs being in the same order. But some mixing of the setlist order and overall songs is needed. U2 have returned - they've won tons of Grammies. They came back a second time after harsh criticism. Fantastic! Now, do one more thing that will really "wow" critics, and perhaps more importantly, fans.

On the next album and tour, I hope U2 take some chances. We may not all love it, but at this point in their careers, why not risk something? What's left to prove? Going out with a bang is great . However, if U2's last effort is a #1 album and tour that ultimately fans remember as "repetitive", then have U2 really achieved that "bang"? The sales may be there, but if U2 repeat the last two tours one more time, I think people may start thinking "stale".

I've been a staunch supporter of U2's last two albums and tours. After the 90's, even I was ready for a "return to roots" and more "serious" U2. They succeeded. U2 had a "fun" image, while still being serious and creating wonderful music. And while HTDAAB was a bit more out there than ATYCLB, I would be disappointed to have a third album in this style. I know U2 like to work in "threes" - but I'm hoping not to hear more of the same (and "Windows in the Skies" is exactly that style... let's hope that song, much like "Hold Me...Kill Me" symbolizes an end of an era).

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I know U2 like to work in "threes"

Do they? The massive change after R&H, as you said, came about from a public backlash, not from U2 simply moving on themselves. The massive change after Pop came from a public backlash, not from them moving on themselves. I'm sure there's an element of U2 ready to put both eras to rest at the same time, but I do think we over do the Trilogy thing in here massively. They exist, but I think it's more a fluke than a premeditated plan. It's more like we, the fans, work in threes, not the band. Within the trilogies, they tend to take one thing from album A and run with it into album B. If there's anything from this era that was taken from ATYCLB and taken into HTDAAB it was the idea of the single. The hook heavy, melody heavy, simplified single. I actually don't expect much of a change from this album to the next. Perhaps on the surface sonicaly, just as from ATYCLB to HTDAAB there were surface level sonic changes, perhaps subtle shifts in genre, but I don't think there's any overhaul coming. I think, if anything, they would feel the public wants more of the same, and they'll attempt to do that - ie they'll try once again to make the a 'BIG' album. Biggest Band, Biggest Album, Biggest Award Haul, Biggest Tour, Biggest Singles. I see no evidence in anything they've done or appear to be planning on doing - including band comments, the new beach clips etc - that suggest otherwise. I *think* (but hope that I'm wrong) if anything they'd feel that the thing lacking is cracking that chart success in the US single wise. I don't think they'd have any nagging feeling of failure on the last two albums outside of that. Listen to what Bono says when he's talking about U2, not musicaly, but ambitiously. He wants that kind of success badly. I really don't think they're going to blow up this mega-successful commercial stage any time soon, not until there's a wider backlash against it.

 

[doctorwho]

You could be correct - the image of "trilogies" could be more fan-created than U2 created.

That said, R&H still had massive sales and the movie did about as well as a documentary type of film could back then (and in fact, it's one of the better grossing documentaries, when adjusted for inflation). "Pop", while a drop for U2, still led to a Platinum album (which is usually a goal for 99.9% of artists out there) and a hit worldwide tour (including within the U.S.). In both cases, I think U2 fed upon the negativity and decided to change - they didn't have to do so, after all, sales didn't justify it.

Regardless, I do think U2 are in this "songs with strong melodies" mindset. I have no problem with that. But I also want U2 to continue with songs like "Love & Peace" and "Fast Cars" - that is, something that is both experimental (for U2 at least) and melodic. To me, that would be the ultimate push - how to create a "Sgt. Pepper" that is sonically wonderful, is different to everything else out there, but remains full of catchy, memorable songs. This is partly why JT and AB were such successes. Can U2 do this a third time?

I adore both of the last two albums, and enjoy HTDAAB even more than JT, but I think U2 does need "something extra" with this next album to really be remembered as "going out with a bang". An album full of "Windows in the Skies" type of songs probably won't do it.

 

[Blue Room]

But now, after two massive albums and tours leading to U2's "return to glory", I also feel it's time U2 stopped being so hyper-sensitive about their perception. While the band has to keep some classics in their set-list, there should be more than just the rare "tid bit". It shouldn't be news to hear "One Tree Hill" or "Discotheque". There should be an element of surprise to EVERY show! U2 could have 10 (or if they are really ambitious, 15) extra songs that they could rehearse and mix 2 or 3 different ones into each concert. In other words, fans should never know what songs U2 will play on a given night. As it stands, we can all pretty much predict the setlist (and most of us hope and pray for that one extra "something" that usually doesn't arrive).

I'm not opposed to some songs being in the same order. But some mixing of the setlist order and overall songs is needed. U2 have returned - they've won tons of Grammies. They came back a second time after harsh criticism. Fantastic! Now, do one more thing that will really "wow" critics, and perhaps more importantly, fans.

I think you might have a point if U2 had done their setlists/live show/touring differently prior to the POP backlash. Problem is, they didnt and havent changed it since then either. They have approached their live show from the same perspective since the 80's regardless of how a particular album was selling. Its what they feel comfortable with. Some people will rail on them for that and certainly there is some room for criticism of the band for that. But ultimately thats the reason is their own comfort level and what they feel works best. The band have explained why they dont mix up the setlists and its not because an album didnt sell. U2 still makes an effort to do some changes here and there. Some major artists play the exact same setlist for an entire tour with no change at all.

Look at the topic of this very thread. Why did Disco get dropped so quickly instead of why wasnt Disco played at all? Well, they at least attempted to do something different and they did play it. Then didnt feel it worked. As fans we can disagree with that decision but there was no reason for them to even attempt to add Disco when they did. They did so in an effort to improve the show. You would not believe some of the stuff they mess around with in soundcheck with that very thing in mind.