For those of you who haven't read the interview at atu2.com please do it is great but here is an interesting exerpt.
There's a certain percentage of fans who complain about the setlist, and how it hardly changes from night to night. They point to Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews Band, and others on that level who mix up the live shows regularly. What's your response to that criticism?
It's quite touching that in the 21st century there's still a belief that a rock show is (or should be) an entirely spontaneous event even on its 100th show. For me, a flexible set list is a mixed blessing. Much as it brings variety and keeps up interest for those of us who see the show more than once, lack of familiar structure places a limit on how technologically complex a show can be. The ideal for me is a situation where parts of a show -- say beginning, middle & end -- are set in stone, then, in between times, it's an improvisational free for all. Even this, though, is easier said than done and you'd be amazed how much any show pulls and pulls towards settling down and wants to get into a routine.
The other downside to a more improvised show is, of course, that -- visually at least -- the quality of the result varies dramatically from night to night. R.E.M. is a good example - on their 1995 tour I was using nine cinema-sized film projectors overlaying film sequences chosen from a group of about 50 clips we had with us on tour. The set list was a real movable feast and due to the mechanical limitations of using film, this necessitated my using different films for different songs on different nights. On a good night this would throw up new ideas, new combinations & wonderful surprises which showed R.E.M. at their random, glorious, untethered, experimental best but it wasn't something you could expect to work 100% night after night.
When you add to this the advent of the Internet you have to accept that as soon as you've done one show everyone in the world knows what you're up to. To seriously try to maintain a level of surprise on a nightly basis would drive you insane and probably result in some highly unsatisfactory experiments. I've come to accept that a known structure which includes some room for nightly manoeuvre allows U2 to create a show which is not only at the very top of its league but also ensures an unparalleled level of consistency from night to night. Given that most people will only see one show, it's important to guarantee that every single one is absolutely as good as it can possibly be.
Doing multiple nights helps U2 shake it up a bit. There was generally an "A" and a "B" set on Elevation. In towns where we did three shows, the third night got pretty loose and in the few places where we did a fourth night all bets were off. I think it was Boston show 4 where we opened with "Elevation" followed by the first seven songs from the Zoo TV show!
You mentioned what I think is the key element that most fans overlook when they complain about the lack of variety in the setlists: U2 is not a jam-session band; a U2 concert has a well-defined beginning, middle and end. It's almost like theater in a way. That seems to be what U2 wants in its live shows. Would you agree?
Yes, though allowing some room for improvisation is very important.
There's a certain percentage of fans who complain about the setlist, and how it hardly changes from night to night. They point to Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews Band, and others on that level who mix up the live shows regularly. What's your response to that criticism?
It's quite touching that in the 21st century there's still a belief that a rock show is (or should be) an entirely spontaneous event even on its 100th show. For me, a flexible set list is a mixed blessing. Much as it brings variety and keeps up interest for those of us who see the show more than once, lack of familiar structure places a limit on how technologically complex a show can be. The ideal for me is a situation where parts of a show -- say beginning, middle & end -- are set in stone, then, in between times, it's an improvisational free for all. Even this, though, is easier said than done and you'd be amazed how much any show pulls and pulls towards settling down and wants to get into a routine.
The other downside to a more improvised show is, of course, that -- visually at least -- the quality of the result varies dramatically from night to night. R.E.M. is a good example - on their 1995 tour I was using nine cinema-sized film projectors overlaying film sequences chosen from a group of about 50 clips we had with us on tour. The set list was a real movable feast and due to the mechanical limitations of using film, this necessitated my using different films for different songs on different nights. On a good night this would throw up new ideas, new combinations & wonderful surprises which showed R.E.M. at their random, glorious, untethered, experimental best but it wasn't something you could expect to work 100% night after night.
When you add to this the advent of the Internet you have to accept that as soon as you've done one show everyone in the world knows what you're up to. To seriously try to maintain a level of surprise on a nightly basis would drive you insane and probably result in some highly unsatisfactory experiments. I've come to accept that a known structure which includes some room for nightly manoeuvre allows U2 to create a show which is not only at the very top of its league but also ensures an unparalleled level of consistency from night to night. Given that most people will only see one show, it's important to guarantee that every single one is absolutely as good as it can possibly be.
Doing multiple nights helps U2 shake it up a bit. There was generally an "A" and a "B" set on Elevation. In towns where we did three shows, the third night got pretty loose and in the few places where we did a fourth night all bets were off. I think it was Boston show 4 where we opened with "Elevation" followed by the first seven songs from the Zoo TV show!
You mentioned what I think is the key element that most fans overlook when they complain about the lack of variety in the setlists: U2 is not a jam-session band; a U2 concert has a well-defined beginning, middle and end. It's almost like theater in a way. That seems to be what U2 wants in its live shows. Would you agree?
Yes, though allowing some room for improvisation is very important.
Last edited:
