Thoughts on U2 Playing a Whole Album Live

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
S

synthysys2524

Babyface
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
9
Hi Folks -

I brought the following up as a topic of conversation waiting for the band to go on stage at the Rose Bowl a few weeks back.

Who here would enjoy seeing the band perform one of their albums, for sake of argument let's say "Achtung Baby" or "War", in its entirety in concert?

A lot of acts have started to do this - Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Eat World, and the Pixies are three that come to mind.

I for one am a little disappointed with the band's setlists over the last few tours, specifically with the lack of change and variety in song choice and order. I understand the elaborate stage production hinders some flexibility with setlists, but the Rolling Stones have toured with productions that rival U2's and still manage to change 5 or 6 songs every night.

I understand that the band tours to promote NLOTH, and I am fine with this. In the scenario I am suggesting they can play 5 or 6 tracks from NLOTH, play an entire album front to back, and still close the show with a few standard "hits", like "One", "Where the Streets Have No Name", and "With or Without You" as examples.

What do all of you think about the band playing an album front to back in concert? Would you like to see it happen? Do you htink the band would ever do it?

And what are your opinions on setlist variety (or lack thereof)?

Would love to hear your feedback. Thanks!
 
synthysys2524 said:
Hi Folks -


Who here would enjoy seeing the band perform one of their albums, for sake of argument let's say "Achtung Baby" or "War", in its entirety in concert?


What do all of you think about the band playing an album front to back in concert? Would you like to see it happen? Do you htink the band would ever do it?

And what are your opinions on setlist variety (or lack thereof)?

Would love to hear your feedback. Thanks!
Click to expand...

In '92 they played 9 of 12 from AB on a regular basis best I can tell -- the show I saw opened with 8 straight, though not in album order; and for the show they left out So Cruel, Acrobat and UltraViolet.

It was amazing and gutsy, but I would not want to see what you suggest today.

They have too much material to choose from and music is so fragmented I think a large majority of the crowd would doze off. Right or wrong, today's fans want to hear hits and they expect a show to have logical ebbs and flows if that makes any sense.

Could this be done? Sure, but only if you got 3,000 folks from Interfernece in one room for 90 minutes, and even then, a few arguments would break out.

As far as your other setlist question, a little more variety on a nightly basis would be nice -- it would motivate me personally to see more shows and seek out more bootlegs.
 
What do you mean? Don't they already play all of ATYCLB every night?

In all seriousness, alot of me agrees with BWU2Buffs that there is always a logical flow to the show, a theme a running order, a vibe they seek to create, whatever. This always consists of songs that sound good together or tell a similar story being played together, many times from different albums(End of the World>>NYD, Last Night On Earth>>Until the end,>>LAPOE>>>SBS, SBS>>Exit, UF>>COBL, UV>>WOWY, are just a few examples)

However, the hard core blue crack addict in me tells me that I would kill to see JT, AB or War performed front to back sometime. Maybe if they do multiple, as in 4 or 5 nights in one arena like on Lovetown, then 1 gig could get a full album.
 
I'd like to see the band do a full album or two, but as a special event rather than as part of a proper tour. For example, celebrating the 30th anniversary of Boy next year by doing Boy from start to finish at a significant Boy-related venue would be awesome.

On tour itself, they have so much material that I don't think 10-12 spots a night should be handed over to any one album.

BWU2Buffs said:
In '92 they played 9 of 12 from AB on a regular basis best I can tell -- the show I saw opened with 8 straight, though not in album order; and for the show they left out So Cruel, Acrobat and UltraViolet.
Click to expand...

Ultra Violet was a setlist regular on ZooTV, second song of most encores. It was played at 111 out of 158 shows. 10 out of 12 were done on a regular basis for the first two legs (So Cruel and Acrobat left out); on the third leg, WGRYWH was dumped and it became 9 out of 12 (So Cruel was played by Bono solo three times on this leg, and Acrobat was soundchecked, so they nearly did all 12). Ultra Violet was ousted on the fifth leg to make way for Lemon.
 
It's a great idea, but U2 are simply not on stage long enough to make it work. I was in Baltimore earlier this month to see Springsteen. He did the entire BTR album. But it didn't take too many slots away from the setlist, given that he played for nearly 3 and a half hours and did 30 songs. If U2 get even remotely close to this, then it might work.
 
Could be great if U2 do this, bot don't see it happen. The problem is that they will not play longer than 2, 2-5 hours, and playing a full album would cover half of the setlist.

Bruce & E street is amazing. Playing 30+ songs over 3-3,5 hours, while everybody is 60+... He even went crowd surfing on his last tour. The changing of the setlist and picking up signs, it's amazing!

I don't think the elaborate stage profuction doesn't hinder anything at all. The 360 setting is perfect to mix up if they wanted. U2 never did this and I am afraid they never will. They are good musicians, but they are not able to play 100 different songs over a tour. They would have to practice for weeks first...
 
i think it would be pretty impractical.

i don't know about the artists you mentioned, but take floyd for example. they can get away with it because 1. Dark Side is seamless. 2. The Wall is a concept album. 3. Animals & WYWH have only five songs and make sense together.

U2 doing it wouldn't make a lot of sense i don't think. i like axver's idea though.
 
The band won't remember how to play all the songs from any given album. And given U2's history of playing less-rehearsed stuff...just no.
 
I think it would be really fucking cool. And I think they'll never do it because that would require a lot of practice and they're notoriously lazy, the main reason behind their comparatively static setlists.
 
phillyfan26 said:
they're notoriously lazy, the main reason behind their comparatively static setlists.
Click to expand...

oh is it? righto.

the fact they don't play some songs live immediately (think your blue room) because they want to make sure they've got it right would suggest your practice theory is slightly incorrect
 
Beside the band not knowing all the songs, and them being bad/weak at the less rehearsed songs, the second main reason would probably be Bono's vocals. Nothing at all to do with lazyness, in other words.

He can't do the falsetto properly, and he would not likely be able to sing the 80's stuff.
 
U2 tries really hard to hone their shows thematically and pull off a wide swath of their career, that's their game. Still, although it would be cool, on most albums there's at least one song they've never done live, although Boy and October they probably did in their entirety.

Here's what I can remember off the top of my head:

JT - Red Hill Mining Town
R&H - Heartland
AB - Acrobat
Zooropa - Some Days Are Better Than Others
Pop - Playboy Mansion
ATYCLB - When I Look at the World
HTDAAB - One Step Closer/A Man and a Woman
NLOTH - SUC, WAS, COL, F-BB (a shame really, they were lauded for opening 360 with so much NLOTH material, but that's actually a lot more songs left out than usual)
 
They didn't play 3 songs off ATYCLB, just one less than NLOTH (and SUC missing is the real suprise, frankly we knew they'd never do Fez, COL or WAS).
 
I love it when a band/artist does strange things with the setlists and surprises everyone. Of course, with U2 playing stadiums this year, I can understand why they have to play it a bit safe, for all the obvious reasons, but...

I think it's cool when an artist does a "residency" at one venue for a long time. For example, Bob Dylan at San Francisco Warfield in 1980 -- he played a different setlist every night of about 12 concerts in a row there, had lots of star-guests on stage, etc, etc. It's a bit like U2 at the Point Depot back in 1989. They did shake-up the list quite a bit.

So, if they did a residency somewhere, and played about 8 shows in a row there, I think that's the perfect chance to try something like playing the full album. Kind of hard for them to "risk" it in front of 50,000 people, though.
 
I've already said it in another thread, but playing a whole album live is for me a sign that artist has become a nostalgia act. Unless the whole album being played is their latest. But otherwise it means that the artist is relying on past glories.
So I hope U2 won't be doing this for a while (or at all). I want them to promote/tour new material, not an album of many years ago.
 
Popmartijn said:
I've already said it in another thread, but playing a whole album live is for me a sign that artist has become a nostalgia act. Unless the whole album being played is their latest. But otherwise it means that the artist is relying on past glories.
So I hope U2 won't be doing this for a while (or at all). I want them to promote/tour new material, not an album of many years ago.
Click to expand...

problem is you are in the minority there :(
 
Popmartijn said:
I've already said it in another thread, but playing a whole album live is for me a sign that artist has become a nostalgia act. Unless the whole album being played is their latest. But otherwise it means that the artist is relying on past glories.
So I hope U2 won't be doing this for a while (or at all). I want them to promote/tour new material, not an album of many years ago.
Click to expand...

i never thought of it that way, but i see your point. i would love to see u2 do a full album show, but not right now. maybe 10 more years.
 
i would love it. i saw primus do this years back. they played two sets. the first 90 minutes of a mix of everything. they took 15 min intermission and came back and played seas of cheese straight through. It was a great show. Was over 3 hours, and they had no opener. Was great for diehard fans.

would love to see u2 do that with the JT, AB, Pop, UF or Boy. UF would work well, since it's not that long and they already playing 3 of the songs everynight. It wouldn't add that much length to the set at all.
 
-"Adam says the band considered playing all of No Line On The Horizon in sequence for YouTube ".
You remember these statements? this is my favourite choice to play the entires albums live.

In many forums there is much anger about the setlists of the band.

Are useless if the members of U2 did not read.

So what solutions are there?:

-PetitionOnline.com?

-A meeting of moderators of the most important forums (Interference, Atu2, U2 Start...) with U2?
 
u2best said:
-"Adam says the band considered playing all of No Line On The Horizon in sequence for YouTube ".
You remember these statements? this is my favourite choice to play the entires albums live.

In many forums there is much anger about the setlists of the band.

Are useless if the members of U2 did not read.

So what solutions are there?:

-PetitionOnline.com?

-A meeting of moderators of the most important forums (Interference, Atu2, U2 Start...) with U2?
Click to expand...

:lol: Like a UN meeting? I can just see it now instead of the United Nations it would be the United Internet Bitchers...

The idea that fans should tell the band what to play is pretty silly.
 
Keep enjoying of Acrobat, Fez, Red hill mining town, Heartland... in U2 concerts, have been played live many times!! :lol: :applaud:
 
BVS said:
:lol: Like a UN meeting? I can just see it now instead of the United Nations it would be the United Internet Bitchers...

The idea that fans should tell the band what to play is pretty silly.
Click to expand...

My thoughts too, kind of a strange idea. I guess it comes with the Internet, the idea that people can have influence in about everything.


Bottom line: U2 is a band. They play whatever the fuck they want to play and you can either listen to them or not. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Setlist Issue
Replies
3
Views
487
lazarus
lazarus
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
732
lazarus
lazarus
H
Filming ?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
rosephile
R
N
Hello From Alberta, Canada
Replies
4
Views
398
NormB
N
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
733
rosephile
R

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom