If U2 was 10% of Springsteen set list, it would be amazing

[Marien]

We're talking of a band that is almost 30 years old and they have got so many succesful songs during these years we could think it easy to find different set lists at the same quality level, but the band should think on their audience, in this audience there will be people who has never attended a U2 show before, then most people, who will go to one gig per tour or at least per leg, then the fans, who will attend 2 or 3 shows or similar, maybe they are quite a lot, and then a tiny minority of fans who can afford the time and money to attend a great number of concerts, the band have to take them all into account and they know there are some songs they have to play, even if they would prefer not to, because they know these songs, the big hits, are the reasons many people have spent their money, it's quite complicate because there are people who like this or that era, and people who like them all, so in the end we are talking of many songs, and then they have to consider the big show a U2 concert is with different lightening and art designs for every song. Maybe they had to sacrify a liitle of spontaneity to build up a better show, but I wouldn't like it if they moved back to the black stage, I still think they are one of the best, if not the best, act live.

 

[U2girl]

I think a decent bit of the reason for their more static setlists came from ZooTV and PopMart, where they were more theatrical shows than just concerts.

Also, U2 tends to have a theme/message on their tours ever since Zoo TV that dictates the setlist. And they want to give the best show possible each night.

It has nothing to do with them hating rehearsals or Bono and the lyrics or the technology being an excuse.

 

[d.darroch]

I've just seen a couple of Ani DiFranco shows in Sydney quite recently (I think she's a pretty amazing live act). The set lists were very different, with a few staples thrown in both shows. She changes it up a lot, throws in requests, it was great!

I know there's a lot more involved with U2 changing around a setlist, with the massive production involved, much more than just a girl with her guitar (& a band for this tour).

I know there will be the lots of staples thrown in for those new to U2 shows, & not too familiar with their music (please don't play ' I still haven't found what..... blah, blah, blah......). Marien's right, & most members of the audience will only be seeing one show. So a varied setlist isn't a big deal to most of the crowd.

But for me, I've got to try & survive listening to BEP's 3 times, so I'm praying U2 will change it up a bit & vary the shows (give us some old UF classics).

 

[Mrs. Vedder]

We're talking of a band that is almost 30 years old and they have got so many succesful songs during these years we could think it easy to find different set lists at the same quality level, but the band should think on their audience, in this audience there will be people who has never attended a U2 show before, then most people, who will go to one gig per tour or at least per leg, then the fans, who will attend 2 or 3 shows or similar, maybe they are quite a lot, and then a tiny minority of fans who can afford the time and money to attend a great number of concerts, the band have to take them all into account and they know there are some songs they have to play, even if they would prefer not to, because they know these songs, the big hits, are the reasons many people have spent their money, it's quite complicate because there are people who like this or that era, and people who like them all, so in the end we are talking of many songs, and then they have to consider the big show a U2 concert is with different lightening and art designs for every song. Maybe they had to sacrify a liitle of spontaneity to build up a better show, but I wouldn't like it if they moved back to the black stage, I still think they are one of the best, if not the best, act live.

This makes sense -- they do need take into account a lot of different things. The newer fans want to hear the big hits while the devoted fans want to hear more rare songs from different era's etc. Then there’s the lighting and affects that they do for each song. U2’s concerts are more like shows. Also, U2 fans are not known to be major travelers (meaning attending multiple shows all over the place) so it makes sense that U2 does not change up their set list much. I know that there's die hard U2 fans that do travel and go to multiple shows but not that much. They need to know their audience and the majority will probably attend 1-3 shows, from what I've seen. I only see them once and maybe twice per tour because their shows are too predictable, to me. Nevertheless, they are one of the best bands to see live. Even if I don’t get the rare songs and all I get are the major hits – they still blow me away Live. There’s nothing like hearing Mysterious Ways live than on the CD, well, to me at least.

I'm not familiar with Bruce but it's great that he changes his set lists. Pearl Jam is known for their set lists. However, Pearl Jam knows that their fans are maniacs and follow the band around from coast to coast and attend multiple shows (6+). So they change their set list and throw in variety -- that's one of the fun things about their shows is to go and see what on earth they are going to play; it tends to be different. One of the many reasons why I travel and attend tons of PJ shows is for the thrill of surprise of what I will hear.