Some interesting U2 historical setlist facts
- Thread starter Hawkfire
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hawkfire
The Fly
Just the stats (note dress rehearsals are included in stats):
360: 14 shows / 32 songs (7 new album)
Vertigo: 132 shows / 52 songs (10 new album)
Elevation: 113 shows / 42 songs (9 new album)
PopMart: 93 shows / 33 songs (11 new album)
ZooTV: 158 shows / 37 songs (18 new album; 2 albums)
Lovetown: 47 shows / 31 songs (8 new album)
Joshua: 109 shows / 30 songs (10 new album)
Fire: 113 shows / 27 songs (7 new album)
War: 109 shows / 25 songs (7 new album)
Oct: 102 shows / 23 songs (8 new album)
Boy: 157 shows / 19 songs (10 new album)
360: 14 shows / 32 songs (7 new album)
Vertigo: 132 shows / 52 songs (10 new album)
Elevation: 113 shows / 42 songs (9 new album)
PopMart: 93 shows / 33 songs (11 new album)
ZooTV: 158 shows / 37 songs (18 new album; 2 albums)
Lovetown: 47 shows / 31 songs (8 new album)
Joshua: 109 shows / 30 songs (10 new album)
Fire: 113 shows / 27 songs (7 new album)
War: 109 shows / 25 songs (7 new album)
Oct: 102 shows / 23 songs (8 new album)
Boy: 157 shows / 19 songs (10 new album)
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
I'm amazed that people think these numbers, in and of themselves, mean anything. You'd need to account for the fact that later tours necessarily have a bigger catalogue before making any conclusions about real diversity (not absolute diversity -> obviously 32 is a bigger number than 28 and 25).
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
I really liked your analysis... especially your inclusion of this (above) piece of information.
thelaj
Refugee
On the other hand, does this hold for the last couple of tours? Which Bomb songs would they return? SYCMIOYO? OOTS? Fast Cars? LAPOE?
Elevation Tour (113 shows)
- Gone - 51 times (45%)
- Please - 23 times (20%)
- Wake Up Dead Man - 23 times (20%)
- Discotheque - 18 times (16%)
- Staring At The Sun - 16 times (14%)
Vertigo Tour (132 shows)
- Beautiful Day - 132 times (100%)
- Elevation - 132 times (100%)
- Stuck in A Moment - 35 times (27%)
- Walk On - 11 times (8%)
- Kite - 8 times (6%)
- In A Little While - 2 times (2%)
dal975
The Fly
Being a huge, long-term hard-core fan of both PJ and U2, I have to say that comparing them is pretty pointless unless it is to highlight the vast differences in their approach to just about everything.
One of PJ's trademarks is the tremendous amount of variety in their setlists. They have and will play a city 3 nights in a row, 26 songs a night, and not repeat a single one. They are proud of their ability/willingness to do this and so are their fans. Trust me, the "cohesive" of the set list (whatever that means) certainly does not suffer. Fans will hold up cardboard signs at their shows with an "obscure" song name (Breathe, Footsteps, Sonic Reducer) and they will rock it, on the spot, as if they had been rehearsing it for months. The PJ concert experience could not be more different than the U2 concert experience. Notice that I did not say "better."
To the musical layperson that I am, and in my OPINION, the members of PJ,as well as the collective band, are much more sophisticated musicians than U2 (wait, hear me out). McCready is simply a guitar wizard. Stone is the best rhythm guitarist I know of, and Eddie has sharpened his skills to the point where he plays lead (!) on alot of songs. That is THREE top tier guitarists, bassist Ament and drummer Matt Cameron (who is phenomenal btw) and even throw in Boom on the keyboard for a handful of songs. With that much musical talent on stage, there is no need for synths and sequencers and the guys can improvise on the fly and play requests at will. U2 (essentially) has Edge, who I absolutely adore, but he kind of stands alone in terms of non-rhythm section sound up there. Hence, the U2 production team's heavy input into the show, the static setlist, etc. They are just so different musically than PJ that it is really not fair to U2 to compare their set list variety, etc. So U2 compensates in other ways - visually, artistically, etc. - and the shows end up being spectacular regardless.
And btw, the ratio of hardcore fans to casual fans is much, much higher at any given PJ show than it is at a U2 show. In any event, PJ always will play a healthy dose of Ten and their other mainstream hits to satisfy the non-fanatics at any given show.
One of PJ's trademarks is the tremendous amount of variety in their setlists. They have and will play a city 3 nights in a row, 26 songs a night, and not repeat a single one. They are proud of their ability/willingness to do this and so are their fans. Trust me, the "cohesive" of the set list (whatever that means) certainly does not suffer. Fans will hold up cardboard signs at their shows with an "obscure" song name (Breathe, Footsteps, Sonic Reducer) and they will rock it, on the spot, as if they had been rehearsing it for months. The PJ concert experience could not be more different than the U2 concert experience. Notice that I did not say "better."
To the musical layperson that I am, and in my OPINION, the members of PJ,as well as the collective band, are much more sophisticated musicians than U2 (wait, hear me out). McCready is simply a guitar wizard. Stone is the best rhythm guitarist I know of, and Eddie has sharpened his skills to the point where he plays lead (!) on alot of songs. That is THREE top tier guitarists, bassist Ament and drummer Matt Cameron (who is phenomenal btw) and even throw in Boom on the keyboard for a handful of songs. With that much musical talent on stage, there is no need for synths and sequencers and the guys can improvise on the fly and play requests at will. U2 (essentially) has Edge, who I absolutely adore, but he kind of stands alone in terms of non-rhythm section sound up there. Hence, the U2 production team's heavy input into the show, the static setlist, etc. They are just so different musically than PJ that it is really not fair to U2 to compare their set list variety, etc. So U2 compensates in other ways - visually, artistically, etc. - and the shows end up being spectacular regardless.
And btw, the ratio of hardcore fans to casual fans is much, much higher at any given PJ show than it is at a U2 show. In any event, PJ always will play a healthy dose of Ten and their other mainstream hits to satisfy the non-fanatics at any given show.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
wrong.
zoopop
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Overall you can argue Pearl Jam are better musicians than U2 (they are), but U2 is unique in the sense that their music has a texture to them that is hard to replicate live. I think U2 is one of the most amazing live bands is because they can take a well-produced song from the studio (sounds, layers, Edge’s sound) and present it live. Not only present it live but most of the time make it better.
Of all the U2 shows I go to, and I always want to go back, they showcase some incredible energy which I think would lack if they just started playing something spur of the moment. No knock, on PJ or Springsteen, but there sound translates to a simple live rendition/performance, which gives them the luxury of switching this up.
Someone posted in the “Love of Money” thread that U2 have released 3 singles from NLOTH that is geared towards a different audience. GOYB = alternative/rock, MAG=Dance/Pop, and now Crazy..=Top 40. This gets me thinking of how diverse U2 is and I think this in turn makes recreating their music kind of tricky.
I don’t have much of a problem of U2 rotating songs every-night, but I do have a issue of them not giving songs a rest and not having confidence in playing a Kite instead of One or having MOS replace WOWY. When I saw U2 for the 1st time for ZooTV I was more impressed and turned into a fan because of the new material.
Of all the U2 shows I go to, and I always want to go back, they showcase some incredible energy which I think would lack if they just started playing something spur of the moment. No knock, on PJ or Springsteen, but there sound translates to a simple live rendition/performance, which gives them the luxury of switching this up.
Someone posted in the “Love of Money” thread that U2 have released 3 singles from NLOTH that is geared towards a different audience. GOYB = alternative/rock, MAG=Dance/Pop, and now Crazy..=Top 40. This gets me thinking of how diverse U2 is and I think this in turn makes recreating their music kind of tricky.
I don’t have much of a problem of U2 rotating songs every-night, but I do have a issue of them not giving songs a rest and not having confidence in playing a Kite instead of One or having MOS replace WOWY. When I saw U2 for the 1st time for ZooTV I was more impressed and turned into a fan because of the new material.
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
AtomicBono
ONE love, blood, life
Exactly. I think all this set is missing is a song from Pop and at least one pre-War song (11 O Clock Tick Tock would be GREAT, but knowing U2 we'll get I Will Follow
). That way, every era of U2 is fairly represented. Ideally U2 would play at least one song from every album in a given set... probably won't happen, but it's possible. I guess I care more about each era/album getting represented than whether the songs are rarities or hits, because honestly? I love almost every U2 song, singles and all. They're an excellent singles band. man, I can't wait til my band becomes famous, and then all our fans complain about static sets
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
32 > 28. 100% Mikal!
gvox
Ghost of Love
This is fuckin ridiculous. Mikal is 100% correct - the catalogue obviously gets bigger with each album, yes. But, between ATCLB and now, those same heavyweights still needed consideration: War, UF, JT, RnH, AB. FFS they could play the entire JT and AB albums which would eat up, what 24 song slots? And people would be just fine. So really relatively speaking yes, they are in fact making sure they go back far enough and putting a greater amount of variety even as they still add newer albums which, I remind, they need to promote.
Can't we just end this foolishness once and for all? There is no subjective opinion here. The setlist whiners are dead wrong and need to stop.
Can't we just end this foolishness once and for all? There is no subjective opinion here. The setlist whiners are dead wrong and need to stop.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
what's that last album?
oy, that kind of response isn't going to make someone who isn't happy with the current setlists want to stop though.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Meh, I don't care. They've been proven dead wrong over and over, even by irrefutable statistics outlining just how much U2 has varied the setlists over the years...and they find ways to deflect and explain it away, but it still comes back to this, basically:
"Iattended50showsinonemonthandwatchyoutubevideoswhenreadingsetlistsanddammitcouldnttheymixitupmoreholyshitlookslikethatcrowdwasboringnoiwasnttheredoesthatmakemyopinionanylessvalidnoirepresent3%ofallfansnot1%andeveryonewantstohear10raritiespershowohandbtwtehinterwebtoldmesoandu2aregettingpannedandbonoisliarandtheedgeisaloofandffsbruceisbetteretcetcetcblahblah"
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
How can you tell just by looking at "32, 28, 25"?
My point (to Mikal) was that you can't just look at those numbers and come up with an educated opinion on real diversity. He said "wrong", you said he's correct.
I've read and reread your post, I'd like to understand your point so I could offer a relevant answer, but I don't get what you're trying to say...
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I have to agree with Gvox. They progressively have more songs that they need to play (singles/hits) they also have a penchant for playing several new tracks (probably to the detriment of some people in the audience) the window for rotating songs continually shrinks, even if the catalog is growing.
PJ is one of my favorite bands also (their 90's material, at least) The way Pearl Jam deals with this is that they don't necessarily care about 'casual fans'. So while that lends itself to more variety, it's kind of a dick attitude if you are a casual fan. But in both cases, PJ and U2 fans should know the score by now. You don't go see PJ 'expecting' to hear Jeremy and you don't go to a U2 show 'expecting' to hear anything relatively obscure.
Why any U2 fan who has been around for more than one tour, has any issues left on the table...in this regard, U2 have been the same for a long time now, maybe even always. The biggest legitimate gripe I can see these days is that they just about completely ignore the 90's outside of Achtung. Specifically anything that couldn't be banged out with a simple acoustic version (Stay, SATS). I've come to terms with this by saying...this is just who U2 are, a combination of lack of desire to revisit some of those songs and a production/musical issue (like Bono probably can't nail the falsetto in Lemon like he might want)
PJ is one of my favorite bands also (their 90's material, at least) The way Pearl Jam deals with this is that they don't necessarily care about 'casual fans'. So while that lends itself to more variety, it's kind of a dick attitude if you are a casual fan. But in both cases, PJ and U2 fans should know the score by now. You don't go see PJ 'expecting' to hear Jeremy and you don't go to a U2 show 'expecting' to hear anything relatively obscure.
Why any U2 fan who has been around for more than one tour, has any issues left on the table...in this regard, U2 have been the same for a long time now, maybe even always. The biggest legitimate gripe I can see these days is that they just about completely ignore the 90's outside of Achtung. Specifically anything that couldn't be banged out with a simple acoustic version (Stay, SATS). I've come to terms with this by saying...this is just who U2 are, a combination of lack of desire to revisit some of those songs and a production/musical issue (like Bono probably can't nail the falsetto in Lemon like he might want)
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
This is a real trend with like 4 of you guys... you completely misrepresent the other side. If you can't even understand the other side's point (sum up their point correctly), how do you expect to be taken seriously?
gvox
Ghost of Love
My point to you is once again you infuriatingly get wrapped up in the semantics of one sentence and focus on it to make your entire point and in the process, miss the entire context. Don't re-read me, re-read the entire statistical analysis presented, because, hate to tell ya, it doesn't support your side. And all you rebutted with was irrelevant deflects, frankly.
gvox
Ghost of Love
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
you're not taken seriously. you know that, right?
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
Is this the statistical analysis to which you refer?
Because that's the one I said did not present ("in and of itself") enough information to draw any reasonable conclusion, to which Mikal replied "Wrong", and you agreed with him...
gvox
Ghost of Love
See that quote you used there pal? Read the first sentence before the stats. Note the phrase "to add to the stats": the stats already so eloquently provided on the first page..I called it "the entire statistical analysis presented".
Does that sound like it's leading to an "in and of itself" comment to you?
You know, I'm having a hard time deciding if you do stuff like this to deliberately troll, or if you truly do lack basic comprehension / perceptive abilities.
Once more, you lost, but this time, at your inanely useless game of semantics which I dismantled in one post as opposed to 20.
(<-that means see yourself out)
Does that sound like it's leading to an "in and of itself" comment to you?
You know, I'm having a hard time deciding if you do stuff like this to deliberately troll, or if you truly do lack basic comprehension / perceptive abilities.
Once more, you lost, but this time, at your inanely useless game of semantics which I dismantled in one post as opposed to 20.
(<-that means see yourself out)ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
You've been way clearer than Gvox, thanks. The window analogy is really good... even with a shrinking window, they can still offer more variety.
They have to play the new songs, no problem
Rotate (some of?) the "warhorses"
Rotate the songs in the shrinking window
Do you agree? They could do some of this and not necessarily at the expense of the spectacle...
Salome
you are what you is
fully agree with this
and that's why I can't fully agree with this being a legitimate gripe
basically the band is treating the 90s like they treat the 80s
they play the biggest hits + 1 or 2 live favourite rockers and maybe 1 random song
only difference beings that this really only leaves the 90s with Achtung (personally I prefer Zooropa, but lets try to stay objective here) to draw from and possibly Gone (which I do think they'll start playing at some point this tour for this reason)
now my biggest problem with the setlist complaints is the pretence that if only U2 followed complainer's A logic somehow the setlist would be objectively "better"
really, better for who?
a bit laughable is that 98% of the complainers haven't even been to a show yet
which really makes me doubt the objectivity of it all
gvox
Ghost of Love
Oddly enough, he understood me loud and clear. Where does that leave you, exactly?
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
I think the big problem here that you fail to realize is that the majority of us do agree with you, we just know U2 will never change.
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
Did you catch the word "aside"? You left it out of your citation, but it plays a really important role in the sentence.
ZooMacPhisto800
War Child
I really appreciate that. I also know U2 probably won't change, I just get annoyed at how some "jump down your throat" and have no point at all. I can count a few of them on this board.
gvox
Ghost of Love
I don't. I do agree that yes, it could possibly be done, of course anything can possibly be done if they were to sit there and agonize over it again and again.
Would they enjoy themselves as much onstage? Doubtful.
Would mainstream audiences buy into the show as much, thereby providing the band with the much-needed 'vibe factor'? Doubtful.
Would 99% of the fans be happy to know that some of their favorite songs had been swapped out for others? Highly doubtful
Would it necessarily result in a better flow or more cohesive setlist? Highly doubtful to approaching an outright No.
