The Ultimate Setlist Question

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Static Or Non Static, that is the question...

  • I am generally OK with Static Setlists

    Votes: 48 55.2%
  • I am generally NOT OK with Static Setlists

    Votes: 39 44.8%

  • Total voters
    87
I'm completely ok with it when I'm actually at the show. And that's what really matters, right? If I'm actually in the building on U2 concert night, it really won't matter what they play. I'll have a ball.

But, yeah, they could mix it up some more. If only to appease the Interference crazies a little bit.
 
I'm okay with a setlist which is 85-90% static, as long as there is room for a few surprises. A 100% static setlist would NOT be cool.

I don't agree with the premise of the poll, and so I'm not voting.
 
I think the problem lies in how the setlist is structured, the repetition of the setlist formula of the last tours erases the conceptual side of it.

The only way anyone could really honestly complain about the setlist is if they attended more than 2 shows. 99% of the people attend no more than 2 shows. And if you were lucky enough to attend more than 2 shows? You should count yourself as just that, extremely lucky and enjoy the show!

I really get the impression that U2 don't like doing this much either... I think they feel they have to do it this way, which is, in fact, very un-U2.

Well given how you've demonstrated an unparalleled ability to read the most obscurely twisted things from people's posts here...I'm going to go with "Baseless Observations" for $300, Alex.

The question is misleading. It assumes that the setlist itself isn't ok if it is static. People look at that and say, "well of ourse static isn't ok" but surely given that they sub in 4 or so different sons each 2nd show in a city, and that the songs we are hearing are songs not played in 20 years or ever or whatever, surely static is a good thing in this instance, because I sure as shit want them to still be playing UV, and ES when I see them.

This is a huge point. Can you imagine if by the time they get to us they say 'haha we'll fix those bastards...alright guys, they want variety? Let's swap out UV, ES and UF for ______' I will be very disappointed and I know I'm not alone there.

If I'm disappointed by the setlist after seeing my first show because it's so similar to the other shows, I only have myself to blame for knowing the setlists backward and forward going into the show.

I'm not sure if the people who expect them to bust out with all these varied setlists are either complete fools or eternal optimists. :)

Paragraph 1: Exactly

Paragraph 2: I'm leaning 'people with entirely too much time on their hands' - that should cover off both categories nicely ;)


contrary to popular belief the other 89,842 non-interferencers in the crowd DO NOT give a shit about the set list. :|

NO, YOU DON'T SAY?!?! Man, are your numbers ever off. You're exaggerating. Can you accurately predict that? Have you taken a survey with a representative sample? Blah blah blah etc etc etc :lol:


Goddamn, I would pay good money to see that. :lol:

Bear suits for the win.

Look I understand what you mean by, blah, blah, blah, but no way yada, yada, yada. That's just :censored:

I mean what about blankety blank blank, etc, etc, etc?

Come on!!!

Do you ever get the feeling that you wake up every morning and it's like Groundhog Day, over and over and over and over and over and over and..

I'm okay with a setlist which is 85-90% static, as long as there is room for a few surprises. A 100% static setlist would NOT be cool.

I don't agree with the premise of the poll, and so I'm not voting.

No offense Elfa but I think this is where the question is a bit flawed. There is a percentage of each city's U2 experience that is in fact varied and is not static.
 
My thoughts are ciphoned from the fact I am a huge tech/production geek.

I think PG Canada most eloquently stated the reason why this age-old question really is moot.

Yes, I would love to hear a varied setlist every night as this band has such a deep catalog to choose from. Yes, I would go out on a limb and say that half of the songs they are playing this tour should not be played (at least not every night) like Streets, ISHFWILF, and WOWY. But we have to remember that they are a band that builds a 'show' and not just a concert. Willie recently said this very thing that through rehearsal and the first few shows they build the show much like a theatrical production.

We have to keep in mind what actually happens every time they change the list of songs in their set (and these are just a few things that come off the top of my mind)

- instruments need to be tuned for the particular song
- lyrics have to be loaded into Bono's teleprompter
- the metronome sequence has to be loaded in to the in-ear-monitors
- the digital soundboard settings have to be pre-programmed
- any DAT or other recorded 'sounds' need to be prepped and triggered
- any other musicians need to be ready to play the song
- lighting sequences need to be preprogrammed
- video content needs to be recorded, sequenced, and programmed

Now unfortunately I am using the word 'needs' a lot, but this is just how this band operates - they typically do not wing it, but like to have their look and sound polished.

I think the two extremes really are Pearl Jam and U2. PJ changes their setlist every single night, and sometimes add songs in the course of a night. The trade off is sound and vision - the songs do not always sound as good as they could and the visuals are truly static - solid color light cues typically. Now I have loved all the PJ shows I have gone to and it was for those very reasons - I really never expected to see anything stunning (the last one I saw at MSG had some simple painted backdrops and truss coverings that I actually thought were cheesy and unnecessary - those guys should really play on a rectangular stage, no frills and PAR cans) Whereas U2 is ALL about the spectacle - maybe to the point where the dynamic virtue of their live show actually suffers. (I cringed every time Bono and the Edge did 'the bull' routine last tour, or was it the one before...)

I really think the fact that they still play Streets every night with some red motif is a farce, however if they didn't, that would be like PJ playing a show without Alive or Even Flow.

As much as I love the fact that the band is as interested in the look of their show as anyone else, I do think it sometimes cripples them and I would actually pay double the price for a ticket if I knew I was walking into a show where there was no setlist, and that Willie and the boys were going to make it all work on the fly with no preconceptions.

Unfortunately I do not think that is going to happen in my lifetime.
 
27 different songs have been played in the past four shows, with an average of 23 songs played per gig. The current set has gone well past static; it's the fucking Rock of Gibraltar at this point.

I'm not OK with that, no.
 
I don't care if the setlist is static. If I ever got to see U2 live I would never go to more than one show, so I don't see what's to complain about. I don't think the band is banking on playing to the same crowd every night.

What's more important is that some rarities are static, and that the band aren't fickle about playing them. Constant playing of TUF and UV so far is a miracle that should continue, whether it means a static setlist or not. I'd rather see 'warhorses' rotated instead, there's so many to choose from.
 
I am definitely NOT OK with date I being the same as every date I, especially when my friends and I booked our tickets for first dates with presale codes in more than one city and I'll never get the chance to hear variation. That sucks big time!
 
I don't think the question necessarily implies that static setlists are bad (as some are suggesting).

thank you, it doesn't... I thought I was pretty even keel about this by giving the general pros for both sides although I'm sure I missed a few of the more obscure reasons for both.

Look, deep down, you are either fundamentally ok with the Setlist staying the same or you’re not, it isn't rocket science...
 
I am definitely NOT OK with date I being the same as every date I, especially when my friends and I booked our tickets for first dates with presale codes in more than one city and I'll never get the chance to hear variation. That sucks big time!

U2 are not playing for people like you. They're playing for the other 79,917 people who DON'T have tickets to two different date I shows. How is this so hard to understand? We all know how U2 plays shows, if you really wanted variety, you would not have bought all date I shows, you would have either bought all the dates in one city, or a date I in one city, a date II in another and a date III in another. That's what I did, and I know I will get some songs varied, and also some variation in the snippets and cool moments, guaranteed. :shrug:
 
The only way anyone could really honestly complain about the setlist is if they attended more than 2 shows. 99% of the people attend no more than 2 shows. And if you were lucky enough to attend more than 2 shows? You should count yourself as just that, extremely lucky and enjoy the show!



Well given how you've demonstrated an unparalleled ability to read the most obscurely twisted things from people's posts here...I'm going to go with "Baseless Observations" for $300, Alex.



This is a huge point. Can you imagine if by the time they get to us they say 'haha we'll fix those bastards...alright guys, they want variety? Let's swap out UV, ES and UF for ______' I will be very disappointed and I know I'm not alone there.



Paragraph 1: Exactly

Paragraph 2: I'm leaning 'people with entirely too much time on their hands' - that should cover off both categories nicely ;)




NO, YOU DON'T SAY?!?! Man, are your numbers ever off. You're exaggerating. Can you accurately predict that? Have you taken a survey with a representative sample? Blah blah blah etc etc etc :lol:




Bear suits for the win.



Do you ever get the feeling that you wake up every morning and it's like Groundhog Day, over and over and over and over and over and over and..



No offense Elfa but I think this is where the question is a bit flawed. There is a percentage of each city's U2 experience that is in fact varied and is not static.

Great points. If you're lucky enough to have the time and money to attend many U2 shows, then you should recognize...that you're lucky enough to have the time and money to attend many U2 shows (and most fans aren't). U2 is playing for the 89,842 fans and not the 158 fans. Even if it would be easy to mix up the setlist a little more...this still isn't justified for the number of repeaters. Count me in with the group of people who will be pissed if UV or UF get dropped. And this probably goes without saying, but U2 doesn't tour so that hardcore fans can have great bootleg collections.
 
Well, judging by the results so far, I think that going forward the "there are a lot of people on this board that agree with me" argument can no longer be used since the same can be said for the opposing argument.

Very interesting...
 
I am generally fine with static setlists if the static setlist in question is a good one. I'm not entirely convinced that the current one is, but I do think it will evolve into something better.
 
...and my vote (ok with the setlists), puts us in the lead

-dan
 
I'm down with static lists as long as they're songs I generally like.

Bringing back tracks like "Ultra Violet" and "The Unforgettable Fire" is also a huge plus.
 
I'm down with static lists as long as they're songs I generally like.

Bringing back tracks like "Ultra Violet" and "The Unforgettable Fire" is also a huge plus.

:up: Yeah, I vastly prefer the current setlist to pretty much any Vertigo setlist already (no matter how varied those were or weren't). And I'm only going to one show, so :shrug:
 
I don't have a problem with static set lists. I have a problem with THIS static set list. Apart from UV and UF it's just so uninspired and frankly unbecoming to the spectacle. It's all just a bit slow, which is partly the fault of NLOTH cracking album that it is not being particularly well endowed with stadium songs and quality up tempo tracks. At this point they'd be better dusting off something like Until the End of the World or New Year's Day to provide a bit of oompf before the Unknown Caller -> Unforgettable Fire section. Discotheque or Mofo would fit in reasonably well as well.

Arguably this is a far less scripted show than Popmart or Zoo tv, there's less in the way of VT or pre-staged lighting segues and the vast majority of the lighting cues are certainly lovely but generic enough to be plugged into various songs.
 
I don't have a problem with static set lists. I have a problem with THIS static set list. Apart from UV and UF it's just so uninspired and frankly unbecoming to the spectacle. It's all just a bit slow, which is partly the fault of NLOTH cracking album that it is not being particularly well endowed with stadium songs and quality up tempo tracks. At this point they'd be better dusting off something like Until the End of the World or New Year's Day to provide a bit of oompf before the Unknown Caller -> Unforgettable Fire section. Discotheque or Mofo would fit in reasonably well as well.

Arguably this is a far less scripted show than Popmart or Zoo tv, there's less in the way of VT or pre-staged lighting segues and the vast majority of the lighting cues are certainly lovely but generic enough to be plugged into various songs.
That's it. We don't have nothing against static setlists.
Zoo TV and Popmart had it, but they were good setlists because they did fit the more complex concept of the show. On the 360 Tour we're missing a conceptual side (that even Vertigo Tour had!...) and a more or less static setlist with poor choices of fluence.
 
U2 are not playing for people like you. They're playing for the other 79,917 people who DON'T have tickets to two different date I shows. How is this so hard to understand? We all know how U2 plays shows, if you really wanted variety, you would not have bought all date I shows, you would have either bought all the dates in one city, or a date I in one city, a date II in another and a date III in another. That's what I did, and I know I will get some songs varied, and also some variation in the snippets and cool moments, guaranteed. :shrug:


Not easy to do when you panic about getting a good seat because you know you will be seven months pregnant by then and nobody really assured you that a second date is gonna be released. I am actually privileged insomuch that Stand by me after ISHFWIALF at Milan I was a total surprise and we did not get a space chat, so there might be some variation from London I after all.


Anyway, those who complain about the quality of the setlist itself will forget everything once they are there, because the show is absolutely amazing and whatever they play will make them happy. I was even happy during Beautiful Day...
 
I think that at this stage in their career the band can perform anything and still have a good show, but I would like to see a solid setlist for all fans.

In order to do that, Bono needs to cut out about 10 minutes of talk time, the Desmond Tutu message and Space chat need to be cut. That frees up about 20 minutes. Now the band could play a 25 track setlist, about 2hrs. - 20min.

The Ultimate "Realistic" Setlist


01 - Breathe
02 - Electric Co.
03 - Get On Your Boots
04 - Gloria
05 - No Line On The Horizon
06 - Beautiful Day
07 - Magnificent
08 - Desire
09 - Stay
10 - Drowning Man
11 - Electrical Storm
12 - Unknown Caller
13 - The Unforgettable Fire
14 - City Of Blinding Lights
15 - Discotheque
16 - I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight "Remix"
17 - Sunday Bloody Sunday
18 - Pride
19 - One
20 - Where The Streets Have No Name
21 - Walk On
22 - Ultraviolet
23 - With Or Without You
24 - Moment Of Surrender
25 - "40"


I think that is a realistic setlist that could be played every night and appeals to all fans from the diehards to casual, and still includes the "classics". I think a U2 show should have at least one track from each album. There are of course some tracks that could be alternated in to the setlist.
 
Back
Top Bottom