Too much claw, not enough body! - Complaints about the setlist

[No spoken words]

Very reasonable thoughts & addressing the issue at hand. Thank you.

How is it that most U2 cover bands can pull off a better setlist than the real band? It's not that difficult to remember your own songs when you are experienced professionals.

dave

While his post was most certainly reasonable, what you, like other complainers are really saying is "Hey! You agree with me! So your point is valid!". And of course, you probably ignored the part where he expects to enjoy whatever show he attends anyway....which is what most of us are saying, actually.

 

[mikal]

Mikal, I just noticed you are a blind sheep

yes. it was time for me to face the facts that there's just no other explanation for me generally being happy with everything that U2 does.

 

[mikal]

While his post was most certainly reasonable, what you, like other complainers are really saying is "Hey! You agree with me! So your point is valid!". And of course, you probably ignored the part where he expects to enjoy whatever show he attends anyway....which is what most of us are saying, actually.

i agree with you. this is such an awesome post, i could just roll around in it.

 

[BVS]

Very reasonable thoughts & addressing the issue at hand. Thank you.

How is it that most U2 cover bands can pull off a better setlist than the real band? It's not that difficult to remember your own songs when you are experienced professionals.

dave

Very, Very interesting since alot of cover bands have day jobs as well.

You guys honestly think it's that they don't remember the songs? Granted U2 are not the most pull off an improv band that exists, but I really don't think this is the reason, they are competant enough and are surrounded by people who know their songs enough to pick up a new song from their catalog.

 

[Dalton]

This problem could be easily solved if U2 would just take the time to record all of their songs and find some way to disseminate them to their fans. Then fans would be able to listen to any songs they want ...

 

[daveydave]

"imagine if the internet were around when zoo tv was happening? or popmart? i mean, i know it was around but not like we have today where we know what song is being played 30 seconds after it's started "

a.) Sure, there was no twitter - but next day service was quite accessible.

even if somebody did...why does it make it less enjoyable for you that you're seeing the same setlist in say, foxboro, that they played for the people in berlin? does it matter one bit? is it going to suddenly make u2 suck while they're playing? no.

b.) I think Dublin has an argument given the fact that they have played 33 songs in 13 gigs. NYD doesn't cut it over 3 nights when they had already played Crazy (proper), P-Girl and E-Storm in other cities. It may not bother you, but when I see them multiple nights in one city, it is quite boring when I can almost hear the next song coming while between song.

"u2 have done an excellent job of mixing it up"

C.) 100% agree & encouraged by this - but yes, it is by their standards and not their contemporaries. My thoughts are with the Dublin and International fans in attendance this past week.

"as for the stage, i haven't seen many but i've seen a few complaints about the visuals not being awesome. it usually takes them half a leg if not a full leg to hit full stride with the visuals and see what works. also bear in mind too that for awhile when these concerts start it looks like there is a lot of daylight. that should change at least when they're here in the US for leg 2"

d.) The Claw is great! Love it! But does the production sometimes get in the way of a reasonable amount of change? That is the question I am asking. A reasonable amount of change in order or a few swapped songs during multiple nights would be nice. We all know they are not going to become a completely different band overnight.

 

[daveydave]

While his post was most certainly reasonable, what you, like other complainers are really saying is "Hey! You agree with me! So your point is valid!". And of course, you probably ignored the part where he expects to enjoy whatever show he attends anyway....which is what most of us are saying, actually.

NSW - again...word placement is for politics - not here. I didn't say I would not enjoy myself at the shows. I'm just saying they can do better without very much work on their part. After all these years, I'd just like to see them "leave their fear behind." Again, it's the one area they do not do well in.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Here is a question for the "other side"; do you honestly think that U2 wants to do varied setlists - whatever your definition of that is?

Do you think they are bored with what they play night in and night out? And if so, why have they not done so in the past 20 so years?

Anyone wanna take a crack at this? Anyone?

 

[DubbalinGirl]

they actually have to PLAY the songs you guys are wanting from this setlist.

Good lord, we're not asking them to invent a new method for splitting atoms or a cure for cancer. We're asking them to play some different songs that THEY wrote and THEY recorded, so I'm guessing they know how to do that. Also, we're not asking them to do anything that any number of OTHER artists can and have done. You say this like we're asking them to be exceptional, we're not.

What I'm looking for: just one experience where I go to a show and am blown away but what they pull out of their bag of tricks. I stood next to my sister the last time REM played Boston and she lost her mind when they played something (forget what, I'm not a fan) that they hadn't played in 15+ years, it completely rocked her world, not just once but a few times that night. They hadn't performed those on that tour before and they didn't again. There was significant variation from night to night, so she was reading the internet leading up to it and still didn't know what she was going to see that night. She had an idea but it was never the same. And there's no arguing their catalog is as extensive as U2's. They wrote and recorded their own stuff. So what's the difference? Lack of accommodations for the stage show?

I don't buy the "they play to casual fans" argument, for the number of times Bono bitches about seeing the same faces over and over again. Unless he's trying to drive them away with tedium and boredom. Maybe it won't matter to me this time since I'm only going to two shows, but they better be two DIFFERENT shows, or I could've had an end table to go with my sectional.

 

[LemonMelon]

While his post was most certainly reasonable, what you, like other complainers are really saying is "Hey! You agree with me! So your point is valid!". And of course, you probably ignored the part where he expects to enjoy whatever show he attends anyway....which is what most of us are saying, actually.

I have my complaints about the setlist, most rather minor. I wish they would rotate about 3-4 songs each night, I wish they would include a few more rockers into the set, I wish they would play more songs from NLOTH (8-9 vs. 6-7), and I wish they would experiment with the opener. I don't believe that any of these requests would drastically alter anyone's experience at the show, and I don't want the band to remove the staples. I simply believe it would be an all-around improvement that I think most of us can agree is worth a shot.

All that being said, two things must be kept in mind:

1. I only expect what I pay for, namely, a U2 concert. While it is entirely possible for U2 to perform a 23 song set exclusively featuring songs of theirs that I dislike, this current set would not mirror that. Most of it I very much enjoy and would love to hear in person, given the opportunity.

2. I am not the only one at the gig. Do I think Stuck, Elevation and Vertigo are the Holy Grail of U2? Hell no. But someone, somewhere in the audience heard one of those songs on the radio, completely oblivious as to whom it was, and was completely blown away. I need to respect that. U2 does. My only quibble is that it's entirely possible to perform 1-2 of those each night while simultaneously throwing a bone to the guy who heard U2 for the first time in 1982 and was completely blown away.

 

[Chrisedge]

While I hate the complainers, I will bitch that they have added some OLD overplayed songs (UTEOTW, NYD, etc..) instead of some rehearsed songs (DM)...that said...the setlist bitching is really only an issue for people seeing more than one show, right?

How many of those are there out of all the folks seeing them?

Edited to add: People always bring up PJ and Bruce as examples. How about all the bands that are WORSE than U2? Depeche Mode, Coldplay, No Doubt, Foo Fighters, etc...all great bands live, but they may rotate out ONE song if you are lucky...

 

[daveydave]

You guys honestly think it's that they don't remember the songs? Granted U2 are not the most pull off an improv band that exists, but I really don't think this is the reason, they are competant enough and are surrounded by people who know their songs enough to pick up a new song from their catalog.

a.) It's either they don't know there songs well enough to play them
b.) They are limited by the production & in lock-down mode
or
c.) They are somewhat apathetic to the greatest fan base of any living band.

& of course - they have very competent people. Absolutely some of the best!

 

[BVS]

What I'm looking for: just one experience where I go to a show and am blown away but what they pull out of their bag of tricks. I stood next to my sister the last time REM played Boston and she lost her mind when they played something (forget what, I'm not a fan) that they hadn't played in 15+ years,

You mean like Electrical Storm, UltraViolet, or UF?

I don't buy the "they play to casual fans" argument, for the number of times Bono bitches about seeing the same faces over and over again.

Well of course the casual fans aren't in first row, but if you honestly think that over 75% of the audience have their whole catalog or even close, I think you're sadly mistaken.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

a.) It's either they don't know there songs well enough to play them
b.) They are limited by the production & in lock-down mode
or
c.) They are somewhat apathetic to the greatest fan base of any living band.

ok, lets say it's d.) all of the above.

what now? Don't you think U2 would change this if they really thought it was a problem?

 

[BVS]

a.) It's either they don't know there songs well enough to play them
b.) They are limited by the production & in lock-down mode
or
c.) They are somewhat apathetic to the greatest fan base of any living band.

& of course - they have very competent people. Absolutely some of the best!

Or that's just not what they want to do. Some people strive on structure, even some artists. People are different. Some sales people strive on planning, others by the seat of their pants.

It all goes back to the Townshend quote that you never answered my question about, this is where they feel comfortable.

 

[popshopper]

Good lord, we're not asking them to invent a new method for splitting atoms or a cure for cancer. We're asking them to play some different songs that THEY wrote and THEY recorded, so I'm guessing they know how to do that. Also, we're not asking them to do anything that any number of OTHER artists can and have done. You say this like we're asking them to be exceptional, we're not.

What I'm looking for: just one experience where I go to a show and am blown away but what they pull out of their bag of tricks. I stood next to my sister the last time REM played Boston and she lost her mind when they played something (forget what, I'm not a fan) that they hadn't played in 15+ years, it completely rocked her world, not just once but a few times that night. They hadn't performed those on that tour before and they didn't again. There was significant variation from night to night, so she was reading the internet leading up to it and still didn't know what she was going to see that night. She had an idea but it was never the same. And there's no arguing their catalog is as extensive as U2's. They wrote and recorded their own stuff. So what's the difference? Lack of accommodations for the stage show?

I don't buy the "they play to casual fans" argument, for the number of times Bono bitches about seeing the same faces over and over again. Unless he's trying to drive them away with tedium and boredom. Maybe it won't matter to me this time since I'm only going to two shows, but they better be two DIFFERENT shows, or I could've had an end table to go with my sectional.

U2 are are playing to on average 60,000 people a night. They are CASUAL fans, I know diehards love to pretend they're the centre of the universe, but they're not. They may make their way into the pit most nights (and that's why the pit is there) but the overwhelming majority of people are at there for their only concert on the tour, U2 cater for these folk and the changes they make are a bone for the diehards but in no way should U2 conjure a show just to please folk who'll frankly never be pleased even if U2 did every rare song they ever wanted but then had the audacity to do it exactly the same the next night.

U2 for better or worse spend a lot of time crafting an overall experience in terms of setlist flow, lighting, stage direction and video. They're not going to, in their eyes throw, all that work out and potentially, just so 5% of the audience get additional jollies. As I said I saw Springsteen this summer who did a radical setlist which was heavy on rarities, barely touched his new album and was pretty light on hits to 50,000 folk which at best only kinda worked, even my mate who is a true diehard (who'd seen him 4 or 5 times already this tour) admitted it just didn't work as well as other shows he'd seen. That's the risk mixing it up too much takes, U2 are a band who just don't take that risk, and they're probably better for it.

U2 are somewhat limited by their longstanding decision to have just the 4 of them play the songs with an offstage keyboardist on the songs where just loops don't work which limits them slightly in terms of what they can just pull out during a show. They're also limited in these concerts by the time factor, they start pretty late to allow a significant portion of the show to be in darkness and that means they're pressing right up against the curfew most nights, so a static list helps with that timing.

 

[daveydave]

Edited to add: People always bring up PJ and Bruce as examples. How about all the bands that are WORSE than U2? Depeche Mode, Coldplay, No Doubt, Foo Fighters, etc...all great bands live, but they may rotate out ONE song if you are lucky...

Everyone would like to see some different stuff.

About the bands that are worst than U2...I like some of them, but I would definitely call them all out for the same element I called U2 out on. They fail to surprise at most shows. Is it too much to ask in the internet age to be surprised every once and a while? Or shall I be hung for my one criticism of the band?

It's really the one last thing they can improve on...why not ask for it?

dave

 

[Dalton]

This problem could be easily solved if U2 would just take the time to record all of their songs and find some way to disseminate them to their fans. Then fans would be able to listen to any songs they want ...

Oh look!

 

[popshopper]

Everyone would like to see some different stuff.

About the bands that are worst than U2...I like some of them, but I would definitely call them all out for the same element I called U2 out on. They fail to surprise at most shows. Is it too much to ask in the internet age to be surprised every once and a while? Or shall I be hung for my one criticism of the band?

It's really the one last thing they can improve on...why not ask for it?

dave

Er, they are changing it most nights to a limited degree but they played 33 different songs in a 23 song set over 3 nights, that's 3 different songs a night. They've decided on a basic set which they feel best serves this tour. And having actually seen it in person I can't argue that it doesn't work, it certainly does. Given that it does work and it does flow, why should they radically change it up just for the small percentage of folk who follow them religiously. Just how much change are you wanting. They've found a formula they think works for this show, and they're largely sticking to it. Can't blame them. They're rehearsing two true rarities at the moment, but certainly from Willie's diary they're struggling to fit one of them into the overall concert experience and are hold off until they figure it out. But by your criteria in this internet age, Drowning Man probably isn't a surprise anymore.

As I said saw the master of setlist change, Springsteen pretty much cater to the diehards a couple of weeks ago, for large periods a boisterous Scottish audience was flat due the song selection and poor flow. I'm sure on the nights it works for Springsteen it's absolutely amazing, but there's nights with his approach it just doesn't and if you only see 1 of his shows and it's a night where the setlist barely hangs together then you've got a poorer concert experience than frankly it should be. U2 just don't take that risk.

 

[LemonMelon]

Most of your post is easy enough to agree with, but this I simply can't:

U2 are are playing to on average 60,000 people a night. They are CASUAL fans

U2 aren't playing to 60,000 casual fans a night. They're playing to maybe 45,000 (this is including those who have only heard a few tracks on the radio, seen some music videos, etc). I would assume that a casual fan = someone who actually owns a few albums. People who own JT and Achtung. They wouldn't shout "FLOWER CHILD!!!!" as if it's Freebird, but they know enough to get through the gig without being entirely confused. Now, if 3/4 of the audience is casual, it's fair for U2 to gear 3/4 of the set toward casuals. Still, that leaves 25% of the set open to more obscure album tracks, about 5-6 per night. And, assuming a small percentage of that 1/4 is aware of the sets, it would be fair for U2 to rotate those around for them.

But, fact is, life isn't fair, and neither are U2 gigs. If you don't like it, don't go. I wish U2 would do as I say, but to expect such a thing is fucking insane. Constantly whining about the sets isn't a whole lot better, although it is a fun way to pass the time.

 

[zwervers2]

First of all you're a rarity.

The Bruce thing has been brought up about 169 times but since I haven't seen you post I'll touch upon it. That works for a Bruce crowd, it wouldn't work for a U2 crowd, like it or not the majority of a U2 crowd is "casual fans". They want to sing along to WOWY and hear One if not the show is going to die a slow death because the crowd will not get into it, especially in a stadium.


Well that's pretty much what they are doing maybe not 6-8 holes, but we're pretty new into the tour. You must have hated PopMart.


So two Dubliners said that? That's it, I'm shocked as well, how could they do that to Dublin? We have video of a whole fucking stadium going nuts and singing SBS, we have reports that Bono may have even cried :gasp:, and hearing what I have there was no phoning it in...

Bono did not cry after streets.

 

[zwervers2]

And, thank you for the lol moment of my day, referring to Jofo as a poster with taste and humor....that's code for "he agrees with me and I agree with him".

yeah, that is what I meant.

...you know me better than I know myself apparantly
hey, there is a song in that...

 

[BVS]

Bono did not cry after streets.

Sleepwalking bastard

 

[zwervers2]

Sleepwalking bastard

I had a big bold man standing next to me crying during UV but that is a different story

 

[zoocarolina]

U2 are are playing to on average 60,000 people a night. They are CASUAL fans, I know diehards love to pretend they're the centre of the universe, but they're not. They may make their way into the pit most nights (and that's why the pit is there) but the overwhelming majority of people are at there for their only concert on the tour, U2 cater for these folk and the changes they make are a bone for the diehards but in no way should U2 conjure a show just to please folk who'll frankly never be pleased even if U2 did every rare song they ever wanted but then had the audacity to do it exactly the same the next night.

U2 for better or worse spend a lot of time crafting an overall experience in terms of setlist flow, lighting, stage direction and video. They're not going to, in their eyes throw, all that work out and potentially, just so 5% of the audience get additional jollies. As I said I saw Springsteen this summer who did a radical setlist which was heavy on rarities, barely touched his new album and was pretty light on hits to 50,000 folk which at best only kinda worked, even my mate who is a true diehard (who'd seen him 4 or 5 times already this tour) admitted it just didn't work as well as other shows he'd seen. That's the risk mixing it up too much takes, U2 are a band who just don't take that risk, and they're probably better for it.

U2 are somewhat limited by their longstanding decision to have just the 4 of them play the songs with an offstage keyboardist on the songs where just loops don't work which limits them slightly in terms of what they can just pull out during a show. They're also limited in these concerts by the time factor, they start pretty late to allow a significant portion of the show to be in darkness and that means they're pressing right up against the curfew most nights, so a static list helps with that timing.

Well said and I'm part of a selfish group that wants to hear rarities. If we get Drowning Man at some point, I will be extremely happy, but do we have any room to complain, hell we already got Electrical Storm, last tour we got An Cat Dubh (would never have guessed that in a million years!! and on DVD!!!), The Ocean (are you serious!!), Gloria, etc., pretty remarkable considering they are fairly conservative. I too thought that Dublin III would break the bank and we would have gotten DM, but Stay is good as well! I think we bitch to bitch, maybe they should hold a contest where the winner gets a personal concert in their backyard and all we have to do is give them 40+ songs we'd like to hear and they pick 25.

 

[popshopper]

Most of your post is easy enough to agree with, but this I simply can't:



U2 aren't playing to 60,000 casual fans a night. They're playing to maybe 45,000 (this is including those who have only heard a few tracks on the radio, seen some music videos, etc). I would assume that a casual fan = someone who actually owns a few albums. People who own JT and Achtung. They wouldn't shout "FLOWER CHILD!!!!" as if it's Freebird, but they know enough to get through the gig without being entirely confused. Now, if 3/4 of the audience is casual, it's fair for U2 to gear 3/4 of the set toward casuals. Still, that leaves 25% of the set open to more obscure album tracks, about 5-6 per night. And, assuming a small percentage of that 1/4 is aware of the sets, it would be fair for U2 to rotate those around for them.

But, fact is, life isn't fair, and neither are U2 gigs. If you don't like it, don't go. I wish U2 would do as I say, but to expect such a thing is fucking insane. Constantly whining about the sets isn't a whole lot better, although it is a fun way to pass the time.

15,000 a night aren't following them to multiple shows. Could they play more rarities and get away with it, probably but hell they're playing 7 songs off the new album, 4 songs some nights off Unforgettable Fire and a non single from Achtung Baby, it's not just a greatest hits tour. As I keep saying, they're catering for people who only see them once a tour while trying to throw out the odd titbit to people who see them more than that.

 

[DubbalinGirl]

As I keep saying, they're catering for people who only see them once a tour while trying to throw out the odd titbit to people who see them more than that.

That's fine for you. I guess I expect more from the self-proclaimed "best band in the world" and ask for a little more. I'm not even looking for Flower Child. Just stretch your legs a bit more than the same old same old.

But, fact is, life isn't fair, and neither are U2 gigs. If you don't like it, don't go. I wish U2 would do as I say, but to expect such a thing is fucking insane.

I don't think it's insane. I think it's delivering a concert experience other bands have proven is possible. And I went from 11 shows last tour to 2 this tour. So I've put my money where my mouth is.

That's the risk mixing it up too much takes, U2 are a band who just don't take that risk, and they're probably better for it.

But we don't know that now, do we? And probably never will. And for the one Springsteen show you said sucked, I have a handful of friends here who saw quite a few last time around and say the complete opposite....they lived and died for a rarities show like that. Why aren't I allowed to expect that from "my" favorite band?

 

[DubbalinGirl]

U2 are are playing to on average 60,000 people a night. They are CASUAL fans, I know diehards love to pretend they're the centre of the universe, but they're not. They may make their way into the pit most nights (and that's why the pit is there) but the overwhelming majority of people are at there for their only concert on the tour, U2 cater for these folk and the changes they make are a bone for the diehards but in no way should U2 conjure a show just to please folk who'll frankly never be pleased even if U2 did every rare song they ever wanted but then had the audacity to do it exactly the same the next night.

U2 for better or worse spend a lot of time crafting an overall experience in terms of setlist flow, lighting, stage direction and video. They're not going to, in their eyes throw, all that work out and potentially, just so 5% of the audience get additional jollies. As I said I saw Springsteen this summer who did a radical setlist which was heavy on rarities, barely touched his new album and was pretty light on hits to 50,000 folk which at best only kinda worked, even my mate who is a true diehard (who'd seen him 4 or 5 times already this tour) admitted it just didn't work as well as other shows he'd seen. That's the risk mixing it up too much takes, U2 are a band who just don't take that risk, and they're probably better for it.

U2 are somewhat limited by their longstanding decision to have just the 4 of them play the songs with an offstage keyboardist on the songs where just loops don't work which limits them slightly in terms of what they can just pull out during a show. They're also limited in these concerts by the time factor, they start pretty late to allow a significant portion of the show to be in darkness and that means they're pressing right up against the curfew most nights, so a static list helps with that timing.

All a great post for sure, but how is U2 different from REM, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam?

 

[daveydave]

Or that's just not what they want to do. Some people strive on structure, even some artists. People are different. Some sales people strive on planning, others by the seat of their pants.

It all goes back to the Townshend quote that you never answered my question about, this is where they feel comfortable.

I actually appreciate that from Pete...at least I know I should only go to one show. The problem is that comfortable lock down is boring on multiple nights.

I don't know what the results would be, but I think it would be interesting to survey 50 concert go'ers as to:
a.) They have ever been to a U2 show before
b.) They are or have already seen multiple shows on the tour.

I think that number of repeaters is pretty high.

 

[No spoken words]

I had a big bold man standing next to me crying during UV but that is a different story

That was me, remember. That's how I know you better than you know yourself!