unkown caller gone???

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
In all honesty though the ticket prices could be so much worse. $250 is pretty crazy but you can still see U2 for $100 and have a very good seat. Hell, $40 gets you a pretty good seat. I think U2's camp held their ground on the ticket prices.

But for the next few tours prices might be a bit more....:crack:
 
zoopop said:
This Live Nation theory has got me really thinking.

Do you think U2 were told to make a "family" friendly setlist? Thus not being able to play much 90's material. Come to think of it the 360 Tour is U2's most family oriented show. Nothing really radical happens except......laser Bono??

I miss U2 coming out to Bullet for the encore with a image of kid taking a gun out a bag....:sad:
Click to expand...

:hmm:

I don't think U2 were terribly un-family friendly....I mean it's not like going to see NIN or Manson...

But this was my son's 1st show (he's 8) and I do notice A LOT more kids at the shows, but it could have to do with the fact that their core audience (30/40 somethings) have kids and are willing to bring them to shows. If I had a time machine I'd take my kid to the Red Rocks show.

Maybe too--we are jaded. After the show my son was asking me questions about the images during SBS and about the Desmond Tutu part.
 
I really try not to be a "setlist bitcher," but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed with the way things are turning out.

Lots of good stuff - love that UTEOTW is making appearances, love that YBR debuted, of course love hearing TUF and most of everything else they're playing. Oh, and thrilled that Pride has gone by the wayside.

But the loss of Unknown Caller is really disappointing, as is the number of songs off ATYCLB.

But oh well, I can either go or not go, and I'm still going to go to Vegas and Vancouver and have a great time. But I'm still a little dismayed, even with so many good things about the show and setlist.

Ah, such is the life of a U2 fan. :wink:
 
Quite honestly I think they have mixed it up more than I thought they would on this tour. I predicted very static setlists from the get go. Stadium crowds with one of the coolest stages ever (IMO). The focus is on the general fan and the production. I have said it before, I do not have a problem with it. If you see one show, its excellent.

I do think they have some setlist pacing errors, mainly Breathe opening, but otherwise the setlists are pretty good for the most part looking at them from a one show perspective. I do agree, dropping new material is a mistake, that should stay. Other than that though the setlists are fine. They are designed to see one time and not multiple shows like most of us attend. My wife went to one show and her first U2 show and thought it was great. The setlist was pretty static though other than YBR but she could have cared less about that obviously. I also have enjoyed the shows even though the setlist isnt earth shattering or full of mix ups. I think the production and the bands playing and performance are very good this tour. So I'm happy with that for the most part.

I do agree, Vertigo blew this tour away setlist wise. But it had a whole different feel to it and that type of setlist mix up fit the feel of the tour and staging perfectly. I think U2 could mix it up more this tour if they wanted, but they simply don't want to. :shrug: I seriously doubt Live Nation has anything to do with that. They wouldn't have even considered playing YBR if they did.

I could be completely wrong but I almost get the feel that the first two legs are like a warm up for the shows next year that should have a whole new albums worth of material to draw from as well. That could be very interesting. Then again, it could be more new material but be just as static. :shrug:
 
zoopop said:
I agree and I'm really starting to freak out about this having a major effect on the creative/uncanny side of U2.

U2 signed a contract with Live Nation and no telling what is written in that contract.
Click to expand...

Is that why there hasn't been one "all fucked up" in UltraViolet? :hmm:
 
I'm going to try to put my own personal disappointment with both the tour and the album aside, but I think collectively we're hitting on some good points here...

Re: "Family Friendly" setlist...I don't think it's necessarily "family friendly" but "radio friendly" and thus "setlist/live friendly" and thus "whatever fills the house friendly". One of the articles I read recently, mentioned both that the songs didn't go over well on rock radio (Boots, specifically) and in RS Bono said sometimes he's disappointed that the fans aren't as cool as he'd like sometimes when they don't like the new tunes. To me, this is interpreted as, "casual fan" unfriendly album doesn't get a lot of play, thus "casual fan" concert-goers go to a show and don't want to hear songs they haven't even heard on the radio (or were influenced to buy because they heard it on the radio)...so following this chain, here in the US anyway, the sponsors say "Hey, you gotta play the stuff the people actually coming to these shows know, and quite honestly, they don't know the new stuff" (either because of no/little radio play or they didn't buy it).

So for whatever reason, but presumably the above logic, the tour to promote this album is rapidly becoming the tour to promote five songs on the album and is more of a Greatest Hits tour. That is unfortunate. While I was overjoyed to see UF and Ultraviolet return, there was a lot of "HUH?" from that "casual fan" universe. Personally I'm surprised not to hear either SUC or Being Born and am hugely disappointed Unknown Caller met an untimely demise because I actually liked it live and thought the video with it was cool....and I don't throw compliments like that around lightly! :lol:
 
chrissybaby said:
Is that why there hasn't been one "all fucked up" in UltraViolet? :hmm:
Click to expand...

LOL, I thought I was the only one missing that.

If U2 just added some more rock to the encore, drop "Still Haven't Found" or "Stuck" (cant do both), and replace Elevation with a rocking 90's song the set would be perfect.
 
I miss the boldness of the ZooTV opening slots, too. But it's a different time and different material.

I can only speak from my mediocre seats behind the stage at Chicago II, but that crowd was not eating up four new songs. They responded to Boots, but it felt like U2 was hustling to get the new material in there while they still had the crowd.

And Unknown Caller completely lost the section I was in. I know the crowd on the floor was probably more rabid, but UC went over like a lead balloon for the casual concert-goer. And YBR almost stalled the show from my section. Which it too bad - the new stuff sounded fantastic.

I'd say the 360 crowd and the ZooTV crowd are really different. The 360 crowd is probably universally older and less eager to hear new stuff. I mean, that's obvious - these songs are just not connecting and some of these audiences are just sitting on their hands until they hear the hits.
 
david said:
What I miss about the ZOO TV tour was that they were brave enough to believe in their new material that they'd play 10 songs and a Lou Reed cover everynight just so they wouldn't have to play their "80's" material. I wish they'd be confident enough in playing more songs from No Line as well as Your Blue Room and other rareties more often.
Click to expand...

true- but AB was massively more successful than NLOTH has been. I didn't go to one of the early shows but how did 10 new songs go down during the early part of the tour?

UC certainly wasn't a toilet break song in Europe (that I noticed anyway)- it does seem like the US just wants the more well known hits and isn't interested in anything else- perhaps this is the moment that U2 became the Rolling Stones??

as for the number of ATYCLB songs- well they often did 5 from AB on Vertigo tour- and they haven't exactly overplayed Stuck, Walk On and IALW- besides 2 of those don't get played every night. BD & E were massive hits so they're a no brainer really
 
I'll be seeing U2 at the end of the month for the 4th time in my life. If they can give me a show with at least 10 songs that I haven't seen in a live setting, then life is bliss.

6 from No Line (it was 7 :sad:)
UF, UV, Still Haven't Found, MLK (more of an intro really), Your Blue Room, and Stay.

Chances are pretty good that I'll be having a blast.

Sad to see that my all time favorite song Bad completely fell off the wagon. Seeing them play Until the End of the World would sort of make up for this. :drool:

:shifty: . o O (I say all this stuff like an ungreatful snob, but I know when the drums kick in for Breathe I'm going to lose it and go batshit crazy. I wonder how my daughter is gonna take seeing her dad like this? :D )
 
djparky said:
true- but AB was massively more successful than NLOTH has been. I didn't go to one of the early shows but how did 10 new songs go down during the early part of the tour?
Click to expand...

They actually went down fine. Zoo TV was ground breaking production even on the arena leg at the time. Combine that with the fact that it was almost impossible to get tickets if you weren't a member of Propaganda or just got lucky with Ticketmaster. Another words, it was pretty much diehards in the audience for the first and second legs. People were lucky to just get in the building during those legs. U2 were THE band and Achtung Baby was/is a great album and was selling very well at the time. So the setlist wasnt secondary, but it didn't really matter that they started with all Achtung material as a result of the U2 climate at the time. Not to mention, with the new style production (for U2 at the time), the new material fit it better.
 
I don't think U2 will get as bad as the Stones. There not that close to playing warhorse after warhorse after warhorse. Stones would never have it in them to open an encore with song like "Ultraviolet". Save the encore for Satisfaction or Jumping Jack Flash only.

The new songs rock. NLOTH, Magnificent, Boots, and Breathe sound great live. But the crowds need known rockers surrounding them. Maybe if they did:

Breathe
Magnificent
New Years Day
NLOTH
UTEOTW
Boots
Elevation
Beautiful Day
then slow it down. ..(Stuck, ISHF)

The crowd just needs something to get excited about and U2 seem to have a rollercoaster type setlist, too many ups and downs.
 
zoopop said:
In all honesty though the ticket prices could be so much worse. $250 is pretty crazy but you can still see U2 for $100 and have a very good seat. Hell, $40 gets you a pretty good seat. I think U2's camp held their ground on the ticket prices.

But for the next few tours prices might be a bit more....:crack:
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think if they can prove they can have the most successful tour of all time (during a worldwide recession to boot) without having astronomical ticket prices, then we won't have to worry about things going to high in the near future.

Vertigo made a ton of money, and had lower ticket prices in arenas in the US.
 
I think the problem I see is lack of boldness in the setlist--where are the stadium rockers and anthems? I literally may not go to the Rose Bowl since they have stopped playing Bad--THEIR BEST LIVE SONG. How are they not playing this? UTEOW only sparingly--are you kidding me>? No Fly!?!??!?!?!?!?!? No Gone!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? Nop EBTTRT!?!??!!??!?!?! Breathe as an opener is s stunner. As for the new songs--people are not connecting with them--period. The one thing that has stood out about U2 in the past is the show was ABOUT the new music. the fans demanded it, and the casual fans loved it too. The half baked NLOTH just falls short. Also, if you are going to play slow songs, they need to soar. UC doesn't. Neither does MOS--I hear many are leaving during MOS.

There just seems to be a disconnect about the setlist, and the album in general.
 
Let me just say this...U2 had more control in the past & the BALLS to do what they wanted to do when playing live, I also think that they are being told what to play or perhaps being suggested what to play to try & bring back the fans to sell out the shows becuase I had said it in the beginning that Stadium shows are History in the States.
 
ultraviolet353 said:
I think the problem I see is lack of boldness in the setlist--where are the stadium rockers and anthems? I literally may not go to the Rose Bowl since they have stopped playing Bad--THEIR BEST LIVE SONG. How are they not playing this? UTEOW only sparingly--are you kidding me>? No Fly!?!??!?!?!?!?!? No Gone!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? Nop EBTTRT!?!??!!??!?!?! Breathe as an opener is s stunner. As for the new songs--people are not connecting with them--period. The one thing that has stood out about U2 in the past is the show was ABOUT the new music. the fans demanded it, and the casual fans loved it too. The half baked NLOTH just falls short. Also, if you are going to play slow songs, they need to soar. UC doesn't. Neither does MOS--I hear many are leaving during MOS.

There just seems to be a disconnect about the setlist, and the album in general.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't like the new album, that's too bad, but let's not rewrite history. Both Popmart and ZooTV had very very mixed reactions to the new material; the 80's fans felt betrayed with the new material of ZooTV and the PopMart material was :| with the casual fans.

You wouldn't go for ONE song? Wow...

You talk about "bold" but ask where are the anthems and the stadium rockers... well that would be the obvious route, so please tell me you see the irony in that?
 
at least now they're changing up song orders and adding some stuff here and there- going back to the early tours there wouldn't be much changing or adding- look at the JT tour- not much setlist versatility there...i think what's played is pretty much up to them- I don't think the execs and suits would tell the band to start concerts with three to four songs off a new album that hasn't had the greatest sales (even though I love the album NLOTH)
 
Someone posted a while back how U2 is in such a unique situation. They make relevant music for themselves and the fans, but then they have the casual "Oh my god U2 is town" crowd who fills up 40-50% of the audience.

This casual fan was smarter in 90's and the early part of this decade. They could listen to the new songs played at a concert without the distraction of the "I NEED IT NOW" society we live in. There weren't cell phones at shows. You paid $$$ to watch the show. This fan doesn't have time to listen to new music unless everyone is talking about it or its played on the FM radio. The picture is painted on the wall of who U2 is to them now. "They are the band who had tons of hits and I don't want to take the time to listen to their new music"

Music sales are down and people just don't turn the art of music as an entertainment medium. Music is background noise for a majority of people now.
 
zoopop said:
Music sales are down and people just don't turn the art of music as an entertainment medium. Music is background noise for a majority of people now.
Click to expand...

Music sales may be down, but by whose count? Is this online? In record shops? Does U2's sales include all those who downloaded NLOTH before it was even released? If music is background noise for the majority of the people, apparently those who have been going to shows and breaking attendance records this year don't agree
 
zoopop said:
Music sales are down and people just don't turn the art of music as an entertainment medium. Music is background noise for a majority of people now.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Music sales are down yes, but this has very little to do with the love of music and more to do with people's behaviour in how they collect music.
 
BVS said:
Sounds like you don't like the new album, that's too bad, but let's not rewrite history. Both Popmart and ZooTV had very very mixed reactions to the new material; the 80's fans felt betrayed with the new material of ZooTV and the PopMart material was :| with the casual fans.

You wouldn't go for ONE song? Wow...

You talk about "bold" but ask where are the anthems and the stadium rockers... well that would be the obvious route, so please tell me you see the irony in that?
Click to expand...

--AB/Zoo TV was probably one the Top 10 biggest pop culture events of its time. Sure you can negative reactions to anything. AB will go down as one the best alt records of all time. NLOTH isn't even in the conversation. Some negative reactions--sure. Mixed...don't think so.

POP, my favorite album, suffered from something else all together. Bad marketing by way of Discotheque and its accompanying video. And an ambiguity as to what they were going for--people still refer to it as a "dance" record (b/c of Discotheque). It's not--it is also a challenging record that really explores new territory. NLOTH is a half baked more of the same.

Bold is not obvious--it is an approach. An approach that seems better suited to a stadium. Oh, and yes, I would consider not going because of Bad.
While 90's U2 is my wheelhouse, Bad is a religious experience live. I cannot understand why they have dumped it--On Vertigo they closed one show (forget which) at Staples with Bad/40. UNREAL. With this record, U2 just seems out of touch to me--especially thinking this record explores new territory and it does not. And even the positive elements of the record are half baked. I just fear they are turning into the Stones--when they should be Radiohead.
 
How about they just stay U2? They second-guess themselves, and if anything overcook (if we're going with cooking metaphors) but there's still a lot of creative vitality and drive to them.
 
zoopop said:
Someone posted a while back how U2 is in such a unique situation. They make relevant music for themselves and the fans, but then they have the casual "Oh my god U2 is town" crowd who fills up 40-50% of the audience.

This casual fan was smarter in 90's and the early part of this decade. They could listen to the new songs played at a concert without the distraction of the "I NEED IT NOW" society we live in. There weren't cell phones at shows. You paid $$$ to watch the show. This fan doesn't have time to listen to new music unless everyone is talking about it or its played on the FM radio. The picture is painted on the wall of who U2 is to them now. "They are the band who had tons of hits and I don't want to take the time to listen to their new music"

Music sales are down and people just don't turn the art of music as an entertainment medium. Music is background noise for a majority of people now.
Click to expand...

Post of the year. I agree that there's still plenty of people interested in music as art... they just don't control the industry and there's more of a disconnect between commercialism and creativity than there was in the early 90's. It's not to say that some hip-hop artists or pop writers of today don't have talent, but it seems more than ever the majority of things are no effort cash-ins, could be that I've become an old-foggy since rock music is now in the place that jazz music occupies in most the last couple generations of kids who grew up with rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
734
lazarus
lazarus
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom