What are the chances of U2 doing a non-static setlist this tour?

[gump]

re-read what i originally wrote, very slowly:


While i appreciate your condescending lectures on the history of all U2's set lists (which while i know quite well, thank you), I said originally it was played because it was just as good as any of their songs. I never, ever said it wasn't played after that. slow down and read what i wrote before assuming that no one knows about their setlists like you do.

This reminds me why I don't engage in these discussions.

I should never, ever brake this rule.

 

[namkcuR]

Can we stop calling 11 O'Clock Tick Tock a b-side? It was an a-side. It was released as a stand-alone single.

I know I started this thread, and I do hope that U2 varies the setlist this time, but I was never thinking of them doing what Pearl Jam does, based on your descriptions(I've never seen a Pearl Jam show). I never said they should throw structure away and make their setlist totally random. All I said was that they should go on tour being able to play 50-60 songs instead of 30. And 50-60 songs barely scratches the surface of stuff the crowd wouldn't know.

Think About It:

11 NLOTH songs

+

29(you can add a few or take away a few) classics
11 O'Clock Tick Tock
I Will Follow
Gloria
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Year's Day
Pride
Bad
Streets
Still
WOWY
Bullet
Running
Desire
Angel
AIWY
One
Until
Horses
The Fly
MW
Stay
Discotheque
Staring At The Sun
Gone
Beautiful Day
Stuck In A Moment
Elevation
Kite
Vertigo
COBL

+

14 'returns' that have all been regulars on past tours
A Sort Of Homecoming
The Unforgettable Fire
One Tree Hill
Exit
Even Better Than The Real Thing
Ultraviolet(Light My Way)
Love Is Blindness
Zooropa(they could give it a try, it's an incredible song)
Lemon
Dirty Day
Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me
Mofo
Last Night On Earth
Please

11+29+14 = 54

That's closer to 50 than 60, and there's not a single song outside of the NLOTH songs and Zooropa that haven't been regulars on past tours.

You can have a structured 25-song set where, say, 8 slots alternate between three tracks each from night-to-night on multi-night stints, so that for each of these 8 slots, there are three possible songs to fill it. 25 song set + 16 'atlernates' = 41. And the other thirteen could be inserted later on.

I don't think this is all that far fetched. I'm not asking for Luminous Times or Hallelujah(Here She Comes)(though they would be amazing). I'm not asking for extremely deep cuts. What I'm asking for is the band to simply pay attention to the tier immediately below the 'everyone and their mother knows it' tier. The tier consisting of tracks that were regulars on their original tours(and, in some cases, some subsequent tours as well), got good if not great reception when they were played, and have not seen the light of day in a long while.

 

[U2387]

But U2 had static setlists even when they were a middle tier artist! The notion of using U2's current day big name status combined with their complex staging as a reason for relatively static setlists is a little flawed. They have always had static setlists. As fans of this band it is important to recognise this is what keep them happy, has always kept them happy, and we in turn have to accept it. They were doing static setlists in the mid 80's!

No, they were not always doing static setlists. Axver brought up the UF tour- they used many different openers, Gloria, OOC 11OTT, etc. Different war and boysongs were in and out, in different order by night, etc The Joshua Tree tour always saw at least a few spots different by night. The order was always changed a little as well. Electric co and A sort of homecoming make this point for the JT tour, as does playing Mothers of the Disappeared sometimes and not others, Trip through wires sometimes, out of control and electric co sometimes, the inclusion of silver and gold on the 3rd leg, Helter Skelter and other covers rotating. Lovetown, we can all agree had dynamic setlists. A static setlist is one you can look up on wikipedia by leg- that is a good definition of a static setlist.

Look again at what I put in bold and underlined. The staging argument, I never made, in fact I refuted it as a reason why setlists might be static. The big act being a reason for static setlists falls apart when we look closer and see that U2 does not in fact have static setlists. Do they have peers with more variation, absolutely, but are they static, no way.

Axver, whether we all agree with everything he says about 2000's U2, or with his echo/bunnymen quote at the bottom(I dont, sorry, AX), does in fact maintain a very accurate, handy website to corroborate what I am saying. Thanks, AX.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, but please, everyone do the following: Take a deep breath...................repeat after me................. U2 DOES NOT HAVE STATIC SETLISTS!!!!!!!! Thank you!

 

[U2387]

Can we stop calling 11 O'Clock Tick Tock a b-side? It was an a-side. It was released as a stand-alone single.

I know I started this thread, and I do hope that U2 varies the setlist this time, but I was never thinking of them doing what Pearl Jam does, based on your descriptions(I've never seen a Pearl Jam show). I never said they should throw structure away and make their setlist totally random. All I said was that they should go on tour being able to play 50-60 songs instead of 30. And 50-60 songs barely scratches the surface of stuff the crowd wouldn't know.

Think About It:

11 NLOTH songs

+

29(you can add a few or take away a few) classics
11 O'Clock Tick Tock
I Will Follow
Gloria
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Year's Day
Pride
Bad
Streets
Still
WOWY
Bullet
Running
Desire
Angel
AIWY
One
Until
Horses
The Fly
MW
Stay
Discotheque
Staring At The Sun
Gone
Beautiful Day
Stuck In A Moment
Elevation
Kite
Vertigo
COBL

+

14 'returns' that have all been regulars on past tours
A Sort Of Homecoming
The Unforgettable Fire
One Tree Hill
Exit
Even Better Than The Real Thing
Ultraviolet(Light My Way)
Love Is Blindness
Zooropa(they could give it a try, it's an incredible song)
Lemon
Dirty Day
Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me
Mofo
Last Night On Earth
Please

11+29+14 = 54

That's closer to 50 than 60, and there's not a single song outside of the NLOTH songs and Zooropa that haven't been regulars on past tours.

You can have a structured 25-song set where, say, 8 slots alternate between three tracks each from night-to-night on multi-night stints, so that for each of these 8 slots, there are three possible songs to fill it. 25 song set + 16 'atlernates' = 41. And the other thirteen could be inserted later on.

I don't think this is all that far fetched. I'm not asking for Luminous Times or Hallelujah(Here She Comes)(though they would be amazing). I'm not asking for extremely deep cuts. What I'm asking for is the band to simply pay attention to the tier immediately below the 'everyone and their mother knows it' tier. The tier consisting of tracks that were regulars on their original tours(and, in some cases, some subsequent tours as well), got good if not great reception when they were played, and have not seen the light of day in a long while.

EXCELLENT POST. You make a good point. I dont think U2 plays overly static setlists, just that some of the songs that are in rotation could use a little lighter use in favor of some great regulars from past tours. Only 1 or 2 occasional deep cuts is realistic. Great job making that distinction! Thanks also for the thread! This is getting me excited for the tour setlist discussions as they unfold this summer!

 

[jphelmet]

That's closer to 50 than 60, and there's not a single song outside of the NLOTH songs and Zooropa that haven't been regulars on past tours.

You can have a structured 25-song set where, say, 8 slots alternate between three tracks each from night-to-night on multi-night stints, so that for each of these 8 slots, there are three possible songs to fill it. 25 song set + 16 'atlernates' = 41. And the other thirteen could be inserted later on.

What I'm asking for is the band to simply pay attention to the tier immediately below the 'everyone and their mother knows it' tier. The tier consisting of tracks that were regulars on their original tours(and, in some cases, some subsequent tours as well), got good if not great reception when they were played, and have not seen the light of day in a long while.

i agree with everything you said here. i think it comes down to rehearsing more than anything else. bono doesn't like to do it, and so they aren't usually ready to do that many songs. i think the stadium tour, ends up being not limited by visuals, but what they feel will reach that many people.

maybe with the quotes from bono, about it being a privilege to still play and how they are excited about touring maybe they will do something closer to this.

its best to to expect less (in terms of number of songs played regularly) than more with U2. i would be ecstatic for them to do exactly what you are proposing.

 

[major_panic]

No, they were not always doing static setlists. Axver brought up the UF tour- they used many different openers, Gloria, OOC 11OTT, etc. Different war and boysongs were in and out, in different order by night, etc The Joshua Tree tour always saw at least a few spots different by night. The order was always changed a little as well. Electric co and A sort of homecoming make this point for the JT tour, as does playing Mothers of the Disappeared sometimes and not others, Trip through wires sometimes, out of control and electric co sometimes, the inclusion of silver and gold on the 3rd leg, Helter Skelter and other covers rotating. Lovetown, we can all agree had dynamic setlists. A static setlist is one you can look up on wikipedia by leg- that is a good definition of a static setlist.

Look again at what I put in bold and underlined. The staging argument, I never made, in fact I refuted it as a reason why setlists might be static. The big act being a reason for static setlists falls apart when we look closer and see that U2 does not in fact have static setlists. Do they have peers with more variation, absolutely, but are they static, no way.

Axver, whether we all agree with everything he says about 2000's U2, or with his echo/bunnymen quote at the bottom(I dont, sorry, AX), does in fact maintain a very accurate, handy website to corroborate what I am saying. Thanks, AX.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, but please, everyone do the following: Take a deep breath...................repeat after me................. U2 DOES NOT HAVE STATIC SETLISTS!!!!!!!! Thank you!

This, I agree with.

Let's be honest, static setlists only came in during Zoo and Popmart, really, and even then some songs did rotate a bit.

 

[Blue Room]

No, they were not always doing static setlists. Axver brought up the UF tour- they used many different openers, Gloria, OOC 11OTT, etc. Different war and boysongs were in and out, in different order by night, etc The Joshua Tree tour always saw at least a few spots different by night. The order was always changed a little as well. Electric co and A sort of homecoming make this point for the JT tour, as does playing Mothers of the Disappeared sometimes and not others, Trip through wires sometimes, out of control and electric co sometimes, the inclusion of silver and gold on the 3rd leg, Helter Skelter and other covers rotating. Lovetown, we can all agree had dynamic setlists. A static setlist is one you can look up on wikipedia by leg- that is a good definition of a static setlist.

Look again at what I put in bold and underlined. The staging argument, I never made, in fact I refuted it as a reason why setlists might be static. The big act being a reason for static setlists falls apart when we look closer and see that U2 does not in fact have static setlists. Do they have peers with more variation, absolutely, but are they static, no way.

Axver, whether we all agree with everything he says about 2000's U2, or with his echo/bunnymen quote at the bottom(I dont, sorry, AX), does in fact maintain a very accurate, handy website to corroborate what I am saying. Thanks, AX.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, but please, everyone do the following: Take a deep breath...................repeat after me................. U2 DOES NOT HAVE STATIC SETLISTS!!!!!!!! Thank you!

No they don't have to. But to suggest a few variences in the setlist of songs they played a handful of times on the Joshua Tree and Unf. Fire tours constitutes them being a non static setlist band is a big stretch to me. Joshua Tree got into a rut in the middle of the third leg and they broke out of it at a few shows, but it was mainly the same songs played each night with maybe a change in the order they were played. They did a few different openers and variences at the beginning of the Unf. Fire tour but for the most part the setlist was pretty static for most shows. Look at the War tour!! The major varience there was opening with Gloria instead of Out Of Control for the most part. Otherwise it was the exact same songs almost every night.

Limited stadium shows most likely means fairly static setlists. Honestly I didnt think Vertigo was all that static by U2 standards anyway. I saw 12 shows and every setlist was different in some way (although some were minor differences). But there is a core of songs U2 are going to play at almost every single show and typically it represents 80 to 90% (if not higher) of what they play each night. This tour will most likely not be any different and the very logistics of the tour suggest to me the setlists are going to be pretty static with minimal rarities for the diehards.

I'm looking forward to hearing the new material live. There is the varience we will get from prior tours. Not to mention when the new album comes out between the 2nd and 3rd legs they will most likely play some material from it. That alone will be enough IMO. U2 are never going to be like Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, etc. and just break out a song they haven't been playing all of sudden. They rehearse things to death before they play them onstage most of the time. Even then if they are having any kind of difficulty playing it they will just drop it before it even gets out of the soundchecking/rehearsal phase. Bono hates rehearsing. I just don't see that changing suddenly this tour. U2 are creatures of habit all the way. My guess is this tour will be no different.

The other thing you have to remember is what the fans want isn't always what U2 wants to do. They play what they feel works and what they want to play. If it was all up to the fans songs like Acrobat, Red Hill Mining Town, etc.. would have been played live at some point already. Its just not going to happen because the band doesn't want to play them for whatever reason. These threads are fun and there are A LOT of songs I wish they would do. But I look at it realistically also. What I don't get though is when the tour starts and the setlist bitching begins. Like everyone is shocked they are playing mainly the same songs every night.

 

[last unicorn]

I liked the setlist of Vertigo leg 1 and 2, I love hearing very old songs besides the new stuff, I hope they'll do that again with the new tour. I wish they'd mix up the middle part of the shows a little more, but we all know that there are songs U2 simply have to play, even though they could rotate them a little more. I care mostly about hearing the new songs live, that's why I'm looking forward to the tour, not because of the old stuff. I just hope they'll work out how to play the new songs and not drop them because they can't figure it out properly.

 

[mirrorballman]

There's no way they'll have somewhat of a rotating set. Not a chance. They'll have the usual suprises in their bags and will have some songs in the closet that they'll pull out from time to time on special occasions, but that's about it.

 

[Joey788]

Can we stop calling 11 O'Clock Tick Tock a b-side? It was an a-side. It was released as a stand-alone single.

I know I started this thread, and I do hope that U2 varies the setlist this time, but I was never thinking of them doing what Pearl Jam does, based on your descriptions(I've never seen a Pearl Jam show). I never said they should throw structure away and make their setlist totally random. All I said was that they should go on tour being able to play 50-60 songs instead of 30. And 50-60 songs barely scratches the surface of stuff the crowd wouldn't know.

Think About It:

11 NLOTH songs

+

29(you can add a few or take away a few) classics
11 O'Clock Tick Tock
I Will Follow
Gloria
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Year's Day
Pride
Bad
Streets
Still
WOWY
Bullet
Running
Desire
Angel
AIWY
One
Until
Horses
The Fly
MW
Stay
Discotheque
Staring At The Sun
Gone
Beautiful Day
Stuck In A Moment
Elevation
Kite
Vertigo
COBL

+

14 'returns' that have all been regulars on past tours
A Sort Of Homecoming
The Unforgettable Fire
One Tree Hill
Exit
Even Better Than The Real Thing
Ultraviolet(Light My Way)
Love Is Blindness
Zooropa(they could give it a try, it's an incredible song)
Lemon
Dirty Day
Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me
Mofo
Last Night On Earth
Please

11+29+14 = 54

That's closer to 50 than 60, and there's not a single song outside of the NLOTH songs and Zooropa that haven't been regulars on past tours.

You can have a structured 25-song set where, say, 8 slots alternate between three tracks each from night-to-night on multi-night stints, so that for each of these 8 slots, there are three possible songs to fill it. 25 song set + 16 'atlernates' = 41. And the other thirteen could be inserted later on.

I don't think this is all that far fetched. I'm not asking for Luminous Times or Hallelujah(Here She Comes)(though they would be amazing). I'm not asking for extremely deep cuts. What I'm asking for is the band to simply pay attention to the tier immediately below the 'everyone and their mother knows it' tier. The tier consisting of tracks that were regulars on their original tours(and, in some cases, some subsequent tours as well), got good if not great reception when they were played, and have not seen the light of day in a long while.

Great post. I really think this is something U2 could pull off if they put the time into rehearsing. I think another potential problem with the setlists is that it seems that all 4 members of the band have to agree on what songs to play. So if Bono wants to play something like Dirty Day, but Adam disagrees, they probably won't do it.

As for the lighting issue, they should go with what Radiohead did. Before the tour starts, give the lighting and visuals crew a list of 50 to 60 songs that have a chance of being played. Then they can create the appropriate lighting and visuals for those songs and pull then out of the computer whenever the band decides to play them.

 

[angelordevil]

...but the norm is as much or less variation than U2 for sure. Pearl Jam is the extreme exception to the rule.

They certianly do shake it up way more than the industry norm...case in point, back-to-back shows in my city, St. John's, NL, back in 2005.

The U2 snippet in Daughter was glorious.

Night 1

Can’t Keep
Go
Even Flow
Animal
Corduroy
Nothing As It Seems
Given To Fly
Grievance
Daughter (Bad/”hey ho, let it go”/W.M.A.)
Lukin
U
Present Tense
Don’t Gimme No Lip
Better Man (Save It For Later)
Porch
Save You

first encore: Thumbing My Way, I Am Mine, Elderly Woman…, Black, Rearviewmirror

second encore: Whipping, Do The Evolution, Spin The Black Circle, Last Kiss, Leaving Here, Alive, Baba O’Riley, Yellow Ledbetter

Night 2

Elderly Woman
Last Exit
Animal
State of Love and Trust
Hail Hail
Corduroy
Wishlist
Dissident
Even Flow
Insignificance
You Are
In My Tree
I Got Shit
Half Full
Black (Eleanor Rigby)
Go

first encore: Bee Girl, Man of The Hour, Crazy Mary, Alive

second encore: Light Years, Better Man, Jeremy, Rockin’ In The Free World

 

[U2387]

No they don't have to. But to suggest a few variences in the setlist of songs they played a handful of times on the Joshua Tree and Unf. Fire tours constitutes them being a non static setlist band is a big stretch to me. Joshua Tree got into a rut in the middle of the third leg and they broke out of it at a few shows, but it was mainly the same songs played each night with maybe a change in the order they were played. They did a few different openers and variences at the beginning of the Unf. Fire tour but for the most part the setlist was pretty static for most shows. Look at the War tour!! The major varience there was opening with Gloria instead of Out Of Control for the most part. Otherwise it was the exact same songs almost every night.

Limited stadium shows most likely means fairly static setlists. Honestly I didnt think Vertigo was all that static by U2 standards anyway. I saw 12 shows and every setlist was different in some way (although some were minor differences). But there is a core of songs U2 are going to play at almost every single show and typically it represents 80 to 90% (if not higher) of what they play each night. This tour will most likely not be any different and the very logistics of the tour suggest to me the setlists are going to be pretty static with minimal rarities for the diehards.

I'm looking forward to hearing the new material live. There is the varience we will get from prior tours. Not to mention when the new album comes out between the 2nd and 3rd legs they will most likely play some material from it. That alone will be enough IMO. U2 are never going to be like Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, etc. and just break out a song they haven't been playing all of sudden. They rehearse things to death before they play them onstage most of the time. Even then if they are having any kind of difficulty playing it they will just drop it before it even gets out of the soundchecking/rehearsal phase. Bono hates rehearsing. I just don't see that changing suddenly this tour. U2 are creatures of habit all the way. My guess is this tour will be no different.

The other thing you have to remember is what the fans want isn't always what U2 wants to do. They play what they feel works and what they want to play. If it was all up to the fans songs like Acrobat, Red Hill Mining Town, etc.. would have been played live at some point already. Its just not going to happen because the band doesn't want to play them for whatever reason. These threads are fun and there are A LOT of songs I wish they would do. But I look at it realistically also. What I don't get though is when the tour starts and the setlist bitching begins. Like everyone is shocked they are playing mainly the same songs every night.

U2's variations in JT and UF tours surpassed some of the other setlists we see today. Again, look at my wikipedia analogy. U2 does not have static setlists. Take a look at Ax's site on the 3rd leg of JT. Just the 2 Boston shows on 9/17 and 9/18 1987 had pretty different setlists.

As for Acrobat or Red Hill, songs like it, anything is possible, maybe not probable, but you presume to know what the band thinks and write the songs off. Ok, to each his own.

 

[AndrewCowley]

U2's variations in JT and UF tours surpassed some of the other setlists we see today. Again, look at my wikipedia analogy. U2 does not have static setlists. Take a look at Ax's site on the 3rd leg of JT. Just the 2 Boston shows on 9/17 and 9/18 1987 had pretty different setlists.

As for Acrobat or Red Hill, songs like it, anything is possible, maybe not probable, but you presume to know what the band thinks and write the songs off. Ok, to each his own.

The UF tour had extremely static setlists. Maybe U2's most ever!

As for the over-arching argument as to whether U2's setlists are static or not, as I mentioned earlier in this thread it depends who you compare them to. For me, I say their setlists *are* static since my frame of reference is REM and Pearl Jam. On the other hand, if you pick a band that has no variation whatsoever then you'll make yourself a different answer. U2 have some variation, but IMO not enough to accurately say they don't have static setlists.

 

[budvarka]

Wish they played different things every night. Would be good for us at the gigs, would be good for us at this forum. Thk no doubt about that.... The excitment of unknown coming...

Lover of Pear Jam for this reason and must call them the best band in the world as long as U2 will not join their style of setlist variation.

Guess none asking us to follow up every night's setlist then, unfortunately. And its definately what I would have to do.

 

[believer75]

Wish they played different things every night. Would be good for us at the gigs, would be good for us at this forum. Thk no doubt about that.... The excitment of unknown coming...

Lover of Pear Jam for this reason and must call them the best band in the world as long as U2 will not join their style of setlist variation.

Guess none asking us to follow up every night's setlist then, unfortunately. And its definately what I would have to do.

So, when Pearljam plays some obscure b-side such as Dirty Frank, everyone is loving it? It's not flying over people's heads?

 

[budvarka]

So, when Pearljam plays some obscure b-side such as Dirty Frank, everyone is loving it? It's not flying over people's heads?

well at least they got the balls to play it... And quite frankly this actually "pushes" people to collect more of their things if they dont know it ...
But ofcourse noone is saying that whole gig should consist of b-sides rarities. But guess playing anything from any album is quite enough. Can we get smtg like that from U2?

 

[Pero]

i would also like to hear a setlist that doesn't have one, with or without you or other very much, or too much played stuff.
but the thing is, i believe that pearl jam has better relationship with fans (bootlegs etc) and that they played more shows in last 20 years than u2.
or it's my impression that they tour just for the sake of touring,not for album promotion

 

[believer75]

i would also like to hear a setlist that doesn't have one, with or without you or other very much, or too much played stuff.
but the thing is, i believe that pearl jam has better relationship with fans (bootlegs etc) and that they played more shows in last 20 years than u2.
or it's my impression that they tour just for the sake of touring,not for album promotion

Or maybe U2's philosophy is if people are paying their good money at a rock show, we are not going to just get up there and play the things that we want to play. We want to play the things that most people want to hear, especially if they are paying top dollar to see us. Maybe that is how they see their relationship with their fans? I know Pearljam fans are hardcore, but overall, the expectations for what you pay to get at a U2 show is different than what you pay to get at a Pearljam show? I know some people that I went to a Pearljam show with were scratching their heads at some of the omissions rather than what they played. It was a great show, but I felt the flow was not the same as at a U2 show. Different bands, you get different things. That does not make any band better or worse, it's just a difference in approach. U2 could do it and does do it. I know I saw U2 3 times for the Elevation tour, and the setlist was much different for the first show, different again for the middle show, and very much different for the last show. They did throw together an impromptu version of George Harrison's My Sweet Lord at the last ATL because it was the day that he died. The crowd loved it. Also, at the first show I saw, they had Sweetest Thing and The Ground Beneath Her Feet in the setlist, both live rarities. I know not the same as Pearljam, but U2 can and does do it, although a little less frequently than Pearljam.

 

[djparky]

U2 have to play a setlist that the casual fan also likes- so they're obliged to play the hits- yeah it would be great to hear some of the less well known songs but they can only maybe do 2 or 3 of those in a stadium show

also consider that they'll play at least 7 songs from the new album-

so we'll get

Elevation
Vertigo
New Years Day
Pride
Beautiful Day
Streets
Still haven't found
One
The Fly
with or without you

possibly Desire since they didn't do it on the last couple of tours- those are amongst U2's most well known hits so it's almost certain they'll play them

beyond that it will be anyone's guess

 

[BVS]

I wrote this in the other setlist thread:

The "static" setlist was never a problem pre-internet days unless you went to several shows in a row. And still it's not really a big deal except for those who like to LOOK at setlists.

 

[budvarka]

Or maybe U2's philosophy is if people are paying their good money at a rock show, we are not going to just get up there and play the things that we want to play. We want to play the things that most people want to hear, especially if they are paying top dollar to see us. Maybe that is how they see their relationship with their fans? I know Pearljam fans are hardcore, but overall, the expectations for what you pay to get at a U2 show is different than what you pay to get at a Pearljam show? I know some people that I went to a Pearljam show with were scratching their heads at some of the omissions rather than what they played. It was a great show, but I felt the flow was not the same as at a U2 show. Different bands, you get different things. That does not make any band better or worse, it's just a difference in approach. U2 could do it and does do it. I know I saw U2 3 times for the Elevation tour, and the setlist was much different for the first show, different again for the middle show, and very much different for the last show. They did throw together an impromptu version of George Harrison's My Sweet Lord at the last ATL because it was the day that he died. The crowd loved it. Also, at the first show I saw, they had Sweetest Thing and The Ground Beneath Her Feet in the setlist, both live rarities. I know not the same as Pearljam, but U2 can and does do it, although a little less frequently than Pearljam.

yeah, love them both! cant wait for U2 summer with some PJ desert in autumn in Europe?

 

[believer75]

yeah, love them both! cant wait for U2 summer with some PJ desert in autumn in Europe?

awesome! you are going to see PJ this year, too?? lucky!! I have only seen them once but would love to see them again...they are truly one of the best. They have a great collection of songs.

 

[budvarka]

awesome! you are going to see PJ this year, too?? lucky!! I have only seen them once but would love to see them again...they are truly one of the best. They have a great collection of songs.

well I wish. Read that few members of PJ expecting babies, so they are unlikely to tour next year - only chance is this autumn. Hearing they are already in studio by now.... ... you definately gotta check them out if you get at least a chance.
... and with Radiohead announcing headlining two festivals this summer, this might all shape up into an unbelievable year!

 

[U2387]

The UF tour had extremely static setlists. Maybe U2's most ever!

As for the over-arching argument as to whether U2's setlists are static or not, as I mentioned earlier in this thread it depends who you compare them to. For me, I say their setlists *are* static since my frame of reference is REM and Pearl Jam. On the other hand, if you pick a band that has no variation whatsoever then you'll make yourself a different answer. U2 have some variation, but IMO not enough to accurately say they don't have static setlists.

Static= not changing- look up the setlist on Wikipedia as I keep saying, thats static.

As soon as there is a change, its not static.

Find another name for it. Yes, does depend on who you compare U2 to,they are less dynamic than Pearl Jam or REM but alot more so than AC/DC or the Police. Static is not accurate, however.

 

[U2387]

Or maybe U2's philosophy is if people are paying their good money at a rock show, we are not going to just get up there and play the things that we want to play. We want to play the things that most people want to hear, especially if they are paying top dollar to see us. Maybe that is how they see their relationship with their fans? I know Pearljam fans are hardcore, but overall, the expectations for what you pay to get at a U2 show is different than what you pay to get at a Pearljam show? I know some people that I went to a Pearljam show with were scratching their heads at some of the omissions rather than what they played. It was a great show, but I felt the flow was not the same as at a U2 show. Different bands, you get different things. That does not make any band better or worse, it's just a difference in approach. U2 could do it and does do it. I know I saw U2 3 times for the Elevation tour, and the setlist was much different for the first show, different again for the middle show, and very much different for the last show. They did throw together an impromptu version of George Harrison's My Sweet Lord at the last ATL because it was the day that he died. The crowd loved it. Also, at the first show I saw, they had Sweetest Thing and The Ground Beneath Her Feet in the setlist, both live rarities. I know not the same as Pearljam, but U2 can and does do it, although a little less frequently than Pearljam.

Excellent post. That is in summary, what I have been trying to say in this thread, better than I could have sait it!

 

[phillyfan26]

I wrote this in the other setlist thread:

The "static" setlist was never a problem pre-internet days unless you went to several shows in a row. And still it's not really a big deal except for those who like to LOOK at setlists.

You don't want to have some surprises thrown at you? Almost every fan of every band I know follows setlists on the Internet in the days leading up to shows they go to, even if they're not on message boards like this. I think the surprises make the show a lot more interesting.

I think any argument defending U2 for their static setlists is purely an excuse. U2 should be able to do much better with setlists than they do. They're just lazy, that's the bottom line. There's really nothing else to say about it than that.

 

[believer75]

Excellent post. That is in summary, what I have been trying to say in this thread, better than I could have sait it!

Thank you, U2387!!

 

[BVS]

You don't want to have some surprises thrown at you? Almost every fan of every band I know follows setlists on the Internet in the days leading up to shows they go to, even if they're not on message boards like this. I think the surprises make the show a lot more interesting.

I think any argument defending U2 for their static setlists is purely an excuse. U2 should be able to do much better with setlists than they do. They're just lazy, that's the bottom line. There's really nothing else to say about it than that.

I never got the point of seeing setlists from shows you are not going to...

If you're a PJ fan and you see the setlist of the show before or after the show you went to and they played your favorite song but they didn't at the show you went to, you'd be kind of disappointed...

If you're a U2 fan and you already know what's coming next, it can take some of the excitement out of it...

So I really don't see the point either way.

 

[budvarka]

I never got the point of seeing setlists from shows you are not going to...

If you're a PJ fan and you see the setlist of the show before or after the show you went to and they played your favorite song but they didn't at the show you went to, you'd be kind of disappointed...

Actually this sentences helps me to define what a good setlist should be about (or at least for me). Its not about single songs missing or being included in the show, think its more like a movie - the whole thing must give you some sort of an impression as a whole, not only few scenes...
So when looking at a setlist one should get an impression, feeling how the gig must have looked like - dark one, relaxed, melancholly, songs transitions etc ... Quite fun to put those songs into order on your jukebox and play it that order to get the feeling as well. Obviously PJ offers you a bigger variety of emotions thanks to their approach and you never end up sad they missed out smtg. But knowing U2 program b4 going for the gig kinda really spoils the excitment of the surprice.

 

[Salome]

i never got the obsession with static/non static setlists
I would quite happily listen to the same album a couple hundred times
so I truly could care less if a band plays the exact same songs the 2 or 3 times I'm going to see them