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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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...
I disagree. Yes, I agree an overall put together setlist can make or break a concert experience, but I still think there is some disappointment if you missed some of your favorites by a day.

Quite fun to put those songs into order on your jukebox and play it that order to get the feeling as well.
You really do this?

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.
And I really really disagree with this. I don't think PJ offers a bigger variety of emotions because of their approach at all... I've seen them about 8 times, they are a great live band, but I have come home twice feeling very underwhelmed because I thought the setlist wasn't thoughtout well at all.
 
They'll do the usual - create a pretty static structure and then have a few spots here and there where they can sub in different songs. The flow stays consistent and it give the appearance of shaking things up.
 
U2 will play what they want to play, what they enjoy playing and what they feel most comfortable with. Bono said they'll play "as much for each other" this time as the play for the audience. I think we will get a mixture of "static" and surprises/shaking things up. For the general music audience, people who only see U2 once, it will be a great show and they won't mind. It's only hardcore fans that know the setlist of every gig U2 have ever played that tend to complain. I think there will be a lot of whining this time again about the set, but also a lot of suprises and happy faces. :D
 
And I really really disagree with this. I don't think PJ offers a bigger variety of emotions because of their approach at all... I've seen them about 8 times, they are a great live band, but I have come home twice feeling very underwhelmed because I thought the setlist wasn't thoughtout well at all.
:up:
i've seen pj about 10 times, about half of those i was completely and utterly underwhelmed. the other half of the shows were great, but still not to the level of a U2 show. they play some real stinkers (partly this is me- since there are lots of pj songs that i am very lukewarm to), and it just can make a show pretty bland. mixing up a setlist with a lot of subpar songs, just for the sake of mixing it up doesn't make the show any better.
 
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.

Not Unforgettable Fire tour, no way. Once they started playing the Unf. FIre songs in regular rotation, that setlist was almost set in concrete for the rest of the tour. The third leg in the U.S. was the same almost every night with very few exceptions.

Again, Joshua Tree is debatable as far as non-static. It had periods where they would change it up a bit, as far as song order. But for the most part it was the same songs most nights. Even your Boston example. Most of the same songs were done both nights. About 2 or 3 different songs, otherwise the same songs, just in a different order. The songs that were different were the same songs used at other points in the tour. It wasn't like they suddenly broke out "Surrender", "Drowning Man", "Indian Summer Sky", "Promenade" and "An Cat Dubh" every other night out of nowhere. Then I think you would have a point and would agree with you more. I guess its also about context as others have pointed out. I see the bands with non static setlists as Pearl Jam, DMB, etc.. U2 are nowhere near that as far as their setlists. :shrug:

I don't "presume" to know. But I'm going by history of what the band have done and said in the past over the last 25 years. I find its typically a pretty good indicator of what we may get on the tour. For the most part, over the years they have had fairly static setlists. They have even indicated this is on purpose because they like to get a setlist they think flows well and stick with it. To think this tour is suddenly going to be anything different from past tours is setting yourself up for disappointment. If you can't learn from history you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. I think thats someones quote or saying from someplace. ;)

Your right, anything is possible, I have always said that. But like you said, is it probable, NO. I even said the Vertigo tour did have pretty good variation IMO for U2. That seems to have been glossed over. But again, look at their history. Red Hill Mining Town and Acrobat have never been played live. Red Hill for a reason that is documented. The stuff they broke out for Vertigo had all been done previously in some form. It may have been a long time for some of it, but it had all been played live previously. I don't think that will change. Then factor in they are playing stadiums. U2 are and always have been creatures of habit and like I said Bono is a self confessed hater of rehearsal. I just don't see them rehearsing and working on a song they have had difficulty with in rehearsal in the past, that they have never done live, that 80% of the crowd wont even know.

But it will be the typical. "U2 should be breaking out "X" song or songs, this tour sucks. Why do U2 always play the same setlists and or songs!!!???". When U2 are doing what they normally do. The setlist bitchers will be out in full force on this tour is my guess. Again, this is based on the history of U2 fans I have seen for the last 20 years. ;)

I'm all for non static setlists and tons of surprises. I just don't see it happening with U2 for many reasons, some of which I have outlined in detail. If you want to think this tour is going to be the tour where they go Pearl Jam with setlists more power to you. I think you are going to be disappointed. I would love it if you weren't though. :)
 
I don't know if this has anything with setlist variation, but Bono seemed really rehearsed during the NLOTH promotion tour. Really didn't mess up any on Breathe, GOYB, or Magnificent. I've never seen him so rehearsed on new material. Hell, the entire band was in fine form.

With this in mine maybe there preparing themselves to rotate 4-5 songs a night.
 
I don't know if this has anything with setlist variation, but Bono seemed really rehearsed during the NLOTH promotion tour. Really didn't mess up any on Breathe, GOYB, or Magnificent. I've never seen him so rehearsed on new material. Hell, the entire band was in fine form.

With this in mine maybe there preparing themselves to rotate 4-5 songs a night.

I thought the band sounded extremely ready for those performances as well.
 
Distinction

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.

Your quote resonated with me insofar as the lack of creativity.

As I see it, creativity (as measured by improvisation, spontaneity and musical exploration) is confined to the studio with Edge, Adam and Larry. When's the last unique fill from Larry live (that he didn't play that entire tour)? Never. I'm a drummer not a guitarist, but as a musician I can say confidently that their creativity on stage lives and dies with Bono. The three with visible instruments throughout the show watch their conductor for cues and timing. Lazy? Maybe. :hmm: The verdict is out for me on that point. The studio is where I see the creativity (lack of laziness?) from the other three.

I'd love to see someone other than Bono actually lead the flow of a concert... from the setlist to the song intensity to the song length... the "rooftop to the basement."

There's more to this idea than I'm willing to type right now because I'm lazy and don't feel very creative myself.
 
I don't know if this has anything with setlist variation, but Bono seemed really rehearsed during the NLOTH promotion tour. Really didn't mess up any on Breathe, GOYB, or Magnificent. I've never seen him so rehearsed on new material. Hell, the entire band was in fine form.

With this in mine maybe there preparing themselves to rotate 4-5 songs a night.

You are right. But also remember they were only rehearsing about 6 songs. Versus the 25 to 30 they will be working on for the tour. Then factor in they have to iron out the staging and lighting with it. Thats when Bono gets bored with it.

My "guess" is a rotation of 2 to 3 songs a night maximum. Especially for the first month or so of the tour. The 2010 shows could be interesting as there will be more new material to add most likely.
 
Not Unforgettable Fire tour, no way. Once they started playing the Unf. FIre songs in regular rotation, that setlist was almost set in concrete for the rest of the tour. The third leg in the U.S. was the same almost every night with very few exceptions.

Again, Joshua Tree is debatable as far as non-static. It had periods where they would change it up a bit, as far as song order. But for the most part it was the same songs most nights. Even your Boston example. Most of the same songs were done both nights. About 2 or 3 different songs, otherwise the same songs, just in a different order. The songs that were different were the same songs used at other points in the tour. It wasn't like they suddenly broke out "Surrender", "Drowning Man", "Indian Summer Sky", "Promenade" and "An Cat Dubh" every other night out of nowhere. Then I think you would have a point and would agree with you more. I guess its also about context as others have pointed out. I see the bands with non static setlists as Pearl Jam, DMB, etc.. U2 are nowhere near that as far as their setlists. :shrug:

I don't "presume" to know. But I'm going by history of what the band have done and said in the past over the last 25 years. I find its typically a pretty good indicator of what we may get on the tour. For the most part, over the years they have had fairly static setlists. They have even indicated this is on purpose because they like to get a setlist they think flows well and stick with it. To think this tour is suddenly going to be anything different from past tours is setting yourself up for disappointment. If you can't learn from history you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. I think thats someones quote or saying from someplace. ;)

Your right, anything is possible, I have always said that. But like you said, is it probable, NO. I even said the Vertigo tour did have pretty good variation IMO for U2. That seems to have been glossed over. But again, look at their history. Red Hill Mining Town and Acrobat have never been played live. Red Hill for a reason that is documented. The stuff they broke out for Vertigo had all been done previously in some form. It may have been a long time for some of it, but it had all been played live previously. I don't think that will change. Then factor in they are playing stadiums. U2 are and always have been creatures of habit and like I said Bono is a self confessed hater of rehearsal. I just don't see them rehearsing and working on a song they have had difficulty with in rehearsal in the past, that they have never done live, that 80% of the crowd wont even know.

But it will be the typical. "U2 should be breaking out "X" song or songs, this tour sucks. Why do U2 always play the same setlists and or songs!!!???". When U2 are doing what they normally do. The setlist bitchers will be out in full force on this tour is my guess. Again, this is based on the history of U2 fans I have seen for the last 20 years. ;)

I'm all for non static setlists and tons of surprises. I just don't see it happening with U2 for many reasons, some of which I have outlined in detail. If you want to think this tour is going to be the tour where they go Pearl Jam with setlists more power to you. I think you are going to be disappointed. I would love it if you weren't though. :)

Obviously you are not understanding anything I am saying. I am not a "setlist bitcher" I am defending U2 against the people saying that U2 has boring, static setlists. Please, I am plenty realistic about the songs U2 has to keep, I am one of the few defenders of keeping Pride that posts here. :) Of course, they have to play some , not all, but some classics, and alot of new material. Since they only tour in support of an album(unlike PJ or Stones) then a good amount of the setlist spots are going to be taken up already. Nowhere did I ever dispute:

1.) You saying that the Vertigo tour had good variation.
2.) That songs like Red Hill and Acrobat had never been played live, I am well familiar with U2 setlist history.
3.)Nor did I ever say that U2 would all of a sudden become DMB or Pearl Jam, you seem to be bringing them into this discussion and putting this into my mouth. I have not made "mistakes" to repeat. I dont expect this tour to be alot different, maybe a little different, but they will continue to mix it up like they have been.

I have simply made the point that U2 does not have static, unchanging setlists like some bands. Yes, its mostly the same songs, but you always get 11 O'clock on Elevation, Electric co on Vertigo, First time, One Tree Hill like suprises. Again, as I have said, the reference points may be different- they certainly do not have as much variation as Pearl Jam, but that does not make them static.

Please come back when you have found a new definition for static. As long as some different songs are in and out in different order, then its not static. Of course, again, along a spectrum, if right is static and left is anything goes, then U2 is more to the right than alot of bands, but that does not put them at the very end of that spectrum. The Police, George Michael, AC/DC are the recent tours I can remember with truly static setlists.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, just trying to make clear that I am not complaining, and do not have PJ like expectations for this tour, so will not be dissapointed. I do not at all consider myself in the U2 setlist bitcher category. All of my posts on the subject confirm this.

So redefine static to include U2's considerable variation, that is your task. All the other words you are putting my mouth are words I am not saying.
 
I'm sure they will drop Elevation. It is not one of their good song and U2 knows it. They played it again during Vertigo the same way they will play Vertigo during 360 Tour, but no further, at least for Elevation.
 
I'm sure they will drop Elevation. It is not one of their good song and U2 knows it. They played it again during Vertigo the same way they will play Vertigo during 360 Tour, but no further, at least for Elevation.

i sure hope so. it will be really disappointing to see it taking up a spot, especially along side boots and vertigo.
 
Obviously you are not understanding anything I am saying. I am not a "setlist bitcher" I am defending U2 against the people saying that U2 has boring, static setlists. Please, I am plenty realistic about the songs U2 has to keep, I am one of the few defenders of keeping Pride that posts here. :) Of course, they have to play some , not all, but some classics, and alot of new material. Since they only tour in support of an album(unlike PJ or Stones) then a good amount of the setlist spots are going to be taken up already. Nowhere did I ever dispute:

1.) You saying that the Vertigo tour had good variation.
2.) That songs like Red Hill and Acrobat had never been played live, I am well familiar with U2 setlist history.
3.)Nor did I ever say that U2 would all of a sudden become DMB or Pearl Jam, you seem to be bringing them into this discussion and putting this into my mouth. I have not made "mistakes" to repeat. I dont expect this tour to be alot different, maybe a little different, but they will continue to mix it up like they have been.

I have simply made the point that U2 does not have static, unchanging setlists like some bands. Yes, its mostly the same songs, but you always get 11 O'clock on Elevation, Electric co on Vertigo, First time, One Tree Hill like suprises. Again, as I have said, the reference points may be different- they certainly do not have as much variation as Pearl Jam, but that does not make them static.

Please come back when you have found a new definition for static. As long as some different songs are in and out in different order, then its not static. Of course, again, along a spectrum, if right is static and left is anything goes, then U2 is more to the right than alot of bands, but that does not put them at the very end of that spectrum. The Police, George Michael, AC/DC are the recent tours I can remember with truly static setlists.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, just trying to make clear that I am not complaining, and do not have PJ like expectations for this tour, so will not be dissapointed. I do not at all consider myself in the U2 setlist bitcher category. All of my posts on the subject confirm this.

So redefine static to include U2's considerable variation, that is your task. All the other words you are putting my mouth are words I am not saying.

I was not trying to imply you were a setlist bitcher. What I'm saying though is that there will be those that will be that way when they don't go Pearl Jam.

Maybe you should come back when you have a new definition of static setlists. Judging by the number of complaints on this board over the last 3 tours I think its safe to say "most" U2 fans think their setlists are fairly static.

I think they are fairly static and for the most part always have been. It doesn't bother me at all. They are still one of the best live bands on the planet regardless of what they play. I'm just pointing out that there are those are going to expect them to go PJ this tour for no reason at all. Its a stadium tour with very few stops more than 2 nights and U2 have never been about massive setlist mix ups. That spells pretty static to me. I guess it doesn't to you. More power to you.

Over and out! :)
 
i was not trying to imply you were a setlist bitcher. What i'm saying though is that there will be those that will be that way when they don't go pearl jam.

yes and you implied i was one of those people, and hence a setlist bitcher. Something about pj and me not repeating mistakes in the same sentence. Not that it matters, this is honestly nothing personal :) am i still in this category after i explained myself multiple times?

maybe you should come back when you have a new definition of static setlists. Judging by the number of complaints on this board over the last 3 tours i think its safe to say "most" u2 fans think their setlists are fairly static.

and "most" fans are wrong. Static is unchanging. Remember, i am guilty of this too, but most u2 fans, the vast majority, do not post here, where most of us get our fill of u2 talk. More toward static than others for u2- certainly, agreed here. I dont need a new definition, static is unchanging.

i think they are fairly static and for the most part always have been. It doesn't bother me at all. They are still one of the best live bands on the planet regardless of what they play. I'm just pointing out that there are those are going to expect them to go pj this tour for no reason at all. Its a stadium tour with very few stops more than 2 nights and u2 have never been about massive setlist mix ups. That spells pretty static to me. I guess it doesn't to you. More power to you.

again, leaning toward the static side, but not static. I have no problem with it either, they strike a good balance between playing what the casuals expect to hear, mixing it up, and suprising fans. We are closer together than you think here!!

over and out! :)

10-4 :)
 
you think band and vocals were pre-recorded?

I've never seen Bono do pre-recorded vocals, except a few exceptions of accompanied vocals underneath.

But as far as the band it depends on the show, when you do Top of the Pops the band is pre-recorded, all bands are.

Other TV performances vary.

Letterman was mostly live(like tour) with backing tracks...

It's just the nature of TV shows like this :shrug:
 
I've never seen Bono do pre-recorded vocals, except a few exceptions of accompanied vocals underneath.

But as far as the band it depends on the show, when you do Top of the Pops the band is pre-recorded, all bands are.

Other TV performances vary.

Letterman was mostly live(like tour) with backing tracks...

It's just the nature of TV shows like this :shrug:

yeah, I knew about Top of the Pops but could not see how the recent performances would be pre-recorded.
 
yeah, I knew about Top of the Pops but could not see how the recent performances would be pre-recorded.

I doubt, that Edge's guitar on "Boots" was 100% live, for example. On all television & promo versions I saw, it sounded exact the same, no faults, no scratches. It sounded like CD in fact, clean. Take for example the very first versions of his guitar on "Disco" – day and night ... And, yes, there was backing, a lot of it. That's why the tunes haven't developed much live yet –which normally is U2's big strength – they "had" to sound like on the album ...
 
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.

QFT. But that never stopped the whiners.

From the same other thread:

U2 tends to have a theme/message on their tours ever since Zoo TV that dictates the setlist. And they want to give the best show possible each night.

It has nothing to do with them hating rehearsals or Bono and the lyrics or the technology being an excuse.
 
QFT. But that never stopped the whiners.

From the same other thread:

U2 tends to have a theme/message on their tours ever since Zoo TV that dictates the setlist. And they want to give the best show possible each night.

It has nothing to do with them hating rehearsals or Bono and the lyrics or the technology being an excuse.

I wouldnt say it has nothing to do with Bono hating rehearsals or soundcheck. Its definately a factor. Bono does and really the band as a whole do not like to "work" on songs. If they come naturally and they can pound out a live version of something fairly easily they will look at adding the song. If it requires some type of work to get it down (unless its from the new album) they are not going to spend much time with it. The way the rehearse and go through their soundchecks its definately the case.

I agree that the themes and staging are also a major factor and probably a bigger factor. But to say Bono hating rehearsal has nothing to do with it simply is not true.
 
The worst possible thing coming from Bono not rehearsing is that he will forget lyrics. The other three can still sound more - or less, depending on the song - fine. :shrug: And vice versa Bono nailing the song won't matter much if the other three can't do the song justice on a level satisfactory to the band.

Yes, like you said "the band as a whole do not like to work on songs". Slightly different to "_____ hates rehearsing period".
 
I guess we can argue semantics all day. Bono is sort of the "director" if you will about what U2 are doing or working on for the most part. So the fact that he does not like rehearsing does play into what songs they play or lack thereof. If a song is a problem he doesn't want to spend a lot of time on it typically. So I do think Bono hating rehearsal or soundcheck is definately a factor in how many songs they end up playing or not playing. Its not the only one, but it is a factor IMO.
 
It would be nice if the setlists could vary a bit more, but I honestly think that it would be kind of a lot of work for them to try to "relearn" some forgotten songs...I remember seeing videos of fans onstage at various shows trying to play songs, watching Edge or Bono trying to figure out chords or lyrics...Although, I would LOVE it if I ever heard or saw Larry doing the intro to "I Threw A Brick..."
 
But yes, I'm hoping that a) this doesn't become like the U218 Singles Tour By Stealth (aka Vertigo Tour, fifth leg), meaning that they actually play more than three songs from the album for the entire tour and b) the setlist varies considerably, going to Zooropa and Pop as the experimental predecessors of NLOTH.

Ah yes, the copius amounts of U218 songs not played on the previous four legs. (aka the tour that had to make up for Elevation missing Australia and playing two new singles)
NLOTH has more in common with UF. And tours promoting those two albums weren't exactly that varied in setlists.
 
Back
Top Bottom