***SPOILERS*** U2 eXPERIENCE + iNNOCENCE Tour - Rehearsals/Soundcheck Thread #2

[innominata8]

I think the real difference with Streets is that it has been played at every show on every tour for the past 29 years. There aren't a lot of other bands that put a live song out there and find that it develops such a following over decades. While there have always been tons of other 'workhorses' rotated in and out (WOWY, Vertigo, Bad, Elevation, IWF, NYD, etc...), Streets has been a constant and is clearly very near & dear to the band. The crowd response is always epic - anyone see people sitting in the stands when the arena/stadium is bathed in blood-red light as the song is starting? Edge has been clear that he wanted to conjure up the "ultimate U2 live-song" and he did just that. I think the band had to think long and hard about not including it in the setlist given it's historical prominence in live shows. I'm also going to bet that they will eventually miss the crowd response and bring it back at some point in the tour, even if only intermittently.

[YBORCITY]

Originally Posted by innominata8

I think the real difference with Streets is that it has been played at every show on every tour for the past 29 years. There aren't a lot of other bands that put a live song out there and find that it develops such a following over decades. While there have always been tons of other 'workhorses' rotated in and out (WOWY, Vertigo, Bad, Elevation, IWF, NYD, etc...), Streets has been a constant and is clearly very near & dear to the band. The crowd response is always epic - anyone see people sitting in the stands when the arena/stadium is bathed in blood-red light as the song is starting? Edge has been clear that he wanted to conjure up the "ultimate U2 live-song" and he did just that. I think the band had to think long and hard about not including it in the setlist given it's historical prominence in live shows. I'm also going to bet that they will eventually miss the crowd response and bring it back at some point in the tour, even if only intermittently.

Well said and I'm saying this purely from a personal note. I will notice that it's not being played but I'm over the moon about seeing them again. This in my mind is all "gravy", they're still touring and I'm lucky enough to see them a few more times at least as we are definitely closer to the end than we are to the beginning

[jphelmet]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Beautiful Day
I Will Follow
Sunday Bloody Sunday
Elevation
Vertigo
Desire
Pride
City of Blinding Lights
One

These are all hits


Whose Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
Until The End Of The World
Acrobat

These are off one of their two biggest albums.

They're not out playing obscure b sides. There are plenty of songs here that are well known to most in attendance, and I'm sure more will be added.

So a 1/3 of the set is massive hits. That was my point, that is low for U2. I+E on the first leg that number was closer to 2/3. This tour is much less than previous tours, and that is why I think they add more and rotate out some other songs.

They are treating their new music like they are still a relevant band as far as new music goes, and that is not the case. I think they will realize fairly quickly a large part of their audience doesn't want to see 11 new songs.

[innominata8]

Originally Posted by YBORCITY

Well said and I'm saying this purely from a personal note. I will notice that it's not being played but I'm over the moon about seeing them again. This in my mind is all "gravy", they're still touring and I'm lucky enough to see them a few more times at least as we are definitely closer to the end than we are to the beginning

Ditto here. I am going to miss it. I have my 19th & 20th shows coming up next month and I would have loved to have seen the song's latest iteration.

[U2387]

Originally Posted by jphelmet

So a 1/3 of the set is massive hits. That was my point, that is low for U2. I+E on the first leg that number was closer to 2/3. This tour is much less than previous tours, and that is why I think they add more and rotate out some other songs.

They are treating their new music like they are still a relevant band as far as new music goes, and that is not the case. I think they will realize fairly quickly a large part of their audience doesn't want to see 11 new songs.

Precisely.

Especially for the money they're charging.

Especially since a decent hit like Hold Me Thrill Me is going to be pre recorded.

Especially when American Soul and 13 get played every night while they've dropped the idea of playing showman , one of the strongest new songs, and have yet to touch Little Things or Red Flag Day.

Like it or not, this isn't 2001 or 2005 where U2 3.0 had massively popular and relevant new material. I wish like hell it was, as I think both Innocence and Experience are stronger works than ATYCLB and HTDAAB. But it's not. U2 haven't had a hit in 14 years.

People here either get this point or they don't. The whole last 2 threads have shown as much.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I disagree whole heartedly with the premise that you need to play a set list of 3/4s hits to be entertaining to non die hards.

We're not talking about the band sitting up on a small stage with some mood lighting playing nothing but B sides.

There's plenty of hits still in the set, and as long as they put on a good show, they'll be fine. They might need to tweak a song or two, but this idea that they are going to go out and stink up the joint and send half the arena home bored out of their minds wanting their money back is utterly ridiculous.

And believing this doesn't make someone a sheeple who thinks they're still relevant, either... wherever the hell that came from.

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Disagree.


I can't speak for all Springsteen fans, but I would have to imagine most would trade Born To Run for Jungleland or Incident any day.

Hey, I'd trade Streets for A Sort Of Homecoming... until I heard that reworked version they played last year.

[DeVaul]

Need a full-out ASOH which sounds weird when you say it aloud.

[jphelmet]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I disagree whole heartedly with the premise that you need to play a set list of 3/4s hits to be entertaining to non die hards.

We're not talking about the band sitting up on a small stage with some mood lighting playing nothing but B sides.

There's plenty of hits still in the set, and as long as they put on a good show, they'll be fine. They might need to tweak a song or two, but this idea that they are going to go out and stink up the joint and send half the arena home bored out of their minds wanting their money back is utterly ridiculous.

And believing this doesn't make someone a sheeple who thinks they're still relevant, either... wherever the hell that came from.

not sure who you are responding too, but it seems like you are now arguing against a strawman. I haven't seen anyone say anything like this.

You think that the last 1/3 of this set is going to make for a great show and be really well received? (Notice I didn't say stink up the joint, or people demand their money back) You think playing 11 new songs, of which none of them are hits, is a good idea?

[dtc]

Streets hasn't been played at every gig since 1987. Several Joshua Tree gigs, including Elland Road in Leeds, did not get Streets. We got Stand By Me & C'mon Everybody instead.

http://www.u2gigs.com/show546.html

Lucky old us eh lol.

Probably has over last 29 years but it was by no means a given in 1987.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by jphelmet

not sure who you are responding too, but it seems like you are now arguing against a strawman. I haven't seen anyone say anything like this.

You think that the last 1/3 of this set is going to make for a great show and be really well received? (Notice I didn't say stink up the joint, or people demand their money back) You think playing 11 new songs, of which none of them are hits, is a good idea?

I don't know if the last third of the show will be well received or make for a great show.

I don't know if playing 11 songs from the last 2 albums is a good idea.

I haven't seen the show. Nobody has.

What I do know is that poo pooing the show based on a paper setlist, knowing their history for putting on amazing live shows, is a little ridiculous.

As a fan I'd rather they play even more new songs and non hits. The song I'm most upset about not being on the rumored set is Little Things, not Streets.

But far as the average concert goer enjoying the show based on this set list, that depends on whether or not they perform it well.

What, nobody here has ever gone to a concert and not known many of the songs being played and been blown away by the performance itself?


If they have confidence in what they're playing, play the songs well and have a great multimedia clusterfuck to to on with them - it will be well received.

If they don't, it won't.

[RoKKeR]

Really gonna try to avoid visual spoilers as I have a feeling that the visuals and effects are going to be unreal on this tour.

[clerks]

I haven't been here in months... skimmed some of the songs listed in set list and it has 2 of my all time favorites, one I've only heard once in concert and the other 5-10 times, but it's not played all the time, so I'm pumped if that's true set list.

Also new album rules.

If the set list has U2 songs on it, it's a great set list.

[DeVaul]

Originally Posted by clerks

I haven't been here in months... skimmed some of the songs listed in set list and it has 2 of my all time favorites, one I've only heard once in concert and the other 5-10 times, but it's not played all the time, so I'm pumped if that's true set list.



Also new album rules.



If the set list has U2 songs on it, it's a great set list.

Which shows you hitting, sweetheart?

[innominata8]

Originally Posted by dtc

Streets hasn't been played at every gig since 1987. Several Joshua Tree gigs, including Elland Road in Leeds, did not get Streets. We got Stand By Me & C'mon Everybody instead.

U2 Leeds, 1987-07-01, Elland Road Stadium, Joshua Tree Tour - U2 on tour

Lucky old us eh lol.

Probably has over last 29 years but it was by no means a given in 1987.

henceforth my stating over the last 29 years.

[d.darroch]

Originally Posted by jphelmet

So a 1/3 of the set is massive hits. That was my point, that is low for U2. I+E on the first leg that number was closer to 2/3. This tour is much less than previous tours, and that is why I think they add more and rotate out some other songs.

They are treating their new music like they are still a relevant band as far as new music goes, and that is not the case. I think they will realize fairly quickly a large part of their audience doesn't want to see 11 new songs.

Originally Posted by jphelmet

not sure who you are responding too, but it seems like you are now arguing against a strawman. I haven't seen anyone say anything like this.

You think that the last 1/3 of this set is going to make for a great show and be really well received? (Notice I didn't say stink up the joint, or people demand their money back) You think playing 11 new songs, of which none of them are hits, is a good idea?

For i+e, the opening set was 50% new material, 5 out of the 10 songs being off the new album. I'm sure that set was very entertaining for the majority of the crowd.

Admittedly the remainder of the show was 90% hits. But I think if U2 tells a story, incorporating all the techno wizardry, I think they can keep the casuals engaged.

I'm just a bit worried, that like i+e (minus the October-Streets stretch), the second set may not have an interesting story to tell.

We shall wait & see.

[Iggy Fizz]

Acrobat is not going to be recognized by anyone. They should avoid it.

Terrible song too, from an obscure album.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Totes

[martha]

I won't fall asleep if they play Acrobat.

I might pee my pants, however.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by martha

I won't fall asleep if they play Acrobat.

I might pee my pants, however.

They make something for that now