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

[popshopper]

Let's not start a diehard pissing contest, shall we? That only ends badly.

Again, I'm not even saying static just within ONE TOUR, but static over the last SEVERAL tours. Run the numbers...go back to my first post in this thread, I gave a handful of stats there.

I used to go to multiple shows in multiple legs because I wanted to be there when they did something different. I got to hear A Sort of Homecoming in Dublin, I was at the first show post-9/11 in NYC, I got to be at St. Patrick's Day in Boston, the first show after Bono's Dad died, Larry's Halloween birthday show. That was when magical things happened. There are bands you can follow and get something special every night, no matter the circumstances, different on every tour, which is the "reward" you get when you follow them around. That's just not the case with U2. I'm blessed that I had and have the resources to do it, but it's become a case of diminishing returns.

Then don't go to more than one show. It is self entitlement, you're bitching because while the vast majority of the crowd are having a whale of a time, YOU'RE wanting them to make changes to suit YOU.

 

[youarenotimmune]

Then don't go to more than one show. It is self entitlement, you're bitching because while the vast majority of the crowd are having a whale of a time, YOU'RE wanting them to make changes to suit YOU.

Also, i've been listening to songs like Bad, With or Without You & Streets for almost two frikin decades, and believe me, i still love them as much as i did back then.

Which is why i can NEVER understand how some fans can claim they don't enjoy multiple viewings of U2 shows because they don't "offer anything new". How fucking insane is that?!! If I got to see U2 in concert 30 times, they would be the best 30 times of my life even if they played the EXACT same set at every show!

 

[Bruce]

First big crowd reaction post Badlands was Atlantic City, almost an hour later. The set wasn't well received by the majority of the crowd it was flat for over an hour. I'm quite aware about Springsteen's catalog, hell I was singing along to Incident on 57th Street, but the set was poorly paced, particularly the first half, and all over the place. And he really showed off the new material didn't he?

Wow when it comes to making a setlist your more knowledgeable that Bruce Springsteen a guy whos been doing this for 35 years. Your awesome!!!!!

 

[DubbalinGirl]

Then don't go to more than one show. It is self entitlement, you're bitching because while the vast majority of the crowd are having a whale of a time, YOU'RE wanting them to make changes to suit YOU.

And as I said 50 times already, that's precisely why they're NOT getting my money or my time on this tour. It's sad that you're so complacent with the repetition and don't want them to challenge themselves and their audience with an astounding back-catalog but rather keep parading out the same "war horses" (they call them that, not me...don't you think they call them that for a reason?) tour after tour. For the "best band in the world" they are certainly taking the lazy man's way out. I want to shake them and say: Prove it. Show me. Don't pull a Rolling Stones and play the Top 40 hits for the 65 year old broads throwing their bras on stage for you. (And yes, I've seen the Stones and yes, that is exactly what they do)

Without calculating specifics...15 albums with say, 10 songs per album average. Approximately 150 songs to pull from, not including valid b-sides (Spanish Eyes) and other stuff they could play from side projects (Saints, Miss Sarajevo). And you're psyched you're seeing "the variety" of 33 spread over the course of a tour? REALLY? Wow, you're easy to please.

Which is why i can NEVER understand how some fans can claim they don't enjoy multiple viewings of U2 shows because they don't "offer anything new". How fucking insane is that?!! If I got to see U2 in concert 30 times, they would be the best 30 times of my life even if they played the EXACT same set at every show!

Excellent, then that's exactly what you'd get, so it would work well for you. Be careful what you wish for, that's all I can say. 5 times in one week in 2001, and only 4 changes in song. It's akin to watching Brady Bunch repeats after a while.

 

[BVS]

5 times in one week in 2001, and only 4 changes in song.

But why?!

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

5 times in one week in 2001, and only 4 changes in song. It's akin to watching Brady Bunch repeats after a while.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

DubbalinGirl can i ask a)Do you like U2 live? b)what is your fav tour and c)do you even like U2 at all?

 

[DubbalinGirl]

DubbalinGirl can i ask a)Do you like U2 live? b)what is your fav tour and c)do you even like U2 at all?

a) Yes, I did.
b) Zoo TV was the last tour I truly loved, but I had the benefit of seeing three different legs with three different shows (Zooropa was the best). For Elevation I traveled over 24,000 miles to see 12 shows...so I think you could say I like them live. Or did. Now I've found there's more value in spending my money elsewhere, unless I start seeing a different show evolving over the course of the tour.
c) I love U2, but I actually am not that impressed with this album at all. I have a history here on Interference, I'm not just popping in. I usually only read/participate in ticket buying and after I've seen them. Now I'm just bored at work...

There's nothing wrong with being critical with something you love. What is wrong is you telling me I'm wrong for being critical. I think I'm more critical of them than other bands because I do love them and I expect much more from them. They are a supergroup, they are arguably the group of the 80s and maybe the 90s, but I feel they're winding their way towards "irrelevance" if they're not careful and don't take steps to change their complacency. Coupling an (IMHO) unsatisfactory album with another static tour is really just too much for me to digest. Looking at an entire shelf of official releases and seeing the potential sitting there is depressing, don't you think? Continuing to pay for that complacency is endorsing it, something I won't do anymore.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

So if ZooTv was your fav tour, the setlist was pretty static so i dont get how you can argue about this tour?

and just because YOU have these feelings you feel they should change just for YOU? sod everyone else your all that matters right? i mean you know whats best for everybody.

 

[gvox]

Wow when it comes to making a setlist your more knowledgeable that Bruce Springsteen a guy whos been doing this for 35 years. Your awesome!!!!!

Cmon man, he made a fairly valid point without getting personal, imo. He was at the show. He said the audience struggled to find a vibe, or whatever.

5 times in one week in 2001, and only 4 changes in song. It's akin to watching Brady Bunch repeats after a while.

Whoa whoa whoa pull up: you said that it was magical for you on the Elevation tour. You conveniently ignored my reply that surely the magic had little, if anything, to do with new songs (because we both know it had nothing to do with it)..and now you have reminded me in a more concrete way - only 4 changes in song in a week?? You do realize, right, that by seeing U2 5 times in one week you basically put yourself in the elite - maybe, MAYBE..1% of U2 fans who see them live? And that's a generous 1%. I'm sorry, but you have no argument, period, zilch, zero, nada. And yet, you still claim it was magical and then a few posts later say ZOO was the last tour you liked. ZOO, a tour with very little setlist variation, period. You're one conflicted soul.

a) Yes, I did.
b) Zoo TV was the last tour I truly loved, but I had the benefit of seeing three different legs with three different shows (Zooropa was the best). For Elevation I traveled over 24,000 miles to see 12 shows...so I think you could say I like them live. Or did. Now I've found there's more value in spending my money elsewhere, unless I start seeing a different show evolving over the course of the tour.

There's nothing wrong with being critical with something you love. What is wrong is you telling me I'm wrong for being critical.

Hey guess what? You're dead wrong for being so critical. You are an anomaly, less than 1% of U2 fans worldwide have seen U2 as many times as you have. I'm sure they won't deny you a ticket, but after you see U2 a couple times per tour...well, the reality is, 'rightly' or 'wrongly' and it might come as a bit of a shock....U2 is no longer playing for you, lady. I'm sure they love having you there, but I can't help but think, only if you're going to shut up and enjoy the show like everyone else.

And as I said 50 times already, that's precisely why they're NOT getting my money or my time on this tour.

Thank god for that. Because honestly, if I heard someone going on like you are at a U2 show I'd have to either move or tell you to can it.

 

[Bruce]

In Duballingirl's defense although Zoo Tv had a pretty static setlist it was a major period in the bands history as it was the first tour they had with the elaborate stage get up. From Boy to Lovetown in was just the 4 guys and the stage. Zoo Tv made U2 shows a must see even if you werent a fan just to see the spectacle. Many of you can probably remember the demand for tickets.

Now when you see U2 you expect to see an elaborate stage gets up that the band relies on too much and doesnt allow them to shake up the set list even if they wanted to because the songs have to go along with whats being shown on the video screens. Unfortunatly this leaves no room for improvisation which is something the band has been missing since the Joshua Tree. I must admit that I'm not a fan of the new disc as well and as a longtime U2 fan I actually consider it maybe their worse.

I definatly wouldnt put it up there with anything from Boy to Achtung nor the last 3 discs. For me it sits up on the shelf next to Zooropa. Even though I'm not that big on NLOTH its not that bad of a disc but it certainly isnt one of their best in my opinion. Now with that all being said I consider the Vertigo Tour one of their best because the setlist while overall static touched on everything from The Ocean to Vertigo.

I've been a U2 fan for 23 years so I expect static setlists. I've been to every tour since the Unforgettable Fire so I know what to expect. That being said is why I only see 1 maybe 2 shows per tour.

 

[Bruce]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce
Wow when it comes to making a setlist your more knowledgeable that Bruce Springsteen a guy whos been doing this for 35 years. Your awesome!!!!!

Cmon man, he made a fairly valid point without getting personal, imo. He was at the show. He said the audience struggled to find a vibe, or whatever.


My bad on that one gvox as a Springsteen fan I do tend to sometimes get over defensive. Apologies offered I got to get back to my anger mangement classes.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Why are you going off subject and talking about how as a long term fan you dont like NLOTH

 

[Bruce]

Why are you going off subject and talking about how as a long term fan you dont like NLOTH

Who me?

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Who me?

Well ye

 

[Bruce]

Why are you going off subject and talking about how as a long term fan you dont like NLOTH

I tried to touch on everything in Duballingirls post and I guess thats why I mentioned that. I really dont think that its changing the subject becuase it is the current album that they are touring for.

I said in my post which I thought was very rational that everything I said was my opinion as well. Not sounding like a wise guy but I thought thats what message boards are for different peoples opinions?

 

[BVS]

Not sounding like a wise guy but I thought thats what message boards are for different peoples opinions?

Silly boy, forums are for bitching...

 

[Bruce]

Silly boy, forums are for bitching...

 

[bigjohn2441]

Dude, you're a deadset asshole. All you do is ridicule other people's opinions.

you should see the gun threads

 

[DRay9911]

Excellent, then that's exactly what you'd get, so it would work well for you. Be careful what you wish for, that's all I can say. 5 times in one week in 2001, and only 4 changes in song. It's akin to watching Brady Bunch repeats after a while.

are you talking about the one where marsha gets hit in the nose with the football or the one where they build the house of cards?

-dan

 

[Salome]

What's the deal with the claw anyway? What does it mean? I don't get it. I understand that it's at least partly designed to enable more people to fit into the stadium, but what does the claw or spider or Dr Who villain mean in the context of the show?

it's not about the claw
it's about the open space it creates
it's a metaphor for opening up for the outside world and whatever is beyond this world
it's art for art's sake

 

[popshopper]

Wow when it comes to making a setlist your more knowledgeable that Bruce Springsteen a guy whos been doing this for 35 years. Your awesome!!!!!

I was actually at the concert, you weren't. It was flat, flat as a pancake until half way through then it got really good. Hell even the papers who were reviewing it mentioned it (whilst simultaneously proclaiming it to be great).

 

[popshopper]

And as I said 50 times already, that's precisely why they're NOT getting my money or my time on this tour. It's sad that you're so complacent with the repetition and don't want them to challenge themselves and their audience with an astounding back-catalog but rather keep parading out the same "war horses" (they call them that, not me...don't you think they call them that for a reason?) tour after tour. For the "best band in the world" they are certainly taking the lazy man's way out. I want to shake them and say: Prove it. Show me. Don't pull a Rolling Stones and play the Top 40 hits for the 65 year old broads throwing their bras on stage for you. (And yes, I've seen the Stones and yes, that is exactly what they do)

Without calculating specifics...15 albums with say, 10 songs per album average. Approximately 150 songs to pull from, not including valid b-sides (Spanish Eyes) and other stuff they could play from side projects (Saints, Miss Sarajevo). And you're psyched you're seeing "the variety" of 33 spread over the course of a tour? REALLY? Wow, you're easy to please.



Excellent, then that's exactly what you'd get, so it would work well for you. Be careful what you wish for, that's all I can say. 5 times in one week in 2001, and only 4 changes in song. It's akin to watching Brady Bunch repeats after a while.

Firstly I've never claimed U2 are the best band in the world. They happen to produce songs I quite like.

As I keep saying unless your going to more than one concert on a tour then there's nothing amazing or wonderful about setlist variation. The rarities are nice but I wouldn't want a show full of them, they tend not to be played because they weren't that great live,they don't suit the aesthetic of the show or simply the band don't want to play them anymore (see Please). 90% of the audience don't care about what U2 played last week in Dublin, they care about the 23 songs they're about to get.

I've seen this tour once already, I'll see it another 3 times by the end up. It's a wonderful concert experience, the band are playing very well, and WOWY apart Bono is singing extremely well, the stage show is the best they've come up with in terms of actually presenting a band playing (the Claw doesn't overpower songs like Zoo TV or Popmart had the tendency to) but most importantly having seen the show, there's a very organic flow to the setlist something which isn't apparent on paper but live it's obvious there's a lot of thought put into the separate movements of the show. While I'd perhaps appreciate them delving into the back catalogue they are extremely close to the best set for this particular show.

 

[Bruce]

I was actually at the concert, you weren't. It was flat, flat as a pancake until half way through then it got really good. Hell even the papers who were reviewing it mentioned it (whilst simultaneously proclaiming it to be great).

I did offer an apology on the page for. Again I apologize as I am defensive about the Boss.

 

[Addicted To Bad]

Also, i've been listening to songs like Bad, With or Without You & Streets for almost two frikin decades, and believe me, i still love them as much as i did back then.

Which is why i can NEVER understand how some fans can claim they don't enjoy multiple viewings of U2 shows because they don't "offer anything new". How fucking insane is that?!! If I got to see U2 in concert 30 times, they would be the best 30 times of my life even if they played the EXACT same set at every show!

and more: in order to please all kinds of fans they do NOT play the EXACT same set at every show!

And I wonder: what the hell do people really, really want ?!

what ????????

 

[last unicorn]

This thread should be renamed into a U2 vs. Springsteen thread

We've had enough threads of that kind.

Strangely, I love both of them, but I'd never even think of comparing them.
I'd never bash one because I want to show how great the other one is.
I love them and their shows and music for different reasons.

I never understand why some people think U2 "owns" them something becasue they have all their records or when to 50 concerts. No one forces you to. I you don't agree with what they're doing for their live shows, go to one show, then you don't have to worry about "static" setlists. Some people are over-obsessing over setlist changes. Most music fans don't go to 20+ concerts, they go to one and don't care if the band plays the same songs again the following night in a different city.

And whoever said "Zoo TV", I congratulate you, it's the tour with one of the most static setlists ever and exactly the tour that was all about technology and effects and not about the music in the first place.

I think it's funny that some people would bother spending so much time and money to see so many U2 concerts and then are disappointed because there is not enough setlist variety. It's U2 and that's the way their tours work. I can't believe some people are still surprised by that. The band have said several times in the past why they don't change up their sets more. If you expect them to be someone else, it's your own fault.

Btw I find it funny that in threads like these suddenly people pop up who I've never seen before in any other threads just to post negative stuff.

 

[last unicorn]

Btw, I love Bruce, I've seen him in concert a couple of times in recent years. Yes, it's true he varies the setlist a lot, but that's what he's known for and I don't expect anything else when I go to a Bruce show. The shows I've been too were amazing, but it's not U2. I wouldn't go to as many Bruce gigs as I go to U2 gigs, simply because U2 is magical for me. Their shows are far more emotional for me and it's about more than just the music. I go to a lot of concerts and mostly it's about the music, but, at least for me, U2 is about much more than that.

 

[Bruce]

This thread should be renamed into a U2 vs. Springsteen thread

We've had enough threads of that kind.

Strangely, I love both of them, but I'd never even think of comparing them.
I'd never bash one because I want to show how great the other one is.
I love them and their shows and music for different reasons.

I never understand why some people think U2 "owns" them something becasue they have all their records or when to 50 concerts. No one forces you to. I you don't agree with what they're doing for their live shows, go to one show, then you don't have to worry about "static" setlists. Some people are over-obsessing over setlist changes. Most music fans don't go to 20+ concerts, they go to one and don't care if the band plays the same songs again the following night in a different city.

And whoever said "Zoo TV", I congratulate you, it's the tour with one of the most static setlists ever and exactly the tour that was all about technology and effects and not about the music in the first place.

I think it's funny that some people would bother spending so much time and money to see so many U2 concerts and then are disappointed because there is not enough setlist variety. It's U2 and that's the way their tours work. I can't believe some people are still surprised by that. The band have said several times in the past why they don't change up their sets more. If you expect them to be someone else, it's your own fault.

Btw I find it funny that in threads like these suddenly people pop up who I've never seen before in any other threads just to post negative stuff.

Wow this guy seems to know what he's talking about.

 

[thelaj]

The Claw is only a major component for a few songs... Unforgettable Fire, COBL, Crazy, Ultraviolet. For the rest of the time it is pretty but nothing that precludes a more varied setlist being used.

On the other hand, while I would like a bit more variety it isn't the disaster on here many make it out to be.

 

[thelaj]

double post