Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
So here's the thing... Shit tons of " casual" fans go to Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam concerts. They're not all walking out after the first hour.
If the band is a good enough performer, and U2 are, they can engage the crowd with just about anything. You have to be smart about it, but I just patently disagree with this idea that playing deep cuts somehow prevents casual fans from enjoying a concert.
I was a casual Bruce Springsteen fan before I saw him live for the first time. I was a die hard by the time I left.
Sure, if you play 10 straight deep cuts you're going to lose a lot of people. But if you mix them up and keep a good mix of hits, non single fan favorites and deep cuts that perform well in a live setting, the only way you'll lose the crowd is if you just simply aren't good enough.
Well sure, well said. I can't find anything to disagree with here. And I absolutely wish U2 would play deep cuts, think they should, and don't believe they'd "lose" the causauals if they played those in addition to the warhorses.
My point wasn't about the benefit of adding deep cuts but the problems with subtracting warhorses. At least in any significant number. If U2 played a 3-4 hour concert ala Springsteen where they played the warhorses and the deep cuts, no one would be happier than I.
However, if they played a show of mostly deep cuts at the expense of the core group of songs the bulk of the audience is there to hear...yeah, I think that would be problematic for them. Addition, not subtraction, is the key here. I think casuals are happy to discover the deep cuts, as long as they get the fist waving, sing along songs they know so well on top of that. No matter how well or passionately U2 plays, I don't know, MOFO for example, it's not going to replace hearing Streets for most of the audience (me included).