Shuttlecock V: Sleep Like Leo Tonight

[Hewson]

Can someone explain to me the innocence + experience nights on this tour? I am seeing Boston 1 and MSG 1, so I prolly screwed that up no?

Nobody knows exactly what to expect, but the band have hinted that there'll be some difference on back to back nights, night 1 being innocence, night 2 being experience, so probably you will get 2 very similar shows by doing Boston 1 and NYC 1.

 

[lazarus]

I don't think that's what they hinted.

 

[Hewson]

I don't think that's what they hinted.

So how do you interpret this then?:

U2 > News > U2 iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE Tour 2015

The iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE Tour will see U2 play 19 cities worldwide next year, with pairs of shows in each city. Special shows are being planned for Dublin for the end of next year to benefit the U2-initiated Music Generation project and details will follow once they are finalised. (Full itinerary below and on our tour page. )

“We are going to try to have a completely different feeling from night one to night two,” said Bono, “and have some fun playing with the idea of innocence and experience. More to be revealed!”

 

[Axver]

I'm cynical and don't expect night two to be THAT different to night one (in U2's minds, playing MW instead of Pride probably constitutes a "completely different feeling"), but yeah if I were able to attend this tour I'd definitely make sure to attend a night one and a night two rather than two night ones.

 

[cobl04]

Alright I was gonna try and catch up on everything but I'm just too far behind. Pretty awesome news that they'll tour, anyone want to sum up how we're all feeling here? You people are the only ones on this entire forum whose opinions I give a shit about. Do you all have tickets? Are we thinking we'll get one electric night one acoustic night? What's going on?

 

[david]

Hrmm. I wonder if U2 are brave enough to pull of albums in their entirety like other artists have done...

 

[Axver]

Alright I was gonna try and catch up on everything but I'm just too far behind. Pretty awesome news that they'll tour, anyone want to sum up how we're all feeling here? You people are the only ones on this entire forum whose opinions I give a shit about. Do you all have tickets? Are we thinking we'll get one electric night one acoustic night? What's going on?

I'm glad to see them back on tour and in arenas, but a bit disappointed with the very conservative tour schedule. So far no new countries/cities, not even anywhere visited after a lengthy absence, and U2 already have a crazily conservative touring record compared to most other artists (they've done 34 countries, while most other artists of their status are in the forties or low fifties). Obviously this tour was not going to be especially broad, since the focus seems clearly on playing heavily in reliable markets. I suppose given the documented physical ailments of some band members this isn't too much of a surprise; perhaps it's more an indictment of past tour schedules than this one.

As for the night one/two distinction, I'm willing to put a lot of money down that it won't be electric/acoustic (or hits/rarities). The band themselves said that if they were to go down the electric/acoustic route they would need to make it very clear to fans which show is which before tickets go on sale. That didn't happen, just a vague hint about night one having a different vibe to night two. It could be almost anything. I'm sceptical it will be much more than a few setlist changes, maybe drawing on a pool of about 30-35 songs across the two nights. At this stage I give the most credence to the idea that the first night will focus on eighties material and the second to nineties/2000s.

 

[Axver]

Hrmm. I wonder if U2 are brave enough to pull of albums in their entirety like other artists have done...

I hope they do just so that U2girl has a fit and spontaneously combusts, given her aversion to even consider such a possibility, let alone enjoying it.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Maybe the second night involves the band holding the audience hostage.

 

[PhilsFan]

Alright I was gonna try and catch up on everything but I'm just too far behind. Pretty awesome news that they'll tour, anyone want to sum up how we're all feeling here? You people are the only ones on this entire forum whose opinions I give a shit about. Do you all have tickets? Are we thinking we'll get one electric night one acoustic night? What's going on?

They're skipping America's fifth largest city so I'm not going.

 

[cobl04]

^ you must have done a dark little chuckle when you saw the schedule.

Plenty more dates to be announced though surely. If they mix up the sets and play some cool songs I'll be really happy.

 

[IWasBored]

I hope they do just so that U2girl has a fit and spontaneously combusts, given her aversion to even consider such a possibility, let alone enjoying it.

I can only imagine what her argument is. Mine is along the lines of it would be cool as hell (unless it was htdaab or an acoustic version of the new one), but they'd be too far out of their comfort zone trying to do certain songs that they'd never go for it. Hers is probably "omg I cannot live with the thought that I'd never hear (insert stupid overplayed title here) for the millionth time that I would just die!"

 

[LemonMelon]

Maybe the second night involves the band holding the audience hostage.

Sounds like a weird PLEBA fantasy.

 

[Axver]

I can only imagine what her argument is. Mine is along the lines of it would be cool as hell (unless it was htdaab or an acoustic version of the new one), but they'd be too far out of their comfort zone trying to do certain songs that they'd never go for it. Hers is probably "omg I cannot live with the thought that I'd never hear (insert stupid overplayed title here) for the millionth time that I would just die!"

Apparently if U2 play a full album live they will all of a sudden cease to be "relevant".

I'd like them to troll the audience and play October in full on night one, Passengers in full on night two, and represent the hits solely through drum snippets in With a Shout or bass snippets in Ito Okashi.

 

[LemonMelon]

Apparently if U2 play a full album live they will all of a sudden cease to be "relevant".

That's OK. U2 isn't especially relevant to begin with.

 

[lazarus]

So how do you interpret this then?:

U2 > News > U2 iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE Tour 2015

Well...

I'm cynical and don't expect night two to be THAT different to night one (in U2's minds, playing MW instead of Pride probably constitutes a "completely different feeling"), but yeah if I were able to attend this tour I'd definitely make sure to attend a night one and a night two rather than two night ones.

As for the night one/two distinction, I'm willing to put a lot of money down that it won't be electric/acoustic (or hits/rarities). The band themselves said that if they were to go down the electric/acoustic route they would need to make it very clear to fans which show is which before tickets go on sale. That didn't happen, just a vague hint about night one having a different vibe to night two. It could be almost anything. I'm sceptical it will be much more than a few setlist changes, maybe drawing on a pool of about 30-35 songs across the two nights. At this stage I give the most credence to the idea that the first night will focus on eighties material and the second to nineties/2000s.

What he said. And I'm not even sure nights will be devoted to 80s or 90s or whatever. I just can't imagine them selling tickets 6 months in advance without telling people they're seeing a specifically-tailored show.

I imagine there will just be more variation than normal, and who's to say that each night won't be divided in half, as in the first hour being "Innocence" and the second being "Experience"? I mean, seems weird to call the tour Innocence and Experience if people are only going to get one or the other by seeing a single show?

Hrmm. I wonder if U2 are desperate enough to pull of albums in their entirety like other artists have done...

Fixed.

We've had this discussion before; as cool as it would be to see the band play The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby, to me they would be basically be admitting they're creatively washed up and are a revival act.

Whether you like 2000s-era U2 or not, one of the remaining cool things about them is that they play over half a new album every tour, and no other big band their age does this. They don't have to do stunt tours to sell big venues, even if many people attending are there to see "the hits".

Maybe the second night involves the band holding the audience hostage.

You mean like when they played In A Little While every night on 360?

 

[LemonMelon]

Fixed.

We've had this discussion before; as cool as it would be to see the band play The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby, to me they would be basically be admitting they're creatively washed up and are a revival act.

Whether you like 2000s-era U2 or not, one of the remaining cool things about them is that they play over half a new album every tour, and no other big band their age does this. They don't have to do stunt tours to sell big venues, even if many people attending are there to see "the hits".

Fuck that. What a jump in logic. There's no reason to play shitty music to prove a point if they're not even supporting those records anymore. Play Joshua Tree. Play Achtung Baby. Play Songs of Innocence material too. Hell, play an old album and SOI all the way through. That's not even two hours. How is that more desperate or creatively bereft than filling the set with songs we've heard a thousand times in lieu of Boy, October, War, Zooropa and Pop tracks?

I'm not saying they should do that, necessarily, but hypothetically, what's the difference?

 

[Axver]

That's OK. U2 isn't especially relevant to begin with.

But but two hundred thousand million billion people have Songs of Innocence!!!1!11!1

What he said. And I'm not even sure nights will be devoted to 80s or 90s or whatever. I just can't imagine them selling tickets 6 months in advance without telling people they're seeing a specifically-tailored show.

I imagine there will just be more variation than normal, and who's to say that each night won't be divided in half, as in the first hour being "Innocence" and the second being "Experience"? I mean, seems weird to call the tour Innocence and Experience if people are only going to get one or the other by seeing a single show?

Good points. U2 love their themed segments of about 3-5 songs and could just rotate through a bunch of them. Hell, they could even do the same themes each night but with different songs because they have more than enough to do that.

We've had this discussion before; as cool as it would be to see the band play The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby, to me they would be basically be admitting they're creatively washed up and are a revival act.

Honestly, I don't care if U2 (or any other band) is washed up or a revival act; I just want to hear good songs played well.

You mean like when they played In A Little While every night on 360?

 

[cobl04]

Yeah with LM on that one. Would so much rather see them play an album I love in full then play seven or eight songs off an album I don't really like. They aren't "relevant" and opening with four songs from SoI and then playing three JT tracks later on isn't going to make them more so.

 

[LemonMelon]

But but two hundred thousand million billion people have Songs of Innocence!!!1!11!1

 

[Kieran McConville]

You mean like when they played In A Little While every night on 360?

Or when they played Mercy (albeit possibly not every night) on the 360 tour...

 

[lazarus]

Would so much rather see them play an album I love in full then play seven or eight songs off an album I don't really like. They aren't "relevant" and opening with four songs from SoI and then playing three JT tracks later on isn't going to make them more so.

Forgive me for sounding arrogant here, but I guess I'm just being more objective about things instead of trying to impose my taste on their career-long modus operandi. I don't care what I think of the new material, that's what they should be focusing on when they tour. I felt that way during Elevation when I wasn't the biggest fan of the album, and I feel that way now.

As I said, for better or worse, what drives this band to tour is to get out and give their new material the live treatment, often improving certain songs in that format. It's personally why I keep going to see them, not to see what old nuggets they might drag out of the vault. And it's why I have a lot of respect for them regardless of what decisions they make during the recording process. They always believe in their most recent material.

If you don't like their new music, don't go to the show then. Or you're just another asshole in the stands screaming "Play the old stuff!"

I thought we all hated these types of fans.

There's no reason to play shitty music to prove a point if they're not even supporting those records anymore.

You're going to have to rephrase that because I don't understand what you're saying here.

Not supporting which records? And what is the shitty music?

 

[LemonMelon]

You're going to have to rephrase that because I don't understand what you're saying here.

Not supporting which records? And what is the shitty music?

You seemed to be supporting their continuing to play newer music (2000s) to prove their relevance. I see now that you were solely referring to SOI.

I don't think a single person is advocating playing full records in lieu of anything from SOI. I don't like the album and wouldn't suggest that.

 

[IWasBored]

Apparently if U2 play a full album live they will all of a sudden cease to be "relevant".

I'd like them to troll the audience and play October in full on night one, Passengers in full on night two, and represent the hits solely through drum snippets in With a Shout or bass snippets in Ito Okashi.

That's OK. U2 isn't especially relevant to begin with.

This.

I'd like to ask her if she feels a greatest hits set + weaksauce from the new album, for a band that hasn't had one in nearly a decade and a half and the rest are over 20 years old, is more "relevant."

 

[lazarus]

You seemed to be supporting their continuing to play newer music (2000s) to prove their relevance. I see now that you were solely referring to SOI.

I don't think a single person is advocating playing full records in lieu of anything from SOI. I don't like the album and wouldn't suggest that.

I mean, half their setlist the last tour was 2000+ material which still shows a broader confidence in recent work, but yes I was speaking specifically about SOI.

My point still stands, though: if you play an older album in its entirety, you're taking the focus away from the new stuff.

And the suggestion of playing both AB and SOI in full at a single show isn't practical at all.

 

[LemonMelon]

And the suggestion of playing both AB and SOI in full at a single show isn't practical at all.

FWIW, I'm not suggesting this at all. Tonally, it would be a disaster. But it would be every bit as bold and creatively vital as what they're doing now.

 

[lazarus]

What they're doing now meaning 360? Because until we see a setlist from this tour (and for both nights of the "pair") we can't judge their current method.

And as for 360, they played what, 4-5 new songs that hadn't even been recorded yet during the European leg? Pretty bold considering they hadn't done stuff like that in ages. Plus bringing back some deep cuts like Ultraviolet, Zooropa, Your Blue Room?

Not as bold as they could be, but not as generic, either.

 

[djerdap]

It's generic because the songs are generic. They can try to act "relevant" with new material, but it's hardly doing any good if 99% of the entire stadium just doesn't give a shit, and the material isn't helping matters.

If the songs are there, the "boldness" is there. The songs aren't there as far as I am concerned, and many others share this view.

 

[gvox]

I guess I've become one of the assholes, by default...because in the 5 shows I've currently got tickets for, I'd like to see songs like Miracle, RBW, Cedarwood and Reach Around a grand total of once each. I could live without Volcano period. Id only want to hear those songs once just to see what they'd do with them live.

Other than that, if all they played of the new stuff was Invisible, Iris, EBW, Crystal Ballroom and The Troubles, I'd be a perfectly happy camper. Bring on the greatest hits parade sprinkled with some (proper speed) 11OTT Acrobat BTBS Tomorrow Like A Song and Please, and I'll be over the moon.




Sent from my ass crack

 

[Hewson]

Well...





What he said. And I'm not even sure nights will be devoted to 80s or 90s or whatever. I just can't imagine them selling tickets 6 months in advance without telling people they're seeing a specifically-tailored show.

I imagine there will just be more variation than normal, and who's to say that each night won't be divided in half, as in the first hour being "Innocence" and the second being "Experience"? I mean, seems weird to call the tour Innocence and Experience if people are only going to get one or the other by seeing a single show?

Look, I'm as skeptical as the next guy about what will actually happen, but my answer to the question posed by YBORCITY was that the band has hinted that they'd be doing different things on back to back nights, and they have as the quote from Bono said as much.

Will it happen? To what extent? Who knows? (Also the first thing I said in that response), but the answer to his question was accurate, the band has stated they will do 2 different shows of some sort back to back.