Songs U2 need to Bring back on 360 Tour

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Lol no not a whole ton, but from what I've looked at so far...


Maybe I just only check the setlists at perfect times where Bad isn't on them :lol:


Which has been oddly enough to make me wonder how that happened...
 
From memory Bad was played at Brussels II, Rome, Melbourne, Sydney. That's just 2010 there. 2009 had way more. Amsterdam II, Dublin I and III, London, Cardiff and a couple US dates.
 
From memory Bad was played at Brussels II, Rome, Melbourne, Sydney. That's just 2010 there. 2009 had way more. Amsterdam II, Dublin I and III, London, Cardiff and a couple US dates.

I knew you would show up here!:wink:

Mofo would be a great add! I would love if they brought back NLOTH.
 
:whistle: Maybe I was a little spoiled on my shows...



:wink: Well I was at four of those shows, was in the setlist party of another four. I only missed the US appearance. Wasn't it Chicago or something?

Yes, Chicago 1.

And you forgot a performance, Brisbane!
:wink:

I won't tell Axver!
 
Jesus, Bad should be retired and brought out only on special occasions! It's been done to death. It's pathetic that 1/3 the setlist is 25 years old.

They've got to retire a bunch of songs and replace them with fresh ones...like Please!
 
By that... you'd be getting rid of...


I Will Follow
Gloria
Sunday Bloody Sunday
New Year's Day
Pride (In the Name of Love)
Bad
A Sort of Homecoming

I disagree.

All those songs you mentioned are nostalgia trips that they take because they think they have to. it's pathetic. They have other great songs! it's like they're casual fans of their own band.
 
I think it's funny that lots of people complain about certain songs being in the set. When you get to the concert and the opening of Bad comes roaring out of the speakers, do you sit there and scream, "FUCK THIS SHIT I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!!!"?

No, I'm sure you're there along with the rest of the audience having a wonderful time enjoying hearing one of the band's best songs played live right in front of you.
 
All those songs you mentioned are nostalgia trips that they take because they think they have to. it's pathetic. They have other great songs! it's like they're casual fans of their own band.

Maybe you should make a pitch at privately renting out U2 for the afternoon.

News flash, casual fans are the reason of almost any bands success, minus the underground and indie scenes. And guess what! Indie/underground bands aren't popular anyways!

And no, they're not a casual fan of their own band. And it's not a nostalgia trip, especially if you're not old enough to have lived in/attended concerts in the 1980s. Sorry if I didn't have the chance to make it to the Boy Tour. Or the War Tour. Or the Unforgettable Fire Tour. Or The Joshua Tree Tour. etc. etc.

They should just throw it away because you want songs that you haven't seen live.

But they're totally casual fans of their own music. Or, actually, they realize that in order to put on the best show, they should step up with their best music. And they acknowledge that they love hits. They want hits.
 
Jesus, Bad should be retired and brought out only on special occasions! It's been done to death. It's pathetic that 1/3 the setlist is 25 years old.

They've got to retire a bunch of songs and replace them with fresh ones...like Please!

You should meet Harry Vest. I'm sure you guys would get along so well. :cute:


:lol: Nostalgia trips? Uh, it's called playing the hits people want to hear. About 90% of the stadium crowd wants to hear I Will Follow, they want to hear New year's Day, they want to hear SBS, Pride, Bad, UF, Streets, etc etc etc. They're staples for a reason. You can't just kick them out because they're 'old'. If we didn't still have old music there would be no music today.

And for the record, I felt fuckin' blessed hearing Bad four times already. Chills down my spine when we got that intro at Amsterdam II, it was the first time it was played this tour. Fuckin' special.
 
Not to mention... U2 is gettin old. We should kick them out. Scrap all of that old material.

In fact, we can just have Coldplay play songs like Fez, Stand Up Comedy, and Cedars of Lebanon. Since, you know, it's all new material. And they've never been played live.
 
About 90% of the stadium crowd wants to hear I Will Follow, they want to hear New year's Day, they want to hear SBS, Pride, Bad, UF, Streets, etc etc etc. They're staples for a reason.

Oh yes. We've gone over Streets already, but I'm adding that if I Will Follow was not played, it would be a very sad Katie in the audience...
 
I need Gloria. And Bad.

Along with the usual Streets.

Of course I would be upset if one of Beautiful Day (which is my favorite song), SBS, etc. etc. wasn't there.

But to make it perfect, Gloria and Bad. I know it wont happen, but I can dream!
 
The artists responsibility is not to give the people what they want, it's to do what THEY want, which leads to good, honest work. Which is what made U2 great to begin with. If they had their preoccupation with giving people what they want there would have been no Unforgettable Fire, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, ZOO TV, Pop Mart. There would not be good art because people want the same thing over and over until they are given something better. Do you think Beatles fans wanted Revolver? They wanted Please Please Me! And they got the best record ever. Radiohead fans didn't want Kid A, and now it's regarded as Radiohead classic 1(A) and was the unanimous album of the 00s. Bowie fans didn't want Low or Heroes, or Station to Station -they wanted Ziggy over and over again. U2 fans wanted Joshua Tree and a drunk guy in a bad vest and they got fucking ZOO TV.

If you want the hits, listen to the damn radio, or their albums, or bootlegs from when the songs were fresh and had fire.

"Gloria" was garbage in 05, and neither it or IWF are the best songs on their albums. Same with SBS, NYD, Bad, Streets...any of the hits. The hits are not their best songs, and plenty of mainstream, big bands switch up the set a lot and save the oldies for special occasions. They can definitely get rid of songs that they've played 1000 times; they should do that - they should grow live like they did for their first 20 years, because they have stagnated on the stage and have turned into the Rolling Stones. Seeing U2 play I Will Follow now is almost as sad as seeing the Stones play Satisfaction or Jumpin Jack Flash. It's karaoke. They admit that they play the oldies to bring people back to their youth, which is really fucking sad. Do they not have anything to offer now? I'm seeing Wire soon and while Chairs Missing is my favourite album, I have no desire for them to play it because I want to hear them NOW, not covering a record they made when they were kids. Same with Flaming Lips. Clouds Taste Metallic is my current fave, but when I saw them I was blown away because the new stuff is great, and the show was honest.

Their adventurous albums and tours will live forever; their current pandering is forgotten as soon as it happens. And it's sad that the current U2 fan base can't see this.
 
Nice, your point totally contradicts itself.

I Will Follow =/= Sunday Bloody Sunday =/= Pride =/= Streets =/= Angel of Harlem =/= Mysterious Ways =/= Beautiful Day =/= Vertigo

U2 continues to produce a wide variety of music, regardless of what the fans think.

IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THEY LOVE MAKING HITS. I WOULD TOO.

They'll continue to make different music. And they'll continue to pay homage to their roots, while at the same time playing new music (see Magnificent, Unknown Caller, Moment of Surrender, etc. or whatever the hell is still on the tour at this point).
 
Okay, I'll give you one little bit. Fine, you're right, they shouldn't have gone "Greatest Hits" on us. It might make them seem old. But the way you're delivering your point just isn't justice.

If they weren't ready to do this whole "Greatest Hits" stuff, they shouldn't have made 10 studio albums. And they shouldn't have performed on a stadium setting. It just begs for it. It's not like U2 stopped playing any of those songs in PopMart or Zoo TV. Their discography just lacked Beautiful Day, Vertigo, City of Blinding Lights, Magnificent, Moment of Surrender, etc. etc. so they had more space on their setlists to perform more songs of their most recent album.
 
Not getting into this argument, but perhaps they make good songs and people like them and some of those good songs become hits, regardless of whether they're played differently 20-25ish years later?
 
Okay, I'll give you one little bit. Fine, you're right, they shouldn't have gone "Greatest Hits" on us. It might make them seem old. But the way you're delivering your point just isn't justice.

If they weren't ready to do this whole "Greatest Hits" stuff, they shouldn't have made 10 studio albums. And they shouldn't have performed on a stadium setting. It just begs for it. It's not like U2 stopped playing any of those songs in PopMart or Zoo TV. Their discography just lacked Beautiful Day, Vertigo, City of Blinding Lights, Magnificent, Moment of Surrender, etc. etc. so they had more space on their setlists to perform more songs of their most recent album.

The songs were fresher on Zoo TV - Joshua Tree was the previous tour, and they were songs from 2 albums prior, and the focus was on the new stuff. If 1/2 the set was from 1983 or earlier it would have been pretty sad, no? The size of U2s discography should mean they have more varied sets. Hell, the amount of hits they have demands this!

The argument out ther that they have to cater to fans who don't know "obscure" albums is ludicrous. The only obscure U2 album is the one under a different name, and ever one from War on was massive (save NLOTH), and most are filled with gold, so why not REALLY do justice to their legacy, of that is what they're doing, and go into the catelogue?

I've seen REM 5 times and there are only 6 songs I've heard more than 2 times, and 1 that has been at every show. Why can't U2 do this? The Lips ignore the past. U2 live in it. If they don't think their new stuff is good enough to play they shouldn't bother releasing it.
 
Ludicrous? What was Achtung Baby? Obscure for U2. What was Zooropa? Pop?

Listen, you missed my point.

NLOTH DIDNT TAKE OFF. You want U2 to go away forever? Plan the biggest concert in history and play the entire NLOTH album. That would've set their legacy nice and solid, "BIGGEST CONCERT FAILURE". Yeah, I agree, hopefully next time they release an album they focus more on it, go back to the arena setups, and live in the now.

And in the future, when they're actually legit old, they should journey back in this direction. But that's not to make an excuse... their on the grandest stage of all right now. If you dont come forward with your best stuff, you're going to look bad in the public eye.
 
I hypothesize they're figuring out what to do next/how to improve NLOTH live by playing the songs they're already capable of playing live and having that energy bounce off that of the new songs.

And I really don't like the statement that if they played anything made before '83 it would be crap. Quite the contrary. Boy and October, but mostly Boy, weren't as popular because U2 weren't very known yet, and both albums have great songs in them, as does War, and etc. There's a reason they haven't faded into total obscurity.
 
Out of Control: would be a great opener
I Will Follow: ditto
Gloria: ditto

Some of the old stuff would really be cool if sprinkled in like they did in 2005.

At least in lieu of some really stale songs: IALW, MS for ex.

But, hell, NLOTH2 was my wrong guess for the 2009 opener. Still think it would have ruled. So what do I know.
 
Back
Top Bottom