The static setlist arguement.

[gman]

Got to thinking after reading another thread mentioning the age old "static setlist" arguement, surely a tour is based on the assumption that the vast majority of people at ANY given gig, will attend one show on the tour only. My point being, how can this arguement hold any water when most people are not in the privalaged position of being able to attend many shows?
Any other shows that go on the road (beit circus, musical or whatever) doesnt "shake up" the show. So why should a band be expected to?

 

[cobl04]

Most people here tend to sort of complain about it I suppose, because as someone infamously said, "We're all fucking nuts." The casual fan will most likely only go to one or two shows at the most, and will want to see the big hits. Yes many of us would prefer Acrobat over Bullet, or Red Hill Mining Town over Pride. But it just won't happen.

 

[last unicorn]

It's because most hardcore fans take themselves to seriously and seem to forget that they are not the majority of people going to a U2 concert.

 

[gman]

Yes many of us would prefer Acrobat over Bullet, or Red Hill Mining Town over Pride. But it just won't happen.

Totally agree with that COBL_04. But surely thats more to do with the band not feeling comfortable enough playing them live. As you know, it wont be done to piss us off

 

[cobl04]

Well yes. There are better examples but I that's what came to my head.

We'd have to ask U2 ourselves I reckon, I honestly don't know.

 

[indra]

Any other shows that go on the road (beit circus, musical or whatever) doesnt "shake up" the show.

It's not only touring shows. Does anyone expect Swan Lake to be improvised? Or a symphony? Or any Broadway play?

Personally I think a band has an obligation to do whatever they can to produce the best show for the majority of their fans day in and day out. A well practiced static setlist gives them the best chance of doing that. Ok, sometimes it isn't well practised until several shows into a tour, but that being the case, if they shook up the set list a lot each show chances are good ALL the shows would suck.

 

[coolian2]

It's because most hardcore fans take themselves to seriously and seem to forget that they are not the majority of people going to a U2 concert.

Close the thread, no better argument can be put forward.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Got to thinking after reading another thread mentioning the age old "static setlist" arguement, surely a tour is based on the assumption that the vast majority of people at ANY given gig, will attend one show on the tour only. My point being, how can this arguement hold any water when most people are not in the privalaged position of being able to attend many shows?
Any other shows that go on the road (beit circus, musical or whatever) doesnt "shake up" the show. So why should a band be expected to?

Agreed, but with about 40 odd singles to choose from and 20 or 30 non singles that work well live they could vary it a bit more, but it's not something I get workred up about.
Zoo TV is the tour with the least amount of variation in set list, but it was such a massive experience and show, like an opera that it was almost impossible to vary the set much(apart from on the b-stage) as it would destroy the flow of the multi media show. However that's not the case.
The last tour had quite a bit of variation though, the tracks from BOy were particuarly wekcome.

 

[Bonochick]

Static setlists do not bother me. I've been a fan since 1995, so I've seen the Pop Mart, Elevation, and Vertigo tours...one show each time. I went to the Vertigo show by myself, but I went with my parents for the other two (my sister also came for one). They heard songs they wanted to...songs they expected to hear at a U2 show. I was glad.

There are a lot of people going to shows like that. I'm not saying whether or not U2 should cater to audience expectations, but I don't think the diehards who follow them from city to city and devour bootlegs of shows are making up the majority of crowds.

 

[Blue Room]

Just go back and look at the archived tour forum. I agree with the points being made about it. I understand why U2 do it and dont really have a problem with it.

The problem comes in when a new tour hits certain diehards lose their mind when U2 plays similiar or the same setlist most nights like they were expecting something different this time or that U2 has suddenly turned into Pearl Jam or Dave Matthews Band. Its not going to happen.

I think U2 does make somewhat of an effort by their standards to mix it up a little when they play multiple night in the same market. I do think they could make more of an effort to move the song order around. They tend to have setlist sections. They could move some of those around maintaining the same basic songs (IE sort of like they did with Lovetown). I dont expect U2 to break out "Lady With The Spinning Head" off the cuff though. I think some fans think that should happen. Would be great, but its not happening.

You want to see static, check out The Police setlists from the reunion tour.

 

[toscano]

Of course, they could always rehearse more songs, get into shape and play longer.

They are ALWAYS under-rehearsed at the beginning of a tour, you'd think they would know by now not to leave it too late.

Get a few more songs into the mix, play a little longer, mix it up just a tad more. Not necessarily DMB/Pearl Jam style, they're just not good enough musicians to do that.

But take show length to say 2 hrs 15 mins rather than the 1 hr 50 typical (actually, 3rd leg elevation was shorter than that).

Just saw Rush last week, packed house, 9 new songs , some off the wall way-way-way under the radar stuff for the hardcore fan, the classics and the non-singles-well-loved album cuts. Something for everyone and reasonable ticket prices, played for 3 hours, awesome stage show and everyone walks away happy. They play the sam esetlist almost every night with only 1 song difference but I don't see the same complaints because they did something for everyone and actually had the balls to drop some tired old warhorses.

Anyone who wants Sprinsteen-esque setlist changes with U2 just doesn't know U2 and will always be disappointed.

 

[Cigar]

The people that are defending the static setlist are forgetting one major poin,the danger for the band to go through the motion at a certain point of the tour.And when that happens,the audiences can notice it...and you won't get your money back.

We are now in the age of the internet,people know the setlist of the previouis night,so when you enter the venue you know at 90% what songs you're gonna get and in what order.

It just suck the emotion out of the concert. I don't demand the band to pull out "Endless deep" or "Boomrang", but for god sake, does anyone still have tears down their cheek that's dropping when the hear "One"?Do you still have goose pump when it's time to "Pride"?

I read a few times Bono saying how great WGRYWH is live.So why the song doesn't have a regular slot in the setlist?Why "One tree hill" is only performe when they play in N.Z./Australia?I know it's a tribute to Greg Carroll,but the song is well known by fans outside of that part of the world as well... and very much so adore.

I don't ask them to take the Pearl Jam approach,but how about something in the middle.....like The Boss?

 

[phillyfan26]

Rotation, rotation, rotation. That's all you need to do with the big hits. It's not a greatist hits show. The static setlists are something easy to fix.

 

[ramblin rose]

I went to a lot of shows, and although I agree that I could do without hearing Bullet or One 27 times, I did get to hear 54 unique songs during the tour. I was happy.

I picked my shows carefully.

 

[Popmartijn]

They are ALWAYS under-rehearsed at the beginning of a tour, you'd think they would know by now not to leave it too late.

I don't think they leave it too late. Rather, the first few shows are rusty as that's the first time they're performing them in front of an audience. U2 shapes their shows on audience reaction and you never know how well something works (or not) until you perform it in front of an audience.

 

[Popmartijn]

It just suck the emotion out of the concert. I don't demand the band to pull out "Endless deep" or "Boomrang", but for god sake, does anyone still have tears down their cheek that's dropping when the hear "One"?Do you still have goose pump when it's time to "Pride"?

Actually, at my last U2 gig (the Hawaii one) I was really looking forward to hearing Pride.
And the one-time concert goer will be very happy to hear Pride, One, With Or Without You, Mysterious Ways, etc.
I'm going to my very first Prince concert next week. I don't care how many times the regulars have heard his hits before. I've never heard them live, so I'll be happy with them. It's the first time I'm going to hear them.

 

[Mofo]

The people that are defending the static setlist are forgetting one major poin,the danger for the band to go through the motion at a certain point of the tour.And when that happens,the audiences can notice it...and you won't get your money back.

We are now in the age of the internet,people know the setlist of the previouis night,so when you enter the venue you know at 90% what songs you're gonna get and in what order.

It just suck the emotion out of the concert. I don't demand the band to pull out "Endless deep" or "Boomrang", but for god sake, does anyone still have tears down their cheek that's dropping when the hear "One"?Do you still have goose pump when it's time to "Pride"?

I read a few times Bono saying how great WGRYWH is live.So why the song doesn't have a regular slot in the setlist?Why "One tree hill" is only performe when they play in N.Z./Australia?I know it's a tribute to Greg Carroll,but the song is well known by fans outside of that part of the world as well... and very much so adore.

I don't ask them to take the Pearl Jam approach,but how about something in the middle.....like The Boss?

yes but U2's tours never been the same from the first dates to the final dates they always evolve, changes in the show, the setlist, and how they play the songs live they do change things to keep it interesting for themselves and the audience

and only fans like the ones in this forum (including myself) know the setlist and even the order of the songs when going to there concerts, I when to 5 vertigo shows with different people, huge fans and casual fans and none of them knew what to expect they don't follow setlists like we do and the vast majority of the audience is like that

besides 95% of the people at a show expect to hear songs like pride, one, beautifuly day, streets, etc.

the songs they played usually are synchronized with loops and images they can't pull any song out of nowhere

 

[toscano]

I don't think they leave it too late. Rather, the first few shows are rusty as that's the first time they're performing them in front of an audience. U2 shapes their shows on audience reaction and you never know how well something works (or not) until you perform it in front of an audience.

Rusty/under-rehearsed, same thing. did you SEE the Vegas video ?

I was at the first few shows on the htdaab tour, they were under-rehearsed, they didn't even know what running order they wanted. Luckily I missed the first night anaheim debacle

 

[LMP]

Rotation, rotation, rotation. That's all you need to do with the big hits. It's not a greatist hits show. The static setlists are something easy to fix.

Exactly.

They could rotate playing songs like Pride / Sunday Bloody Sunday / New Year's Day in a spot in the setlist for multiple night stays.

Their back catalogue is big enough for them to do it, plus it's adding the songs from Bomb and the 8-10 songs they'll play live from the next album.

 

[Blue Room]

Rusty/under-rehearsed, same thing. did you SEE the Vegas video ?

I was at the first few shows on the htdaab tour, they were under-rehearsed, they didn't even know what running order they wanted. Luckily I missed the first night anaheim debacle

The Vegas show was more of an exception. They had almost no rehearsal time due to POP recording running way over. U2 always starts out a bit rusty (alot of bands do). But they typically are still pretty good. I didnt think San Diego from Vertigo, Ft. Lauderdale from Elevation, Lakeland from Zoo TV, were bad performances. Obviously not as good as when they get rolling. But to throw Vegas 97 out there as the norm is not a fair comparison.

There was an interview from the last tour where they explained how they come up with the setlist and why they tend to stick with one they feel works. I think alot of people here should read it. You may not like it, but it makes sense as to what U2 are trying to accomplish.

 

[Blue Room]

The people that are defending the static setlist are forgetting one major poin,the danger for the band to go through the motion at a certain point of the tour.And when that happens,the audiences can notice it...and you won't get your money back.

We are now in the age of the internet,people know the setlist of the previouis night,so when you enter the venue you know at 90% what songs you're gonna get and in what order.

It just suck the emotion out of the concert. I don't demand the band to pull out "Endless deep" or "Boomrang", but for god sake, does anyone still have tears down their cheek that's dropping when the hear "One"?Do you still have goose pump when it's time to "Pride"?

I read a few times Bono saying how great WGRYWH is live.So why the song doesn't have a regular slot in the setlist?Why "One tree hill" is only performe when they play in N.Z./Australia?I know it's a tribute to Greg Carroll,but the song is well known by fans outside of that part of the world as well... and very much so adore.

I don't ask them to take the Pearl Jam approach,but how about something in the middle.....like The Boss?

Just read this post.

1. Most of the audience are not diehards. They want to hear the hits. For example, I went to see The Police recently. I only went to one show. I knew the basic setlist going in. I wanted to hear the hits. They played a couple of songs I wasnt familiar with and you could just feel the crowd lull itself down when they did that. The diehards probably loved it. Casual fan did not. Still, even knowing the setlist ahead I thought it was a fantastic concert. So there has to be a balance when you are a major artist and for the most part U2 does a pretty good job with that IMO.

2. I never really did get goosebumps for Pride. But I almost always still get them for Streets and still do (even the weaker version they did for Vertigo).

3. They did play WGRYWH for a pretty consistant time frame on Vertigo. There was a stint on the Euro leg where it was being done and then they did it acoustic quite a bit on the 3rd leg. Not every night though. Then again, if they did people would complain it was to static.

4. I think the band feels at this point One Tree Hill is a special song and they only break it out while playing that region as a result. If they started playing it all the time it wouldnt seem that special any longer.

5. Bruce rotates his setlists all of the time. As much as DMB or Pearl Jam IMO. So doing it like Bruce is not a happy medium.


Its just funny to me how people say U2 play the same thing every night. Look at the variety of songs that were done over the course of the entire Vertigo tour. There is quite a bit of variation really. When they are pulling out songs like Fast Cars, An Cat Dubh, and make an old song like Electric Co a staple for a large portion of the tour, it just seems sort of ridiculous to say they make no effort at all or that its awful.

 

[ramblin rose]

I say they played a good variety of songs. Since I have nothing better to do at work today , here's the list of songs I got to hear during the Vertigo tour. I think I only might have missed hearing maybe Discoteque, and possibly one other song. It's not Pearl Jam, but for U2, I'd say it was a good variety.

1. 40
2. All Because Of You
3. All I Want Is You
4. An Cat Dubh
5. Angel Of Harlem w/ Fan
6. Angel Of Harlem
7. Bad
8. Beautiful Day
9. City Of Blinding Lights
10. Crumbs From Your Table
11. Desire
12. Elevation
13. Fast Cars
14. Gloria
15. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
16. I Will Follow
17. In A Little While - With Brandon Flowers
18. Instant Karma
19. Into The Heart
20. Kite
21. Love And Peace Or Else
22. Miracle Drug
23. Miss Sarajevo
24. Mysterious Ways
25. New Year's Day
26. Norwegian Wood
27. One
28. One (With Mary J. Blige)
29. One Tree Hill
30. Original Of The Species
31. Out Of Control
32. Party Girl
33. Pride (In The Name Of Love)
34. Rockin' In The Free World
35. Running To Stand Still
36. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
37. Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
38. Sunday Bloody Sunday
39. The Cry
40. The Electric Co.
41. The First Time
42. The Fly
43. The Ocean
44. The Saints Are Coming
45. Until The End Of The World
46. Vertigo
47. Walk On
48. Where The Streets Have No Name
49. Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses - Acoustic
50. Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses - Electric
51. Window In The Skies
52. With Or Without You
53. Yahweh
54. Zoo Station

 

[mandrake]

U2 really needs to stop ignoring Pop. I really really like the Vertigo tour version of Discotheque. That should have been rotated in and out more with Zoo Station as the encore opener. They also need to bring back Gone, Last Night on Earth (maybe rework it some), and maybe even Mofo if that can be reinvented live so to speak.

 

[Cigar]

Just read this post.

1. Most of the audience are not diehards. They want to hear the hits. For example, I went to see The Police recently. I only went to one show. I knew the basic setlist going in. I wanted to hear the hits. They played a couple of songs I wasnt familiar with and you could just feel the crowd lull itself down when they did that. The diehards probably loved it. Casual fan did not. Still, even knowing the setlist ahead I thought it was a fantastic concert. So there has to be a balance when you are a major artist and for the most part U2 does a pretty good job with that IMO.

2. I never really did get goosebumps for Pride. But I almost always still get them for Streets and still do (even the weaker version they did for Vertigo).

3. They did play WGRYWH for a pretty consistant time frame on Vertigo. There was a stint on the Euro leg where it was being done and then they did it acoustic quite a bit on the 3rd leg. Not every night though. Then again, if they did people would complain it was to static.

4. I think the band feels at this point One Tree Hill is a special song and they only break it out while playing that region as a result. If they started playing it all the time it wouldnt seem that special any longer.

5. Bruce rotates his setlists all of the time. As much as DMB or Pearl Jam IMO. So doing it like Bruce is not a happy medium.


Its just funny to me how people say U2 play the same thing every night. Look at the variety of songs that were done over the course of the entire Vertigo tour. There is quite a bit of variation really. When they are pulling out songs like Fast Cars, An Cat Dubh, and make an old song like Electric Co a staple for a large portion of the tour, it just seems sort of ridiculous to say they make no effort at all or that its awful.

-Well if that's how they feel about "One Tree Hill",then they should have put it only on the Kiwi/Aussi version of the Joshua tree.

-Just to numbered to different songs they performed on a tour is very misleading in terms of their variety.It looks good on paper
but it is not a true reflection of the tour.If you look from "Beautiful day" to "One" where were the flip-flop?Only "Running to stand still" replaced by "Miss Sarajevo"...and the first 2 songs of the encore was were either Zoo Station with The Fly or Until the end of the world with Mysterious
ways.period.

-And the snippets are a bigger fraud if you see them as songs
being played.

 

[Blue Room]

-Well if that's how they feel about "One Tree Hill",then they should have put it only on the Kiwi/Aussi version of the Joshua tree.

-Just to numbered to different songs they performed on a tour is very misleading in terms of their variety.It looks good on paper
but it is not a true reflection of the tour.If you look from "Beautiful day" to "One" where were the flip-flop?Only "Running to stand still" replaced by "Miss Sarajevo"...and the first 2 songs of the encore was were either Zoo Station with The Fly or Until the end of the world with Mysterious
ways.period.

-And the snippets are a bigger fraud if you see them as songs
being played.

What does One Tree HIll being on an album have to do with it being played live only in particular regions because of the subject matter of the song? Mothers Of the Disappeared is only done in S. America now. Same reasoning. But whatever.

OK, lets go by legs then. Look at what the "static" setlist was for each leg on the tour. They are all different. I'm not just saying the number of songs done, I'm saying order PLUS number of songs done over the entire tour. The setlist evolved and changed over the tour. Plus they were not just playing the "hits". I wont list the songs again because I did in my prior post. Also, when did I mention snippets or even say that was a factor? I didnt.

Its the same old argument though. Diehards are not happy because they are not playing they songs THEY specifically want to hear. Hell, U2 break out a semi b side in Fast Cars and I actually saw people bitching about that during the tour. "Why are they playing that? They should play X song instead".

Again I refer you to the article from Vertigo where they discuss how they come up with the setlist. Like I said before, you may not like that they do it, but their reasoning makes sense.

 

[Cigar]

What does One Tree HIll being on an album have to do with it being played live only in particular regions because of the subject matter of the song? Mothers Of the Disappeared is only done in S. America now. Same reasoning. But whatever.

OK, lets go by legs then. Look at what the "static" setlist was for each leg on the tour. They are all different. I'm not just saying the number of songs done, I'm saying order PLUS number of songs done over the entire tour. The setlist evolved and changed over the tour. Plus they were not just playing the "hits". I wont list the songs again because I did in my prior post. Also, when did I mention snippets or even say that was a factor? I didnt.

Its the same old argument though. Diehards are not happy because they are not playing they songs THEY specifically want to hear. Hell, U2 break out a semi b side in Fast Cars and I actually saw people bitching about that during the tour. "Why are they playing that? They should play X song instead".

Again I refer you to the article from Vertigo where they discuss how they come up with the setlist. Like I said before, you may not like that they do it, but their reasoning makes sense.

I think the 5 nights stand at Madison Square Garden on the 3rd leg of the tour shows the lazyness on their part when it comes to the lack of flip-floping the setlist.The little variety of the 5 nights in the same city speaks it self tremendously.

 

[Blue Room]

I think the 5 nights stand at Madison Square Garden on the 3rd leg of the tour shows the lazyness on their part when it comes to the lack of flip-fliping the setlis.The little variety of the 5 nights in the same city speaks it self tremendously.

Fair enough, but that is only one example.

Overall picture of several other regions.

Look at the 6 setlists for the Chicago shows.

Look at the 7 setlists for the Boston shows.

Look at the 4 setlists for Toronto.

 

[ramblin rose]

And the snippets are a bigger fraud if you see them as songs
being played.

None of the songs I put on the list were snippets. I deleted all of the snippets, those were full songs.

The only one that you could have mistaken for a snippet was "In A Little While", but the 2nd night in Vegas they played the whole song with Brandon Flowers.

 

[Blue Room]

The only one that you could have mistaken for a snippet was "In A Little While", but the 2nd night in Vegas they played the whole song with Brandon Flowers.

It was also done full band in Toronto.

 

[Cigar]

Fair enough, but that is only one example.

Overall picture of several other regions.

Look at the 6 setlists for the Chicago shows.

Look at the 7 setlists for the Boston shows.

Look at the 4 setlists for Toronto.

Chicago, 6 shows from 2 different legs.Same with Boston.Toronto was the start of the leg.

If you need 4+shows in the same city to see the shadow of the beginning of some variety,then why bother going everywhere else?.Do like Madonna does and do only the major markets.It woulb be a better reflect of what they think of the importance of their audience outside of New-York,Boston,L.A.Chicago,Philly and Toronto.