Too much claw, not enough body! - Complaints about the setlist
- Thread starter daveydave
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
DubbalinGirl
The Fly
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 140
Not ungrateful, I've just grown realistic. I've just realized there's no point shelling out hard earned cash for repeat performances. Better things to do with my time and money. It's not that I tire of the music, it's that I've tired of PAYING to see the same music, in the same order, with the same schtick.
But I'm not paying $100-250 each time I do it. I don't go to Broadway shows more than once, I won't pay to see a movie more than once. If I own it, I'll rewatch or relisten because at that point it's free, but I won't shell out that kind of money to hear the same thing over and over and over. The Brady Bunch quote is perfectly ept in that just like I know the dialogue of just about any episode of BB, I can also recite Bono's "One" speech after a few shows too, and can time my bathroom breaks for when Bullet is bound to appear (damn, not this tour, though, need to find a new one).
You do realize I just bought a three-piece living room set with what I would ordinarily spend on tickets/travel for this leg of the tour? It's weighing out what you're going to get more value out of and making an adult decision. Seriously.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
the problem isn't your "adult decision" it's your need to come in here and tell us all about it - how much more "adult" you are because you made the choice not to go see U2 this tour. We get it already, congratulations you have will power and clearly do not like U2 as much as you used to. Feel free to move along now.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
smileymbcastard
War Child
My Goodnes give it a rest, I would be happy if they pl;ayed the stadards night after night. If I want esotric U2 material i have the cds for that
youarenotimmune
Refugee
Point taken.
I just feel that if I were in your position I would go see them every chance I got, regardless of setlist variation. Because I doubt even the oldest, most zealous fans have seen them more than 40 or so times. So that's what, like around $5000 spread over 25 or so years? I'd take that in a zeptosecond!
I guess in the end it all comes down to this. Because for me there really isn't ANYTHING better I could do with my time or money!
But hey, I understand this is about value for money, and if you feel seeing a static U2 set in concert isn't worth $100-250, more power to you!
Btw I still feel that Brady Bunch analogy was just terrible! I mean honestly, comparing U2 in ANY form or fashion to the BRADY BRUNCH.....
gvox
Ghost of Love
You mean you spent thousands of dollars and travelled thousands of miles in the last tours and you didn't even have a proper living room set? Most of the rest of us take care of the necessities of life BEFORE we plan our U2 excursions. My house is furnished, the groceries bought, the bills paid, and my kids have their back to school clothes. THEN I consider how many U2 shows, if any, I can swing. Welcome to adulthood, hooray for growing up!
AtomicBono
ONE love, blood, life
You mean you spent thousands of dollars and travelled thousands of miles in the last tours and you didn't even have a proper living room set? Most of the rest of us take care of the necessities of life BEFORE we plan our U2 excursions. My house is furnished, the groceries bought, the bills paid, and my kids have their back to school clothes. THEN I consider how many U2 shows, if any, I can swing. Welcome to adulthood, hooray for growing up!
yeah, which is exactly why most people can't afford to go to 20 shows a tour ...
zooropop40
Refugee
gvox
Ghost of Love
and I dont care what you think about the setlist... but DO NOT vote republican!
Not even for this guy?
zooropop40
Refugee
^
So on the setlist note, I was watching the ZOO TV from Sydney DVD and I noticed a quote that sums up every reason why people should go see a U2 show and not complain about the setlist:
"Smell the flowers while you can"
...Who knows when U2 will stop playing their music for our enjoyment...?
So on the setlist note, I was watching the ZOO TV from Sydney DVD and I noticed a quote that sums up every reason why people should go see a U2 show and not complain about the setlist:
"Smell the flowers while you can"
...Who knows when U2 will stop playing their music for our enjoyment...?
SethVincent
Refugee
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
I guess in the end it all comes down to this. Because for me there really isn't ANYTHING better I could do with my time or money!
Ha, I certainly agree with this. I wouldn't see more than one show on a given tour, but missing U2 entirely on 360 would be crushing. I'm starting college this fall, and I simply cannot afford the tickets right now, but, much as I complain about the sets, there's nothing quite like the U2 concert experience, especially when the whole crowd is singing along. That's one of the positives I've found about U2 playing the same hits every tour.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I posted this in the "Some interesting U2 historical setlist facts" thread nearly two days ago, but I thought it would make sense to post it here too. Oh, and I didn't say this in the other thread, but I should have - I'm not taking anything away from the current setlists...that is to say, I can't say there's a single song in the current setlists that shouldn't be played or that isn't pretty amazing live(or that don't sound pretty amazing live for the ones I haven't heard live outside of boots yet). It's just that there are others that would be pretty amazing live too that aren't in the setlist.
I'm just going to address some of the arguments that are commonly made in defense of the current setlists.
(Full disclosure up front, I've been to one show on Elevation, one show on Vertigo, and I'll be going to one show(as of now) on 360, the second Giants Stadium show in September.)
1. I can't speak with certainty for anyone but myself, but I don't think anybody expects U2 to put on PJ-type shows or Bruce-type shows, but rather shows similar to the ones they're putting on with a little more rotation, because a little more rotation can add 10 songs to the 'regular' list for a tour. I seriously doubt anyone is expecting U2 to play back-to-back shows that don't share a single common song.
2. I think the terms 'obscure' and 'rarity' have little place in this discussion, yet they're thrown around all the time. Nobody is up in arms because U2 isn't playing Love Comes Tumbling(how amazing would that be ). By and large, the people that go on and on here are hoping for U2 to add songs that were singles, and/or that were regulars on their initial tours and in some cases even subsequent tours, to the setlist as rotational songs; 11 O'Clock Tick Tock, I Will Follow, Two Hearts Beat As One, A Sort Of Homecoming, Even Better Than The Real Thing, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, The Fly, Lemon, Dirty Day, Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me, Discotheque, Mofo, Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Gone, Please(full band), Kite, New York...et al. These songs are not obscure...well, you could make the argument for a couple of them, but most of them are not. These aren't b-sides or never-before-played holy grails. Most of them were singles. And, honestly, it's early in the tour, a lot of the above could very well show up by the time all is said and done(I Will Follow, EBTTRT, Horses, The Fly, Discotheque, Kite, etc).
2a. There are only three b-sides I will even talk about being performed live at this point. One has already been played this tour - Party Girl. The other I think would work beautifully in this set is Sweetest Thing. It seems like it's relatively easy/simple to play, it would work in the stadium because it's very, very catchy and it's well-known because of the 1998 single release(making it not exactly a b-side anymore but a single), and it would fit nicely in the portion of the set between Beautiful Day and Unknown Caller. I think it would be a great and painless addition to the set - I'm not really sure why they ever dropped it after the early Elevation shows it was played at. The third b-side I will talk about is Spanish Eyes, just because it was played semi-regularly in the late 80s and seemed to get a good reaction on the boots...but it's been forever since they've played it, and it wouldn't be nearly the home-run I think Sweetest Thing would be, and probably isn't worth giving up other songs for. But it would be cool.
3. The argument that the band has to balance pleasing die-hard fans with pleasing casual/new fans. This is absolutely valid. When I think hypothetically of a 16 year old somewhere who just discovered U2 in the last few years and is going to his/her first U2 show, maybe he/she owns a few albums and the best ofs, and his/her favorite song is Still Haven't Found or SBS or (insert other warhorse here) and, and walking out of the show disappointed because that song wasn't played that night, it makes me sad. Really. I appreciate the difficulty of trying to create a set that pleases everyone. I think longer shows could be the answer - and no, I'm talking about three and a half hour Bruce-style gigs. I'm simply suggesting adding 3 or 4 more songs to the set, and making the average set 25-26 songs instead of 22. Because they're already playing most of the 'required' warhorses...at some point you have to fill slots 23-26 with something else. Which pleases the die-hards without taking anything away from the casuals and the show would still probably be two and a half hours, max. However, I disclose absolutely and openly that I don't play in a band or alone, and I don't know what it's like to 'add just 3 or 4 more songs to the set'. If it is indeed that much harder than it sounds, please tell me, and I'll take your word for it if your word comes from experience.
4. Just for the hell of it, I typed out a (perhaps excessively lengthy) series of 360 sets, imagining them to be consecutive shows with more rotation than the current sets. The structure of the set is slightly altered(Beautiful Day is immediately before Unknown Caller, and a song is sometimes placed between Boots and Magnificent), but by and large I tried to stick to the basic set we've seen, with added rotation and an effort to cover as any albums as possible in each show. I also made sure to never drop BD, Vertigo, COBL, SBS, Pride, Streets, One, UV, TUF, or any of the NLOTH songs. This was random, and I tried not to overthink too much(I failed at some points ), and the sets I came up with are a few tracks longer than what U2 normally play. Oh, and I rarely changed the encore at all in my head, and I didn't want to type the same thing out a million times, so just imagine the same encore, with Kite replacing WOWY sometimes, for each set.
Like I said, they're probably a little too long, but I don't think the track selection is that unrealistic. You don't see Wild Irish Rose or Lady With The Spinning Head anywhere. I think any of these sets would please most of any stadium.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.
I'm just going to address some of the arguments that are commonly made in defense of the current setlists.
(Full disclosure up front, I've been to one show on Elevation, one show on Vertigo, and I'll be going to one show(as of now) on 360, the second Giants Stadium show in September.)
1. I can't speak with certainty for anyone but myself, but I don't think anybody expects U2 to put on PJ-type shows or Bruce-type shows, but rather shows similar to the ones they're putting on with a little more rotation, because a little more rotation can add 10 songs to the 'regular' list for a tour. I seriously doubt anyone is expecting U2 to play back-to-back shows that don't share a single common song.
2. I think the terms 'obscure' and 'rarity' have little place in this discussion, yet they're thrown around all the time. Nobody is up in arms because U2 isn't playing Love Comes Tumbling(how amazing would that be
). By and large, the people that go on and on here are hoping for U2 to add songs that were singles, and/or that were regulars on their initial tours and in some cases even subsequent tours, to the setlist as rotational songs; 11 O'Clock Tick Tock, I Will Follow, Two Hearts Beat As One, A Sort Of Homecoming, Even Better Than The Real Thing, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, The Fly, Lemon, Dirty Day, Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me, Discotheque, Mofo, Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Gone, Please(full band), Kite, New York...et al. These songs are not obscure...well, you could make the argument for a couple of them, but most of them are not. These aren't b-sides or never-before-played holy grails. Most of them were singles. And, honestly, it's early in the tour, a lot of the above could very well show up by the time all is said and done(I Will Follow, EBTTRT, Horses, The Fly, Discotheque, Kite, etc). 2a. There are only three b-sides I will even talk about being performed live at this point. One has already been played this tour - Party Girl. The other I think would work beautifully in this set is Sweetest Thing. It seems like it's relatively easy/simple to play, it would work in the stadium because it's very, very catchy and it's well-known because of the 1998 single release(making it not exactly a b-side anymore but a single), and it would fit nicely in the portion of the set between Beautiful Day and Unknown Caller. I think it would be a great and painless addition to the set - I'm not really sure why they ever dropped it after the early Elevation shows it was played at. The third b-side I will talk about is Spanish Eyes, just because it was played semi-regularly in the late 80s and seemed to get a good reaction on the boots...but it's been forever since they've played it, and it wouldn't be nearly the home-run I think Sweetest Thing would be, and probably isn't worth giving up other songs for. But it would be cool.
3. The argument that the band has to balance pleasing die-hard fans with pleasing casual/new fans. This is absolutely valid. When I think hypothetically of a 16 year old somewhere who just discovered U2 in the last few years and is going to his/her first U2 show, maybe he/she owns a few albums and the best ofs, and his/her favorite song is Still Haven't Found or SBS or (insert other warhorse here) and, and walking out of the show disappointed because that song wasn't played that night, it makes me sad. Really. I appreciate the difficulty of trying to create a set that pleases everyone. I think longer shows could be the answer - and no, I'm talking about three and a half hour Bruce-style gigs. I'm simply suggesting adding 3 or 4 more songs to the set, and making the average set 25-26 songs instead of 22. Because they're already playing most of the 'required' warhorses...at some point you have to fill slots 23-26 with something else. Which pleases the die-hards without taking anything away from the casuals and the show would still probably be two and a half hours, max. However, I disclose absolutely and openly that I don't play in a band or alone, and I don't know what it's like to 'add just 3 or 4 more songs to the set'. If it is indeed that much harder than it sounds, please tell me, and I'll take your word for it if your word comes from experience.
4. Just for the hell of it, I typed out a (perhaps excessively lengthy) series of 360 sets, imagining them to be consecutive shows with more rotation than the current sets. The structure of the set is slightly altered(Beautiful Day is immediately before Unknown Caller, and a song is sometimes placed between Boots and Magnificent), but by and large I tried to stick to the basic set we've seen, with added rotation and an effort to cover as any albums as possible in each show. I also made sure to never drop BD, Vertigo, COBL, SBS, Pride, Streets, One, UV, TUF, or any of the NLOTH songs. This was random, and I tried not to overthink too much(I failed at some points
), and the sets I came up with are a few tracks longer than what U2 normally play. Oh, and I rarely changed the encore at all in my head, and I didn't want to type the same thing out a million times, so just imagine the same encore, with Kite replacing WOWY sometimes, for each set. Like I said, they're probably a little too long, but I don't think the track selection is that unrealistic. You don't see Wild Irish Rose or Lady With The Spinning Head anywhere. I think any of these sets would please most of any stadium.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.
monsieur fly
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 793
Thank you, namkcuR 
. A really good post- those sets you devised are excellent- realistic yet offering a bit more to those of us who want to hear a wider selection of prominent songs.
. A really good post- those sets you devised are excellent- realistic yet offering a bit more to those of us who want to hear a wider selection of prominent songs.
I think the terms 'obscure' and 'rarity' have little place in this discussion, yet they're thrown around all the time. Nobody is up in arms because U2 isn't playing Love Comes Tumbling(how amazing would that be ). By and large, the people that go on and on here are hoping for U2 to add songs that were singles, and/or that were regulars on their initial tours and in some cases even subsequent tours, to the setlist as rotational songs; 11 O'Clock Tick Tock, I Will Follow, Two Hearts Beat As One, A Sort Of Homecoming, Even Better Than The Real Thing, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, The Fly, Lemon, Dirty Day, Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me, Discotheque, Mofo, Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Gone, Please(full band), Kite, New York...et al. These songs are not obscure...well, you could make the argument for a couple of them, but most of them are not. These aren't b-sides or never-before-played holy grails. Most of them were singles. And, honestly, it's early in the tour, a lot of the above could very well show up by the time all is said and done(I Will Follow, EBTTRT, Horses, The Fly, Discotheque, Kite, etc).
2a. There are only three b-sides I will even talk about being performed live at this point. One has already been played this tour - Party Girl. The other I think would work beautifully in this set is Sweetest Thing. It seems like it's relatively easy/simple to play, it would work in the stadium because it's very, very catchy and it's well-known because of the 1998 single release(making it not exactly a b-side anymore but a single), and it would fit nicely in the portion of the set between Beautiful Day and Unknown Caller. I think it would be a great and painless addition to the set - I'm not really sure why they ever dropped it after the early Elevation shows it was played at. The third b-side I will talk about is Spanish Eyes, just because it was played semi-regularly in the late 80s and seemed to get a good reaction on the boots...but it's been forever since they've played it, and it wouldn't be nearly the home-run I think Sweetest Thing would be, and probably isn't worth giving up other songs for. But it would be co
ALL VERY WELL SAID! NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR ANYTHING THAT OBSCURE, JUST THE 100TH PERFORMANCE OF TWO HEARTS BEAT AS ONE OR LAST NIGHT ON EARTH OR PLEASE..... FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 10PLUS YEARS FOR ALL OF THEM WOULD BE GREAT.
Like I said, they're probably a little too long, but I don't think the track selection is that unrealistic. You don't see Wild Irish Rose or Lady With The Spinning Head anywhere. I think any of these sets would please most of any stadium.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.[/QUOTE]
). By and large, the people that go on and on here are hoping for U2 to add songs that were singles, and/or that were regulars on their initial tours and in some cases even subsequent tours, to the setlist as rotational songs; 11 O'Clock Tick Tock, I Will Follow, Two Hearts Beat As One, A Sort Of Homecoming, Even Better Than The Real Thing, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, The Fly, Lemon, Dirty Day, Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me, Discotheque, Mofo, Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Gone, Please(full band), Kite, New York...et al. These songs are not obscure...well, you could make the argument for a couple of them, but most of them are not. These aren't b-sides or never-before-played holy grails. Most of them were singles. And, honestly, it's early in the tour, a lot of the above could very well show up by the time all is said and done(I Will Follow, EBTTRT, Horses, The Fly, Discotheque, Kite, etc). 2a. There are only three b-sides I will even talk about being performed live at this point. One has already been played this tour - Party Girl. The other I think would work beautifully in this set is Sweetest Thing. It seems like it's relatively easy/simple to play, it would work in the stadium because it's very, very catchy and it's well-known because of the 1998 single release(making it not exactly a b-side anymore but a single), and it would fit nicely in the portion of the set between Beautiful Day and Unknown Caller. I think it would be a great and painless addition to the set - I'm not really sure why they ever dropped it after the early Elevation shows it was played at. The third b-side I will talk about is Spanish Eyes, just because it was played semi-regularly in the late 80s and seemed to get a good reaction on the boots...but it's been forever since they've played it, and it wouldn't be nearly the home-run I think Sweetest Thing would be, and probably isn't worth giving up other songs for. But it would be co
ALL VERY WELL SAID! NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR ANYTHING THAT OBSCURE, JUST THE 100TH PERFORMANCE OF TWO HEARTS BEAT AS ONE OR LAST NIGHT ON EARTH OR PLEASE..... FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 10PLUS YEARS FOR ALL OF THEM WOULD BE GREAT.
Like I said, they're probably a little too long, but I don't think the track selection is that unrealistic. You don't see Wild Irish Rose or Lady With The Spinning Head anywhere. I think any of these sets would please most of any stadium.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.[/QUOTE]
Salome
you are what you is
but why would they really play these songs
(and probably play most of them poorly)
because of people following setlists online?
or because the concert would be better?
really now
(and probably play most of them poorly)
because of people following setlists online?
or because the concert would be better?
really now
monsieur fly
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 793
"but why would they really play these songs
(and probably play most of them poorly)
because of people following setlists online?
or because the concert would be better?
really now"
Firstly, how on earth do you know they would play those songs poorly? Why should they be any worse than their performances of Vertigo etc once they've rehearsed them? By common consent, Bono's voice has not sounded this good since ZOO TV. This would make for some very exciting renditions of songs like LNOE and EBTTRT, both of which have some big choruses. You seem to write of U2 as though they are geriatrics.
But it's your question which really vexes me. Setlist defenders have a rather unfortunate addiction to calling critics "selfish". This latest charge is the most baffling manifestation yet. The very notion that I would gain some sort of deep spiritual satisfaction from seeing the words "Mofo" or "LNOE" on a screen is absurd. There are many reasons I want them to perform what are after all, prominent songs in their catalgoue. Some of them are self-interested (i.e. when I go to the concert, I would like to see....) but there is nothing wrong with that- the fans who want (for some reason) to hear Stuck In A Moment and Walk On night after night are just as self-interested. The only difference is that their interests accord with the band's so they can adopt a veneer of loyalty and selflessness. I happen to like their 90s material, so do a lot of fans on here. We constitute a section of their fanbase and I think we should be catered for on this tour- especially given the lack of 90s material on the last two tours. I don't think that is at all unreasonable.
At the same time, there are other less self-interested reasons. I genuinely think the concert would be improved by 2 maybe 3 90s firecrackers (and please note the moderation). Other posters have sensibly argued that the stage set-up would suit some of their 90s material very well. I would add that in football stadia, the bold strokes of Mofo, HMTMKMKM and The Fly would give the show an added kick. I also think they demonstrate a lighter, less preachy side of U2, which might offset the show's more earnest moments (and I am thinking about the masks here). PopMart needed Pride and Streets to remind people U2 still had passion- maybe 360 needs Discotheque to remind us they can still be playful. A final reason is that some of their other prominent songs which have made it are sounding tired, and there's only so much fan participation can do to negate that.
Anyhow those are my views. They are entirely partisan and will be disagreeable to many but there you have it.
(and probably play most of them poorly)
because of people following setlists online?
or because the concert would be better?
really now"
Firstly, how on earth do you know they would play those songs poorly? Why should they be any worse than their performances of Vertigo etc once they've rehearsed them? By common consent, Bono's voice has not sounded this good since ZOO TV. This would make for some very exciting renditions of songs like LNOE and EBTTRT, both of which have some big choruses. You seem to write of U2 as though they are geriatrics.
But it's your question which really vexes me. Setlist defenders have a rather unfortunate addiction to calling critics "selfish". This latest charge is the most baffling manifestation yet. The very notion that I would gain some sort of deep spiritual satisfaction from seeing the words "Mofo" or "LNOE" on a screen is absurd. There are many reasons I want them to perform what are after all, prominent songs in their catalgoue. Some of them are self-interested (i.e. when I go to the concert, I would like to see....) but there is nothing wrong with that- the fans who want (for some reason) to hear Stuck In A Moment and Walk On night after night are just as self-interested. The only difference is that their interests accord with the band's so they can adopt a veneer of loyalty and selflessness. I happen to like their 90s material, so do a lot of fans on here. We constitute a section of their fanbase and I think we should be catered for on this tour- especially given the lack of 90s material on the last two tours. I don't think that is at all unreasonable.
At the same time, there are other less self-interested reasons. I genuinely think the concert would be improved by 2 maybe 3 90s firecrackers (and please note the moderation). Other posters have sensibly argued that the stage set-up would suit some of their 90s material very well. I would add that in football stadia, the bold strokes of Mofo, HMTMKMKM and The Fly would give the show an added kick. I also think they demonstrate a lighter, less preachy side of U2, which might offset the show's more earnest moments (and I am thinking about the masks here). PopMart needed Pride and Streets to remind people U2 still had passion- maybe 360 needs Discotheque to remind us they can still be playful. A final reason is that some of their other prominent songs which have made it are sounding tired, and there's only so much fan participation can do to negate that.
Anyhow those are my views. They are entirely partisan and will be disagreeable to many but there you have it.
Salome
you are what you is
oh your opinion is not disagreeable
and personally I would like them to play some other stuff
but I honestly dont understand how anyone can think that by adding a song or 2 the show would be significantly better
but that's just me
and personally I would like them to play some other stuff
but I honestly dont understand how anyone can think that by adding a song or 2 the show would be significantly better
but that's just me
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I just think if you add, say, Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me and Please or Discotheque or Even Better Than The Real Thing to the current set, it's a better set, because those few tracks alter the flavor of the set as a whole. Same with Lemon or Mofo...a few sprinkles of salt on a plate of pasta alters the taste of the whole dish.
I love Zooropa and Pop so much, I'm always going to want U2 to embrace them live once again. I said once before, I would double what I paid for my ticket to hear Please full band.
djerdap
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 7,609
If they didn't play Zoo Station and The Fly at my show in 2005, I wouldn't be as amazed by the show as I was. And I think this will apply to The Unforgettable Fire and Ultra Violet when the time comes in 2009. Two songs make a huge difference for me, and I can perfectly understand that on the other hand it would mean nothing to somebody else.
precisely....
take out UF and UV and what do you have? A mediocre show at best..U2 just do not get it sometimes. We were in Dublin, my wife who absolutely loves WOWY and is a moderate fan of the band said the following.
"Jezus, what a mediocre version".
This is someone who doesnt have the blue crack on every day , doenst listen to jt bootlegs etc but was just completely underwhelmed by U2 performance of her favourite U2 song. Comment on UV which she didnt even know. "This is great.."
in conclusion: if you do not play your staples right you might as well NOT play them and replace them by (lesser known) songs where at least you feel passionate. I'd never thought there was a universe excisting where I would say this but I rather hear GOYB than WOWY live and THAT is saying something
popshopper
Acrobat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 459
They're murdering WOWY and I'm not sure why they're continuing with it but most of the greatest hits stuff, even One and Pride, are sounding very good this tour in my opinion.
gvox
Ghost of Love
1000 posts yet?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
WOWY has suffered ever since Bono started talking his way through on ZooTV, they play it because the crowd loves to sing along. That being said the version I listened to from Paris wasn't nearly as bad as previous tours.
monsieur fly
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 793
Shock horror but I don't actually blame Mr Macphisto for the decline of WOWY. He might have mumbled the first verse a bit but he really went for it towards the end of the song, as the Sydney DVD demonstrates. I think things started going wrong on Popmart because by that stage it had been done to death. Also Bono's voice was in a pretty bad shape then. What disappoints me is that despite his recent vocal reneissance he still talks it. It should be dropped.
dal975
The Fly
what is a horrendous shame to me is the conscious rarity of shine like stars or even love will tear us apart, or god forbid, a simple edge solo outtro like in 1992. those things seem SOOO simple to implement and automatically change what are currently moribund, forgettable versions into beautiful, unique city-specific versions. this would be such a nice little gesture- a snippet of variety if you will -and yet, nothing, except save for once or twice a tour.
how many times on the last 4 tours has any WOWY fan been let down when after holding out hope for a shine like stars it is simply the final "OHHHH-OHHHHH"....again
how many times on the last 4 tours has any WOWY fan been let down when after holding out hope for a shine like stars it is simply the final "OHHHH-OHHHHH"....again
they did a bit of shine like the stars on Dublin 3- it was quite wonderful
I'm not a huge WOWY fan but in general terms I think this is the best they've done it for years
and I repeat again- the reception that the "hits" got in Dublin is the reason why they play them.
youarenotimmune
Refugee
I love the "shine like stars" part as much as anybody, but to be honest I don't really get that dissappointed when Bono goes for a second "ohhh-ohhh" instead.......it's just such a great crowd sing-along moment, so it's hard for me to get too upset over it
dal975
The Fly
i know they did it in dublin 3...my point is that is a great moment that only comes around a few times every tour nowadays. i am a selfish U2 fan who only follows internet setlists and I WANT MORE
the second ohh-ohh would be MUCH better if the first ohh-ohhh wasn't there
the second ohh-ohh would be MUCH better if the first ohh-ohhh wasn't there
