Axver said:
It seems a lot of people here think the setlist somehow affects the crowd though, and that if U2 want to keep playing venues as large as they currently play, they need to keep performing every casual fan hit they can muster - not just WOWY or One or Pride, but all three, and so on. I contend tracks such as Spanish Eyes, Treasure, The Three Sunrises, and Twilight would be perfectly appropriate for U2's current venues, give balance to the set, and would go down well with many fans.
But we all know U2 have become hyper-sensitive about how they are perceived. I'm sure they could draw huge crowds if their set was just their current album and the UF album with an encore of five tracks from the Best Of b-sides discs, but I bet they'd be paranoid of not getting glowing reviews. I do have to wonder how much U2's self-perception and hyper-sensitivity impacted their choice to swiftly ditch Discotheque. After all, it seems almost every journalist's joke about late-90s U2 involves boom-cha or Discotheque in general somehow.
I don't know about the journalist jokes, but I do agree with the rest.
After the "beating" U2 took with "Pop", I can understand the sensitivity. When U2 took some heat with R&H, they came out with a new image and sound. They gambled and won - mostly because their new sound had great songs and their image was fun!
When U2 took heat with "Pop", I think they scratched their heads wondering why. R&H, in many ways, was a JT-Part 2. Much like "Zooropa" was in '93, R&H seemed to be new songs for U2 to have on the second part of their tour. And, given U2's wild popularity, it gave fans who didn't have a chance to see U2 in concert perform "live". But U2 probably understood taking heat for R&H. Some songs were brilliant, but others were a stretch. And the thought of U2 feeling "equal" to other great artists - while fully unintentional - can be understood.
However, with "Pop", U2 continued their experimenation while retaining many elements of classic U2. It had the makings of what should have been a classic album. The tour, while overly grandiose, continued in the vein of ZOO TV. So what happened? Why the backlash? Why the poor reception?
Hence, I get U2's sensitivity about "Pop" and the need to "return to roots".
But now, after two massive albums and tours leading to U2's "return to glory", I also feel it's time U2 stopped being so hyper-sensitive about their perception. While the band has to keep some classics in their set-list, there should be more than just the rare "tid bit". It shouldn't be news to hear "One Tree Hill" or "Discotheque". There should be an element of surprise to EVERY show! U2 could have 10 (or if they are really ambitious, 15) extra songs that they could rehearse and mix 2 or 3 different ones into each concert. In other words, fans should never know what songs U2 will play on a given night. As it stands, we can all pretty much predict the setlist (and most of us hope and pray for that one extra "something" that usually doesn't arrive).
I'm not opposed to some songs being in the same order. But some mixing of the setlist order and overall songs is needed. U2 have returned - they've won tons of Grammies. They came back a second time after harsh criticism. Fantastic! Now, do one more thing that will really "wow" critics, and perhaps more importantly, fans.
On the next album and tour, I hope U2 take some chances. We may not all love it, but at this point in their careers, why not risk something? What's left to prove? Going out with a bang is great . However, if U2's last effort is a #1 album and tour that ultimately fans remember as "repetitive", then have U2 really achieved that "bang"? The sales may be there, but if U2 repeat the last two tours one more time, I think people may start thinking "stale".
I've been a staunch supporter of U2's last two albums and tours. After the 90's, even I was ready for a "return to roots" and more "serious" U2. They succeeded. U2 had a "fun" image, while still being serious and creating wonderful music. And while HTDAAB was a bit more out there than ATYCLB, I would be disappointed to have a third album in this style. I know U2 like to work in "threes" - but I'm hoping not to hear more of the same (and "Windows in the Skies" is exactly that style... let's hope that song, much like "Hold Me...Kill Me" symbolizes an end of an era).