EXP
Active topics
2018-06-05 - Montreal
 Tour: Experience and Innocence tour
Songs played: 26
Audio recordings: 1
  1. Originally posted by Larlar:im listening to the show as i havent tuned in some time, they sound great, i gotta get used to the SBS-UTEOTW transition, i wish RBW wasnt cut, wish they didnt cut the song count down from 27 to 24 nightly

    They are in their late 50s to be playing 20+ songs is an achievement in itself, the Stones are doing 19 songs max per night and nobody is complaining.
  2. and the stones mix up the setlist but let's gloss over that shall we and all shout 'narrative' after three, one, two, three.

    Boredom.
  3. And you to every gig do you?It's designed for the 95% who only see it once.U2 are promoting a new album all new songs to most who go to the gigs ,the Stones are on a eternal Greatest hits tour easy money no risks involved.
  4. I’m just going to scream: “They are going to play whatever the heck THEY want to play and in the way they want to play it!”

    I totally get feeling disappointed some songs are missing but saying the same thing over and over and over isn’t going to change it. Stop listening every night. Stop posting every show. If people are that upset by the set it is having a way more negative effect on you than it is the band.
  5. There you go comparing the stones again who play a version of satisfaction that seems to go on for about 10 day’s. You could literally leave halfway through that song and all you’ve missed is mick prancing about getting the crowd to woo. 19 songs a night most of which have been played countless times every single tour and no new material to shout about. You keep on enjoying the stones greatest hits tours and we’ll keep enjoying u2 touring something fresh. At least going to see u2 twice on this tour we know the Setlist will vary substantially from the previous tour or the next tour due to them always touring an album and not just greatest hits.
  6. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]

    They are in their late 50s to be playing 20+ songs is an achievement in itself, the Stones are doing 19 songs max per night and nobody is complaining.
    You are using their age to defend them against criticism and an overwhelming lack of interest among fans in this tour as evidenced by the shortness of setlist threads/participants while at the same time criticising a band who are almost 20 years older for having a shorter setlist although the stage time isn't significantly shorter and who, by the way, are not miming any of their songs. By your reasoning the stones should be playing only the same ten songs per night and then back home to their cocoa and pyjamas.
  7. Judging a show by merely looking at the setlist is something that doesn't make sense to me. It so besides the point.
    A show is performed in front of an audience with the sole purpose of entertaining that crowd.

    It does, however, surprise me that U2 seems to have abandoned the concept of rotation, even if it was for just one song.
    That said, I think the show is great and some nights will be better than other nights. But that too is nothing new.
  8. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    There you go comparing the stones again who play a version of satisfaction that seems to go on for about 10 day’s. You could literally leave halfway through that song and all you’ve missed is mick prancing about getting the crowd to woo. 19 songs a night most of which have been played countless times every single tour and no new material to shout about. You keep on enjoying the stones greatest hits tours and we’ll keep enjoying u2 touring something fresh. At least going to see u2 twice on this tour we know the Setlist will vary substantially from the previous tour or the next tour due to them always touring an album and not just greatest hits.
    Look to the post above mine for the first comparison to the stones again. as far as going on for ten days just how long are versions of One when bono has stopped rambling or anything else when he's done thanking next doors cat for being in the red zone etc.
  9. Originally posted by eddiemonsoon:[..]
    Look to the post above mine for the first comparison to the stones again. as far as going on for ten days just how long are versions of One when bono has stopped rambling or anything else when he's done thanking next doors cat for being in the red zone etc.
    Well all he did was point out a fact the stones are playing 19 songs per night. He never criticised them but you are using the stones to criticise u2 which I find hilarious given the dull stage of there career the Rolling Stones are at where nothing is new or fresh, but then it’s been that way for some time with them. Regarding one the song hasn’t really started when bono is doing his talking, it’s not like it’s mid song or anything, the stones have got into this annoying habit of making songs minutes longer than the studio version without adding anything significant to it.
  10. Originally posted by eddiemonsoon:[..]
    You are using their age to defend them against criticism and an overwhelming lack of interest among fans in this tour as evidenced by the shortness of setlist threads/participants while at the same time criticising a band who are almost 20 years older for having a shorter setlist although the stage time isn't significantly shorter and who, by the way, are not miming any of their songs. By your reasoning the stones should be playing only the same ten songs per night and then back home to their cocoa and pyjamas.
    They are touring a new album with new songs your argument is weak and derived from reading nightly setlists "oh look they only played 2 different songs from last night "most people going to gigs don't know what was played last week in fact half of them probably haven't heard the new album .90% of bands /solo singers do the same setlist every night on tour only ppl reading it on the internet and who probably don't even attend are the ones that usually complain.
  11. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    There you go comparing the stones again who play a version of satisfaction that seems to go on for about 10 day’s. You could literally leave halfway through that song and all you’ve missed is mick prancing about getting the crowd to woo. […]
    We're digressing from topic...I am digressing, yes

    BUT...

    Playing a song like Satisfaction for 10 minutes (or whatever), in any case "stretched" has a TOTALLY different meaning when you are actually dancing to it. Like raving and almost getting in that trance-like state. It's a completely different kind of entertainment than being emotionally touched by the "e+i" show and listening, for example, to "13 (There Is A Light)". It just isn't the same, and never was meant to be the same.

    Whether one likes, or prefers one or the other is something else. That is called personal preference, or "taste" if you like. And that is just not enough to make general judgements.
  12. Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
    We're digressing from topic...I am digressing, yes

    BUT...

    Playing a song like Satisfaction for 10 minutes (or whatever), in any case "stretched" has a TOTALLY different meaning when you are actually dancing to it. Like raving and almost getting in that trance-like state. It's a completely different kind of entertainment than being emotionally touched by the "e+i" show and listening, for example, to "13 (There Is A Light)". It just isn't the same, and never was meant to be the same.

    Whether one likes, or prefers one or the other is something else. That is called personal preference, or "taste" if you like. And that is just not enough to make general judgements.
    Yes I’m sorry to keep on knocking the stones, I know you’re a fan of them too. I actually like there music but I’m not a fan of the way they go about touring etc now however you are absolutely right it is personal taste. There’s probably a lot of people that will be put off seeing u2 because they play so much new material, so it works both ways I guess and as you say there’s different moods with songs like satisfaction and 13 so I accept that.