1. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:But then ZooTV would never have happened. Or the white flags on the War tour. U2 shows have always been about more than just the music.

    But I agree, I would love to see U2 get on a stage in a theatre or something with nothing but their instruments.

    Yeha, I agree, but they and their environment (producers, Arthur Fogel) have stated that the 360 is not going to be topped no matter what they do. And as they say, acceptance is the first step. So they should focus on doing less stage tricks and more on lengthen their shows and make them more musically interesting. They don't have to impress anyone visually anymore, so let the music speak for itself for once. Something like the Elevation Tour but supporting a better album
  2. Musically always was awesome , almost perfect ....i think what we all want is a longer setlist and a very rotate one . Every night .

    How many new songs do you think they will play during a show ?
  3. With less video and technology demands there is more room for setlist rotations and surprises

  4. That is all that I am hoping for. Wouldn't it be nice to go to a U2 concert and be surprised by the setlist. Looking at the Pearl Jam forum it's incredible to see the variety in their shows and setlists. We can only dream....
  5. U2 aren't the only band who keep their setlists mostly the same night after night, and I still think there's something to be said for it.

    I've never been to a Pearl Jam show, but I imagine for someone who isn't a huge fan it's a bit like hearing a collection of songs rather than a fluid show. I'm all for a surprise here and there, but I also get mad when the night before U2 play Bad and when I see them they don't. I also realize I heard a song like 40 (only time on 360 - say what you will about the performance) while other fans didn't. While it was cool being able to say "I saw the only performance of it this tour" I think it would have been AS cool if they ended all their shows with it.

    Having it the same every show usually they means they've really thought about how the show will play out and mess with people's heads. I'd rather see them adopt a big idea like bringing a bunch of Pop songs back and sticking to it. Don't like spoilers or feel like they should change it up "because of social media"? Don't go on the internet and social media looking for U2 setlists.
  6. Yeah, it's all been discussed before. I just feel like having a bit of the other medicine, since we've been having great shows for over 20 years now Let them loose up and change not only songs between concerts but also the way they play them. As a musician and performer myself, I can imagine how incredibly boring must be playing the exact same 24-songs set everywhere. So if they change and shake things up, it will be funnier for everyone. And I'm not talking about doing an all-rarities PJ-like setlist everynight. Just shaking things up a little
  7. I wait for them in Mexico... But they will come in two years, I think.


  8. Originally posted by LikeASong:Yeah, it's all been discussed before. I just feel like having a bit of the other medicine, since we've been having great shows for over 20 years now Let them loose up and change not only songs between concerts but also the way they play them. As a musician and performer myself, I can imagine how incredibly boring must be playing the exact same 24-songs set everywhere. So if they change and shake things up, it will be funnier for everyone. And I'm not talking about doing an all-rarities PJ-like setlist everynight. Just shaking things up a little

    This is very true. A moment that comes to mind is Larry laughing in the opening of TTTYAATW at the beginning in the ZooTV TV special, or when Macphisto says he's just like Bruce Springsteen and he gives Bono the finger

    I don't think many of those moments were had between the band on the last tour, they were too focused on giving a prime show.

    So I know what you mean, and I do agree with both sides. I just don't need U2 to be playing 20 different songs from one night to the next. What I'd love more is for them to do something like take requests from fans and try and throw songs in, risking a mess up.
  9. We mostly agree then

    Now, bring on that tour Mr. Oseary
  10. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:U2 aren't the only band who keep their setlists mostly the same night after night, and I still think there's something to be said for it.

    I've never been to a Pearl Jam show, but I imagine for someone who isn't a huge fan it's a bit like hearing a collection of songs rather than a fluid show. I'm all for a surprise here and there, but I also get mad when the night before U2 play Bad and when I see them they don't. I also realize I heard a song like 40 (only time on 360 - say what you will about the performance) while other fans didn't. While it was cool being able to say "I saw the only performance of it this tour" I think it would have been AS cool if they ended all their shows with it.

    Having it the same every show usually they means they've really thought about how the show will play out and mess with people's heads. I'd rather see them adopt a big idea like bringing a bunch of Pop songs back and sticking to it. Don't like spoilers or feel like they should change it up "because of social media"? Don't go on the internet and social media looking for U2 setlists.

    I just think the variety of something like The Lovetown Tour would be really cool. I do like the fact that they are still mixing in a majority of their new material. No "Greatest Hits" Tour as of yet but there would be something special in heading into a show (especially if you are seeing back to back nights or multiple shows in the same city) with a multitude of changes in the setlist.
  11. If they are truly planning on the 'two-date' per city approach could it be something to do with that? Although it has been done in various formats previously
  12. KOL had their #SongOfTheCity in the US recently. Each city could vote for their song, which would be played that night.