EXP
Active topics
  1. Well... I think that this:

    Is totally different than this:

    Originally posted by blink:Im starting to think if 'staying relevant' is a euphemism for getting as much money as we can, while we still can


    imho, one is a fairly obvious point, the other one I find it way off mark.
    Probably some people see both things as one and the same, but I think there's a huge difference between them.
  2. Originally posted by blink:Saying its totally off, is maybe a little bit naive?

    All Im saying is, it wouldn't surprise me if 'filling seats' plays a role too when deciding the setlist.


    OBVIOUSLY!

    I really can't believe the people on here sometimes. I remember seeing a special U2 did for Much More Music here in Canada when How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb came out (if anyone has a copy of this and would like to share please do? I have searched YouTube for it and no luck) where Bono says something along the lines of "Nobody starts a band unless they want to be The Beatles or The Stones, otherwise just stay in your garage and play." If you are in a band wouldn't you want your music to be heard by the most people possible? And wouldn't you WANT TO "fill the seats" at your shows?!?!
  3. Yes, but when filling seats comes at the expense of a fresh set list, the criticism is totally justified and they should be called out on it. Look, U2 can play Pop back to back and people will still show up. In fact they're at the point where they can just about play anything they want and still fill up arenas. It's a non issue at this stage in their career...

    Ok maybe my wording was a bit conservative. This is what I meant, filling seats may actually play a HUGE factor when creating the set list, such that it becomes more important than an interesting set list.
  6. Originally posted by blink:Yes, but when filling seats comes at the expense of a fresh set list, the criticism is totally justified and they should be called out on it. Look, U2 can play Pop back to back and people will still show up. In fact they're at the point where they can just about play anything they want and still fill up arenas. It's a non issue at this stage in their career...

    Ok maybe my wording was a bit conservative. This is what I meant, filling seats may actually play a HUGE factor when creating the set list, such that it becomes more important than an interesting set list.

    Sorry but what you're actually complaining is that they are choosing to play a more interesting setlist for many people than an interesting setlist for you.
    The problem is that what you (or I) consider to be an interesting setlist is different to what everyone else considers to be interesting so it becomes absurd to use that as an argument...
  8. If this is the set now taking shape being played at the moment then I am more than happy, great mix of old and new and also pretty full on with OOC and IWF near the start.
  9. Yep, I like it too. If this is gonna be the "fixed" part of the show I'm more than happy:


    1. The Miracle
    2. Out Of Control
    3. Vertigo
    4. I Will Follow
    5. Iris
    6. Cedarwood Road
    7. Song For Someone
    8. Sunday Bloody Sunday
    9. Raised By Wolves
    10. Until The End Of The World (with an unidentified outro)

    Short break.

    11. Invisible
    >>>
  11. They've also rehearsed a piano intro to The Miracle
  12. 13th is Desire. They seem to have perfected the Even Better > Desire segue. It must be powerful!
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.