Originally posted by cesar_garza01:[..]
If they drop new material it'll just be replaced with MW, WOWY, AOH, etc.
The one good thing this tour has is the courage of touring with new material, don't take that away too, as much as I dislike AS, Best Thing or GOOYOW.
Originally posted by cesar_garza01:[..]
I don't have an issue with the static setlist per-se. My issue is with the song choices they're doing.
Yes, ZooTV and Popmart had the same static setlists, but you always had something to look for as the show progressed. There was always how Edge was going to do the solo of LIB, how Bono was getting his groove on Discotheque, Please was always a highlight, you never knew what shenanigans MacPhisto was going to do... the songs were just stronger.
If they play the same Tulsa setlist night after night, at least we will have Wild Horses and LIBTAIIW to look for on the encore, or ABOY as a rarity in the first part.
Now we don't have anything.
Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
Yeah and try looking at the total songs played each night. U2 are head and shoulders above the stones live.
Originally posted by bpt3:[..]
Exactly.
Originally posted by eddiemonsoon:[..]
the stones were on stage for 2hours 3 minutes in london, let's take LA for example knock off the miming, the intermission and the women of the world nonsense and even leaving in any inane rambling by Bono and there's probably not much difference. If the stones did another six songs they'd probably change another couple each night as well plus then they would be clocking in over two and a half hours on stage and let's not forget they need to use their bus passes to get home for their late night cocoa.
always happy to help.
Originally posted by eddiemonsoon:U2 dressing room tonight:
"right lads, the result of the song vote is a day without me"
Bono "beautiful day it is then, the people have spoken".
Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
Stones set lasted 2 hours and 5 minutes... Not sure about the U2 set, but I guess it was about the same lenght. Anyway, it is just silly to judge a show by merely looking at the setlist. The whole point of these events is being there in person. It's supposed to be a physical experience rather than a desktop/armchair event.
That being said, The Rolling Stones play Rock 'N Roll with Rock 'N Roll songs: what you see is what you get!
U2 is currently doing a rather intellectual, narrative based rock show with lots of cunning videos and lots of shit to think about. It is challenging, to say the least.
But both bands work hard and any assessment on the quality - not the quantity! - of their respective shows should be relative to each band's own history and performance. Matters of personal taste are, of course, irrelevant to general reviews.
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:are we still prattling on about this?
[YouTube Video]
