BLU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by goooober:Thank you for the kind welcome!

    I know they played Stay (acoustic version)on the tour, and Im surprised they played Unknown caller in Oklahoma. I'm sure Bono doesnt deliberately lie about things but he sure does do the exact opposite of what he says most of the time. I understand that you can't change the set list around that much due to lighting/video choreography, but you can at least switch around the acoustic songs which don't need anything to accompany them. And as for playing "YOUR BLUE ROOM", I love that track but I'm not sure its a live track. I would think " STATELESS" from Million Dollar Hotel would've been a better choice. I'm sure there must be a reason why "ACROBAT" hasn't been thrown in this tour. I also think they should throw in Electrical Storm again. Basically what I'm trying to get at is that U2 needs to be themselves and be non apologetic to their audience. They should be proud of their new album. They are kicking ass even after 30+ years and I am hoping that their newest creations go beyond their own line on the horizon.


    Stateless is a beautiful and highly under-rated song, I agree, but it's maybe less thematically tied to the current tour than YBR, which probably has something to do with its choice. I don't know (though I'm sure someone around here does) that Stateless has ever been played live. I would have thought not. YBR, and the other occasional inclusion, In A Little While, I think fit with the space and time theme of the tour, whereas a number of the other songs we hardcore fans would love to hear don't.

    As for Acrobat...I think it's a safe bet that one is never coming out. It's been my impression that the guys don't like playing it.

    I'd love to have seen Electrical Storm at one of the shows I went to, but I wasn't that lucky. (My diamond shoes! They pinch my feet!) I completely agree that they should bring it back. It's one of my very favourite of their songs. I hope we see it again.

    The other thing to consider with U2's tour setlists is that none of these guys (except maybe Edge) are virtuoso musicians. They're performers, far more than they are artists (which I think explains why they're so much better live than recorded). They rarely improvise and seem very uncomfortable when they have to. They rehearse and prepare like mad before a tour and everything is set down to the last second, even the 'off the cuff' bits. And even then, even with a teleprompter and a small setlist, Bono still manages to get the lyrics wrong quite often.

    As performers, the relationship with the audience seems to be very important to them. They're a band whose focus is almost always out to their audience, not in towards themselves. They want to be loved. They want their audience to jump and scream and sing along with every word. Is that going to happen if they do songs that only 20% of the audience know and love? Probably not.

  2. I love this topic
  3. Edited the title to make it more clear.
  4. Originally posted by sonia_lastrega:[..]

    The other thing to consider with U2's tour setlists is that none of these guys (except maybe Edge) are virtuoso musicians. They're performers, far more than they are artists (which I think explains why they're so much better live than recorded). They rarely improvise and seem very uncomfortable when they have to. They rehearse and prepare like mad before a tour and everything is set down to the last second, even the 'off the cuff' bits. And even then, even with a teleprompter and a small setlist, Bono still manages to get the lyrics wrong quite often.

    As performers, the relationship with the audience seems to be very important to them. They're a band whose focus is almost always out to their audience, not in towards themselves. They want to be loved. They want their audience to jump and scream and sing along with every word. Is that going to happen if they do songs that only 20% of the audience know and love? Probably not.




    Wow, you are sooo right with this analysis I think.
    I sometimes wish/ pray that they were more 'artists' and learn to improvise more, but then I find myself participating (singing my lungs out and getting goosebumps all over) at the actual concert and I know that perfomance is what it's all about....
  5. [Question moved from the Moment of Surrender thread per mod request]

    Here's a question: has Bono really chosen 'vision over visibility'? Or does his visibility cloud his vision and his ubiquitousness on the world stage obscure the message of his cause?
  6. It's just that 'every eye is looking every other way'.
    That was never a good way to enhance maximum visibility...

    But yeah, vision is far more important! ( I have a dream! )
  7. Originally posted by u2joost:It's just that 'every eye is looking every other way'.
    That was never a good way to enhance maximum visibility...

    But yeah, vision is far more important! ( I have a dream! )


    But (and here's where it gets sticky) if he only had the vision, without his visibility, then would he be able to achieve what he has? Fame - and his fanbase - are what allow him access to the movers and shakers who can make a difference.
  8. Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]


    Can they be truthful - and how would you know - or is it something far deeper in which they don't want to admit to?


    This will be an interesting discussion. Don't close it.


    Of course they can, it's a choice after all - instinct - admit to themselves? To another? Or both?

    I wouldn't dream of closing it!
  10. Originally posted by sonia_lastrega:[..]

    The truth can be hard to tell often because the truth is something people don't want to hear. Lies can be easier for everyone. It could be argued that society would fall apart without the polite fictions we all rely on. We all want to believe that our love will keep our loved ones from being unhappy, that if we do certain things, believe certain things, obey certain rules then our lives will be wonderful. None of that is actually true.

    Lies are both social glue and grease. If I find someone (say, my sister's husband) profoundly unlikeable, what value is there in being truthful about that? It would only cause her pain and damage our relationship, because she loves him no matter how much of a wanker I think he is. A polite lie is really the only choice.

    Of course then there are the lies which are just self-serving and manipulative (see also: Politics, History of.). I think we tell those when we've convinced ourselves that what we want is more important than anything else.


    Ah, yes. The truth can be and often difficult to tell. More so, difficult to hear and accept. I like your terms of social glue and grease! There is plenty value in being truthfull as it applies to your example. Especially given that you opted for the word, "profoundly" which would indicate to some degree a matter of instinct about this "wanker" (love that by the way). Sure fessing up at this point may cause your sister pain but you have to ask, why would she be upset? Especially if at some point before their nuptials, the question was asked, "so, whatcha think about my hunk of a man?"

    And yes, the almighty self-serving and manipulative lies. Yes, we are all guitly of this at one time or another. Scary is the thought of some who have no need (or desire) to 'convince' themselves.


  11. Ridiculous wouldn't be the first term to describe mankind but I still have to agree with you.
    Despite what history has taught us, despite the horrific things mankind has inflicted toward every other living thing, you would think that somewhere through the timline of humanity, we'd get it. Learn. But people haven't changed.

    It is unlikely they will. Human greed still reigns as does shallowness and demonstrate such a propensity for self destruction rather than living life moment by moment and enjoying it for what it is instead of worrying about what it isn't.

    Perhaps, ridiculous wouldn't have been my first choice but it seems quite appropriate indeed.
  12. Originally posted by SisterTheMoon:[..]

    Ah, yes. The truth can be and often difficult to tell. More so, difficult to hear and accept. I like your terms of social glue and grease! There is plenty value in being truthfull as it applies to your example. Especially given that you opted for the word, "profoundly" which would indicate to some degree a matter of instinct about this "wanker" (love that by the way). Sure fessing up at this point may cause your sister pain but you have to ask, why would she be upset? Especially if at some point before their nuptials, the question was asked, "so, whatcha think about my hunk of a man?"

    And yes, the almighty self-serving and manipulative lies. Yes, we are all guitly of this at one time or another. Scary is the thought of some who have no need (or desire) to 'convince' themselves.


    I think people can be aware of your feelings without asking you outright about them. Particularly if they know you well. And no one likes to think the people whose opinion they value think they've made bad choices. In the end it doesn't really matter what I think in this situation, until it becomes a thing where it's not about what I think of him, but what I think of her choices. I might come clean if asked, but I might also consider discretion the greater part of valour and nod and smile politely.

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.