i was so sick of that overrated song. i was so sick of that overrated song. 
Originally posted by germcevoy:Don't think gaining Ultraviolet (as good as it is) is worth losing UF and End of the World. They seem all out of ideas.
Originally posted by MoFoNYR15:[..]
Totally agree!! U2 seem to be a company rather a BAND. Tonighs gig was the icing on the cake for me. Sorry. I can't respect them by adding one song and dropping 2 killer tunes. Have they ever heard of being spontaneous?or are they scared to miss a note or forget a lyric? God it's rock n roll. I just can't understand it.
Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]
It's the production. It's too big for spontaneity. They need a set running order and they need to stick with it sadly. I bet none of those PJ shows mentioned were anything as mad as 360 (not to say they weren't as good, they could just focus on the gig)
Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]
It's the production. It's too big for spontaneity. They need a set running order and they need to stick with it sadly. I bet none of those PJ shows mentioned were anything as mad as 360 (not to say they weren't as good, they could just focus on the gig)
Originally posted by u2spear:They could just do small indoor venues and play great songs that rarely get played, charge £100 for every ticket and sell out every night. I vote for that!
Originally posted by gavinfriday:I understand why people look at the current setlists as being quite boring and not surprising anymore (has it ever been surprising at u2 concerts anyway, check 80's list for instance...). However, they are great setlist when you look at the point in life of U2. They are on top of their business attracting the most widespread audience ever in their careers, so they have to serve all layers of that audience, the young ones as well as the old timers (like me).
And my 2 cents: from that point of view: they're doing great.
When you look at Pearl Jam or Springsteen, they kind of have passed their commercial heights, while U2 is still on theirs. So PJ and BS currently can concentrate on a smaller (however, not really very small, anyway) hardcore crowds, that only want to hear their fan-favorites songs, whereas the current worldwide U2 crowd want to hear the hits as well as fan favs. Therefore Eddie and Bruce can mix their setlist much more than bono and co can do at this moment.
I predict: if U2 stays together for another 10 years, they will reach the Pearl Jam/Springsteen point in their lifecycle and man, can we expect dream setlists by then!
Originally posted by gavinfriday:I understand why people look at the current setlists as being quite boring and not surprising anymore (has it ever been surprising at u2 concerts anyway, check 80's list for instance...). However, they are great setlist when you look at the point in life of U2. They are on top of their business attracting the most widespread audience ever in their careers, so they have to serve all layers of that audience, the young ones as well as the old timers (like me).
And my 2 cents: from that point of view: they're doing great.
When you look at Pearl Jam or Springsteen, they kind of have passed their commercial heights, while U2 is still on theirs. So PJ and BS currently can concentrate on a smaller (however, not really very small, anyway) hardcore crowds, that only want to hear their fan-favorites songs, whereas the current worldwide U2 crowd want to hear the hits as well as fan favs. Therefore Eddie and Bruce can mix their setlist much more than bono and co can do at this moment.
I predict: if U2 stays together for another 10 years, they will reach the Pearl Jam/Springsteen point in their lifecycle and man, can we expect dream setlists by then!