The big setlist discussion thread

Originally posted by Bloodraven:[..]
obviously not everyone... I've already said that the really small minority of U2 fans that spend a lot of time following setlists, live streams and bootlegs have a tendency to complain about the lack of variation among other things.

That minority happens to be a considerable percentage of the people on the forums and I guess that's why sometimes mistakenly feels itself a bit entitled to get the shows tailored to whatever they're convinced would be better, even if nobody outside this circle cares about it, and when the shows aren't tailored as that minority wants -which shouldn't be a surprise at all- then absurdly accuse the band of playing safe or chickening out or being stupid.

Setlists and/or songs selection are totally subjective. The idea that A Sort Or Homecoming would be better than Elevation in a setlist would be heavily supported almost by the entirety of the small minority that it's the internet U2 community (including me), but it would be considered the most stupid thing the band has done in the last decade by the huge majority of non obsessive fans. Both opinions are equally valid, and believing that one opinion is more valid than the other is arrogant and wrong. But believing that the minority opinion is more valid and keep on demanding that the band acts accordingly is not only arrogant and wrong, but delusional as well.

Wishing that the band plays x or y song, hoping that they would change something, disliking some song that they're playing... That's perfectly normal and everybody does it. But being upset because they don't meet your demands? Lol... Who's forcing you to continue listening to it and devoting your free time to it almost on a daily basis?

Originally posted by bartajax:And Bloodraven: I don't think anyone really bothers that much or is really upset that it really has any kind of influence in their real life. But having a discussion about the setlist (purely about the setlist, not about their screens of other stuff, Ahn1991) isn't bad. I just find it quite interesting that a bunch of people here and other U2forums think this setlist kinda sucks. Are we gonna do anything about it? No, because the setlist works for the band probably. Can't we talk about it and share our point of view how it could become better? Yes, could be fun.

And no one here is demanding that they play a show with Heartland, Hawkmoon, Acrobat, NLOTH, Moment of Surrender, Twilight, Gloria, RHMT, LIB, SLABT, Kite, TUF and Lady With The Spinning Head. I posted a setlist some pages back, with ideas which I think could be realistic and which could really work during a show. It's not like people walked out of the venue during the last tours when they started playing Miss Sarajevo, UV or Gloria or something similair.

Originally posted by Bloodraven:To illustrate my point a little bit, I'll take u2michaelc as an example...

He keeps going on and on and on about how New Year's Day is the perfect song and how just by including it on any setlist it would turn any combination of songs in the best setlist ever.

He's convinced about it but -in the internet community- nobody else really cares about NYD that much.
He's like the internet community claiming for more setlist variation while the rest of the non obsessive fanbase don't really care about it that much.

With the obvious difference that michaelc never actually complains or moans about it, he just enjoys sharing his love for NYD while patiently awaits for the day when the band decides to play that great song again.
That's a much better way to do it, imho.

Originally posted by u2_michaelc:[..]

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:Guys and gals, in the end there's really one thing that matters. One thing that trumps this whole discussion, and I'll continue to spread this around even though I wasn't the one who first said it. You're all arguing and and fighting there's really only one important point that we need to remember.















U2 wrote miami

Originally posted by iTim:What's wrong with that picture, you ask? That's Colbourne's avatar. Bart is already practising what he preaches, he's changing things up. He's got the balls to stand out and be unique. The variation in avatars is what makes the forums more interesting and better to look at. If we all stuck to the same default avatar, what a boring experience that would be day after day.

Good on you, Bart

Originally posted by iTim:What's wrong with that picture, you ask? That's Colbourne's avatar. Bart is already practising what he preaches, he's changing things up. He's got the balls to stand out and be unique. The variation in avatars is what makes the forums more interesting and better to look at. If we all stuck to the same default avatar, what a boring experience that would be day after day.

Good on you, Bart