TJT
Active topics
Joshua Tree Tour 2017
 Legs (3): Leg 1 - North America, Leg 2 - Europe, Leg 3 - The Americas
Shows: 52
  2. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    One of these 4 songs opened all their 1978-1985 shows so it makes perfect sense to my eyes


    Or just open with Streets, then play Streets again when the Joshua sequence starts, play Streets again to open the encore and play Streets to close the show.


    Like they did with I Will Follow!

    I'd live to see all of them. 11 O'Clock Tick Tock would send me into spasms. Just for the 2nd set. After JT "live, in full"
  3. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    WOWY third (or 8th, 10th, whatever prior to the end of the set) is definitely not something we're used to, but I think we have to forget about the meaning/momentum/position it used to have in "common" sets and just put it into the album's context...

    ...where it doesn't fit either, coming back to what I said a few posts back Joshua's running order can and should be improved, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up doing it anyway.


    As long as I get Shine Like Stars/ Love Will Tear Us Apart, I don't care where its played, honestly.
  4. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    I was thinking something similar:

    Streets
    In Gods Country
    Trip
    ISHFWILF
    One Tree Hill
    Red Hill Mining Town
    Exit
    Bullet The Blue Sky
    Running To Stand Still
    With Or without You
    Mothers Of the Disappeared


    Good. Bullet and Running need to be together, if anything.
  5. Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:[..]
    I'm actually really curious about this now. That SOUNDS right - that 11 O'Clock, IWF, Gloria, or OOC were their only openers during 78-85. Now I wanna see if there are any more besides The Ocean we're not thinking of...
    Wire
  6. ...If they play the 11 songs of the album all together, but not actually in order, I'll probably have a seat during the show.

    (the band) Garbage did this a few years ago. Decide they're touring for the anniversary of their self-titled debut, then announce they're playing the album in full....then they sprinkle the songs throughout the setlist, out of order. So they didn't really play S/T "in full"....they played the songs from it throughout the course of a normal set.

    If U2 wants to do that, and just call it a "celebration of the era" or whatever, then fine. It'll still suck for them to go back on their word of playing the album in full (which, by the way, means in order. If they close with WOWY, not a single person can walk out saying they saw The Joshua Tree performed. The songs, maybe. But not the album).

    But I swear to god, if there's an eleven song set in the middle of the show and it's The Joshua Tree out of order, I'll take my seat and just laugh along with them, all the way to the bank.

    There's something special about actually hearing a record performed in full, whether you're blowing your load on a song like Streets or WOWY early or what. You think people are gonna walk out once they hear Streets? Give me a fucking break, U2. This tour can only be one of two things - an honest celebration of THAT RECORD, and the unedited performance of it in full....or it can be a greatest hits tour. A cash grab, a stopgap so people don't get too pissed off when they learn that they're scrapping their album for another 3 or 4 years.



  7. Quote of the year, and its only mid January!
  8. Originally posted by MattG:...If they play the 11 songs of the album all together, but not actually in order, I'll probably have a seat during the show.

    (the band) Garbage did this a few years ago. Decide they're touring for the anniversary of their self-titled debut, then announce they're playing the album in full....then they sprinkle the songs throughout the setlist, out of order. So they didn't really play S/T "in full"....they played the songs from it throughout the course of a normal set.

    If U2 wants to do that, and just call it a "celebration of the era" or whatever, then fine. It'll still suck for them to go back on their word of playing the album in full (which, by the way, means in order. If they close with WOWY, not a single person can walk out saying they saw The Joshua Tree performed. The songs, maybe. But not the album).

    But I swear to god, if there's an eleven song set in the middle of the show and it's The Joshua Tree out of order, I'll take my seat and just laugh along with them, all the way to the bank.

    There's something special about actually hearing a record performed in full, whether you're blowing your load on a song like Streets or WOWY early or what. You think people are gonna walk out once they hear Streets? Give me a fucking break, U2. This tour can only be one of two things - an honest celebration of THAT RECORD, and the unedited performance of it in full....or it can be a greatest hits tour. A cash grab, a stopgap so people don't get too pissed off when they learn that they're scrapping their album for another 3 or 4 years.
    I don't see why it's so important for the songs to be in the order of the album or why that would effect your experience to the extent your stating. This isn't the Joshua tree the studio album this is the Joshua tree live, and playing the full album does not mean in order it means playing the full album wherever they songs slot in. I can't believe any passionate u2 fan would walk out of the gig feeling short changed unless they didn't play every song.
  9. Originally posted by MattG:...If they play the 11 songs of the album all together, but not actually in order, I'll probably have a seat during the show.

    (the band) Garbage did this a few years ago. Decide they're touring for the anniversary of their self-titled debut, then announce they're playing the album in full....then they sprinkle the songs throughout the setlist, out of order. So they didn't really play S/T "in full"....they played the songs from it throughout the course of a normal set.

    If U2 wants to do that, and just call it a "celebration of the era" or whatever, then fine. It'll still suck for them to go back on their word of playing the album in full (which, by the way, means in order. If they close with WOWY, not a single person can walk out saying they saw The Joshua Tree performed. The songs, maybe. But not the album).

    But I swear to god, if there's an eleven song set in the middle of the show and it's The Joshua Tree out of order, I'll take my seat and just laugh along with them, all the way to the bank.

    There's something special about actually hearing a record performed in full, whether you're blowing your load on a song like Streets or WOWY early or what. You think people are gonna walk out once they hear Streets? Give me a fucking break, U2. This tour can only be one of two things - an honest celebration of THAT RECORD, and the unedited performance of it in full....or it can be a greatest hits tour. A cash grab, a stopgap so people don't get too pissed off when they learn that they're scrapping their album for another 3 or 4 years.
    Post of the year! And it's only January. Well put. I guess you interpret "live in full" the same way I do. Any deviation should have been toured last year as "Celebrating 40 Years of U2"
  10. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    I don't see why it's so important for the songs to be in the order of the album or why that would effect your experience to the extent your stating. This isn't the Joshua tree the studio album this is the Joshua tree live, and playing the full album does not mean in order it means playing the full album wherever they songs slot in. I can't believe any passionate u2 fan would walk out of the gig feeling short changed unless they didn't play every song.
    I'm with you but Matt definitely has a point when being picky about the "full album" concept.


    I am fine either way though, seeing these 11 songs being played throughout an unforgettable evening will be something unique regardless they play them in order or not.
  11. Originally posted by MattG:...If they play the 11 songs of the album all together, but not actually in order, I'll probably have a seat during the show.

    (the band) Garbage did this a few years ago. Decide they're touring for the anniversary of their self-titled debut, then announce they're playing the album in full....then they sprinkle the songs throughout the setlist, out of order. So they didn't really play S/T "in full"....they played the songs from it throughout the course of a normal set.

    If U2 wants to do that, and just call it a "celebration of the era" or whatever, then fine. It'll still suck for them to go back on their word of playing the album in full (which, by the way, means in order. If they close with WOWY, not a single person can walk out saying they saw The Joshua Tree performed. The songs, maybe. But not the album).

    But I swear to god, if there's an eleven song set in the middle of the show and it's The Joshua Tree out of order, I'll take my seat and just laugh along with them, all the way to the bank.

    There's something special about actually hearing a record performed in full, whether you're blowing your load on a song like Streets or WOWY early or what. You think people are gonna walk out once they hear Streets? Give me a fucking break, U2. This tour can only be one of two things - an honest celebration of THAT RECORD, and the unedited performance of it in full....or it can be a greatest hits tour. A cash grab, a stopgap so people don't get too pissed off when they learn that they're scrapping their album for another 3 or 4 years.
    Agreed X 1000



    I actually have seen JT performed in full and in sequence, not by U2 (obviously) or a tribute band, but by the touring "Classic Albums" outfit that selects albums and does this for a living. It was actually pretty stellar, the singer was like 70% there on the tone of Bono's voice, but it was note for note JT, even the bits that U2 have never played (random little guitar parts, little keyboard parts, etc.). It was fucking awesome, and I want to see U2 do it. I need to see them do it after the tour is being marketed as such.
  12. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    I don't see why it's so important for the songs to be in the order of the album or why that would effect your experience to the extent your stating. This isn't the Joshua tree the studio album this is the Joshua tree live, and playing the full album does not mean in order it means playing the full album wherever they songs slot in. I can't believe any passionate u2 fan would walk out of the gig feeling short changed unless they didn't play every song.
    If they called it The Joshua Tree Tour and played 8-9 songs from the album every night, I'd be elated. It'd be exactly what they branded it as.

    I have seen countless ads selling this as "the album in its entirety every night."

    When you play a record, if you skip around all that songs on the album as you go, but by the end you've "still managed to hit every song", guess what? You haven't played the record in full. It's like reading a book out of sequence. Have you read the whole book? Well sure, technically...

    I felt completely short-changed at the Garbage concert because I've been listening to that album for 20 years, and I could see Garbage play 60% of the record in whatever order they want at any single Garbage show in the last 20 years. They advertised it as "the album in full," and they lied. Plain and simple.

    Whether or not its "good enough" is moot. It will be "good enough" because it is a U2 show. But "good enough" doesn't change the fact that playing an album out of sequence isn't what "playing an album" means at all.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.