Why has nothing from Pop been played since Elevation Tour?

[Sugarcube]

This is a Pop thread yeah?

It is?
I thought it was about Coldplay, selling stadiums and people's ears? :p

I think The Edge tossing his guitar down in disgust after playing Gone on the live Elevation DVD says it all about how the band still feel about those POP songs.

I think it was the edge trying to be rock n roll rather than pretending to be disgussted with the song.

[Sugarcube]

Probably worth noting that U2 'distanced themselves' from it only when returning to the tour seventeen months after it came out. That is a very long time (Longer than the entire PopMart Tour!), and came after a significant gap. I think most fans believe that they would have played more NLOTH material if the tour had resumed on schedule in the USA in early 2010.

Yep. There's no doubt in my mind that had the NLOTH tour finished out in 2010 as originally planned, U2 would have continued to promote it by playing several songs off the CD each night. Almost two years after the release of NLOTH, it didn't make much sense to continue promoting it.

Young man, you should get your facts straight before having an opinion on something. There were 6 legs on the 360 tour. By the 3rd leg, they had given up playing a song from NLOTH as the opener (unheard of for nearly every previous tour). On legs 1 and 2 they were averaging 7 or 8 songs from NLOTH. By the 3rd leg they were averaging 3 or 4 songs from NLOTH.

Leg 1 ran from 30th June 2009 to 22nd August 2009 - 1 and a half months
Leg 2 ran from 12th September 2009 to 28th October 2009 - 1 and a half months
Leg 3 ran from 6th August 2010 to 8th October 2010 - 2 months
Leg 4 ran from November 25th 2010 to 19th December 2010 - nearly 2 months
Leg 5 ran from 25th March 2011 to 13th April - half a month
Leg 6 ran from 11th May 2011 to 30th July 2011 - 2 and a half months

You can clearly see they spent 3 months of touring 'promoting' NLOTH and 6 and a half months worth of touring distancing themselves from it.

As for UC's contention that they started distancing themselves from it 1 and a half years after it came out, as you can see, that isn't true either. They were playing pretty much the same setlist from December 2010 to July 2011 as they had been from leg 3 onwards (ie averaging 3 or 4 tunes a night from NLOTH and nothing from that record as an opener).

These aren't my opinions - they're facts

[wraitii]

Actually... What UC said is true. Leg 3 IS about 1.5 years after NLOTH's release.

[Sugarcube]

Actually... What UC said is true. Leg 3 IS about 1.5 years after NLOTH's release.

In tems of calendar months, yes - in tems of time spent touring, no. Which is the point.

[singnomore]

Probably worth noting that U2 'distanced themselves' from it only when returning to the tour seventeen months after it came out. That is a very long time (Longer than the entire PopMart Tour!), and came after a significant gap. I think most fans believe that they would have played more NLOTH material if the tour had resumed on schedule in the USA in early 2010.

Yep. There's no doubt in my mind that had the NLOTH tour finished out in 2010 as originally planned, U2 would have continued to promote it by playing several songs off the CD each night. Almost two years after the release of NLOTH, it didn't make much sense to continue promoting it.

I wonder why U2 bothered promoting Achtung Baby all the way down the yellow brick road to Sydney, Australia, y'all.

Depends on your view - the album was a success but the tour was so far ahead of its time that the tour format of ZooV sustained that tour as much as the album

[singnomore]

Actually... What UC said is true. Leg 3 IS about 1.5 years after NLOTH's release.

In tems of calendar months, yes - in tems of time spent touring, no. Which is the point.

Does that mean your actually agreeing with each other then? 

[Sugarcube]

Actually... What UC said is true. Leg 3 IS about 1.5 years after NLOTH's release.

In tems of calendar months, yes - in tems of time spent touring, no. Which is the point.

Does that mean your actually agreeing with each other then? 

No! 

[tigerfan41]

^ Exactly, wraitii. Leg 3 was roughly 1.5 years after NLOTH's release. Leg 3 is also when the band began to slip out the majority of the NLOTH songs they were playing in favor of the older songs. There's nothing fictitious about that.

And I'm pretty sure when most look at a tour, they view it as calendar months, not this BS about time spent touring. It makes no sense to promote a CD 1.5 years (calendar years since we have to specify that, apparently) after its release when you have a whole catalog of other songs people want to hear. Unless the CD was a smash success (like Achtung) it doesn't make sense to have 4-6 songs from the CD in the setlist. I doubt if Springsteen will be playing as many songs from Wrecking Ball in a year and a half.

[singnomore]

Actually... What UC said is true. Leg 3 IS about 1.5 years after NLOTH's release.

In tems of calendar months, yes - in tems of time spent touring, no. Which is the point.

Does that mean your actually agreeing with each other then? 

No! 

 

[singnomore]

^ Exactly, wraitii. Leg 3 was roughly 1.5 years after NLOTH's release. Leg 3 is also when the band began to slip out the majority of the NLOTH songs they were playing in favor of the older songs. There's nothing fictitious about that.

And I'm pretty sure when most look at a tour, they view it as calendar months, not this BS about time spent touring. It makes no sense to promote a CD 1.5 years (calendar years since we have to specify that, apparently) after its release when you have a whole catalog of other songs people want to hear. Unless the CD was a smash success (like Achtung) it doesn't make sense to have 4-6 songs from the CD in the setlist. I doubt if Springsteen will be playing as many songs from Wrecking Ball in a year and a half.

Still think the tour format carried the songs just as much - and yes debating calendar months versus overall time doesn't really matter - U2 strayed away from NLOTH as the tour went on

[Sugarcube]

^ Exactly, wraitii. Leg 3 was roughly 1.5 years after NLOTH's release. Leg 3 is also when the band began to slip out the majority of the NLOTH songs they were playing in favor of the older songs. There's nothing fictitious about that.

And I'm pretty sure when most look at a tour, they view it as calendar months, not this BS about time spent touring. It makes no sense to promote a CD 1.5 years (calendar years since we have to specify that, apparently) after its release when you have a whole catalog of other songs people want to hear. Unless the CD was a smash success (like Achtung) it doesn't make sense to have 4-6 songs from the CD in the setlist. I doubt if Springsteen will be playing as many songs from Wrecking Ball in a year and a half.

There was a 10 month gap between legs 2 and 3 and another 3 month gap between legs 5 and 6 meaning they spent well over half of a 2 year tour cycle playing no gigs at all. I think it would be fair to say calendar months are irrelevant in this context.

[Sugarcube]

^ Exactly, wraitii. Leg 3 was roughly 1.5 years after NLOTH's release. Leg 3 is also when the band began to slip out the majority of the NLOTH songs they were playing in favor of the older songs. There's nothing fictitious about that.

And I'm pretty sure when most look at a tour, they view it as calendar months, not this BS about time spent touring. It makes no sense to promote a CD 1.5 years (calendar years since we have to specify that, apparently) after its release when you have a whole catalog of other songs people want to hear. Unless the CD was a smash success (like Achtung) it doesn't make sense to have 4-6 songs from the CD in the setlist. I doubt if Springsteen will be playing as many songs from Wrecking Ball in a year and a half.

Still think the tour format carried the songs just as much - and yes debating calendar months versus overall time doesn't really matter - U2 strayed away from NLOTH as the tour went on

There was a 10 month gap between legs 2 and 3 and another 3 month gap between legs 5 and 6 meaning they spent well over half of a 2 year tour cycle playing no gigs at all. I think it would be fair to say calendar months are irrelevant in this context.

[wraitii]

They did, but with Bono's back... I really think the third leg is clearly separated from the rest.

[Sugarcube]

They did, but with Bono's back... I really think the third leg is clearly separated from the rest.

Either way, it doesnt change the fact that they spent way more time distancing themselves from NLOTH than they did promoting it. Any arguments that the album was gradually fazed out are redundant in the light if these facts.

[wraitii]

True, NLOTH was basically scraped. I'm really not sure the 360 tour can be called a best-of tour for many reasons, and anyway, I really dug the setlists we had.

We've gotten really off-track here.