U2 is lazy

[cocamojoe]

For those raving about the recent switch up in their setlist, let me kindly point out that they have managed to whittle the setlist down to a mere 21 songs (remember when, in pre-tour interviews, that they would play “longer” sets?). Keep in mind that opening night, in Tulsa, ran 27 songs long; and, that much of the rest of that leg settled at 26, before more firmly settling on 24.

If things change up over these next several weeks, I will happily eat my words; but, to my eyes, they’re being lazy.

[laoghaire]

Hot take.

[singnomore]

For those raving about the recent switch up in their setlist, let me kindly point out that they have managed to whittle the setlist down to a mere 21 songs (remember when, in pre-tour interviews, that they would play “longer” sets?). Keep in mind that opening night, in Tulsa, ran 27 songs long; and, that much of the rest of that leg settled at 26, before more firmly settling on 24.

If things change up over these next several weeks, I will happily eat my words; but, to my eyes, they’re being lazy.

I think part of this is them protecting Bono’s vocals but I hear you

[the_chief]

Spoilt!

Majority of bands go on tour without ever changing their setlists! Same setlist, every single night for over a year!

[podiumboy]

Big Tom Petty fan here.  Saw Tom & the Heartbreakers 8 times between 1999 and 2017. 75% of each show was the exact same songs, in the same spots, with the same antics and banter.  Plug in a couple songs from the new album if there was one, and other than that it was the same hits.  And once the tour started, it was very rare that anything would change during the course of that whole tour.  U2 might as well be DMB compared to them!

But I enjoyed each show, and I’m so glad I got to see them one last time shortly before Tom’s death.  WE MISS YOU TOM!!!

[ahittle]

Yeah, you can hold up bands like Pearl Jam or Bruce or virtuosic band like Phish or something, but most touring bands settle into a comfortable set and stick to it, with a couple change-ups here and there.  Absolutely true about Tom Petty. I was even looking at the Alarm's 2018 setlists - they are touring on a pretty small scale - and those setlists were really static too.

Also I would give U2 the benefit of the doubt about show lengths. Sure there may be some physical limitations there, but I think they are pretty sensitive about creating a nice cohesive show that isn't padded out with extra songs just because they can. Longer doesn't necessarily mean better in all cases.  I've been to plenty of other shows that would've been better if they had been trimmed back to 21-23 songs.

[Argo]

I couldn't agree more about the laziness. It is awful. 3 tours in 4 years or something, only playing some cities 4 nights, unimaginative stage design every tour, not like they have had any health issues to manage and they have only been doing this thing for 40 years. Just not committed to it at all when you think about it. 

[GoldenStateGirl]

We are definitely spoiled.  They give us such a great life when we all know that they could just phone it in night after night.

[cocamojoe]

Yeah, you can hold up bands like Pearl Jam or Bruce or virtuosic band like Phish or something, but most touring bands settle into a comfortable set and stick to it, with a couple change-ups here and there.  Absolutely true about Tom Petty. I was even looking at the Alarm's 2018 setlists - they are touring on a pretty small scale - and those setlists were really static too.

Also I would give U2 the benefit of the doubt about show lengths. Sure there may be some physical limitations there, but I think they are pretty sensitive about creating a nice cohesive show that isn't padded out with extra songs just because they can. Longer doesn't necessarily mean better in all cases.  I've been to plenty of other shows that would've been better if they had been trimmed back to 21-23 songs.

I do agree with your latter point, to a point. Earlier this year, I saw Jack White, for the second time. The first time, his setlist was a few songs longer, yet the second show totally leaned the first one. And, that’s even with my not overly liking his newest album. Still, the flow of songs, the song selection, the performance, all of it combined such where, though it was a shorter show, it was the better of the two that I’ve seen.

Just yesterday, I got lucky w 2 GA tickets to see U2 in Dublin next month. I was already planning on being in Europe by then, but just for an extended vacation in general (I’m in the States), on top of seeing the band Devotchka in Berlin on November 29, and then Paul McCartney in Kraköw on December 3. Long story short, I more than hope to eat my words!

[Karmamalaga]

I couldn't agree more about the laziness. It is awful. 3 tours in 4 years or something, only playing some cities 4 nights, unimaginative stage design every tour, not like they have had any health issues to manage and they have only been doing this thing for 40 years. Just not committed to it at all when you think about it.

Not to mention two albums and this JT-30-Tour that I had to go see! 

Didn't The Beatles stop touring in 1966? I feel blessed that U2 are still around, and at that, making new, awesome music. This tour (i+E/E+i) is not even over. The scene is so rewarding for all that come to see them: standing, sitting here or there, the Band is everywhere.

While the ticket prices are high (too high to my taste, but I am sure there is a thread about that), at least they brake their backs to earn our day of leasure!

On set lists: I am ever so happy with my latest experience in Paris, mainly for Acrobat, The Ocean and Red Flag Day. In fact, having seen quite some Zoo-TV shows, and whilst being happy for those who recently have enjoyed The Fly and Who'se Gonna Ride Your Wilde Horses, I feel fine.