Author Topic: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?  (Read 10293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Droo

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,172
  • don't expect, suggest
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2016, 10:15:50 AM »
My point was that those three songs from albums that aren't exactly beloved by the masses can become setlist regulars, then any argument that NLOTH was a failure and therefore will never be heard from again are invalid. The band clearly feels fondly about Moment of Surrender and were willing to give Magnificent another try.

I'd go so far as to suggest the reworked Magnificent may be a regular on the next leg of the tour after SOE comes out.

Offline riffraff

  • Deep In the Heart
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,226
  • I know that this is not goodbye, my forum friends!
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2016, 10:28:50 AM »
I would LOVE to hear Magnificent live...

Offline Volcanogirl

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,836
  • The goal is Elevation !
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2016, 03:26:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would LOVE to hear Magnificent live...

That would be just Magnificent ! They played it in Amsterdam and i liked it because it rocks ! It was a different version but i did not mind at all.

Offline achtung child

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 394
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2016, 12:43:22 PM »
BECAUSE NO ONE LIKED IT.  Case closed.

Behind the Barricade

  • Guest
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2016, 12:49:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My point was that those three songs from albums that aren't exactly beloved by the masses can become setlist regulars, then any argument that NLOTH was a failure and therefore will never be heard from again are invalid. The band clearly feels fondly about Moment of Surrender and were willing to give Magnificent another try.

I'd go so far as to suggest the reworked Magnificent may be a regular on the next leg of the tour after SOE comes out.

I think Magnificent was the boring choice.  I would have preferred Boots in the set instead of Invisible but then Invisible was a new song they seemed determined to play on the last tour.  I reckon the band is fond of MOS, it's just that it's a difficult song to fit in any set-list on account of its length.  Even on 360 it was tagged on at the very end of the show.  Ideally I'd like to see Fez: Being Born at my next U2 show.  That would be interesting.


Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2016, 02:56:06 PM »
Yeah, Boots or Fez.  It would be interesting all right... to see the band's reaction to everyone falling asleep or running for the exits....

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2016, 05:15:24 PM »
Honestly, and no joke, I felt like falling asleep whole second half of I&E anyway after most of the new songs were played in the first half.  The rest of the show was like been here, done this and heard all this before practically in the same order tour after tour anyway.  Everyone by now knows my opinion of U2 setlists.  I love NLOTH, Fez would have been great, at least U2 would have saw one person still in their seat.  I'd even take Boots at this stage, at least it is not worn out like all the other warhorses they keep playing.  Just my opinion, probably one of the few.

Behind the Barricade

  • Guest
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2016, 07:15:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, and no joke, I felt like falling asleep whole second half of I&E anyway after most of the new songs were played in the first half.

I'm not surprised, it must be very tiring being so negative all the time.

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2016, 07:29:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, and no joke, I felt like falling asleep whole second half of I&E anyway after most of the new songs were played in the first half.

I'm not surprised, it must be very tiring being so negative all the time.
Maybe I can purchase some U2 blinders from you as it seem to work so well for you.  Actually just found mine.  Oh yeah the U2 set list on I&E was actually great with lots of variety and loads and loads of deep cuts and surprises.  Can't wait to see what they come up with next.  Wow it actually works!! 
Oh yeah, if you read the whole post, I actually agreed with your post on Fez being interesting if they chose to play it.  But obviously you didn't read the whole post which clearly shows what you are really after which I think everyone knows. ;)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 07:53:03 PM by boom boom »

iehomecoming

  • Guest
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2016, 08:11:52 PM »
Fez would have made a great opener on 360. No exit runs.

Offline Kite32

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 363
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2016, 03:28:20 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, and no joke, I felt like falling asleep whole second half of I&E anyway after most of the new songs were played in the first half.  The rest of the show was like been here, done this and heard all this before practically in the same order tour after tour anyway.  Everyone by now knows my opinion of U2 setlists.  I love NLOTH, Fez would have been great, at least U2 would have saw one person still in their seat.  I'd even take Boots at this stage, at least it is not worn out like all the other warhorses they keep playing.  Just my opinion, probably one of the few.

There are a few people here who would agree with you - me being one of them. Personally I don't like the new album much but it was refreshing to see them stick to playing the new songs. As for the old warhorses I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't bother going to I&E after the complete shambles that was 360 and having looked at the footage and the setlists I think I made the right choice (never mind that I could have taken a vacation on the money I saved from not buying a ticket). Even the older songs they dropped into the first half were predictable save for 2 hearts which was great to see and they played it really well. They also only played it 3 times before dropping it. But that's U2 for you these days - always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

If anyone wants to call me negative, fine. Responses like that usually replace any kind of logical or consistent argument anyway.

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2016, 06:21:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, and no joke, I felt like falling asleep whole second half of I&E anyway after most of the new songs were played in the first half.  The rest of the show was like been here, done this and heard all this before practically in the same order tour after tour anyway.  Everyone by now knows my opinion of U2 setlists.  I love NLOTH, Fez would have been great, at least U2 would have saw one person still in their seat.  I'd even take Boots at this stage, at least it is not worn out like all the other warhorses they keep playing.  Just my opinion, probably one of the few.

There are a few people here who would agree with you - me being one of them. Personally I don't like the new album much but it was refreshing to see them stick to playing the new songs. As for the old warhorses I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't bother going to I&E after the complete shambles that was 360 and having looked at the footage and the setlists I think I made the right choice (never mind that I could have taken a vacation on the money I saved from not buying a ticket). Even the older songs they dropped into the first half were predictable save for 2 hearts which was great to see and they played it really well. They also only played it 3 times before dropping it. But that's U2 for you these days - always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

If anyone wants to call me negative, fine. Responses like that usually replace any kind of logical or consistent argument anyway.
I really wish they stuck with California and Volcano and Troubles and played it more often and even tried SLABT and TIWYCRMN.  Yeah the only surprise of the whole tour Two Hearts, just my luck, never got to hear it at the shows that I went to.  Playing it just 3 times is just sad.  I did get to here it back in '85 on the UF tour.  It should have been a mainstay in their static set from the beginning, at least that would have been something.  You probably made the right choice in not going especially if you didn't like SOI as it would have been a long night for you and I made the wrong one in going for multiple shows when I intended to just see one by now you know based on that 2 night concept that never happened.  Safe to say, I won't make that mistake again, just to costly these days to see the same show with no variety.  But like you said that is U2 these days.  Also agree on 360, but again for me the new songs saved it and at least we got UF, and UV and later Zooropa and HMTMKMKM.  Something better than nothing.  Glad to see not the only one sick of U2 trodding warhorses time and time again with no effort to balance it off with some deep cuts. 
Like you said also, call me negative if you want but that is how I feel about their setlist and I will keep repeating and repeating it until they prove me wrong.  Others can repeat that they love their setlists and enjoy them banging out the same hits and staples and that is a fair opinion just not mine. 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 06:45:12 AM by boom boom »

Offline podiumboy

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 423
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2016, 08:48:29 AM »
This tour has to have featured the highest amount of songs with less than 5 plays.

The Troubles
California (I figured this would be a staples)
Crystal Ballroom
Lucifer's Hands
Magnificent
Miracle drug
Stuck in a moment
Zoo Station
When love comes to town
In gods country
Spanish eyes
Two hearts
New Year's Day (WTF?!?!)
Party Girl
11:00 tick tock
The ocean

Volcano and AIWIY played more than 5, but still a shockingly low amount.  Why rehearse a song just to never play it?  "Well, It didn't fit into the show".  B.S.!  It's U2 playing U2 songs at a U2 concert!  What more do you need?

Offline boom boom

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,195
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2016, 09:02:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This tour has to have featured the highest amount of songs with less than 5 plays.

The Troubles
California (I figured this would be a staples)
Crystal Ballroom
Lucifer's Hands
Magnificent
Miracle drug
Stuck in a moment
Zoo Station
When love comes to town
In gods country
Spanish eyes
Two hearts
New Year's Day (WTF?!?!)
Party Girl
11:00 tick tock
The ocean

Volcano and AIWIY played more than 5, but still a shockingly low amount.  Why rehearse a song just to never play it?  "Well, It didn't fit into the show".  B.S.!  It's U2 playing U2 songs at a U2 concert!  What more do you need?
A lot more than that.  By all means, knock yourself out and see the next tour multiple times if you enjoy the hits and don't mind you might not get any deep cuts like Two Heart at your particular show. At best you will be helping pick up U2's declining numbers and demand at least here in North America.  But they are only getting one show out of me and that only being to hear the new songs live because I know what I'm going to get for the rest of the set.
Also 11 oclock tick tock and the ocean should not be including as official songs sung on tour as it was part of the club show and not part of the official I&E tour. 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 09:11:32 AM by boom boom »

Offline podiumboy

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 423
Re: Why is No Line on the Horizon nonexistent?
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2016, 09:48:39 AM »
Not sure if you think I was somehow insulting you with that list... not at all, it was an insult at U2 for being too afraid to veer too far from the script.  I don't judge your decision to go to just one show; you have many good points.  Same hits, largely in the same order.  I know 11:00 and Ocean weren't played on the tour, but they still took the time to rehearse the songs, and then just played it once.  WHY?  There are lots of fans that would love to see that song live, including myself. 

 COBL is not worthy of being a nightly staple, it should be rotated with something.  I'm glad they rotated in/out some songs like One and ISHFWILF, I was getting tired of hearing both of those at every show I saw.  One song that I think NEEDS to be given a rest is "Beautiful Day".  I realize its THE SONG that brought them back from the dead (in their own opinion) after the failure of Pop (in their own opinion), but I'm really sick of that one.  More than WOWY, or Streets, or even Pride, I think BD NEEDS a rest.  Maybe rotate it with COBL to keep 2000's U2 represented, as they both are quite similar and serve the same purpose.

NLOTH, Pop and Zooropa are criminally under-appreciated by the band themselves, and it kind of pisses me off.  Flaunt that sh**, it's incredible.  It's pretty bad when Passengers has had more songs in the setlist than Pop has in the last decade.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 09:51:21 AM by podiumboy »