My first U2 show ever for their opening night of the US Tour in Chicago. I have a lot of respect for them. First 4 songs right out of the gate are off their new album. They ended up playing 7 out of 11 songs from the new album when they easily could have just played their warhorses.

And even though "No Line" is probably one of U2's least successful album sales wise in the US, the new stuff was received very well by everyone in Soldier Field.

I hope if the Stones go back and record another album, that they try and make an effort to actually play the new songs when they tour behind it. They need to spend long enough writing and recording and focus just on making a great new album, and not be saddled with hitting a start day of another tour of just greatest hits where the new songs are an afterthought at best a few shows into the tour.

Many people will sigh in agreeance with you. While also adding that you're dreaming, it'll never happen, they don't care, blah blah blah - all truths, of course.

Unless we are proven otherwise.

It was a good show. I thought it was interesting that local scribe Greg Kot applauded U2 for not turning into a warhorse touring band like the Stones for this show/tour.

come on --the Stones catalog is, uh, a *bit* deeper than U2 -- comparing them seems assinine

Comparing career catalog was not my point. U2 has been putting out albums for almost 30 years. So while not as extensive as the Stones, it is still a fairly extensive compared to most. The point is that they are still committed to supporting their new music when they could easily collect huge tour money and just play their older hits, especially since their latest is not a huge seller. And just like a tour should, the album sales for this record will probably take off during this tour since the music is so well received by the crowd.

the Stones have almost 20 years on that, plus, Stones songs are far more woven into the fabric of society than U2, hence the demand to play them live - it's apples and oranges - the stones are slaves to their catalog to be sure, but i don't think it's about playing more new music - I'd much rather they expand on the catalog and play things live they never have before

(but I'm biting my tongue and bailing on this topic - full disclosure - I find U2 humorless and sort of dull - a decent, reliable band no doubt, but for me, that's about it - I admit it - I don't get the reverie - I think they are woefully overrated)

did they pull someone out of the crowd to play with them because they "needed someone" . That little move is so old and stale.I saw them do it in the 80's and 2000's. I have never been impressed with their live show. I got most of their studio cd's though.

Quote
roryg
It was a good show. I thought it was interesting that local scribe Greg Kot applauded U2 for not turning into a warhorse touring band like the Stones for this show/tour.

U2 has got a few warhorses while the Stones have a few dozen..., maybe that's the reason

Quote
hbwriter
the Stones have almost 20 years on that, plus, Stones songs are far more woven into the fabric of society than U2, hence the demand to play them live - it's apples and oranges - the stones are slaves to their catalog to be sure, but i don't think it's about playing more new music - I'd much rather they expand on the catalog and play things live they never have before

the stones are no slaves to their catalog. They choose to be that, so they won't have to take risks anymore.
And well,the stones have 20 years on u2, but in 20 years we've got 4 albums, so your argument isn't that strong..

The difference seems to be that whilst U2 use a tour to promote an album, the Stones have reached a stage where it is easier to have an album promote the tour.

Quote
hbwriter
the Stones have almost 20 years on that, plus, Stones songs are far more woven into the fabric of society than U2, hence the demand to play them live - it's apples and oranges - the stones are slaves to their catalog to be sure, but i don't think it's about playing more new music - I'd much rather they expand on the catalog and play things live they never have before

Maybe, but thats not the point. It's how 'woven into the fabric' of their respective audience thats more relevant.

Agree that expanding the back catalogue would be preferable, but there really isn't much point recording an album if you're going to basically ignore it and not bother to promote it after a couple of months.

Personally, I dont care much for U2's new album (its probably the weakest of their career), but they at least deserve some kudos for having some self-belief in it - and their audience seem to grasp the concept that if you're going to see a band who are supposedly touring behind a new album, it helps to be a bit familiar with the new material.

I think most hardcore Stones fancs would agree that they would like to see them play a lot more contemporary songs on a new tour. promoting a new album and playing a healthy amount of the songs from it. but the likelihood of that happening is not high.

Few years ago, Iron Maiden released @A Matter Of Life And Death' which was critically praised throughout the rock press. the band subsequently wnet on tour and played the album in it's entirity. Most of the hardcore Maiden fans were delighted, as they had seen maiden over many years and heard the 'classics' numerous times.

Some of the more 'fairweather' fans were dissapointed that the set list did not allow for more classic maiden tunes.

However on the following tour 'Somewhere Back in Time, they toured a greatest hits compiliation and focussed solely on the back catalogue. Evidence of this can be seen in the grat documentary 'flight 666' anyone doubting the dedication globally of the madien fans need only watc this to refute these beliefs.

what I'm getting at is that any band of long standing, with a dedicated harcore following, should have confidence in their own ability, new material and commitment of the fans that are pying their money to enjoy whatever atisistic expression they are making.

Of course, alternatively, and the belief that I unerstand Jagger has is that he wants to play a set which can please as many people as possible, due to the Stones having a huge social, chronological, demogrpahic crossover appeal, then, as i understand it, he tries to create a plylist that will appeal the mass majority of those in the crowd.

Unfortunately, this debate is one that can never really have a conclusive answer. It's all subjective. but at least it makes for a diverse discussion.

Me? like many of you here, have seen the Stones many times, and would love them to play a setlist which I have personally supervised and is catered specifically to my own tastes.

Suck it and see, keep on rockin'

When U2 is in their early 60s, let's see how much new stuff they play onstage -

as for Stones being "slaves to heir catalog" - I should have said "slave to their hits" - they definitely have that "give the people what they want" mentality - but the Stones come from another era - a showbiz/Ed Sullivan era where that's what you do--in that sense they are very old-fashioned--almost vaudevillian

I think theyve 'morphed' into that sort of thing.

'Twas not always the case. Throughout the Taylor era, they would hardly play anything pre-1968 - all but ignoring most of their biggest hits - and at that stage the likes of 'Brown sugar' and HTW werent 'warhorses' but recent hits.

I dont think they became the band you described until 2002 (and even then, only on the stadium shows).

The 'early 60's argument doesnt really hold up, because while the Stones arent alone in being primarily nostalgia orientated, there's still a few major acts of that age who don't do greatest hits shows.

Did MUSE open for U2? How was that???

Heard they played a bit of Fool to Cry



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 20:13 by leteyer.

the guy in chicago comparing U2 to the stones is a twat. his name is greg kot, "rock" "critic" for the tribune. he wants to be king of the 15 year olds. every time a big act comes through town he ALWAYS has to throw in a "stones SUCK" reference. it's because the stones are already the kings and he just has to be more important than the acts he reviews.
U2 was really good by the way. they seem to improve every tour. it's not as good as a bad stones show but definately worth seeing.

I lost interest in them, its okay if you like some dance mucic which I'm not into at all.

If I had to, I would pay big money NOT to see U2 or listen to their boring music.

"I dont think they became the band you described until 2002 (and even then, only on the stadium shows)."
-------

Huh?

1998
Jumpin' Jack Flash
You Got Me Rocking
Live With Me
Respectable
Gimme Shelter
Honky Tonk Women
Memory Motel
Saint Of Me
Out Of Control
Paint It Black
Thief In The Night
Before They Make Me Run
B-Stage
Route 66
Like A Rolling Stone (Bob Dylan cover)
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy For The Devil
Tumbling Dice
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)
Start Me Up
Brown Sugar
Encore:
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

1989
Start Me Up
Bitch
Sad, Sad, Sad
Undercover of the Night
Harlem Shuffle
Tumbling Dice
Miss You
Ruby Tuesday
Dead Flowers (with Living Colour)
Rock and a Hard Place
Mixed Emotions
Honky Tonk Women
Midnight Rambler
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Little Red Rooster (with Eric Clapton)
Before They Make Me Run
Happy
Paint It Black
2,000 Light Years from Home
Sympathy For The Devil
Gimme Shelter
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)
Brown Sugar
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Jumpin' Jack Flash

Quote
MKjan
If I had to, I would pay big money NOT to see U2 or listen to their boring music.

Ok, send me a very large check or I will have U2 come play on your front yard.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
MKjan
If I had to, I would pay big money NOT to see U2 or listen to their boring music.

Ok, send me a very large check or I will have U2 come play on your front yard.

I like that, good one.

Quote
hbwriter
"I dont think they became the band you described until 2002 (and even then, only on the stadium shows)."
-------

Huh?

1998
Jumpin' Jack Flash
You Got Me Rocking
Live With Me
Respectable
Gimme Shelter
Honky Tonk Women
Memory Motel
Saint Of Me
Out Of Control
Paint It Black
Thief In The Night
Before They Make Me Run
B-Stage
Route 66
Like A Rolling Stone (Bob Dylan cover)
Midnight Rambler
Sympathy For The Devil
Tumbling Dice
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)
Start Me Up
Brown Sugar
Encore:
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

1989
Start Me Up
Bitch
Sad, Sad, Sad
Undercover of the Night
Harlem Shuffle
Tumbling Dice
Miss You
Ruby Tuesday
Dead Flowers (with Living Colour)
Rock and a Hard Place
Mixed Emotions
Honky Tonk Women
Midnight Rambler
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Little Red Rooster (with Eric Clapton)
Before They Make Me Run
Happy
Paint It Black
2,000 Light Years from Home
Sympathy For The Devil
Gimme Shelter
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)
Brown Sugar
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Jumpin' Jack Flash

1989 set -

Warhorses - SMU, TD, Miss You, HTW, YCAGWYW, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, JJF

8 out of 25. Also, consider the fact they hadnt toured in 8 years.

Of the rest :
Sympathy, IORR, Midnight Rambler, Rooster and Gimme Shelter hadnt been performed live since the mid 70s. 'Happy' not since 1978.
Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday - last played live 1966/67
Bitch, Dead Flowers - last played live (I think) 1973.
Sad Sad Sad, Undercover, Harlem Shuffle, Hard Place, Mixed Emotions, Before they make me run, 2000 Light years - Never played live before this tour

(usually there were more 'new' songs. You chose a show which only has 3 songs off their new album. Usually they played about 5)


1998 set
Warhorses - JJf, HTW, SMU, Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, Sympathy, Tumbling Dice, IORR

IORR and Sympathy were regulars for much of the 1994-95 tour, so fair to say they were now 'warhorses'

For some reason, youve chosen a 21 song set - most shows were a fair bit longer than that, but of the remaining 13 songs :

3 new songs (OOC, Thief, Saint of me) - (again, most shows had more than 3 new songs)
Paint It Black only came back into the show in July 1998 after an 8 year gap
Respectable and Midnight Rambler were hardly played at all on the 1994/95 tour. From memory, I dont think Gimme Shelter was either ('95 leg of the tour only in fact), so these songs were hardly played to death by then.
YGMR and Memory Motel - never played live until 1994.
Before they make me run - in and out of the set 1994/95.
LARS - only previously played in Europe, 1995
Route 66 - Last played a couple of times mid 70s
Live with Me - played in 1994-95, previously not since 1973 I think

Not exactly a warhorses dominated show in either case.

A significant factor since then is that as the shows have become shorter in recent years (18-19 being the norm in 2006-2007), a higher proportion of them are songs that have been there at almost every show in this decade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 22:22 by Gazza.

Gazza--I appreciate the analysis--good stuff, thanks. I guess my point was, it wasn't about warhorses--it was about heavy catalog faves vs. new tunes, obscure chestnuts, etc. -- that they essentially played fan favorites for the bulk of the set, which I would say started in '75. Sure they'd dust a few things off here and there--but the bulk of the sets were fan faves/radio friendly songs

Indeed - I also think the audience 'demographic' has changed since then, as I'm sure you'd agree.

(and yes, I know what you're thinking - I DO need to get out more...)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 22:32 by Gazza.

Indeed - I also think the audience 'demographic' has changed since then, as I'm sure you'd agree. YES

(and yes, I know what you're thinking - I DO need to get out more...) NO!

Report from pitchfork

The exact feeling i had 16 years ago, last time i saw u2

The problem here is that stones are TOO similar to u2 approach in their live set megalomania

Quote
hbwriter
come on --the Stones catalog is, uh, a *bit* deeper than U2 -- comparing them seems assinine

all the more reason why they should not play warhorses

melillo--i agree with you

I couldn't agree more, the clown is in, what, his fifties and sounds like he was wetting his pants reviewing a good (not great) stadium show like a teenager. The problem with older reviewers is they usually come off like him or a cynical "there's nothing that beats the golden age" grumps like many of us.

Quote
sundevil
the guy in chicago comparing U2 to the stones is a twat. his name is greg kot, "rock" "critic" for the tribune. he wants to be king of the 15 year olds. every time a big act comes through town he ALWAYS has to throw in a "stones SUCK" reference. it's because the stones are already the kings and he just has to be more important than the acts he reviews.
U2 was really good by the way. they seem to improve every tour. it's not as good as a bad stones show but definately worth seeing.