Why U2 Doesn’t Play 3-Hour Concerts
Here’s Willie Williams writing in one of his recent diary entries on U2.com about how U2 puts together its show. This is from production rehearsals in Turin, when the band was considering three different openings to the show:
The band rolled in during the late afternoon and we tried each of these several times over. All three approaches worked, though in very different ways so, depending on what happens with the rest of the set list, we can keep them all in the can for the time being.
Given that we’re in Italy it also seemed like a no-brainer to put Miss Sarajevo in the show, at least for opening night. The biggest challenge we have now is that the show is as long as it can comfortably be - beyond 2hrs 15mins it starts to become a bit of a marathon for both band and audience, plus the reality of noise curfews means that a longer show has to start earlier rather than end later. Consequently, for every new song that goes in, something has to come out and this has proved to be exceptionally difficult. There are other factors too, like the production elements and how they hang together. The opening of the screen is obviously the biggest production moment and it was strangely tough to find a song that could hold its own in the presence of such a jaw-dropping physical event. Unforgettable Fire has proven to be perfect for this moment, though we have tried it with other songs. I’d thought that the end of Until the End of the World would be a suitably cataclysmic moment to open the screen but in reality it just didn’t feel right. Tonight we tried playing Miss Sarajevo with screen opening but again (to my mind) it felt wrong as the ‘gag’ for this song is Bono’s extraordinary operatic moment. To do it whilst a great big machine is opening overhead just looked a bit silly. Tonight ended up being a little inconclusive, but we’ll keep experimenting.
So that pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?
“…beyond 2hrs 15mins it starts to become a bit of a marathon for both band and audience…”
And then curfews come into play, because U2 doesn’t want to take the stage at 8:00 pm and play a show in broad daylight when all of the lighting and production won’t be visible.
And then songs have to be matched to production elements, like the mere act of unfurling the video screen.
The length of U2′s concerts comes up regularly in our forum (and others, I’m sure) as a discussion topic. And the discussion inevitably goes dead when someone brings up other artists, like “Bruce Springsteen plays for three hours, so U2 should, too.”
Well, you know, U2 isn’t Bruce Springsteen. It’s apples and oranges. Bruce is amazing at what he does, but what he does is 180-degrees different from U2.
I think we’d all love for U2 to play unending concerts. I’d gladly stand through a 4-hour U2 marathon (to borrow Willie’s word), wouldn’t you? But if you’ve been following this band for more than a couple years, you should know by now that it’s never gonna happen. Time to accept it and enjoy the shows while we still can, y’know?
Last 4 posts by m2
- PHOTO: Getting close to the stage at 5:30 pm - May 30th, 2011
- PHOTO: Adam's new Fender bass - May 27th, 2011
- PHOTOS: U2 360 2011 Tour Merchandise - May 24th, 2011
- VIDEO: Bono teases fans with talk of indoor tour, b-sides played live - May 10th, 2011
I honestly refuse to believe that adding three or four songs to the setlist would change the dynamic production to such an impossible level. With the thinking that only certain songs work with certain production elements, it’s no wonder that the setlists have been so static; and frankly a bit boring. I think they need to be way more flexible about these things. Most disappointing was probably the last concert in Horsens where they sacrificed two vital songs (UF and UTEOW) just for UV to make a comeback. Time shouldn’t be this much of an issue. I’m not asking for a marathon, just more would be nice.
It’s a bit like albums, they don’t get any better filling the full 74 minutes a cd accomodates. It’s the atmosphere that counts and makes a U2 show as (or more) intense as a 3+ hour Pearl Jam or Springsteen show.
You have to pick the songs you see fit to create the atmosphere you’re looking for. But that’s a different discussion.
less is more. I’ve been through several bruce-a-thons, and they do get tiring after the three hour mark. 2 hours is enough, the band doesn’t tire, the music is always fresh, and even though people may not always like all of the selected songs, less time means the best songs typically bubble up.
U2 has sadly forgotten what it is like to be a music fan. The contact high of seeing a concert has become a distant memory.
It’s an embarrassment that a band with as deep and rich a catalog as they have can only “muster” 2:15.
This summer I saw Leonard Cohen, who is 75 years old do a 3 and 1/2 hour show, and left the crowd wanting more.
I’ve seen acts far older than U2 put on longer shows. I saw Elton John at age 60 play for 3 hours. McCartney at 67 play for 3. Springsteen play multiple shows all clocking in at over 2:45-3:15.
2:15 is a joke. The crowd isn’t exhausted, the crowd wants more! And how, on the 360 can U2 be exhausted? A quarter of the setlist are slow tempo songs and then end the show with a 9 minute funereal dirge.
U2 needs to chop themselves down and start over again. They have forgotten what it’s like to be in a rock and roll crowd. If 18 year old Larry, Edge, Adam, and Bono could put themselves in the crowd for a modern U2 show, they’d probably be bored to tears and embarrassed.
I think no artist can even come close to Bruce’s intensity, but U2 should learn from him the way setlists change from gig to gig. 360 tends to get repetitive.
The Rock Star should drink
more ROCK STAR!
2 hrs 15 minutes is a cop out. It would be different if they varied the set list more but they don’t. I defend a lot of the band’s stuff but this safety net of short shows and rigid set lists is very much UN-rock and roll
@corpsie
“If 18 year old Larry, Edge, Adam, and Bono could put themselves in the crowd for a modern U2 show, they’d probably be bored to tears and embarrassed.”
The problem is they’re not eighteen year old kids. They are now fifty year old adults, and so is a good portion of the crowd. Times change and they’ve changed. U2 is playing to a crowd range from teens to possibly sixty year olds. Trying to please everyone in that group is near impossible.
Why focus on the show length? If that’s all that matters then why not go into some Grateful Dead like jam sessions and extend songs into the ten minute range. I just checked some of the shows I have from the 360 tour and it looks like they play 22 - 25 songs a show. Is that not enough?
I’d rather have quality over quantity.
I don’t think the “less is more” thing really applies to concerts as well as it does to albums. Most of my favorite concerts have been around the 3 hour mark - Springsteen, McCartney.. and even some past U2 shows. And I’ve never left one of them thinking “Gee, they really played for way too long, I need to get home to watch Top Chef and paint my nails waaah!”. I usually leave thinking “That was f#@&*ng amazing! I can’t believe they can keep that up for so long! That was one of the best concerts I’ve ever been to!”
A concert is like sex, it should leave you exhausted and satisfied. I’ve never enjoyed sex that left me wanting more.
U2 are one of the few acts that have such a big, diverse back catalog, it’s a shame that they don’t take full advantage of it by playing marathon shows and switching up set lists like crazy.
personally - i like to go for a meal before a u2 concert, and then for a hot chocolate/cool beer afterwards depending on which hemisphere,then drive home with NLOTH playing full blast in my car
quality over quantity gets my vote
I saw U2 on the final Amsterdam show of the Vertigo tour, and I believe it was the longest they’d played at that stage (may be wrong…) By the end, as extra song after extra song as started I have to admit I was flagging as we reached 2:20. And those included the debut of Miss Sarajevo, Who’s Gonna and Original…
I also saw Springsteen in Paris and his 2:45 was more than enough.
Quality rules in my book!
Isn’t it better to leave wanting more? I also feel that they are the experts in such things and probably know what they’re doing. over 30 years of live experience, i trust their word. If they say that 135 minutes for a U2 show works, then it works for me too.
i dont think this past tour is high quality. too many slow songs, and the same songs they done this entire decade. if you been a u2 fan and gone to even one show every tour since 2000, you know you get beautiful day, myserious ways, with or without, i still havent found, streets, elevation, vertigo - okay that one since 2005 - but you get the point.
you mean they cant change up once in awhile. we dont have to hear i still havent found. in god’s country would work just as well. josh tree sold a bazillion copies. everyone knows it. why play the same three songs off it every tour?
dont forget of that 2:15 you lose ten minutes of bono talking about something. i love bono, but if you are gonna talk ten minutes about anything, i don’t care the cause, then play ten more minutes of songs. it kills the shows. kills the energy.
they do bad job this tour mixing fast songs and slow songs. most people near me left during that long last slow song. lots of people confused as why they ended show with such a crappy downer.
people only left wanting more because the ending was so bad on 360!
i agree that time dont matter as much, but when half the show is slow and boring then 2:15 is a rip off and lazy. especially in a stadium show. those places too big for slow songs. you cant win a crowd with in a little while and miss sarajevo.
I was to the most recently 360 in Frankfurt and yet I’m still happy I been there, I think I expected more. But by the end of the day, I saw Bono. Saw Edge, Larry, Adam. Saw and heard the best band in the world playing live. I heard and sang songs I love, songs been part of my life for years. I heard songs I don’t love that much, but the band still makes them great on stage. But thats one point looking at the crowd. With age 30 I may be in the middle somewhere. But there are lots of people same age as the band is. That is why they still play JT songs. And imho there’s nothing better than a sold out stadium loudly singing every single word of I still haven’t found. And also thats why they play slow songs between. They calm down, the crowd calmes down. MOS at the end is good choice - it makes people think and slow down and the walk slowly out of the show. No hectic running. I toured with a famous German singer for couple of years. He still plays songs from 70s and 80s althoug he also got a big back catalog. Sure. I’d loved to hear more. Not much, but 20 minutes or so would have been nice. But I don’t wanna stop Bono from talking. Thats him. He has something to say and he likes telling jokes. If I don’t wanna hear that, I switch on a CD. U2 live is not a band coming out and play down their songs. U2 live is a visual production. I wanna see big stages, lights and additionally a great band. If you buy a U2 ticket, you know you get something different than just 4 men jamming. The guys are 50 now and done this for over 30 years. And other than all other bands, they do it constantly, they’re touring almost all the time and that is something, that needs a lot of strength. In addition, currently, there is Bonos back surgery and Larrys Tenosynovitis from mid 90s is surely something that never heals completely as I know many drummers who told me so. So I agree - quality comes before quantity. If 2.15 works for Bono - it works for me. And obviously he does it right. We want more - and buy the next ticket.
Quality vs. Quantity is a false choice- they are not mutually exclusive if you like U2. It’s an average of 4+ years between tours, I pay the ticket, the more the better- U2 can play all they want, I’ll have no problem with that.
This is my favourite band but the intensity seems a notch down on this tour, and the artifice is meant to make up for that. If this kind of stuff continues into a next tour it could all go cabaret.
The set lists have been stactic since Boy but there are still plenty of songs U2 could play without losing an opportunity (playing old songs means old songs/ albums get bought), dropping off some of the played out ones would still sell tickets. Good to see there are (2) new ones being played- never thought I would get to see ‘An Cat Dubh’ live…I can think of others that would work on this tour.
The lights work fine at twilight, an early start is perfectly feasible.
And I don’t think Black Eye Peas are that great, but that’s just an opinion.
U2 is not flexible live. There must be Physical reasons they don’t play longer. Larry’s arm maybe Bono’s vocals. Or Adam needs a smoke every 2 hours who knows. BUt to not be able to add a song new or old without dropping something is not a good enough reason. Playing with an intermission or being able to adapt with out total planning would be great for this band. Just imagine if they would each night pick 1 or 2 songs they never play live and just added it to show. Taking extended jams or extending songs like they use to do with BAD would be great. I think when you get to big of a production you have to give up spontaniety which is a bummer if you are creative.
I still wonder if they could play some of their songs with out a lot of rehersals. Like if they played a fan request night could they do any song thrown at them instantly. Not sure they are that much of a well greased machine. REM PJ and a few others might be able to cover their cataloge from memory. Stipe and Vedder would need the lyrics. LOL
If that’s how the band feels - that it’s too long for them, fine. But, a) it’s not too long for the audience; b) the attempt by m2 to argue it away was simply Weak!
“Well, you know, U2 isn’t Bruce Springsteen. It’s apples and oranges. Bruce is amazing at what he does, but what he does is 180-degrees different from U2.”
How is it 180 degrees different? Please explain. Statements like that are pure arrogance and only demonstrate the weakness of one’s argument. I guarantee you U2 do not work harder on stage than Bruce does. I have been to both concerts.
If U2 wanted to play 3 hours, they could easily do it. And, do it well. If they wanted to add 3-4 more songs, they could do it. 2:15 is just too short. I think 2:30-2:40 would be ideal. It would satisfy the craving for more and people would walk away saying, “Wow, that was Over-The-Top Great!” Rather than, “Wow, that was awesome but wish they would have played longer.”
Being an apologist just doesn’t cut it.
Start the concerts at 8:30. Especially ones in the fall. And, the lighting issue is weak - many of the concerts start during the light; further, when they were indoors it was not an issue.
I agree with most of the comments. I have been a massive U2 fan since 1984 when UF came out. I’ve seen every concert since the Joshua Tree tour. This band is a true original. However, this current tour falls short on so many levels. Having seen them play twice in Dublin and once in Boston I agree that the setlist is very weak and personally, I could care less for the big stage. Yes, a band with a catalogue as varied as U2 has should be diving into far more then they do. Of course they could and in my opinion, should play a longer concert. Stop playing the “hits” from each album and please challenge yourselves and the fans at the concerts to deeper material. It makes if far more interesting to be surprised in a concert. Also, hasn’t t his band figured out that when they scale back, i.e. let go of the fancy stages and other “tricks” they tend to come off more favorably. The Joshua Tree tour was a simple stage and lighting and made this band a true rock band for its crowd. During Achtung Baby, everyone agreed that when they went to the B stage and played 3-4 songs tightly that it was the highlight of the show. Towards the end of the Popmart when they removed the effects and simply played it was amazing. The ATYCLB tour in its entireity was just the band up stage playing hard. And Vertigo was likely the most dynamic tour with a lot of rare Boy tracks played. This band can rock but this tour is slow, methodical and quite boring in my opinion. Mix it up and play like your reapplyinhg for the best band in the world again, please. Maybe Bono should retire from being a politician and find the “piss and vinegar” he once had and get up and play like we know he can along with the rest of the band that I love. Static, hit related set lists don’t make for a true rock and roll concert. I’d be fine with not hearing With or Without You, Where The Streets Have No Name, Sunday, Beautiful Day for songs like In God’s Country, One Tree Hill, Dirty Day, Surrender, Red Light, Two Hearts Beat As One, An Cat Dubh, Exit and so on. These guys need to stop ignoring a fantastic catalogue and maybe do less concerts for longer ones.
At 39 years old, I, too have seen every tour since JT.
I think we need to acknowledge that these guys know what they’re doing. How many sold-out world tours have YOU produced? Even M2′s surveys support the majority of people want to hear are basically what they play. Plus the vast-vast-vast majority of concert-goers just see ONE SHOW per tour. So, they’re giving us what we say we want.
I, for one am ECSTATIC just to be in the same time zone as U2. And for many of us old-timers/die-hards, a U2 show is actually part of a 48-hour event that includes the road trip, the meet-up, the GA line, the autograph you *almost* got, the concert, the getting forced out of the stadium, the post-party, the quiet, tired, broke drive home….
I wouldn’t care if the band stood up there and sang the Hokey Pokey for 2 hours (you know Willie would make it look cool). Looking a gift horse in the mouth isn’t worth it. Do you really wrinkle your nose when 50,000 people sing Still Haven’t Found? Or when some dude IN SPACE sings a song with Bono? Really? Still Haven’t Found is not my fave track either, but that is U2 playing RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I think I’ll get over it. I’m a very willing passenger on the well-thought-out journey they’ve planned for me.
See you in Chicago in 2011. I’ll be the guy sitting back, relaxing and enjoying the ride.
I have to agree with the previous poster. Guys, you are seeing the best rock band in the world, ever! They put on a show that makes all other concerts pale in comparison. I saw two shows last year, and both were amazing, almost spiritual experiences. They were awesome enough that I have tickets to four shows in 2011. And let’s not forget, they’re 50. There aren’t going to be U2 shows to go to indefinitely. I say go to the shows if you want what they’re offering. If it somehow doesn’t meet your standards, stay home. There are lots of other people who would be happy to take your ticket.
@youngmanu2:
They are 180 degrees different, and that’s the truth of it. They aren’t Bruce Springsteen and they don’t want to be. U2 see they’re live show differently to most other bands, and let’s be honest, they’re by and large being proven they know what they’re doing. Honestly, I love the craft and discipline that U2 put into each show.
A few years ago I saw the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, and it was the biggest letdown of a concert I’ve ever seen. Perhaps it was because it was the first concert I’d seen since my first U2 concert, but it just didn’t work. At the end of the day, it felt like they were pulling songs out of a hat with no thought of progression at all.
Now, to some that isn’t a problem, but the journey U2 took me on in that 2 hour concert took me to a much deeper place than the iTunes-on-Random 3 hour set the Chilli Peppers did. In the end, I felt like I had experienced something special after U2. I felt like I had watched a bunch of guys play instruments after RHCP.
It’s obvious many of these comments represents spoiled die hard u2 fans. I think this complaints are a sign that maybe, these sort of fans should find a new band to worship.
All good things come to an end. You’re just trying to hold on to something you once thought was good. It’s like a failed marriage you’re happy in the beginning and then you start to complain!
Some of us have only had the opportunity to see the band once or twice and i think we truly are the once who are capable to judge these shows for what they are.
All these spoiled fans make it to complicated. It’s not what’s wrong with the show IT IS YOUR ATTITUDE!
You have every right to feel as though the complainers are spoiled fans. However, I disagree with this point of view. A band with such a enormous depth of material is simply ignoring thier catalogue. By doing such, they have become thier worst enemy. A big rock band spewing out only thier hits. They never wanted this. Why only play hits or well known songs? They have a ton of great material to choose from that may just spark renewed interest in older albums. I get that some fans only see a few concerts but if come on. Take a look at the set lists. Their lame. I could name a ton of U2 songs they’ve stopped playing or never have that would wake up the crowd.
3 hard core songs would make a huge difference in the end result of these shows. I am tired of U2′s act revolving around the same songs - with or without, i still haven’t found, mysterious ways, etc., enough already. Where is Dirty Day, Some Days or even Lemon. The U.S. did not see the second half of ZooTV - Zoomerang. Where is GONE !! - one of the best songs in concert ever !! U2 hire me and I will bring in a new audience, somebody needs a kick in the can over there.
I’d love to see U2 play more songs, including Gone and Zooropa stuff but I wouldn’t want them to skip the war horses. Why is the audience tired as Willie states? Because of hours of waiting in the GA line and standing through the support act + pause in between! I wish they would start earlier and play longer, with or without a support act.
Usually I bring one or more friends to a concert who are not die hard fans (or not fans at all) and they usually are very happy with a show that surpasses their expectations. Brussels II was especially excellent.
Personally, I’m fine with the 2010 setlist, which suits me more than 2009 setlist. And I love how they include new songs. If only they played a bit longer…
I think that part of the reason that shows are limited length is this: usually the band goes “wheels up” on their plane by midnight (at least in the U.S.) as there are income/employment/entertainment tax considerations if a show is in one place for longer than one day. This helps to reduce their tax payouts.
Follow the money and you’ll usually find the answer…
All U2 fans have several favourite songs apart from “traditional” ones, and all of as are disappointed when not listening to them in a show. It is the problem to have at leat 50 songs that would be fit in a live show like 360. Personally, i have my records and CD’s to listen to all of them, and give thanks to god for give me the opportunity to see them in live twice before die. No important for me if they play 2 hours or 3 hours. Only listening 15 seconds of edge’s strating riff of Where the streets brings to my esential of U2. 15 seconds are enough for me, and thwy give 2 hours.