| Nikolaj |
09-21-2009 06:07 PM |
Originally Posted by LukeA
The average person who pays ~$150 to see Fleetwood Mac in 2009 doesn't want to see them do anything other than the hits. Its not like Bruce Springsteen, where the fan base actually clamors to hear songs rarely performed.
This is the conundrum. If FM started a tour and they mixed things up every night for a handful of songs for the first couple shows, word would get out, and it wouldn't be good. 13,000 people- only 1,500 are going to even recognize (however vaguely), say, "Straight Back". Not worth it.
Then vivfox agreed:
So very sad but so very true.
Sorry guys, but I totally disagree. The concert stage was not besieged by angry mobs nor was there a massive exodus to the restrooms by audiences on the last 2 tours when 'Beautiful Child', 'I Know I'm Not Wrong', 'Eyes of the World' or 'Storms' were given a place in the set. 3 of these songs were not from a #1 album, while 'Straight Back' was from a #1 album, it's a known song, potentially, by anyone who had the album. I never wrote 'don't play the hits', I meant there's more than enough material for the band to play along with the hits, as they have been doing, but not to the extent that I feel would make for a better concert. 'Gypsy' is a disaster and needs to go, that's one hit that Stevie sounds embarassingly inept performing live now, and 'Straight Back' would have to be a huge improvement.
With 'Tango' being so huge a cd in Europe, they'd be wise to play the title track, and near the start of the show, to show they can be more adventurous and give their fans more than the very same songs, as always, from the first notes played, for much of the concert; and/or SevenWonders, its not like I'm suggesting they do something obscure like 'Mick the Screecher' :)
I also don't agree with the position expressed (and also by Stevie) that 'the average person' attends their concerts. I think their audience vastly are repeat customers and is the audience they've held onto for 30+years (or from the start of Stevie's solo career circa 1982). It's only right to represent more of their songwriting catalogue than the band has been willing to attempt, thus far. An 'average fan' doesn't shell out several hundreds of dollars for 1 or 2 seats to see a band they don't care much about. I'm a 'casual' fan of some bands like Heart, and would go see Heart for a reasonable ticket price of under $75 or so, but passed on their double-bill with Journey for $140 that played here in CT this month.
People could handle one or 2 new songs, most of the hits, and a rotation of album cuts, like 'Thrown Down' or a mashup of 'Big Love' with 'Everybody Finds Out'. It might take editing of the teleprompter between the 'Go To Tent' messages the band relies on, but it could be done. One writer here who pointed out the lack of any spontaneous moment in the 'Unleashed' set hit the nail right on the head.
Underestimating an audiences attention span is a good way to maintain some lazy performing habits.
I do see your points, just don't agree in this case, cheers, regardless :)
(and 'Roseanne' and 'Frazier' and 'Friends')
|
