I agree and wish they would vary, but I think we are in the VAST minority. I cannot tell you how many people were literally PISSED she did not play Landslide for TISL. I was relieved because she played a TISL song - she actually played a lot of them prior to the sickness (Everyday, POTU, BS ( :laugh: ) , FFG, Sorcerer, and maybe one more I cannot think of) - five of 13 is pretty big in that set. Yet, I would love for her to have played TTM or ROF - which she did not. Anyway, they should vary, but they never will and never really have.

That's simply not true. There are a number of artists out there who sell out arena shows without playing stagnant, hits-only setlists every night.

Nobody's saying that Fleetwood Mac should simply stop playing all their hit songs altogether and just play obscure album tracks and b-sides. But there is a middle ground here. It's entirely possible to put on a concert that includes enough hits to appease the casual fans while still mixing things up and throwing in enough more obscure songs to keep things fun and interesting for the more dedicated fans.

The most obvious example that comes to my mind is Bruce Springsteen. When he tours with the band, he fills lots of big venues, and while he always includes a number of hits (at the very least, you're all but guaranteed to hear Born To Run and Badlands, and depending on the tour, you might have Thunder Road or Dancing In The Dark or Born In The USA popping up almost every night as well), he also continually mixes things up and throws in lesser-known songs. I don't think anyone could really complain that Springsteen's last tour was light on hits and well-known songs, but he still managed to play 150 unique songs over the course of fifteen months.

Of course, Fleetwood Mac (at least the current line-up) doesn't quite have the catalogue that Springsteen has, but they certainly could mix things up a hell of a lot more than they currently do.

Yup, but the band has said that they're essentially terrified of playing new songs for audiences, which begs the question of why they even bother making new music. I suspect they do it for a reason to tour, but I doubt anyone will really agree with that assertion. If you don't think your audience can handle your music, stop making it and just embrace being the nostalgia act that you've become.

I also find it rather ridiculous that the likes of Stevie Nicks is afraid to play new songs. All she has to do is one unbalanced twirl during the course of a new song and the majority of her paying fans will feign orgasmic.

Plus, Stevie does play new songs. I mean look at the setlist for TISL. Personally, I think they are nervous as to how they will go over, but they like playing them.

Oh, I'm not EVEN suggesting a "Medley"...I say play the ENTIRE new album (whatever it is...something like SYW being 18 tunes, I'll even let 'em slide with playing only 12-15 songs from it)...then take a 15-20 minute "intermission", come back and play a set of the "hits & favorites"...switching which tunes of those are played from night to night. Such as:

1st set: 12-15...or all...from Say You Will

2nd set: (not in order...those in italics played every show, the rest are pick & choose...3 each of L & S, 2 of the "others", but no song to be played on consecutive nights)

The Chain
Dreams
Oh Well
I'm So Afraid
Go Your Own Way
Don't Stop
Tusk

Stevie:
Rhiannon
Landslide
Gold Dust Woman
Sisters Of The Moon
Stand Back
Planets Of The Universe
Sorcerer
Sara
Gypsy
Seven Wonders

Lindsey:
Blue Letter
Not That Funny
Don't Let Me Down Again
Trouble
Go Insane
Eyes Of The World
Second Hand News
Monday Morning
Never Going Back Again
Big Love

Non-Lindsey/Stevie era tunes:
Green Manalishi
Station Man
Hypnotized
Why

Word.

If they were afraid of playing new songs in 1975, why join the band? The only way your audience is going to be familiar with new material is to play it.

Their whole "afraid of new songs" EXCUSE is lame...by August of 1977, they were playing all but two songs from Rumours...they'd played quite a bit of Tusk during 1979/80. This whole minimal new songs philosophy pretty much started with the Mirage tour. Then for Tango they'd gotten new blood, so new songs (and ressurrecting OLD songs) were given lots of leeway.

The reason for touring in the first place IS TO PROMOTE YOUR LATEST ALBUM. If it is not a GREATEST HITS album, then playing the hits isn't necessary.

They're supposedly "artists"...be artistic with the concert sets, not a friggin' jukebox.

I imagine the saturation of Rumours is hard to get out from under. After it became the most monster album ever, I'm sure they found it harder and harder not to play it. :shrug: FM, FM, was pretty monster, too, mainly Rhiannon, which totally catapulted that band, and Stevie's whole deal - her image, stardom, etc, blah.

That would be interesting, but that may be too much to the other extreme. Maybe a majority of SYW, but ALL would be a lot to take in. There are tunes I would have loved to have heard from SYW: Steal Your Heart Away, Thrown Down, Miranda, and Smile At You, in addition to what was already in the set.

As you were posting this, I was revising my post. :)

I would faint AND long for the days when La Nicks was a size zero, sang soprano esq - and danced sensually. Sheebus, I need a cold shower :eek: :laugh:

Why? Nobody was forcing them to play all those songs all the time. Certainly there's always been a very high demand for those songs from fans, but the bottom line is, the band decides what they want to play. They decide whether they want to completely pander to hits-hungry fans or to be a bit more adventurous in their song selections. The excuse that it's somehow "hard" for them not to play the same songs from Rumours all the time just doesn't wash.

And again, there are many other bands out there who released one album that was head-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of sales and popularity, but who still manage to mix things up in concert and play the rest of their catalogues and not rest on those laurels for thirty years. Springsteen is again the first artist who comes to mind.

Or, perhaps even more relevant at present: U2. Whatever issues a lot of fans may have with them these days in terms of pomposity and ticket prices and fan club shenanigans, they don't go out there and play 2/3 of The Joshua Tree every night. They play their new songs, they play some hits, and they throw in some more obscure stuff for the longtime diehard fans. And this year they're also apparently mixing up their setlists from night to night more than they have in the recent past. By Fleetwood Mac fan logic, you'd think they'd be playing to empty theaters for being oh-so-daring. But they're selling out huge arenas faster than they can add shows to their schedule.

The only difference it with U2 is that they are still having hits. Kids going to see their shows want to hear them play Vertigo and Beautiful Day as much as they want to hear Sunday Bloody Sunday or I Still Having Found What I'm Looking For. Radio still plays the newest tunes from U2 and the Boss whereas they are more likely to play Go Your Own Way than Say You Will.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like the Mac to mix it up a little, because I honestly would - its something we've talked about a lot here on the Ledge, how uninspired the setlist is - but I do know people around me sat down when the the band played songs from SYW (while I cheered obviously) and I also spoke to others who went to the shows purely based on owning the greatest hits or Rumours.

And as for the original question, I don't find it at all odd that people want to see more than one show containing the same setlist etc. I've listened to Gypsy a million times for instance, but I've only had to opportunity of hearing it live and seeing the band in front of me in the flesh performing it, a few times. What's wrong with that?

I think they are inclined to play what the fans want to hear. "High demand. from the fans" that is probably important to them. No, they don't have to cater to the fans, but it looks like they wanted to. It washes for me. Not to say I like it, but it still "washes". And I think Rumours is just too overpowering and overshadowing. :shrug: Even compared to other bands' big hits. It really is constantly playing somewhere, still.

Which is really a shame, since they've created a whole lot of material that is much better than what was on Rumours...both before AND after.

Actually, they played six in the standard set (Peacekeeper, Say You Will, Come, Say Goodbye, What's The World Coming To, and Goodbye Baby). When 1/3 of the new album makes up 25% of the set, I think the band actually did the album justice. That having been said, I think they could still have mixed things up a helluvalot more.