***SPOILER***Nashville set list

[diamondsnake]

Is Second Hand News in the Setlist?

[sparky]

As much as I like DR on the record, I thought it sounded draggy on the boot too. BUT, that doesn't mean I didn't want to hear it live. It's better than that boring assed, draggariffic SYW. But then, Rhiannon is a boring drag of a song too, and they'll play that till they are hauled off stage. I already decided I am not spending a cent on this leg anyway. If I get comps, I am there. No money from me !

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

Is Second Hand News in the Setlist?

They played SHN last night in Nashville.

[EveryHour]

Ugh! What was the point in even doing the second batch of rehearsals?! Can't they just be stubborn enough to not change the setlist just because that means they would have wasted all of that rehearsal time?! I will be there rockin' and happy no matter what happens, but it would really make me sad to lose my chance to ever see Sara live. It's such a treat since we thought it would most definitely never happen again. I will drop dead if they are actually switching it up each night, but I say that with my fingers crossed behind my back because you never know!

[rezamatic]

Originally Posted by Mike B

It may be your first, but I hope it isn't your last! I agree with everything you said.

Thanks! It took me a while to figure out which post I really wanted to respond to and have something decent to say!

One thing I noticed with my two concert-goings is that the audience is SO much different in nosebleeds versus floor. I was trying to chat up with some 'fans' when I couldn't afford decent seats. I said I couldn't wait to hear "Tusk" and she sort of blanked and said 'OH, right--wow that's an obscure one! You're pretty good!" That and I had some drunk redneck behind me screaming out "YEEEAH Not Ever Going There Again, Lucy!" during NGBA. Lucy.... Lucky Birmingham, I assume?

Compare that to the awesome time I had down on the floor a few months later, talking with fans about specific shows/sets at tours that I've never had the chance to go to! Just proved to me that the $70 fans will be happy enough with whatever, but the $100+ fans will get SUCH a kick out of new stuff.

So that brings me to a question - do you think that if F-Mac actually did change up their set list to appeal to their more dedicated fans, that overall ticket sales would drop? I mean, are they afraid of this and that's why they don't bother?

[jadegypsy]

The Good: I get to keep $100, no DR no going, that simple. I don't care all that much about the other new songs, I like Sara but it's not in my top five Stevie songs.

The Bad: I get to keep $100 b/c the set list almost identical to what I saw before, and yes I would've shelled out $100 to see DR live, only three other songs could've made me do that: Angel, MLD, and Sweet Girl. Oh well.

As for why the play the same old list probably b/c they are not footing the tour bill and the backers (VH1?) want to see $$$ not to please the diehard fan. If it isn't on Rumors or called Rhiannon or Gypsy the casual fan doesn't know it or want to hear it. But I can't really point fingers, after all I'm going to see Madonna and I want to hear her older stuff, obscure great, new NO!

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by rezamatic

So that brings me to a question - do you think that if F-Mac actually did change up their set list to appeal to their more dedicated fans, that overall ticket sales would drop? I mean, are they afraid of this and that's why they don't bother?

I personally don't think it is as much a money issue as it is a performance anxiety issue.

Most casual fans come in expecting to hear the monster hits. But do casual fans do any research before going to see a band like FM? I think they see the brand name "Fleetwood Mac" and that's enough. Once they get inside the door, they are pretty much at the mercy of the band in regards to the setlist. I guess what I'm saying is that as long as the tour isn't advertised as an "Obscurities Tour", they'll probably put the same number of butts in the seats. They may have some very unhappy audience members, but hey, by then, the ticket is sold.

But that is part of the problem. This band definitely feeds off the energy of the audience and this fan response often dictates which songs to drop (RTTG and DLMDA anyone?). So obscure songs = less response = less energy = a terrified band. I would have thought that they would have more confidence in themselves and their music by now, but apparently they don't.

I think it is possible to achieve a balance between playing the mega hits and enough new/obscure songs to keep everyone happy, but FM seems to fall just short of it for me. They really don't have to play 8 + songs from Rumours on every tour.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Mike B

Most casual fans come in expecting to hear the monster hits. But do casual fans do any research before going to see a band like FM? I think they see the brand name "Fleetwood Mac" and that's enough. Once they get inside the door, they are pretty much at the mercy of the band in regards to the setlist. I guess what I'm saying is that as long as the tour isn't advertised as an "Obscurities Tour", they'll probably put the same number of butts in the seats. They may have some very unhappy audience members, but hey, by then, the ticket is sold.

Hell, I don't mind if I hear the ridiculous amount of Rumours songs just as long as the other aspects of the setlist would change. There's PLENTY of new songs they should try in place of the SYW ones they've had in the setlist. No matter how polished and smooth the performances are, you're bound to get bored if you listen to numerous recordings or go to plenty of shows (if you're not in the front row, that is).

At this point they definitely should keep on changing the setlist, especially since the tour versions of the songs are pretty much inseparable from each other. Lose the backing players and let the touring strain affect LB/SN/JM/MF and then it would be the closest to Tusk tour that we could get right now.

Originally Posted by rezamatic

are they afraid of this and that's why they don't bother?

yes. more later.........

[Hippocampus]

Originally Posted by face of glass

No matter how polished and smooth the performances are, you're bound to get bored if you listen to numerous recordings or go to plenty of shows (if you're not in the front row, that is).

At this point they definitely should keep on changing the setlist, especially since the tour versions of the songs are pretty much inseparable from each other. Lose the backing players and let the touring strain affect LB/SN/JM/MF and then it would be the closest to Tusk tour that we could get right now.

While I would be the first one to welcome new songs in the set, I really understand why the band is doing it. Let's face it, hardcore fans are a true minority and for the casual ones (whose "fandom" rarely goes beyond Rumours and Greatest Hits) which make for the majority, it isn't especially fun going to a concert when you don't know even half of the setlist.

You mention "recordings". Should the band take into account that fans trade or download bootlegs of their shows and are sick to death of hearing the same setlist in rotation? I'll bet they never considered this aspect. Our general boredom of Rumours songs is completely and totally self-induced and I find it quite telling when some newer fans complain about "old and tired" setlists when they have never even been to a single FM concert. I think the band genuinely believes that even hardcore fans WANT to hear "Dreams" or "Go Your Own Way" given the years between each tour.

Yes it would be wonderful if they were more adventurous but if they played "Crystal", "I Know I'm Not Wrong", "Storms" and "Murrow" in succession, they would have an angry crowd screaming for the hits. So alas, they aim to please the majority which is quite understandable.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

You mention "recordings". Should the band take into account that fans trade or download bootlegs of their shows and are sick to death of hearing the same setlist in rotation?

I have very little against them trying to "please the majority" but playing the same SYW songs night after night sure isn't pleasing them.

I'm not a musician but for me, for someone who believes that rock'n'roll isn't all about repeating what has gone before, doing the same setlist every night with the SAME SPEECHES (I understand their pretentious artistic aim but it still bugs me) and the same stage choreography in most songs is ridiculously unambitious. I understand that that's what most nostalgia acts do these days anyway.

As of now they do eight songs from Rumours (if you count "Silver Springs") and that's audience-pleasing enough as it is. If the band isn't changing the setlist in any other parts and keeps on using backing musicians then to me that says that the band isn't all that interested in playing live anymore and that there's other reasons (you guessed 'em) behind the whole touring. And it isn't all that surprising anyway, when you consider that Lindsey has mostly preferred studio work to live playing. Stevie SHOULD be up there, as a performer she still delivers but even she could benefit from possible changes in the set.

On this tour there's no immediate thrill, danger or risks involved. There was in the past, even though the set didn't change that much, because the safety net (the backing musicians) wasn't there. My belief is that the huge amount of such extra hands on stage has been seriously damaging the band interplay. In the older days the band chemistry was always obvious, especially on Rumours and the group songs of Tusk. If there's going to be a next studio album for this line-up it will most likely be the equal of SYW in interplay which isn't all that much.

Originally Posted by face of glass

I have very little against them trying to "please the majority" but playing the same SYW songs night after night sure isn't pleasing them.

I'm not a musician but for me, for someone who believes that rock'n'roll isn't all about repeating what has gone before, doing the same setlist every night with the SAME SPEECHES (I understand their pretentious artistic aim but it still bugs me) and the same stage choreography in most songs is ridiculously unambitious. I understand that that's what most nostalgia acts do these days anyway.

As of now they do eight songs from Rumours (if you count "Silver Springs") and that's audience-pleasing enough as it is. If the band isn't changing the setlist in any other parts and keeps on using backing musicians then to me that says that the band isn't all that interested in playing live anymore and that there's other reasons (you guessed 'em) behind the whole touring. And it isn't all that surprising anyway, when you consider that Lindsey has mostly preferred studio work to live playing. Stevie SHOULD be up there, as a performer she still delivers but even she could benefit from possible changes in the set.

On this tour there's no immediate thrill, danger or risks involved. There was in the past, even though the set didn't change that much, because the safety net (the backing musicians) wasn't there. My belief is that the huge amount of such extra hands on stage has been seriously damaging the band interplay. In the older days the band chemistry was always obvious, especially on Rumours and the group songs of Tusk. If there's going to be a next studio album for this line-up it will most likely be the equal of SYW in interplay which isn't all that much.

good point...i find it very hard to believe that a 37 year old band, (ok, 29 year old, since basically everything up till 1975 has been null and void for some time now) has to rely on one album to deliver the goods. They (Lindsey mostly) complained in the past about being part of the "machinery" but they're the ones now that are totally running those "machines". And it's complete with assembly line workers and time clocks. By the way, is Stevie still sporting that Rolex???

I just think that if the audience is expecting to hear most of the Rumours songs then it's FM's fault. They're completely feeding those expectations. They could build a reputation of being spontaneous with their shows and play more variety from their catalog. Bruce or The Grateful Dead changed their sets all the time. And Bruce has had signature songs....but he still sells out with every tour. You can't tell me that FM couldn't get away with that. And the next time FM comes around, people are going to expect to hear the same Rumours songs and will most likely hear them.

Most likely, the band members are the same types of people that, if concertgoers themselves, expect to hear hit songs from their idols. I've actually heard Stevie admit this herself (not in those exact words). Therefore, it completely makes sense to them.

What do you think the chances are that FM does an "A&E Live by Request"?
They would s*** if they had to do that. They'd probably hand out a list of songs and tell the audience they had to pick from that, or they screen every caller too.

[darklinensuit]

I prefer SYW to DR, but I agree that more changes need to be put into the tired setlist.
If they had sense they'd throw in some songs for the diehards on different nights. Frozen Love, Storms, Tango, SOTM - If each of these were inserted into different shows, more people would be going to multiple shows, I suspect. Just one change every five shows or so - That's not too much to ask.

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally Posted by joe

What do you think the chances are that FM does an "A&E Live by Request"?
They would s*** if they had to do that. They'd probably hand out a list of songs and tell the audience they had to pick from that, or they screen every caller too.

They would ****. Unlike the brave artists who agree to do that show, the Mac like to phone in their songs and play the same old **** that they've been playing for over 25 years. They do the same thing every night, so that eventually it all sounds the same and they're just going through the motions. They need to either reward the people who go to see them with fresh songs and a much fresher show, or pack it in and just stay in the studio until they decide to retire. Seeing Stevie sing Dreams for the 67,986,019 time, complete with mechanical hand gestures, isn't something I want to pay hundreds for. Same goes for Lindsey and the rest of 'em.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

You mention "recordings". Should the band take into account that fans trade or download bootlegs of their shows and are sick to death of hearing the same setlist in rotation? I'll bet they never considered this aspect. Our general boredom of Rumours songs is completely and totally self-induced and I find it quite telling when some newer fans complain about "old and tired" setlists when they have never even been to a single FM concert. I think the band genuinely believes that even hardcore fans WANT to hear "Dreams" or "Go Your Own Way" given the years between each tour.

They should take into account that a great majority of the people who go to their shows attend them over and over and over. It's the die-hards that put the cash in their pocketbooks and it must be just a tad boring and predictable for such a customer to go to 15 shows, only to hear the same tired songs. Honestly, I wouldn't want to pay for more than one show if each one is going to be the same. I mean, everything in a Mac show is rehearsed, down to the number of footsteps that walk. Thank the lord that this is the last leg.