My rant about concert setlists

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I get the feeling that the people who continue to defend the Mac hit parade simply aren't big fans of any bands who put that kind of kind of effort into this concert. I don't think they have any idea how wonderful a concert like that can be, when half the songs are a surprise and you get to experience tunes you didn't know you'd ever hear, because they've never been to anything like that. I think if Fleetwood Mac suddenly decided to mix things up and put on an interesting concert, these folks would just **** themselves and pass out from the shock.

I think that's a bit underestimative. And I don't think people really defend the hit parade much, honestly. Mostly I see people who also don't like it, but who are trying to surmise why the mac does the hit parade, rather than actually defending it as a great choice. I doubt anyone would "**** themselves and pass out from the shock" if they varied their sets.
That being said, it's true that many of us would rather go to a Mac concert that has too many hits, then see a band we don't like as much do a fabulously unusual setlist. It's because we still like them best, and their songs best, and we like seeing them play. I still doubt, however, that any fan would disagree that they should be much more varied in their setlist.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by dissention

Nothing beats the excitement of seeing a live show where everything is unique to that particular show. If other bands can do it, why can't they? I suspect it's because they just want the money.

It's got to be more than just a monetary decision, though, because there are artists out there who both mix up their setlists and bring in big bucks. Springsteen's tours with the E Street Band being one example. It's something about their approach to performing on a more fundamental level. For whatever reason, none of them think of touring as a dynamic musical experience, a chance to try out new things and stretch themselves creatively. But perhaps that does tie back to the money thing: it's almost as though they see a concert as a product that they're hawking, and they think everybody wants the same product.

Now it doesn't really surprise me that Stevie or Mick would feel this way. And John I'm sure doesn't care one way or the other; whether they play the same songs every night, or mix it up every night, or play a "Happy Birthday"/"Mary Had A Little Lamb" medley, as long as John's up there playing the bass, he's happy as a pig in ****. It's the fact that Lindsey buys into this whole stagnant setlist thing that boggles my mind. Lord knows he puts enough time and effort into crafting all of these songs, you'd think he'd want to take advantage of the chance to give them all a good work out on the road.

Maybe he's just completely out of touch and doesn't know any better. Somebody told him thirty years ago that this is what you have to do on a tour because this is what people want, and for whatever reason, he's never questioned that. He seemed very genuinely surprised that the Soundstage audience was going so completely ape**** over unreleased songs like "Someone's Gotta Change Your Mind" and "Down On Rodeo," or when Stevie sang a few bars of "Frozen Love." Who knows, maybe that experience opened up his eyes a little bit. Maybe that's what encouraged them to take the baby step of adding a whopping three new songs to the setlist on the second leg of the tour.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I suspect it's because they just want the money.

I honestly don't think that that is the reason. Or at least not the sole reason. I really think they feel falsely beholden to a made up concept that no one would come without the hits. But if they aren't, I bet they are beholden to concert and record promoters. And that is where the need to make money comes in. Also, I it seems like some of them wouldn't be personally, musically comfortable switching things up all the time.
My point is, I think there are many factors that contribute to their setlist being all the same, not just money. And, they did do at least six songs from their new album this time. So, there's that.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

It's the fact that Lindsey buys into this whole stagnant setlist thing that boggles my mind. Lord knows he puts enough time and effort into crafting all of these songs, you'd think he'd want to take advantage of the chance to give them all a good work out on the road.
.

But they did do quite a few songs from their new album. And I do think that they are out of touch in some important ways.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

I think that's a bit underestimative. And I don't think people really defend the hit parade much, honestly. Mostly I see people who also don't like it, but who are trying to surmise why the mac does the hit parade, rather than actually defending it as a great choice.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people defend it as a great choice, rather that they defend it as, "Well, that's just how things are, we shouldn't really expect or ask for anything better!" It's like they're conditioned that this is what a rock concert is supposed to be like, and that's that.

I doubt anyone would "**** themselves and pass out from the shock" if they varied their sets.

I don't know, man, have you seen some of the reactions on the Stevie forum in the thread about what songs people wish she would do with the MSO. Some people are so conditioned to expect the standard warhorse setlist, they can't even fathom imagining more obscure songs they might like to hear. Suggest something daring like "Rock A Little" or "Everybody Finds Out" and a few kids just go nuts!

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people defend it as a great choice, rather that they defend it as, "Well, that's just how things are, we shouldn't really expect or ask for anything better!" It's like they're conditioned that this is what a rock concert is supposed to be like, and that's that.

Well, that's true. But it is how things are. I'm not sure that everyone doesn't want something more, though, I just think (and rightly so) that they have no idea how to help affect that change in FM. And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.

I don't know, man, have you seen some of the reactions on the Stevie forum in the thread about what songs people wish she would do with the MSO. Some people are so conditioned to expect the standard warhorse setlist, they can't even fathom imagining more obscure songs they might like to hear. Suggest something daring like "Rock A Little" or "Everybody Finds Out" and a few kids just go nuts!

Um....mostly when I view "what I wish Stevie would do" lists that people make, there are mostly strange, hardly or never done, obscure songs. So people do imagine them. They just swoon about them because they know she won't do them. And yes, that is being "conditioned", but of course they are conditioned - they know from years of touring that she will do these songs. But again, it's not from their lack of imagination, or desire, it's that - what can they do about it, really? (besides not go).

But I think almost every one of these people is aware that that is not exclusively what "A rock concert should be like". Oh, and I haven't really read everyone's wishes on the particular MSO thread. Just millions of other wish lists over the past year.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

But they did do quite a few songs from their new album. .

Six. They did six songs out of eighteen every night, in a set of twenty-four songs. One of which got switched up halfway through the tour, so that makes seven. Plus two more that were played no more than three times and then dropped, right? That's nine. So only half of the new album was ever played at all, but really only a third of it - and almost entirely the same third - was played with any regularity (that is to say, every night, in Mac terms).

How many songs from Rumours were played every night? Seven. Seven! Out of eleven! And three of the four which weren't played were Christine's songs.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

Well, that's true. But it is how things are. I'm not sure that everyone doesn't want something more, though, I just think (and rightly so) that they have no idea how to help affect that change in FM.

We can talk it about here, at the very least. Half the folks here seem convinced that various members of Fleetwood Mac send out their scouts to read this message board and report back to them what people think.

[QUOTE] And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.[QUOTE]

No, and I wouldn't expect anyone to completely forego a Mac concert just because the setlist is stagnant and looks like a Rumours tour once again. And if Fleetwood Mac tour behind a new album again, depending on the price, I'll likely go to one show, and be very glad to hear some new songs. But I'll still be somewhat disappointed that I'm seeing what amounts to a rote, scripted performance every night.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Six. They did six songs out of eighteen every night, in a set of twenty-four songs. One of which got switched up halfway through the tour, so that makes seven. Plus two more that were played no more than three times and then dropped, right? That's nine. So only half of the new album was ever played at all, but really only a third of it - and almost entirely the same third - was played with any regularity (that is to say, every night, in Mac terms).

How many songs from Rumours were played every night? Seven. Seven! Out of eleven! And three of the four which weren't played were Christine's songs.

Yeah. That rumours thing is part of the "many, varied reasons" and "beholden to promoters and the label" thing I referred to before. This is usually the thing people bring up that makes people think that they are defending FM - which is that - If you were FM, could you honestly imagine not making Rumours a pretty heavy portion of the setlist pie? Again, not saying it's right, but most defenders think it is *somewhat* understandable. It was the biggest selling album in history for years, it defined an era and a genre, it was played so much as to be part of people's collective unconscious, people loved and identified with that album so much, it catapulted FM into superstardom, it contained their only number one hit, blah blah etc.

It does suck, it's just fairly easy to understand, should you want to do so. Rumours is like the albatross around their necks, and their greatest blessing, sadly.

So...about 1/4 of the tour was (were?) new songs, a bit over 1/4 was Rumours...which leaves 2/4ths to be split between FMFM, Tusk, Mirage, and Tango, with one Stevie solo song included. They dropped gypsy, and eventually EOTW (which I like IKINW better anyway) so there goes Mirage. which was fine with me. One from Tango, 4 from Tusk...3? from FM FM...
Okay, I'm rambling. I can understand why they did it for The Dance, but touring again, twice, in a relatively short time afterwards, they really had every opportunity to pull out more rare songs then BC, Sara, IKINW....

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

But perhaps that does tie back to the money thing: it's almost as though they see a concert as a product that they're hawking, and they think everybody wants the same product.

That's exactly what I meant. I don't think they have much regard for what touring can do for them as artists; I think their only priority is to sell the tickets and they think that in order to sell tickets, they have to play the hits and pretty much nothing but.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

We can talk it about here, at the very least. Half the folks here seem convinced that various members of Fleetwood Mac send out their scouts to read this message board and report back to them what people think.

No, and I wouldn't expect anyone to completely forego a Mac concert just because the setlist is stagnant and looks like a Rumours tour once again. And if Fleetwood Mac tour behind a new album again, depending on the price, I'll likely go to one show, and be very glad to hear some new songs. But I'll still be somewhat disappointed that I'm seeing what amounts to a rote, scripted performance every night.

I agree. Although I personally have grown weary of naming "ideal setlists" and such, and bitching constantly, and I don't think what we say here gets back to the Mac in any kind of setlist revolution way - that's just me. And others can do it to their hearts content.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's exactly what I meant. I don't think they have much regard for what touring can do for them as artists; I think their only priority is to sell the tickets and they think that in order to sell tickets, they have to play the hits and pretty much nothing but.

I think what they are hoping it can do for them as artists is make people hear, like, and get their new album - which really is promoting their artistic growth. And I think they do want to sell as many tickets as possible for that reason, and so that they will be viable to continue being able to make and sell albums that a label will release, to continue making music, in essence.

I know we've discussed before, and everyone knows, that they should rethink their label, and what kind of release they are expecting, and the style in which they tour. Also they are misguided in what they, or their people, perceive will get people to come to their shows.
In that, I have no disagreement. It's their intent as you expressed it that I disagree with a bit.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

And in the meantime, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to forego seeing their very favorite band in the world because the setlist isn't as varied as they would like. But, as you have seen, those who can resist, do so. And good for them. I can't resist, hardly, and especially when they do do numbers from their new album.

I'm only speaking for myself, but the reason I didn't go to see Stevie on her past tour was because I couldn't fathom paying the money and going out of my way to see the same thing I've pretty much always seen from her. It's gotten to the point where I just have do desire to see the same show, year after year.

Seeing her sing Dreams and Gold Dust Woman and Rhiannon and Edge of Seventeen and Stand Back yet again with the same schtick accompanying them just isn't as special to me as it once was because it's all become so predictable. "After this verse, she'll spin twice and grab the mike this way and then toss her hair in that direction." No thank you. And I was absolutely ripped to shreds for expressing that; I was even told that I was a lousy fan for not going to see her when I had the means to do so.

When she tours again and when the Mac tours again, I'll be content in not going if they're just going to do the same thing as always. Which they will, and I can save my money for something else. No big whoop, it's just disappointing that with such a remarkable catalog, they do the same old **** every time they hit the road.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

Yeah. That rumours thing is part of the "many, varied reasons" and "beholden to promoters and the label" thing I referred to before. This is usually the thing people bring up that makes people think that they are defending FM - which is that - If you were FM, could you honestly imagine not making Rumours a pretty heavy portion of the setlist pie?

Yes! Rumours is only an albatross around their necks because they choose for it to be. They could easily play four songs instead of seven, and nobody would miss the other three. Really, if they kept in "The Chain," "Go Your Own Way," "Second Hand News" and "Gold Dust Woman," who would actually complain about the absence of "Dreams," "Never Going Back Again" and "Don't Stop," if there were other interesting choices in their place?

And any justification of Fleetwood Mac's setlists that begins with, "Well, the label..." or, "Well, the tour promoters..." is total bull****. These people have been in the music industry for over three decades. They've sold millions upon millions of records and have plenty of power over their own careers. If they don't have the balls to go out there and tour on their own terms without their f***ing label telling them what songs they have to play, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

But! The Rumours issue is a two-fold problem: 1) They play too many songs from it, and 2) They play the same songs every night. If they actually mixed things up from night to night, and they played seven Rumours songs at any given show, then no big deal. It's more the fact that it's seven songs, and it's the same seven songs, every single night.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm only speaking for myself, but the reason I didn't go to see Stevie on her past tour was because I couldn't fathom paying the money and going out of my way to see the same thing I've pretty much always seen from her. It's gotten to the point where I just have do desire to see the same show, year after year.

Seeing her sing Dreams and Gold Dust Woman and Rhiannon and Edge of Seventeen and Stand Back yet again with the same schtick accompanying them just isn't as special to me as it once was because it's all become so predictable. "After this verse, she'll spin twice and grab the mike this way and then toss her hair in that direction." No thank you. And I was absolutely ripped to shreds for expressing that; I was even told that I was a lousy fan for not going to see her when I had the means to do so.

When she tours again and when the Mac tours again, I'll be content in not going if they're just going to do the same thing as always. Which they will, and I can save my money for something else. No big whoop, it's just disappointing that with such a remarkable catalog, they do the same old **** every time they hit the road.

Yes, I know how you feel, and why. You are one I had in mind when I said "and god bless them if they can resist".