My rant about concert setlists

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

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.

Then perform the whole goddamned album, accompanied by a healthy portion of hits interspersed throughout. Tons of artists do it, why not try doing it? And, I'm sorry, but SYW was nothing but a way for Lindsey to get his songs out there so that he and the rest of the band could have an excuse to make some cool millions by touring. I don't believe we'll ever see a new album from them.

The sad fact is that they don't view their live performances as an art form itself. They're content just epitomizing the dinosaur rock label and being a live greatest hits jukebox. What makes it all the more depressing is that they have so many wonderful songs that they don't even dare play live. They bring nothing new to the songs they play, unless we're counting slowing the tempos for Stevie. Nothing in their performances makes the old stuff fresh or anything of the sort; they just go out on the road, collect the cash, and reconvene when they want more.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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.

Yes, they choose it to be. But I don't think the promoter/label thing is bull****. I think their idea of the scale that they should tour and be released on is BS. But the way they choose to do so does beholden them to make the money back for everyone else involved.

But I don't think they can fathom any other way. Which makes them not as smart as they should be. But again, although I agree with you, I still know the reasons why they do it. In short, they're dumb, and not confident enough. I know very few people would complain if they switched it up, but obviously they don't know that(and you know Stevie would never not do Dreams, and that Don't Stop has to be included for Clintonesque optimistic feel good reasons which escape me) - Again, they are dumb. And personally, I think Stevie especially feels that she would not please the fans if she didn't do certain songs. And I think it is an insecurity with her, and an image trap, which is sad.
I still don't think there is any bad intent though.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

But I don't think they can fathom any other way. Which makes them not as smart as they should be. But again, although I agree with you, I still know the reasons why they do it. In short, they're dumb, and not confident enough. I know very few people would complain if they switched it up, but obviously they don't know that(and you know Stevie would never not do Dreams, and that Don't Stop has to be included for Clintonesque optimistic feel good reasons which escape me) - Again, they are dumb. And personally, I think Stevie especially feels that she would not please the fans if she didn't do certain songs. And I think it is an insecurity with her, and an image trap, which is sad.
I still don't think there is any bad intent though.

Well no, I don't think there's any ill intent there either. We agree on all this: they're just short-sighted and stupid.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Then perform the whole goddamned album, accompanied by a healthy portion of hits interspersed throughout. Tons of artists do it, why not try doing it? And, I'm sorry, but SYW was nothing but a way for Lindsey to get his songs out there so that he and the rest of the band could have an excuse to make some cool millions by touring. I don't believe we'll ever see a new album from them.

The sad fact is that they don't view their live performances as an art form itself. They're content just epitomizing the dinosaur rock label and being a live greatest hits jukebox. What makes it all the more depressing is that they have so many wonderful songs that they don't even dare play live. They bring nothing new to the songs they play, unless we're counting slowing the tempos for Stevie. Nothing in their performances makes the old stuff fresh or anything of the sort; they just go out on the road, collect the cash, and reconvene when they want more.

I agree with what they should do, but I still disagree with your reasons about why they don't do it. Especially about Lindsey - it seems obvious to me that he not only does not need the money that bad, but honestly has quite a bit of artistic integrity about his work.
Either way, we need to use our bitching energy to try to suss out a way to make them do what we want! Cool stuff! Great stuff!!! You know, get a petition going, see if we can get a proposition on the ballot, and all that. I mean, obviously our incessant bitching hasn't gotten to them yet.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

they're just short-sighted and stupid.

Finally, a statement no one can really disagree with.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by David

You would?! Why would you want to hear Lindsey Buckingham, who can't play the guitar, & Stevie Nicks, who can't sing, perform Rattlesnake Shake or Hypnotized?

I have NEVER said LB couldn't play the guitar. Never.
Actually, I'd rather hear Bob Welch sing those songs, now that you mention it.
WHY couldn't Bob be one of the backing guitarists?
Because LB wouldn't want him to do any songs, IMO.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Well no, I don't think there's any ill intent there either. We agree on all this: they're just short-sighted and stupid.

and insecure.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Especially about Lindsey - it seems obvious to me that he not only does not need the money that bad, but honestly has quite a bit of artistic integrity about his work.

You sure as **** wouldn't know it by going to Fleetwood Mac shows.

Either way, we need to use our bitching energy to try to suss out a way to make them do what we want! Cool stuff! Great stuff!!! You know, get a petition going, see if we can get a proposition on the ballot, and all that. I mean, obviously our incessant bitching hasn't gotten to them yet.

And it never will as long as they're raking in the steak like they did on their last go-'round.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

You sure as **** wouldn't know it by going to Fleetwood Mac shows.



And it never will as long as they're raking in the steak like they did on their last go-'round.

Oh, C'mon! that's cynical even for you. Do you really think any of them could possibly need that much money? Even Mick should be fine by now. I think they honestly think that what they're doing is what pleases the fans. But I can see you never will, so....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Well no, I don't think there's any ill intent there either. We agree on all this: they're just short-sighted and stupid.

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing. I mean this argument that people are burnt out on her and the Mac has been going on for years and people are still going to see them. I get that they and she are not nearly as popular as they were, but people still go to the shows and pay lots of money to do so. So, while I wish for better set lists, I cannot agree that from the point of view of concerts selling and sustaining popularity, they are short-sighted and stupid. In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary.

[David]

Originally Posted by amber

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.

I don't believe that seeing the concert makes the general mob buy the new FM album. The rabid fans have the album by the time the concert rolls around, & for everyone else, they're just out for a party night. I have trouble believing that the people I see drinking 20 beers & yapping to their friends all through the set & wandering around & playing tag & going back to the concession stands every 20 minutes -- trouble believing that these people go buy the new FM album after attending the show.

I don't think concerts sell albums in Fleetwood Mac's case any more. The band has its fan base, & those 700,000 people in this country buy the new album, & the other million who see them on tour just drop it when they get home.

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing.

Regarding Stevie as a solo artist....her concerts didn't sell well in some spots this year. Cleveland was barely 25% full. And the last Vegas show? Empty seats as far up as 5th row. But the places she hadn't visited in awhile (Red Rocks)....were solo out.

They (she) are saturating the market.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, her and their concerts are still selling and she and they are still popular doing what she and they is doing.

apples & oranges.

I mean this argument that people are burnt out on her and the Mac has been going on for years and people are still going to see them. I get that they and she are not nearly as popular as they were, but people still go to the shows and pay lots of money to do so. So, while I wish for better set lists, I cannot agree that from the point of view of concerts selling and sustaining popularity, they are short-sighted and stupid. In fact, the evidence indicates the contrary.

Jyqm probably meant shortsighted & stupid from the artistic point of view. I would agree with Jyqm.

Jyqm, what did you mean?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

I don't believe that seeing the concert makes the general mob buy the new FM album. The rabid fans have the album by the time the concert rolls around, & for everyone else, they're just out for a party night. I have trouble believing that the people I see drinking 20 beers & yapping to their friends all through the set & wandering around & playing tag & going back to the concession stands every 20 minutes -- trouble believing that these people go buy the new FM album after attending the show.

I don't think concerts sell albums in Fleetwood Mac's case any more. The band has its fan base, & those 700,000 people in this country buy the new album, & the other million who see them on tour just drop it when they get home.

I think there was more of that concert+album sales connection in the old days. But nowadays the rules have all changed for getting played on the radio, selling albums, selling shows, etc. The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more.

I agree - there is little significant correlation between increased CD sales in towns where they perform, etc.

Interestingly, I think La Nicks is the only one who gets your statement "The entire industry just isn't going to work the way Fleetwood Mac expects it to work any more." I think her comments in the DR doc. demostrated that.

In the end, they, like so many other huge acts, have little options to sustain relevance in the corp. music scene. They could opt out of that, but why would they want to. La Nicks indicated TISL was what she wanted from an artistic point of view, so why would she go to a private label, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

apples & oranges.
Jyqm probably meant shortsighted & stupid from the artistic point of view. I would agree with Jyqm.

Jyqm, what did you mean?

Ahhh - I was looking at it from the concert attendance point of view.

Once again I willingly and publicly display my confusion