|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Nov 19, 2019 12:50:00 GMT
The fact that they drop anything new so quickly makes me feel like they don't care about the new stuff. And in McCartney's case, he could easily move from the stadium venues and still attract enough fans to fill up a large arena. I mean, just think about this - Paul put together another band after the Beatles, and they played all of 5 Beatles songs on their world tour in 1976. Where were the howls of protest? Eventually, everyone becomes an oldies act, even John Fogerty. I guess the legacy artist that can get away with a set list of 50% recent stuff is Dylan. Of course, that's calling Time Out of Mind (1997) and Love and Theft (2001) recent, lol. Thanks to the digital music movement, new releases don't matter fiscally like they once did. Yes, and maybe because of that, artists now depend on the revenue from touring more than ever.
Bob Dylan is an anomaly. He's not the only artist who is dedicated to playing so much new and lesser known material, but he's the most prominent and the most dedicated. I'm surprised he's been able to sustain his touring so long - and so popularly - because of this. I've been to about six Dylan concerts and I saw several people leave about halfway through the show.I really think an overriding amount of artists adopt the "give the people what they want" attitude - and personally, I'm glad they do.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 19, 2019 13:03:10 GMT
I do know both Prince and David Bowie tried the “no oldies” route for a while. Prince reneged almost immediately. Not sure about Bowie. But I know fans were rough on them both because most fans want hits.
It’s worth noting something on those modern #1 albums too: they don’t sell shit. Numbers are so low, a couple hundred thousand sold is a blockbuster now. Big albums used to sell in the millions in their first weeks. So a McCartney #1...like 150k copies sold. It wasn’t successful in any traditional sense despite being #1. The world has changed.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 19, 2019 13:16:18 GMT
I don't think it's so much that artists don't care, as much as it's trying to please the people who buy tickets to the shows. Thanks to the digital music movement, new releases don't matter fiscally like they once did. Plus, in all honestly, very few artists three, four, five, or six decades into their careers are releasing music that really measures up with their prime material. For most of these artists, I'll typically get the new album, listen to it a few times, then it sits on the shelf for the most part. So it's funny to me to see the industry hype a new release from McCartney or whoever like we should all be excited about it; Macca hitting #1 with Egypt Station was supposed to be a big deal, but i'm sure he won't be doing any of those songs on his next tour. I am starting to wonder about the Bobster, though. Last album of new material was Tempest, 2012. He's done 3 albums of standards since then. I only bought the first one - liked it enough that I will put it on occasionally, but I didn't need another one like it. And I wonder about guys like Neil Young and David Crosby that are really cranking out the new material. Is it a big part of their live shows, or do they adhere, like the others, to the greatest hits rule? Everytime a Beatle releases a new album, it's going to be somewhat of a big deal.....for about five or six weeks. With Paul, he honestly hasn't released an album I really liked in over 20 years, so I have no problem with him sticking to older material in concert.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 19, 2019 13:18:02 GMT
Thanks to the digital music movement, new releases don't matter fiscally like they once did. Yes, and maybe because of that, artists now depend on the revenue from touring more than ever.
Bob Dylan is an anomaly. He's not the only artist who is dedicated to playing so much new and lesser known material, but he's the most prominent and the most dedicated. I'm surprised he's been able to sustain his touring so long - and so popularly - because of this. I've been to about six Dylan concerts and I saw several people leave about halfway through the show.I really think an overriding amount of artists adopt the "give the people what they want" attitude - and personally, I'm glad they do. Absolutely, and maybe artists have found other ways to make money like coffee, wine, beer, etc. Iron Maiden is a band who tends to mix it up on the road. When they promote a new album, they'll often tour with a setlist that's very heavy on the new album and newer material in general. Then, the following tour, they'll do a nostalgia themed tour.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 19, 2019 16:46:44 GMT
In regard to touring, has anything really changed? Artists, generally, promote current releases and perform fan favorites. NPP is a particularly odd choice to criticize. Brian promoted it on tour. He performed songs from it. He named the tour after it. He even released a live album and DVD which included "This Beautiful Day", "Runaway Dancer", "On The Island", "Half Moon Bay", "The Right Time", "Sail Away", and "Saturday Night". Artists don't promote albums indefinitely. If a fan favorite emerges, it tends to stick around. Fair or not, late career material has little chance of making that type of impact. It's fighting cherished memories and close-mindedness. I view touring classic albums (in full or not) as a combination of promoting current releases and performing fan favorites, as there is typically an anniversary re-release of some sort available for purchase. They work as a substitute for new material which most legacy artists struggle to come up with. As for Neil Young, he's one of the few who keeps creating. He's always got a new album out, and, yes, he performs his new material live in order to promote them. But, he doesn't perform "new" material from 4 years ago as some think Brian should be. The issue isn't that artists don't care about their recent studio work, it's that the fans don't. (A few dozen fans on internet message boards aside.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 19, 2019 16:57:04 GMT
In regard to touring, has anything really changed? Artists, generally, promote current releases and perform fan favorites. NPP is a particularly odd choice to criticize. Brian promoted it on tour. He performed songs from it. He named the tour after it. He even released a live album and DVD which included "This Beautiful Day", "Runaway Dancer", "On The Island", "Half Moon Bay", "The Right Time", "Sail Away", and "Saturday Night". Artists don't promote albums indefinitely. If a fan favorite emerges, it tends to stick around. Fair or not, late career material has little chance of making that type of impact. It's fighting cherished memories and close-mindedness. I view touring classic albums (in full or not) as a combination of promoting current releases and performing fan favorites, as there is typically an anniversary re-release of some sort available for purchase. They work as a substitute for new material which most legacy artists struggle to come up with. As for Neil Young, he's one of the few who keeps creating. He's always got a new album out, and, yes, he performs his new material live in order to promote them. But, he doesn't perform "new" material from 4 years ago as some think Brian should be. The issue isn't that artists don't care about their recent studio work, it's that the fans don't. (A few dozen fans on internet message boards aside.) I agree 100%. And, I also think, more often than not, that the classic material is far superior. I tend to hold some later era releases by certain artists in high regard because I didn't get to hear the classics in real time. But, at the end of the day, if I want to listen to music from Brian Wilson's career, the vast majority of the time, I'm reaching for the material The Beach Boys released from 1962-1973.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 19, 2019 17:11:25 GMT
I agree 100%. And, I also think, more often than not, that the classic material is far superior. I tend to hold some later era releases by certain artists in high regard because I didn't get to hear the classics in real time. But, at the end of the day, if I want to listen to music from Brian Wilson's career, the vast majority of the time, I'm reaching for the material The Beach Boys released from 1962-1973. Absolutely. I've had the same experience. My first new album by all my favorite artists (who were still active) were late career albums. While I might feel a greater connection or fondness for certain albums than other fans might, I can also step back and see that it's clearly not of the same standard as their classic material. By the way, "more often than not" is mighty kind of you. Though, I agree, there are exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 19, 2019 17:20:04 GMT
I agree 100%. And, I also think, more often than not, that the classic material is far superior. I tend to hold some later era releases by certain artists in high regard because I didn't get to hear the classics in real time. But, at the end of the day, if I want to listen to music from Brian Wilson's career, the vast majority of the time, I'm reaching for the material The Beach Boys released from 1962-1973. Absolutely. I've had the same experience. My first new album by all my favorite artists (who were still active) were late career albums. While I might feel a greater connection or fondness for certain albums than other fans might, I can also step back and see that it's clearly not of the same standard as their classic material. By the way, "more often than not" is mighty kind of you. Though, I agree, there are exceptions. Yes, I was being generous there, but taking my personal connections with some later era releases out of the equation, the vast majority of most artists' prime material is released long before they're Rock and Roll HOF eligible.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 19, 2019 18:03:05 GMT
Honestly I think we almost all agree here. The real difference is, if I’m understanding him correctly, lonelysummer thinks that the newer material might become more popular and earn its spot in fans’ hearts if the artists more persistently and consistently promoted it by playing it live beyond the first tours. (And that by not pushing it harder, the artists are undermining that work at least with respect to the optics of it.) Generally I just don’t think that’s true. I think the only tangible effect would be (over time, once it became obvious that’s what the artist in question was doing—say, dedicating half of each show to some recent albums) fewer people coming out to shows, especially considering the prices of tickets in the kinds of theaters many of these acts play. $100 to see a few Disney songs, a few Gershwin songs, and half a dozen No Pier Pressure songs alongside 15 hits? That’s a lot to ask. Specific to Brian Wilson, how many of his solo songs warrant regular inclusion in his shows, in your opinions? (If you want to make that a thread instead of discussing it here, go for it. I’m fine either way.) I don’t mean how many and which deserve to be played EVER, but how many and which deserve to be more or less counted on every show, assuming a typical-length show? Right up there alongside California Girls, Good Vibrations, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, and the like?
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 19, 2019 18:57:34 GMT
Specific to Brian Wilson, how many of his solo songs warrant regular inclusion in his shows, in your opinions? (If you want to make that a thread instead of discussing it here, go for it. I’m fine either way.) I don’t mean how many and which deserve to be played EVER, but how many and which deserve to be more or less counted on every show, assuming a typical-length show? Right up there alongside California Girls, Good Vibrations, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, and the like? I think "Love & Mercy" is the only one. I think he could open up another slot or two and rotate about a half dozen other solo songs in and out of the setlist, but ultimately they aren't worthy of being concert staples. But, let's not just pick on Brian. There's not a single Mike solo song that belongs in a Beach Boys setlist, quality-wise. In my opinion, the only one that should even be rotated in every once and a while is "Almost Summer" (which, of course, is a Brian co-write, and a minor hit).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 19, 2019 19:01:17 GMT
Honestly I think we almost all agree here. The real difference is, if I’m understanding him correctly, lonelysummer thinks that the newer material might become more popular and earn its spot in fans’ hearts if the artists more persistently and consistently promoted it by playing it live beyond the first tours. (And that by not pushing it harder, the artists are undermining that work at least with respect to the optics of it.) Generally I just don’t think that’s true. I think the only tangible effect would be (over time, once it became obvious that’s what the artist in question was doing—say, dedicating half of each show to some recent albums) fewer people coming out to shows, especially considering the prices of tickets in the kinds of theaters many of these acts play. $100 to see a few Disney songs, a few Gershwin songs, and half a dozen No Pier Pressure songs alongside 15 hits? That’s a lot to ask. Specific to Brian Wilson, how many of his solo songs warrant regular inclusion in his shows, in your opinions? (If you want to make that a thread instead of discussing it here, go for it. I’m fine either way.) I don’t mean how many and which deserve to be played EVER, but how many and which deserve to be more or less counted on every show, assuming a typical-length show? Right up there alongside California Girls, Good Vibrations, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, and the like? I think if Brian (or whoever makes these decisions) decided to include some solo songs in his sets, Sail Away, Goin' Home, Southern California, and maybe Melt Away might fit alongside his prime Beach Boys material. And if we're just talking about later era material, I could see including a song or two from TWGMTR - maybe the title track or one of the closing three.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 19, 2019 19:05:30 GMT
I wouldn't include "Sail Away" in the same set as "Sloop John B".
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 19, 2019 19:07:02 GMT
I wouldn't include "Sail Away" in the same set as "Sloop John B". He's done it before. And I think Sail Away is one of the most Beach Boys esque songs in his solo catalog (having Al and Blondie on vocals helps).
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Nov 19, 2019 19:15:16 GMT
I wouldn't include "Sail Away" in the same set as "Sloop John B". He's done it before. And I think Sail Away is one of the most Beach Boys esque songs in his solo catalog (having Al and Blondie on vocals helps). I get that. But, the question isn't really if it could fit in, but if it's an equal - if it's deserving of being performed an equal amount of times. Edit: kds , to be clear, I'd include a song like "Sail Away" in my short list of songs to rotate in and out of his setlist. I just think songs like "Sloop" are still better and, in this case, they are too similar to play together if our goal is to create the best possible setlist.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Nov 19, 2019 19:23:08 GMT
As much as I do not especially care for the majority of Brian's solo records (was that politically correct enough? ), I still think about 6-7 songs should/could be included in his sets - and be concert staples. And I say that for a few reasons. You are going to see Brian Wilson the solo artist and I don't think that has to be a technicality. For whatever reason(s), Brian has been a solo artist for 35 years, almost twice as long as he has been a Beach Boy. As a solo artist, he has recorded X amount of songs and released X amount of solo albums, maybe more than he actually wrote/produced as a Beach Boy. I just think it would be normal(?) or expected or logical to represent those 35 years more prominently. I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "In 1988 I did my first solo album and here's a song from that album, "Love And Mercy"...", or "There's an album I really like called That Lucky Old Sun and here's my favorite song from that album, "Midnight's Another Day"...", or "Here's a song from my last album, No Pier Pressure. The song was also featured in the movie, Love And Mercy. It's called "One Kind Of Love"...".
If Brian did highlight more of his solo career, I really don't think he would be risking alienating his audience. Actually, I think the audience would eat that up. Let's be honest, a large percentage of the audience attending Brian's concerts are diehards. And a large percentage has attended numerous Beach Boys' concerts and heard those BB songs performed live numerous times. A typical BW solo concert has, what, 25-30 songs? Even if Brian performed 6-7 songs (or one from each studio solo album), that still leaves enough room for the Beach Boys' classics.
The problem is, first, I don't think Brian is especially fond of his solo work (just my opinion), and second, he probably doesn't want to work that hard (learning new songs) when he can go on auto-pilot with the always familiar BB songs.
|
|