|
Post by kds on Apr 11, 2019 12:52:18 GMT
Here's another topic for the Sheriff, the Kapitan, and I to discuss.
I've been on a bit of a Journey kick lately. And that got me thinking about the current status of many legacy acts. Now on their third singer since Steve Perry left the group, Journey seem to have made a fiscally based decision to basically exist as a nostalgia band. They've released a couple albums since Perry's....departure (get it?). But, most summers, they tend to go on package tours which leaves them with 90 minute setlists. Of course Neal Schon requires about 15-20 minutes of each set to stroke his ego with three guitar solos, so the remainder of the set is devoted to the hits, and maybe an album track or two to satisfy the diehards who still attend.
Journey is one of several legacy acts who continue to tour without key members of the classic lineup. Many of these acts either no longer release new music, or do so very rarely, and when they do, they tend to ignore the new material when making setlists.
Of course in this day and age, it almost makes no fiscal sense for legacy artists to release new albums. The ones who do often resort to giving away copies to people who buy concert tickets.
As a fan of legacy artists, and one of the few who still buy new music from the artists I love, I think it's great to hear new material from my heroes, but I definitely understand what puts the butts in the seats and gets people to spend increasingly higher prices for concert tickets.
In the BB universe, Brian Wilson has now gone four years without releasing a new album, and is touring a classic album for the 4th straight summer. Brian's setlists have become much more BB centric since the C50 Tour, so has he (or whoever) made the decision to go full nostalgia?
So, as fans, do you want to continue hearing new material? Would you prefer to hear more of it in concert?
Of all the legacy acts I follow, I don't think anyone does a better balancing act than Iron Maiden. They mix and match their tours. When they tour on a new album, the setlists tend to skew heavy on the new album and newer material. Then, they'll go on full blown nostalgia tours when they're not promoting a new record.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2019 13:06:29 GMT
As long as the acts can still release credible music, I want to hear new music. I do understand why many artists don't do that, as it isn't worth the time they would be putting into it. But on the other hand, let's be serious: bands can (and often do) make albums in their homes these days, so the costs of making albums aren't what they once were. Physical distribution isn't even essential anymore--if anything, it is a niche luxury with vinyl or (smh) cassette releases in limited runs.
Sure, I might acknowledge that NPP isn't Pet Sounds (or even Surfs Up). I might make fun of Paul McCartney's latest offering. I might ignore the latest five thousand albums' worth of standards that Bob Dylan can't sing. But I respect them for doing it, and in all honesty I do usually find something that I like on those sorts of albums. Sometimes quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 11, 2019 13:25:24 GMT
I'm an advocate of "give the people what they want". I think the overwhelming majority of fans go to a concert to hear the songs that made them fans in the first place. The songs they know, the songs they love, the songs they probably still play on whatever they play them on. I don't think anybody enjoys walking to their car after the show thinking, "Gee, I wish they would've played "xxxxxxxxx".
Now, that's not saying bands should configure their setlist strictly based on record sales or chart positions. But, artists can figure it out. They can tell by the response(s) they get every time they play a song. It's almost like they make a mental note and remember which songs were well-received and which songs resulted in people going to the restrooms.
Does that mean that the artist shouldn't have the right or even consider playing more obscure material or deeper cuts? Absolutely not. And I don't think many (any?) bands don't take some liberties. And, actually, a deeper cut could turn into a concert highlight because it's not to say that fans who prefer the hits aren't open-minded enough to appreciate a hidden gem. You just have to be careful to not play too many lesser known tracks.
Which brings me to Bob Dylan. We all know about his neverending tour and his...eclectic setlists. I've seen Dylan about ten times. The first couple of times it was cool to hear some of the album cuts, but over time, he lost me. The frustration got the best of me. There were just TOO MANY hits or classics that he was leaving out, and it was me walking to the car wishing he would've played this and that.
I think for the most part artists do a pretty good job with setlists. Again, they know what works (sell tickets?) and what cause lukewarm applause. This isn't just art; it's a business. Big business. Making money trumps art many times. I think most artists have the attitude of wanting to please the fans first and themselves second. Dylan is an exception.
I have very few qualms with The Beach Boys setlists over the years, and I've been seeing them since 1978. I think their sometime criticism as being a "traveling jukebox" is not fair. Check it out - The Beach Boys usually featured a few songs from their current album. Brian Wilson should almost have an asterisk next to his concert setlists. * see The Beach Boys catalogue. But even Brian's wifeandmanagers know what songs the people want to hear. Brian's audience is primarily made up of older people who want "a nice evening of Beach Boys' music". If Brian did delve into his solo catalogue, he would undoubtedly please a segment of the audience, but I think it would be a relatively smaller segment. Most of his audience want to hear the hits. I don't think people are willing to admit that but Brian Wilson would be taking a big chance if he ever did switch to a more solo career-driven setlist. And I don't think Brian wants to hear those songs either!
EDIT: I just read The Kaptan's response. I guess I should've addressed the recordings, too. I have to go to work now. Will post about albums later!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2019 13:34:31 GMT
Reading SJS's response, I realized I didn't comment on the live shows. I do believe artists should take their audiences into consideration--prime consideration--when developing setlists. I understand not wanting to play "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" for the 57 millionth time, but the artist also has to understand that those are the songs people pay good money to hear, songs that make their careers and set their lifestyles.
So when the Bowies and Princes of the world announced they would no longer play legacy material, I understand the instinct ... but totally reject it from many levels. You exist in a commercial sense because of those hits that the audiences want to hear. Don't be an asshole! You can find a middle ground, throwing in maybe half a dozen or so new or rare songs while playing mostly what your audience wants. And pays for.
Or hey, go your own way. Play nothing but your new material. And watch your paying audiences disappear...
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2019 13:36:55 GMT
So I guess my overall position is bifurcated. I prefer artists to keep putting out new material, even if they aren't really evolving (and absolutely not if they are just chasing trends...nobody likes hair metal bands playing grunge), but I also expect them to satisfy their fans in the context of their live performances.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 11, 2019 13:52:34 GMT
Reading SJS's response, I realized I didn't comment on the live shows. I do believe artists should take their audiences into consideration--prime consideration--when developing setlists. I understand not wanting to play "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" for the 57 millionth time, but the artist also has to understand that those are the songs people pay good money to hear, songs that make their careers and set their lifestyles.
So when the Bowies and Princes of the world announced they would no longer play legacy material, I understand the instinct ... but totally reject it from many levels. You exist in a commercial sense because of those hits that the audiences want to hear. Don't be an asshole! You can find a middle ground, throwing in maybe half a dozen or so new or rare songs while playing mostly what your audience wants. And pays for.
Or hey, go your own way. Play nothing but your new material. And watch your paying audiences disappear...
That's why I like it when legacy artists do "An Evening With" type of show that allows for a longer set. Granted, that likely becomes increasingly difficult with age, but in the last 15-20 years, I've attended "Evening With" shows by Rush, McCartney, Roger Waters, and The Beach Boys C50, and those longer setlists allowed for a nice balance between classics, album cuts, and newer material. I find this much preferable to twin bills or package tours that many classic artists are going with where the shorter sets leave little time for wiggle room. And I definitely understand wanting to keep the audiences happy, but I'm a lot less likely to pay to see an artist a second time if the setlist will be identical.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2019 13:56:53 GMT
There are definitely different types of shows--and different types of bands.
I suspect a lot of acts on those package tours are ones without deep catalogues and legions of uber-fans. Some of them are: a band like Def Leppard goes on those tours, and obviously they can perform a FULL show of nothing but hits, to say nothing of an abbreviated, co-headlining show. But when you think of the bands that have one or two bigger albums and that'd it, I think those shorter setlists of just the hits make sense.
With the all-time acts, I think it is trickier. They have hits to spare. And they have deep cuts and serious fans who want to hear them. Beach Boys, living Beatles, the Stones, Ozzy/Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Bon Jovi, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, and recently deceased people like Bowie, Leonard Cohen, and Prince--those guys have the real challenge.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 11, 2019 17:35:41 GMT
There are definitely different types of shows--and different types of bands.
I suspect a lot of acts on those package tours are ones without deep catalogues and legions of uber-fans. Some of them are: a band like Def Leppard goes on those tours, and obviously they can perform a FULL show of nothing but hits, to say nothing of an abbreviated, co-headlining show. But when you think of the bands that have one or two bigger albums and that'd it, I think those shorter setlists of just the hits make sense.
With the all-time acts, I think it is trickier. They have hits to spare. And they have deep cuts and serious fans who want to hear them. Beach Boys, living Beatles, the Stones, Ozzy/Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Bon Jovi, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, and recently deceased people like Bowie, Leonard Cohen, and Prince--those guys have the real challenge.
Side note, I'm willing to bet that the guys from Def Leppard are probably a little peeved that they primarily do package tours while Bon Jovi headlines big arenas. Def Lep even tried a few times to go contemporary with their sound, but it didn't recent in chart success like it did for Bon Jovi, who are still a big draw despite the notable absence of Richie Sambora. Going back to new music, one big one I didn't mention is Billy Joel. He hasn't released a new album in over 25 years. But, he's still playing stadiums in the US every summer. He's wrapped his arms around the idea of being a nostalgia artist and fully embraced it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2019 17:37:47 GMT
I think Bon Jovi's sound was always more malleable, as it came more from that Springsteen kind of rock that could lean into lite metal, or then lean into country or A/C. Def Leppard's most prominent sound is so specific to a time and place, any big departure just feels unnatural.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 11, 2019 18:40:41 GMT
I think Bon Jovi's sound was always more malleable, as it came more from that Springsteen kind of rock that could lean into lite metal, or then lean into country or A/C. Def Leppard's most prominent sound is so specific to a time and place, any big departure just feels unnatural.
I agree somewhat about the signature Def Leppard / Mutt Lange sound, but I feel like the music that Def Leppard made in their prime actually has more of a timeless sound than the music Bon Jovi made in their prime. While it's true that Bon Jovi did a better job contemporizing their music with country crossover hits and what not, I think they also sanitized their sound in the process, and in the process everything that was good about BJ disappeared. Obviously, I'm in the minority as his albums continue to sell.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2019 18:50:44 GMT
I'll need to re-listen to some DL hits and think about that. I agree that BJ got sanitized, but just think his songwriting in general is more ... vague is a nasty way to say it, but maybe versatile is a nicer way. It just feels it can go either way to me, with production or arrangement flourishes that will make it seem acceptable in different circumstances. That isn't how I feel about DL, but as I said, I'll give them another listen and think about whether there is a hidden versatility I'm missing or just not remembering.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 11, 2019 19:23:37 GMT
I'll need to re-listen to some DL hits and think about that. I agree that BJ got sanitized, but just think his songwriting in general is more ... vague is a nasty way to say it, but maybe versatile is a nicer way. It just feels it can go either way to me, with production or arrangement flourishes that will make it seem acceptable in different circumstances. That isn't how I feel about DL, but as I said, I'll give them another listen and think about whether there is a hidden versatility I'm missing or just not remembering.
I hear what you're saying about the production and arrangement of BJ's prime hits. But, when I hear those songs, I hear songs that are quintessentially 80s songs. I feel like DL, on High and Dry and Pyromania in particular, have a more timeless sound.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 11, 2019 23:52:12 GMT
So I guess my overall position is bifurcated. I prefer artists to keep putting out new material, even if they aren't really evolving (and absolutely not if they are just chasing trends...nobody likes hair metal bands playing grunge), but I also expect them to satisfy their fans in the context of their live performances. This is basically how I feel, too, about new recordings, and can't really add much to The Kapitan's post.
I did want to add this to my thoughts on touring...Last year I attended something called The Happy Together Tour and will be attending this year, too (6/22/19). The Happy Together Tour is a concert by artists from the 1960's including - what's left of them - The Turtles, The Cowsill's, Chuck Negron from Three Dog Night, Gary Puckett, The Buckinghams, The Classic IV and others. It is a great show. One artist will come out and play four or five of their hits, exit the stage, another act comes on, plays their hits, exits, and so on. Obviously they play ALL HITS, ONLY HITS - they're only on stage for twenty minutes each! And that's precisely what the fans are there for. Nothing but the hits, the radio songs, the singles, the songs everybody knows and remembers, songs to sing along to.
There used to be shows like this back in the early 1960's when The Beach Boys were starting out. We've seen the posters. And, I wouldn't be surprised if things return to something resembling that format in the coming decades. Sadly, most of the 1960's artists/groups will soon be retired, unless they are tribute bands. But, what's going to happen to the groups of the 1970's and 1980's who want to continue performing? There's always going to mega-stars who can perform a two hour-plus concert and that format won't change. But what about the rest? I can see more of these Happy Together Tours springing up in the future. For example, maybe you will have a Legends Of Rock Tour or a Masters Of Metal Tour or Disco Superstars Tour for those artists in their 70's (and 80's!) who physically can't handle a two hour show - nor would there be a demand for two hours of their music. You could have a very fulfilling show with three bands playing 30-40 minute sets for a total of two or two and a half hours. THEN the sets would be nothing but hits/best of and songs that the people want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 12, 2019 12:11:45 GMT
So I guess my overall position is bifurcated. I prefer artists to keep putting out new material, even if they aren't really evolving (and absolutely not if they are just chasing trends...nobody likes hair metal bands playing grunge), but I also expect them to satisfy their fans in the context of their live performances. This is basically how I feel, too, about new recordings, and can't really add much to The Kapitan's post.
I did want to add this to my thoughts on touring...Last year I attended something called The Happy Together Tour and will be attending this year, too (6/22/19). The Happy Together Tour is a concert by artists from the 1960's including - what's left of them - The Turtles, The Cowsill's, Chuck Negron from Three Dog Night, Gary Puckett, The Buckinghams, The Classic IV and others. It is a great show. One artist will come out and play four or five of their hits, exit the stage, another act comes on, plays their hits, exits, and so on. Obviously they play ALL HITS, ONLY HITS - they're only on stage for twenty minutes each! And that's precisely what the fans are there for. Nothing but the hits, the radio songs, the singles, the songs everybody knows and remembers, songs to sing along to.
There used to be shows like this back in the early 1960's when The Beach Boys were starting out. We've seen the posters. And, I wouldn't be surprised if things return to something resembling that format in the coming decades. Sadly, most of the 1960's artists/groups will soon be retired, unless they are tribute bands. But, what's going to happen to the groups of the 1970's and 1980's who want to continue performing? There's always going to mega-stars who can perform a two hour-plus concert and that format won't change. But what about the rest? I can see more of these Happy Together Tours springing up in the future. For example, maybe you will have a Legends Of Rock Tour or a Masters Of Metal Tour or Disco Superstars Tour for those artists in their 70's (and 80's!) who physically can't handle a two hour show - nor would there be a demand for two hours of their music. You could have a very fulfilling show with three bands playing 30-40 minute sets for a total of two or two and a half hours. THEN the sets would be nothing but hits/best of and songs that the people want to hear.
Actually, there's already been a Masters of Metal Tour. I went to one of the shows. It was 2008, and it featured Testament (30 mins), Motorhead (40 mins), Heaven and Hell (75 mins), and Judas Priest (80 mins). Heavy metal is extremely taxing for lead vocalists, so I could see more package tours like this in the future.
|
|