Do you care if a band has a lazy setlist?

[remphish1]

I usually catch the bands I really like 2 to 3 times a tour. I usually get frustrated when a band plays an identical setlist within a multi night run or plays the same set on a different leg of a tour. Would it bother you to hear the same set twice? To me it makes it worth it if I hear a handful of different songs between the shows. If it’s identical I usually find the second show to be a waste of a night out. Not sure if I am overly critical but I like catching unique shows. Any personal preferences?

[brownie]

Over time, one gets to know which artists repeat setlists and which ones shake it up more. It never enters my mind to see the set repeaters multiple times on a tour. Especially in this day and age with internet discussion groups and online setlists, it’s hard to NOT know which way any given artist leans. I don’t need to hear a completely different set of songs, but I wouldn’t be interested in hearing the exact same setlist. Waste of money even more than a waste of time.

[remphish1]

Over time, one gets to know which artists repeat setlists and which ones shake it up more. It never enters my mind to see the set repeaters multiple times on a tour. Especially in this day and age with internet discussion groups and online setlists, it’s hard to NOT know which way any given artist leans. I don’t need to hear a completely different set of songs, but I wouldn’t be interested in hearing the exact same setlist. Waste of money even more than a waste of time.

Yeah can definitely tell before hand. I had saw toad last night different leg of tour. Set were deferent in beginning of leg then they reverted back to the old setlist of course after I bought my ticket! Anyway another set of examples I like Depeche Mode and Matthew Sweet but I know they keep the same set the whole tour so I only see them once. If they changed 2 to 3 songs a show I’d probably see 3 or more. On another note Springsteen seen him tons he always mixed it up but the broadway show he doesn’t. Same set every night and I heard ever song he’s playing on broadway except one so I’m not rushing to see that even though it would be unique.

[Chez]

Not to hijack this thread, but what burns me more than the "lazy setlist," is the artist/band with an extensive catalogue that only plays a 75 minute set.  For example, I saw Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks in June and was disappointed at how short the show was. 1:45 should be the minimum and two hours doesn't seem like it's asking too much.  Reduce the time between the opener and the headliner.  

[remphish1]

Not to hijack this thread, but what burns me more than the "lazy setlist," is the artist/band with an extensive catalogue that only plays a 75 minute set. For example, I saw Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks in June and was disappointed at how short the show was. 1:45 should be the minimum and two hours doesn't seem like it's asking too much. Reduce the time between the opener and the headliner.

Good point my biggest complaint with Morrissey, Depeche Mode and Duran Duran live shows

[uncool2pillow]

I think David Byrne's tour this year had one setlist. It was very carefully choreographed, so no complaints.

 

I think this is a bigger issue today than 25 years ago. I TRY not to look at recent setlists before seeing shows. It could only create disappointment in similarity of shows or missing a favorite in the show I saw.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[calvino]

At least by having same or near same set-lists has helped me save money over the recent years -- typically I see Dylan and Wilco over multi-nights - now I am fine with just catching one show during a run or tour. 

[remphish1]

At least by having same or near same set-lists has helped me save money over the recent years -- typically I see Dylan and Wilco over multi-nights - now I am fine with just catching one show during a run or tour.

Good point too

[u2roolz]

U2 had a lazy setlist this time around, but it didn't really bother me in the moment because I enjoyed the shows so much. I saw them 3 times in 2 different cities and the only deviation I got was All Because Of You and Bono recited a poem, if you count that. Lol!

 

I knew about the static setlist going into these 3 shows, but I decided against selling tickets. There are certain bands that I need to see every show they come around. Wilco would be the other band. Pearl Jam used to be.

 

On the other hand, it had been the third tour in 4 summers for U2, so I probably could have skipped them to see like Arcade Fire or Pixies/Weezer or Smashing Pumpkins this summer. This summer was rough for live shows. I feel like everyone that I'm interested in seeing live has toured. I'm not sure who's left to tour in 2019.

 

And seeing Radiohead over 2 nights in Boston with their super mixed up setlists was awesome, especially since it had been 15 years. There were songs that I wish they had done, but maybe next time.

 

Depeche Mode mixed it up a bit on their 3 shows per city runs in places like L.A. & NYC. I love going to setlist.fm and using their tour stats feature. It's helpful to track down bootlegs with such deviations & you don't need to look at every setlist with a fine tooth comb to see the one song that's different.

[remphish1]

Speaking of U2 saw them twice this tour left first show a little early to catch a train and had no problem doing so because I’d know I hear what I missed at the next show lol

[u2roolz]

Speaking of U2 saw them twice this tour left first show a little early to catch a train and had no problem doing so because I’d know I hear what I missed at the next show lol

Yeah, I did the same thing, but I parked in the Boston Garden garage. The only time that I heard the last song was at Mohegan Sun.

 

And I have a theory on why we never heard Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses. I really think that they've planned so far in advance that they want to save it for their 30th anniversary tour for Achtung Baby.

[remphish1]

Yeah, I did the same thing, but I parked in the Boston Garden garage. The only time that I heard the last song was at Mohegan Sun.

 

And I have a theory on why we never heard Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses. I really think that they've planned so far in advance that they want to save it for their 30th anniversary tour for Achtung Baby.

as long as I hear that someday live I’ll be satisfied!

[Shug]

Sure, static set lists is why I stopped going to see Tom Petty in the last 15 years, except when I knew it was gonna be special, like Stevie Nicks on the tour or a small venue. Even his shows promoted as “rarities” were not that different than what he usually played and still ignored 80% if his catalogue . But I was spoiled by being a Deadhead with setlist variety. Just saw Tedeschi Trucks and Marcus King two nights at Red Rocks with no repeats from either band. That’s why I went 2 nights

[remphish1]

Sure, static set lists is why I stopped going to see Tom Petty in the last 15 years, except when I knew it was gonna be special, like Stevie Nicks on the tour or a small venue. Even his shows promoted as “rarities” were not that different than what he usually played and still ignored 80% if his catalogue . But I was spoiled by being a Deadhead with setlist variety. Just saw Tedeschi Trucks and Marcus King two nights at Red Rocks with no repeats from either band. That’s why I went 2 nights

Yeah Petty didn’t switch it up too much. I did see him at the Beacon Theater where he veered off the setlist some which was great! Southern Accents, Girl on LSD, Time to Move On, Honey Bee and Cabin Down Bellow which I requested to Tom before the show!!

[jw harding]

Interesting discussion. Mainly depends on the artist. I'm ok with McCartney playing the same setlist each tour with such a choreographed show. Wish he'd mix up the stories/jokes a bit. The Stones mix up their setlist a bit, but can't imagine seeing them more than once a tour, or once in the past 20 years for that matter. 

 

Other bands that market themselves as live bands should mix it up some.

 

As for Malkamus, the guy just doesn't give a shit. If he doesn't care, why should I. Haven't seen him in 20 years either. Wasted talent.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

This is a great topic, and I love the discussion. Kudos to all of you for keeping it so civil - so far. (Ha!)

 

I have to say that, for me, it does indeed depend on the artist and even the cost of the ticket. For example, I can remember seeing Wilco three times in one week in Florida in 2002, and they were really still on the YHF tour. There were quite a few of those same great YHF songs every night. That didn't bother me one bit, of course, as it's a top 3 Wilco release for me. The other songs in the setlist were somewhat varied, including an early version of Handshake - with no solo, since it was in the "pre-Nels" era. Also, those shows were in clubs and small theaters, so the ticket prices were very reasonable. I was right up front every time. Those were some of the best Wilco shows I've ever experienced.

 

More recently, I had a somewhat similar experience with Bruce Cockburn, catching three shows around the state in small theaters. Again, the setlists were quite similar, but I know enough about Bruce to cut him some slack on that. For one, he's around 70 now; two, I know he's on the record saying he can't retain more than 18-20 songs out of his vast catalogue at any given time; and three, that's no surprise, because so many of his songs involve extremely intricate fingerpicking.

 

Even McCartney, as jw harding said, can certainly be forgiven for having a repetitive set that's highly choreographed. After all, that show is something many fans are only going to see once in their lifetimes, so why not give them a zillion hits? Not to mention, the guy plays a nearly three-hour show. It's not a cheap ticket, but you get your money's worth.

 

For big expensive tours like that - and the U2 and Petty examples are good ones - I can see why most folks wouldn't be able to (or even want to ) see more than one on any given tour. I did pull the trigger for back-to-back McCartney shows a few years ago, and that was interesting. I knew the sets would be virtually identical, but I was going with a buddy one night, and we had excellent seats. So I got a much cheaper seat for the other night, too, flying solo. It was fun seeing pretty much the same show from different parts of the venues and one solo, one with someone else. Very different experiences. And one of the shows actually did have a difference, in that Sir Paul broke out I Saw Her Standing There during one of the encores. Really cool.

 

As for the 75-minute set...I don't know what's up with that. The only artist I ever saw pull such a stunt was Sinead O'Connor, around the time she ripped up the pope's picture. I figured that, with her voice, and the way she belted stuff out, she probably couldn't do too many more songs in any given night. But at that point, at the height of her powers, she was incredible. I think I've only gotten goosebumps at three shows: hers; Simon & Garfunkel, at the coda of Bridge Over Troubled Water; and my first McCartney show, when 35K people were singing the outro of Hey Jude together. That was a life-changing concert.

[worldrecordplayer]

Sure, static set lists is why I stopped going to see Tom Petty in the last 15 years, except when I knew it was gonna be special, like Stevie Nicks on the tour or a small venue. Even his shows promoted as “rarities” were not that different than what he usually played and still ignored 80% if his catalogue . But I was spoiled by being a Deadhead with setlist variety. Just saw Tedeschi Trucks and Marcus King two nights at Red Rocks with no repeats from either band. That’s why I went 2 nights

I was in high school in the early-mid '70's and started in with the Dead, Allmans, New Riders, Hot Tuna, etc., and then Phish, Warren, etc, so I come from a place where my favorite bands always had completely different shows every night. The goal is always to see as many shows on consecutive nights as possible as there would likely be no repeats. So I'm not one for the pre-fabricated shows, some of which have the same banter, every night. I do see those shows but would never go multiple nights. And not to say I don't enjoy the big shows/big tours, but knowing there's a lack of spontaneity does take something away from my enjoyment. But I go and have fun for what it is. 

[worldrecordplayer]

Not to hijack this thread, but what burns me more than the "lazy setlist," is the artist/band with an extensive catalogue that only plays a 75 minute set.  For example, I saw Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks in June and was disappointed at how short the show was. 1:45 should be the minimum and two hours doesn't seem like it's asking too much.  Reduce the time between the opener and the headliner.  

Same. Saw Beck in Boston last month, he finished his main set after 1 hour and 10 minutes. You have to be kidding me. You don't deserve an encore after playing for 70 minutes. There was no curfew issue, he finished his encore set by 10:40 at a venue with an 11:00 curfew. 

[jw harding]

For big expensive tours like that - and the U2 and Petty examples are good ones - I can see why most folks wouldn't be able to (or even want to ) see more than one on any given tour. I did pull the trigger for back-to-back McCartney shows a few years ago, and that was interesting. I knew the sets would be virtually identical, but I was going with a buddy one night, and we had excellent seats. So I got a much cheaper seat for the other night, too, flying solo. It was fun seeing pretty much the same show from different parts of the venues and one solo, one with someone else. Very different experiences. And one of the shows actually did have a difference, in that Sir Paul broke out I Saw Her Standing There during of the encores. Really cool.

Certainly worth it to go back a second night to see I Saw Her Standing There. Also probably to see Hey Jude again too. 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Certainly worth it to go back a second night to see I Saw Her Standing There. Also probably to see Hey Jude again too.

You are correct, sir!

Also, a recording of one of those nights found its way online - and the taper had captured the sound check as well. McCartney played some old cover tunes like Blue Suede Shoes and Midnight Special, so it was fun to hear what I’d “missed” in addition to the show I actually saw.

[sonicshoulder]

Interesting discussion. Mainly depends on the artist. I'm ok with McCartney playing the same setlist each tour with such a choreographed show. Wish he'd mix up the stories/jokes a bit. The Stones mix up their setlist a bit, but can't imagine seeing them more than once a tour, or once in the past 20 years for that matter. 

 

Other bands that market themselves as live bands should mix it up some.

 

As for Malkamus, the guy just doesn't give a shit. If he doesn't care, why should I. Haven't seen him in 20 years either. Wasted talent.

I'm biased because I am a huge fan but I don't know if "wasted talent" would correctly define his career. Since the beginning he has done what he wants and been as successful as he wanted to be at it. I don't think his plan was ever to play arenas for 3 hours without an opener.  I would say Layne Staley was wasted talent. Malkmus is completely independent and uses that freedom to play what he wants when he wants. He's always dodged conformity but he has been churning out art for 30 years on his terms. I saw him this tour and it was great and while it was a shorter set in comparison to most I left feeling far from cheated. I think his physical demeanor makes people think he doesn't give a shit but he wouldn't have the catalog he has if that was the case.  

[tinnitus photography]

I'm biased because I am a huge fan but I don't know if "wasted talent" would correctly define his career. Since the beginning he has done what he wants and been as successful as he wanted to be at it. I don't think his plan was ever to play arenas for 3 hours without an opener.  I would say Layne Staley was wasted talent. Malkmus is completely independent and uses that freedom to play what he wants when he wants. He's always dodged conformity but he has been churning out art for 30 years on his terms. I saw him this tour and it was great and while it was a shorter set in comparison to most I left feeling far from cheated. I think his physical demeanor makes people think he doesn't give a shit but he wouldn't have the catalog he has if that was the case.  

100% agree.

 

he had a blown voice for the boston show but still played the same amount of songs as on previous shows this tour. 

 

i guess i might be the only one who's OK w/ a set duration of 75-90 min, which is pretty ideal for most bands i'd say. 

 

 

 

my biggest pet peeve for static set lists is Blue Oyster Cult, who trot out the same 10-12 songs each time. two years ago they played Psycho with a teaser that it would be a deep cuts set list, but aside from "Tattoo Vampire" it was anything but (they'd already added "Golden Age Of Leather" a couple years back).

[peteboiler]

Wilco has always been outstanding - to me - at the choices they put in their setlist!  I am always satisfied with 'lost nuggets'.  My fav show was in Clearwater when they did 'An Evening With Wilco' where they did the unplugged ACT 2. 

 

John Mellencamp is one of my heroes from a storyteller standpoint.  His music and lyrics have always meant so much to me but his live show has always been awful.  He plays the same damn songs, tells the same damn stories, and his shows are over after roughly 12-15 songs.  Way too short.  I don't think I have ever seen him perform over an hour and a half.  He DOES put on a good show, but he always seems to be going through the motions.