The live music quandary

[The Curmudgeon]

So myself and Mrs C went to see Placebo, a British rock band who started out in the 90's and still have a devoted following today. It had been almost 10 years since the last time I saw them so needless to say, we were both pretty excited.

So the band came on and their first song was from their new record I didn't own yet. OK. The next was another new track we weren't familiar with. As was the next. And the next.

It was seven songs in until they played a song that we, and indeed the entire (sold out) crowd knew, and it wouldn't be until the encore a full hour later that they played their older material. Needless to say, a great time was not had by all.

I moaned about it on Facebook and someone replied with Homer Simpson demanding to hear "Taking Care of Business" by Bachman Turner Overdrive. "No chat, no new crap - Taking Care of Business!"

And I'm totally NOT that guy. I don't want bands to turn into nostalgia acts, churning out the same hits time and time again. But there's got to be a fair medium, right? Placebo have a huge back catalogue of killer hit singles, and three of them were played that night. And when they played the hits, the place went fucking nuts.

That's what the audience is there for. When you've been playing for 20 years, people have literally grew up listening to these songs, and that's what they want to hear. New stuff is fine, gotta stay relevant, but for an entire show?

Like I said to Mrs C, when other bands with a few years on the clock (Manic Street Preachers, Smashing Pumpkins, the Pixies) can all suck it up and play the hits people paid to hear (even Hanson still play fucking MmmBop) it just strikes me as arrogant to deny them that.

Am I wrong?

[trashcanman]

Well, it's their fucking stage. I've had the same issue before with a great technical Swedish thrash metal band that I loved, In Flames, turned into a cookie-cutter American-style hardcore act with almost zero musicality just long enough to ruin my one chance to see them live. Only one older song played and it stuck out from the rest of the set like a sore thumb.

A lot of alternative rock bands like to insist on not playing the hits and concentrating on newer material. The same thing that makes them creative enough to keep being awesome after so long probably makes them incredibly bored with their own back catalog. I have a live DVD of a Husker Du gig and I swear to god that Bob Mould looks like he's going to fall asleep until they play the songs that were from their most recent release at the time. At that point he starts rocking out and actually singing with passion.

On one hand, people pay to see your band and to hear the music they love from them, so not delivering is fairly dickish. But on the other hand, a lot of bands burn out because they get so sick and tired of themselves from playing the same shit over and over again for decades, so I can see why they'd get tired of it.

Maiden has found a great middle ground. They radically alter their set list every tour and basically do tours based around different eras. One time I saw them they only played songs from their first four albums. Then they did a tour of all songs from the next four albums. When I saw them a few months ago, they built their setlist around a 1988 album and added in stuff from other eras. This approach means maybe you don't hear ALL of the classics every time, but if you see the band multiple times over the years you just never know what you are going to get. That's pretty amazing from a band that's been around 30-40 years and has retained such a huge following.

[Ben]

Oooooh, I saw In Flames before they sucked. Tough luck, Trashcanman.

Ok, I'm done gloating. I have to sympathize with The Curmudgeon on this one. When you've been around long enough, you're almost required to limit the new material. Nobody goes to see legendary acts for their recent shit. AC/DC? Metallica? Please. Bands have to promote their stuff to a certain degree, yes, but when you know what the people want you have to give it to them.

Generally, in standard hour and a half long set by an established act whose best years are behind them, I would expect to hear 4 new songs max. For a band still in their prime? Maybe a couple extra if they actually play that long. I'd certainly be irked if I went to see a band I love and they led off with all new material.

On the other hand, I haven't seen Megadeth, one of my all-time favorite bands, in years because they play a near identical set every time they take the stage. Last time I saw them was in 2010 when they played all of their Rust in Peace album at every show. Now THAT was cool.

[trashcanman]

The funny thing is that In Flames changed their style again on the album after I saw them and went back to being good. I caught them at the worst possible moment. Megadeth was at that Maiden show (which was bordering on a festival with Anthrax, Testament, Overkill and others on the bill as well), and they played a really 80's-90's hits heavy set. They played one song from the new album that the audience politely waited through while they went nuts for every other song. Testament only played like two songs that I knew (haven't heard anything new by them in a long time), but they were still awesome so no big complaints from me.

[lemex]

I think they do owe the classics to their fans. Certainly do, even if they only did one or two - and literally one or two. I can understand why bands would get sick of playing the same songs for years and years, but without those famous bread-winners, you likely wouldn't be on the stage you are on now, pretending they do not exist.

[Quillford]

This is something that I have come across myself. I find older bands have the biggest issues. Of course the problem lies on both sides, people who are newer to the band's content will only know the latest stuff and will go quiet during older tracks. But like curmudgeon said "the place went nuts" so there really isn't an excuse to change up the set list now they have a feeling for the crowd.

Festivals are different than gigs. A lot of people at festival performances, more often than not only know 3 - 4 songs by a band. Now of course that isn't strictly true across the board - just something I have found with a few festival goers. On that note, bands think very carefully about their set lists for a festival performance. They play a popular one to start, another one in the middle and finish on their biggest one or their latest one - depending on the artist. They vary but that's the basic layout. Older bands however just play hit after hit after hit. I saw Foo's at T in the Park. that's exactly what happened there - hit after hit. Blur, same deal. Coldplay, Muse, Snow Patrol - same thing.

Normal gigs are for the bands direction. They play what they feel and where they want to take the audience. Maybe Placebo felt like they were "reinventing" themselves for the modern market and that people who are now interested in the band are only fans of the newer stuff? Either way, it was a risky play and obviously it didn't pan out for them. I remember I saw "p!nk" (please don't judge me, I was young and my girlfriend wanted to go) she played hit after hit but played pretty much every track off her new album as well (2 hour set) - mind she puts on a show and a half, not to mention her album was a hit so most people knew it... I had a similar experience with "Lacuna Coil", they played mostly stuff off their new album. I was gutted. Hadn't seen them before - listened to them for years, since 2002. I felt they owed me my favourite tracks. It's not like these guys were still at the top of any rock charts or anything, I couldn't get it. They did two songs from previous albums in the set. Two. Encored with two. Four songs from their 6 album career... It was a shame too because they had a great stage presence and they had brilliant banter with the crowd.

I have to side with Curmudgeon, you would have to be pretty stupid or naive to decide not to play some of past. Despite how many times the band has heard it. Despite how sick of it they are. It's what got them to standing on that stage in the first place. it's what the vast majority of people are paying for. They owe everything to those fans and that music. For every penny they received to any fan recognition. The band may have a new direction but that in no way invalidates what came before. Bands change, sounds change, do we forget the other stuff? Naw! Not at all.

See I went to see Trivium last year, now what ever you think of these guys - it doesn't matter. The lead singer was told he couldn't scream any more, he hadn't been doing it right for years and like so he had fucked his throat. But most of their songs had screaming in? Obviously his new tracks changed the sound they were used to but on tour what could they do? That man went away and learned how to scream properly with correct training and against medical advise because "he felt he owed to the fans to fix his mistake." Ok it's a little stupid when his life depends on that voice but still... got to give credit where it's due. This guy knew why playing old songs at events was important, and it showed in their amazing performance. Placebo are band I am aching to see, it's a shame that if I did go - I may not get what I would want from the experience.

[trashcanman]

Lacuna lost me with Shallow Life and I'd be pretty pissed if I went to see them live and they played all new stuff because their new stuff kind of sucks.