stef
Loves that CSI tune
Posts: 135
|
Post by stef on Aug 10, 2004 14:00:31 GMT
Not many bets on the winner of this one.
|
|
|
Post by jimana13 on Aug 10, 2004 16:09:13 GMT
'Never let 'em on a stage again' if they don't have total ovehaul of the setlsit or start some seroious rotating action but you know.. that would reguire rehearsals and "pete to have effort and "deal" with the Who". I could with somne ffort tolerate the s**t playing style and tone if setlist changed.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 10, 2004 18:27:25 GMT
It was just plain evil to place this poll without giving the option to vote for a "Completely New Setlist". I had to plump for the "Slightly" option, but a slightly new setlist - eg: The usual setlist with the addition of 2 or 3 songs not played for 10 years - seems to be considered by The Who as a major change...which is just so....wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Aug 10, 2004 19:01:10 GMT
There should also be an option that says: "Jimana13 is a miserable bugger who whinges constantly. Yes, we KNOW you don't like the guitar sound, and we know you have a ridiculously warped view on changing every song in the set. Tough. Stop moaning about it EVERY SINGLE SODDING POST!".
|
|
|
Post by jimana13 on Aug 10, 2004 19:55:57 GMT
never... subject worthy of whinges now and forever..
|
|
|
Post by rollingmule on Aug 10, 2004 21:35:37 GMT
i voted for the Carlsberg thang. i drank some beer once called Carlsberg and it was damn good. a buddy got it from over in England on a offshore shoreleave deal and snuck it back to me. i hadda drive almost a hole day to get to where this secret good beer was and it was werth it. man that was good beer.
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Aug 11, 2004 9:32:25 GMT
never... subject worthy of whinges now and forever.. Well, I suppose that post was almost about something different.
|
|
stef
Loves that CSI tune
Posts: 135
|
Post by stef on Aug 11, 2004 13:09:23 GMT
It was just plain evil to place this poll without giving the option to vote for a "Completely New Setlist". I had to plump for the "Slightly" option, but a slightly new setlist - eg: The usual setlist with the addition of 2 or 3 songs not played for 10 years - seems to be considered by The Who as a major change...which is just so.... wrong. Err... dr Evil ? moi ? Sucking a thoughtful pinky... I am non-plussed Thee I slander. Haven't you noticed how multiple choice exams, polls etc., never have the answer you really want ? Shame the option boxes are so teeny. Wholesale change : Back at Pete's place chatroom, (a dimming memory) I started out thinking a set change was needed. Having seen them 3 times I find the topic a little worn out. Sure, it would be nice to have a major alternate with rareties, the st*nes did ALL their catalogue over several concerts last year. But its the addiction to a successful format they cling to. They don't like quiet audiences cogitating, they want that physical reaction. Try a Joe Jackson concert, he loves to go out on a limb. (say hello to the lighting desk when you're there, best celestial lighting company in the world) and he's got an appreciative audience that laps it up. If you are keen for a new album though, better not stamp on PT's dodgy noodling hand just yet, cos its just trying to stay in contact with his creative muse. Just to keep you all happy though, "The Who became just an overblown parady of themselves" : see the Kinks Uncut magazine special issue. Meanwhile, I demand that they bring back the 32" inch spot/floods from Shepperton circa '76 encores : oh dear, a bit too stonehenge these days is it ? (todays teeny weeny mega bright multiple pin spots are puny in comparison, though they do have a nice fancy name if only I could remember it) Lets See Acton !
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsfan on Aug 11, 2004 13:27:37 GMT
i had to go with the setlist change....it has been the same for years now.....i didnt attend the mansfield show for that very same reason..... this band has become boring.....
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Aug 11, 2004 17:24:37 GMT
i had to go with the setlist change....it has been the same for years now.....i didnt attend the mansfield show for that very same reason..... this band has become boring..... Just a moment. Let's reflect here a second. As even the most hardened critics of the setlist seem willing to admit, changing it around when visiting places such as Australia, Japan or Hawaii for the first time ever or in 30 years would shortchange the locals. So, we're left with the other concerts. Let's compare 2002 to now, shall we? Songs that have been more or less dropped are The Kids are Alright, Another Tricky Day, Sea and Sand, Bargain and Relay. Added to the set (and it varies) are the two new songs, Real Good Looking Boy and Old Red Wine (this seems to have been forgotten), The Punk and the Godfather, Drowned (last seen in 2000, so not a huge change), Naked Eye, Long Live Rock, Love Ain't for Keeping, Magic Bus (again last in 2000), even Young Man Blues. Not all of this happens on the same night of course, but we're still talking about a 25% change form 2002. Is this a huge change? Of course not. Is it a completely unchanging set? No. Would we like to see the set change more? Absolutely. Not for one moment am I defending the way the Who have always (this isn't new, you know) tended to shove out the same stuff live, I'm just saying that it isn't a completely unchanging set. In 2002, fiddling with the set was impossible because of Entwistle's death. By 2004, they'd made a few changes. For me, the test will be if they come out again. If it's the same stuff, then I'll completely agree with you all, rather than just partially.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 11, 2004 18:48:09 GMT
Added to the set (and it varies) are Naked Eye, Also performed in 2000, in the electric version. Performed in 2002. I think we have become spoilt by internet and bootlegs. In the old days, even before 2000, you were not able to follow a band on tour like we did. We got reviews and setlists from each night, pictures and the like. In the old days, you did not know what they were going to play. Nowadays we can compare shows and notice that the sets have been the same for almost 3 tours. The excitement is gone, and the Internet played a big role in that.
|
|
kc
Fan
Posts: 155
|
Post by kc on Aug 11, 2004 19:17:28 GMT
I think we have become spoilt by internet and bootlegs. In the old days, even before 2000, you were not able to follow a band on tour like we did. We got reviews and setlists from each night, pictures and the like. In the old days, you did not know what they were going to play. Nowadays we can compare shows and notice that the sets have been the same for almost 3 tours. The excitement is gone, and the Internet played a big role in that. I agree absolutely. w/o the Internet, there'd be some mystery. Now, for instance, we know Pete does the Birdman (probably) every show whilst hanging on the E chord in Sparks (you can often tell by the photo that it's Sparks because Roger has a pair of tambourines). I have to remind myself that most folks they are playing to at each show probably do not log onto sites such as this regularly and/or trade Who boots. So for the less-than-fanatic Who fan, the current setlist most likely works quite well. kc
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsfan on Aug 11, 2004 19:25:54 GMT
i also agree with the "same" setlist in those places that they havent been to in many many years.
you're right they did play some of those songs in 2000 and those setlists do look good now that i look back on them, but they are all recycled from the comfort bin. songs that they have played for years. nothing daring, nothing exciting.....
|
|
|
Post by JillKristen on Aug 12, 2004 6:12:11 GMT
I am glad The Who are still out there doing their thing even if it is the same old thing. I'll stay loyal regardless of the setlist!
JK
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Aug 12, 2004 8:30:39 GMT
I think we have become spoilt by internet and bootlegs. In the old days, even before 2000, you were not able to follow a band on tour like we did. We got reviews and setlists from each night, pictures and the like. In the old days, you did not know what they were going to play. Nowadays we can compare shows and notice that the sets have been the same for almost 3 tours. The excitement is gone, and the Internet played a big role in that. I think that's true. One of the examples of that is that when they perform anything different, it only seems to be considered different for one concert. After that, it's symptomatic of an unchanging set! Look at the two new tracks; whatever you think of them, they are certainly changes to the list, and have only been there for one tour. Yet they seem to be viewed as part of the "same old songs every night", which is ludicrous.
|
|
granth
Roadie
Well A Young Man...
Posts: 516
|
Post by granth on Aug 12, 2004 11:07:24 GMT
I can't imagine pino even attempting "B-oooris the Spiiiiiiider"
|
|
|
Post by Ralf on Aug 12, 2004 20:19:57 GMT
Tom is absolutely right. Except for us hardcore fans that hang around here on the internet each and every day, the mass of Who fans is by far not as well informed, and to them the problem of re-curring setlists most probably does not exist as they don't know what is being played every night. Let's go back to the days when all you knew about a band's tour had to be gathered from the few articles in music magazines - good God, back then you knew next to nothing about a tour, certainly not WHAT was being played at How many shows and HOW So YES, the internet spoils us completely and without it we would not complain - or far less than we do now!
|
|
|
Post by jimana13 on Aug 12, 2004 20:31:52 GMT
talk about excuses....
|
|
|
Post by Ralf on Aug 12, 2004 20:49:03 GMT
Nah, what I am saying is simply that IF THERE WERE no internet, the setlist problem probably wouldn't exist. This does not mean that agree to the near-unchanging lists - on the contrary. As has been said here before: let's see what happens on the next tour (if there IS one). No excuse if they STILL stick to the same list then......
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 12, 2004 22:32:10 GMT
Nah, what I am saying is simply that IF THERE WERE no internet, the setlist problem probably wouldn't exist. I like the logic behind the argument, but the way I see it, the setlist problem wouldn't exist if the band actually varied the setlist. What wouldn't exist without the Internet would be the fans ability to complain about - and expose - the problem. Our perception of the tour would be based only on our individual experiences, so the benefit of the doubt would be given to the overall picture. That said, I'm sure that if today they world had no Internet, the music press (being the sole purveyor of music info on a national/global scale), would make an issue of the setlist 'problem'.
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsfan on Aug 13, 2004 15:12:57 GMT
Nah, what I am saying is simply that IF THERE WERE no internet, the setlist problem probably wouldn't exist. This does not mean that agree to the near-unchanging lists - on the contrary. As has been said here before: let's see what happens on the next tour (if there IS one). No excuse if they STILL stick to the same list then...... i think the selist would be a problem with or without the internet.....it was a problem back in 79 when paul weller was telling townshend he has to change the setlist if he plans to continue with the who.....i remember talking to a friend of mine who saw them back in the early 80's and being told back then that it was basically a greatest hits show....much the same some 20 something years later....i know people have been saying "wait until next tour" for the last 3 or so tours for a setlist change....and basically it has stayed the same.....i will wait and watch...if there are changes to the setlist and by changes i mean more than 2 songs then i may go and see them again....i wont pay 70 to 100 dollars to be bored....
|
|
jimmer
Loves that CSI tune
Posts: 10
|
Post by jimmer on Aug 13, 2004 16:27:29 GMT
Does anyone have an alternative setlist they'd like to see? I wanted to see Punk and the Godfather, Long Live Rock, I'm One and I Can See For Miles on this tour. They've played 3 out of 4. Plus the 2 new songs.
They HAVE to play MG, PW, WGFA, WAY etc, etc else people who've never seen 'em before will be left wondering what the hell they're listening to.
|
|
|
Post by Ralf on Aug 13, 2004 16:44:23 GMT
Correct, Jimmer, but that leaves enough space for variety among the rest of the songs. And the Quad tour worked well too, although there were only a handful of 'hits' at the very end
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Aug 13, 2004 16:57:13 GMT
I think they've given up on I Can See For Miles. It never seems to work when they play it live.
|
|
|
Post by boniemaronie on Aug 13, 2004 17:30:53 GMT
the song seems to work on some of the 79/80 shows, but not since. and y havent we ever heard song is over live?
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsfan on Aug 13, 2004 21:55:54 GMT
Does anyone have an alternative setlist they'd like to see? I wanted to see Punk and the Godfather, Long Live Rock, I'm One and I Can See For Miles on this tour. They've played 3 out of 4. Plus the 2 new songs. They HAVE to play MG, PW, WGFA, WAY etc, etc else people who've never seen 'em before will be left wondering what the hell they're listening to. there are songs that every major act out there will have to play....this is understandable.... but this excuse about the new people seeing the who is almost as bad as the 'im just glad they're still playing as the who" rational. bonie i was actually thinking yesterday about why they never play "the song is over", how about goin mobile? instead of "im one" for the umpteenth time townshend could do something like blue red and gray i bet that would go over well with the who fans who have seen the band atleast once already and i would be willing to bet that the majority of people who are at a who concert have seen the band atleast once in the past.....that is why i say playing for the new people is a poor excuse. the quad tour was excellent....the best who show i saw was the mansfield quad show.....then the worcester centrum quad show...only because i had front row on pete's side..
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 13, 2004 22:28:14 GMT
about why they never play "the song is over" According to what I read: that song was too complex to play live. I guess they just didn't like that song. Maybe it was too "light" for The Who's live show. I agree, but concerning "Blue Red & Grey": "Here I am, playing a song about me committing suicide, and you want to have thát on the album?" (or something along those lines). Maybe Pete feels it's too personal, but I certainly would like to witness a complete stadium singing: "But I like every minute of the day".
|
|
|
Post by jimana13 on Aug 13, 2004 22:32:56 GMT
too light... what the.... that song is so easy to "bump up" for live shows...
|
|
|
Post by JillKristen on Aug 14, 2004 2:05:21 GMT
I think some people will never be satisfied. Even if they did an entirely new setlist some true blue fans would still find something to complain about. There are some standards that I would be disappointed if they didn't play (5:15, BBE), and while I could do without WGFA it does send some sort of energy through the audience. Now there are a number of "obscure" songs they could choose to play, but it is very likely that my list of 5 hopefuls are different from other fans 5 picks. So we all have to be a little flexible! JK
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 14, 2004 3:18:46 GMT
>I agree, but concerning "Blue Red & Grey": "Here I am, playing a song about me committing suicide, and you want to have thát on the album?" (or something along those lines). Maybe Pete feels it's too personal, but I certainly would like to witness a complete stadium singing: "But I like every minute of the day". Eh? Suicide? Are you talking about "Blue, Red and Grey" or "I'm One"?
|
|