|
Post by Tom on Aug 14, 2004 14:18:46 GMT
"Blue, Red And Grey"
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsfan on Aug 14, 2004 14:20:26 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 if they changed the setlist around i would be satisfied. we all know there are songs that wont leave the setlist. i for one would be quite satisfied if they didnt play behind blue eyes. all they are doing is ripping off the fans who pay good money to see their shows. it is along the same as their compilation releases....the same story release after release....oh yeah but those are for the new fans as well right.....well what about the 20 - 30 year fans...the fans who waited basically all through the eighties and nineties to see something from this band.... never satisfied? i was more than satisfied in 89 then in 96/97 and in 2000....if they are just going to continue being a parody of themselves then i would rather see a who tribute band....atleast they have a much more diverse setlist....and it only cost whatever the cover charge is to get into the club.....
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 14, 2004 15:06:53 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 If the band completely changed the setlist, not just added 1 or 2 songs, do you REALLY think, after all these years of the same tracks over and over, the vast majority of fans would complain? It would be a refreshing change. Look how overexcited people get when one or two 'new' tracks get added to the set. Imagine a full show of that. I fail to understand the mentality of The Who themselves concerning this issue. They appear to believe they're in some unique position wherby the fans can't live without anything but the 'greatest hits'. Fans of every other major band in the world - who are just as passionate about their band as the most passonate Who fan is about his - manage to survive - and, shock! horror! even enjoy diverse setlists. Why the hell do The Who assume their fans are so shallow as to not be able to handle a similar situation? As someone else pointed out earlier, Quadrophenia was performed with just a handful of hits (only three when I saw it) and there wasn't a mass walk-out or row upon row of empty seats, and as far as I'm aware, no Who fan present at any of those shows suffered the mental trauma of 'beztovs deprivation syndrome'.
|
|
|
Post by rollingmule on Aug 14, 2004 21:50:57 GMT
well hell i just would love to hear em Dr. Jimmy one more time cuz it been a loong time since they played it. and Goin Mobille and Slip kid. think there was a line in slip kid bout bein a soldier at 63 so mebbe the next tour.i like Put the Money Down too
|
|
|
Post by JillKristen on Aug 15, 2004 4:43:46 GMT
If the band completely changed the setlist, not just added 1 or 2 songs, do you REALLY think, after all these years of the same tracks over and over, the vast majority of fans would complain? I said SOME of the fans would still complain..meaning even if The Who changed the setlist it wouldn't be the setlist they would have chosen. Basially saying that some people will never be satisfied. I did not intend for this statement to blanket the majority of Who fans. JK
|
|
|
Post by rollingmule on Aug 15, 2004 22:57:54 GMT
as long as they stay loud and electric i gotta agree with the islander on this, i always thought the greatest hit thang was the way but it aint. change the damn set but they aint so i,ll keep gripin. at least they still playin.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 16, 2004 1:18:31 GMT
Oh, really? Do you mind telling me why you think so? This is generally considered an upbeat song about enjoying life. Where do you see the suicide references?
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 16, 2004 1:30:50 GMT
>If the band completely changed the setlist, not just added 1 or 2 songs, do you REALLY think, after all these years of the same tracks over and over, the vast majority of fans would complain? Yes. The core group on the Interent that bitches about the set list are only a couple of hundred people--nobody else is likely to follow the tours and to know what the standard setlist is. I agree with the band that they HAVE to play the big hits. There are also fans that are fixated on particular periods of The Who's career that have to be satisfied. If they drop "I Can't Explain," then the sixties fans will complain, and if they drop "You Better, You Bet" then the eighties fans will complain. >I fail to understand the mentality of The Who themselves concerning this issue. They appear to believe they're in some unique position wherby the fans can't live without anything but the 'greatest hits'. Fans of every other major band in the world - who are just as passionate about their band as the most passonate Who fan is about his - manage to survive - and, shock! horror! even enjoy diverse setlists. Why the hell do The Who assume their fans are so shallow as to not be able to handle a similar situation? I hung around the Aerosmith lists for a while after the Yokohama date, and they were bitching about the setlist. >As someone else pointed out earlier, Quadrophenia was performed with just a handful of hits (only three when I saw it) and there wasn't a mass walk-out or row upon row of empty seats, and as far as I'm aware, no Who fan present at any of those shows suffered the mental trauma of 'beztovs deprivation syndrome'. Sales were thin to start with, but once it was advertised as The Who, then they picked up. I heard some people did walk out because they were expecting a greatest hits show, and were confused by the dramatic format.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 16, 2004 3:11:58 GMT
.>If the band completely changed the setlist, not just added 1 or 2 songs, do you REALLY think, after all these years of the same tracks over and over, the vast majority of fans would complain?
Yes. The core group on the Interent that bitches about the set list are only a couple of hundred people--nobody else is likely to follow the tours and to know what the standard setlist is. <<
If that's your point of view, then logic decrees that you're under the impression that the vast majority of Who fans can't wait to shell out an ever-swelling amount of cash each tour for tickets to a show which remains exactly the same year after year after year. I just praise the Lord I'm not that docile. Your justification fits well enough when applied to the casual fan who just knows a few songs from the radio, but not so well when applied to the fans who see every tour.
>>I agree with the band that they HAVE to play the big hits. There are also fans that are fixated on particular periods of The Who's career that have to be satisfied. If they drop "I Can't Explain," then the sixties fans will complain, and if they drop "You Better, You Bet" then the eighties fans will complain.<<
No, the point here is that those tracks can be replaced with alternate 60's/80's/whatever tracks. Thus the various fans of the eras will most likely be pleasantly suprised at hearing something different from their favourite period. Yes, it's expected that they will play some hits, but there's no need whatsoever for the setlist to permanently mirror a greatest hits album.
>I fail to understand the mentality of The Who themselves concerning this issue. They appear to believe they're in some unique position wherby the fans can't live without anything but the 'greatest hits'. Fans of every other major band in the world - who are just as passionate about their band as the most passonate Who fan is about his - manage to survive - and, shock! horror! even enjoy diverse setlists. Why the hell do The Who assume their fans are so shallow as to not be able to handle a similar situation?
I hung around the Aerosmith lists for a while after the Yokohama date, and they were bitching about the setlist.<<
Is there anywhere online where I can view Aerosmiths setlists for the last few tours, and for the last 20 or so years? I'm sure if there is I'll find that they haven't been touting the same 25 or so songs for almost 3 decades.
>>As someone else pointed out earlier, Quadrophenia was performed with just a handful of hits (only three when I saw it) and there wasn't a mass walk-out or row upon row of empty seats, and as far as I'm aware, no Who fan present at any of those shows suffered the mental trauma of 'beztovs deprivation syndrome'.
Sales were thin to start with, but once it was advertised as The Who, then they picked up. I heard some people did walk out because they were expecting a greatest hits show, and were confused by the dramatic format<<.[/quote]
I can understand that because some promoters purposely and misguidingly pushed the shows as being 'Greatest Hits' shows. Thus in many cases the public arrived expecting an evening of hits, and didn't get that.
If the situation had been reversed and people paid purposely to see Quadrophenia and got an evening of greatest hits with 3 Quadrophenia songs tagged onto the end, I'm sure some of them would walk out too.
I'm sure it could also be argued that the 'Greatest Hits' tag itself had an adverse effect on a number of sales for those shows.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 16, 2004 5:01:36 GMT
>>Yes. The core group on the Interent that bitches about the set list are only a couple of hundred people--nobody else is likely to follow the tours and to know what the standard setlist is. <<
>If that's your point of view, then logic decrees that you're under the impression that the vast majority of Who fans can't wait to shell out an ever-swelling amount of cash each tour for tickets to a show which remains exactly the same year after year after year.
If only a core group of about 100 bitches, then keets is under the impression that a vast majority of Whofans can't wait to shell out...
I dunno. Doesn't read quite right. Regardless of the logic, however, the trend you describe has been happening to an extent.
Roger apparently jump-started The Who in 1994 with the DST tour, which was considered a financial disaster. The QUAD tour took two years to make back the start-up costs, but the turn-out was enough to encourage the current round of Who activity. It appears that ticket sales and ticket costs have both increased with each tour.
The show is not always the same, however. Even the greatest hits show has an element that changes from tour to tour, and often from show to show. Since 1989 the changes in the tours have been radical. Compare 1989 with DST with QUAD with the 2000 (Lifehouse) tour, with 2002 (John's gone!). It's actually been something of a rollercoaster ride.
>I just praise the Lord I'm not that docile. Your justification fits well enough when applied to the casual fan who just knows a few songs from the radio, but not so well when applied to the fans who see every tour.
See above. The tours have varied considerably in the last fifteen years.
Do you mean how many fans see every show? I know there's a core group that follows the tours, but certainly it's not 20K people. Again, more like a hundred.
>>I agree with the band that they HAVE to play the big hits. There are also fans that are fixated on particular periods of The Who's career that have to be satisfied. If they drop "I Can't Explain," then the sixties fans will complain, and if they drop "You Better, You Bet" then the eighties fans will complain.<<
>No, the point here is that those tracks can be replaced with alternate 60's/80's/whatever tracks. Thus the various fans of the eras will most likely be pleasantly suprised at hearing something different from their favourite period. Yes, it's expected that they will play some hits, but there's no need whatsoever for the setlist to permanently mirror a greatest hits album.
Maybe. I think fans are attached to particular songs. I personally like to hear the odd ones, but sometimes they don't work particularly well, and they're gone right away. You're just lucky to catch them. If they work well, then they seem to last for the duration of the tour, and I've rediscovered some from hearing them live: "Relay," "Bargain," "Another Tricky Day."
I also really enjoy the jams, which you're not considering as variety at all.
>>I hung around the Aerosmith lists for a while after the Yokohama date, and they were bitching about the setlist.<<
>Is there anywhere online where I can view Aerosmiths setlists for the last few tours, and for the last 20 or so years? I'm sure if there is I'll find that they haven't been touting the same 25 or so songs for almost 3 decades.
I'm not a huge Aerosmith fan so I don't know. The fans were certainly pi**ing and moaning about the lack of variety, though. Same problem. If the audience doesn't hear "Dream On" they're gonna complain.
>I'm sure it could also be argued that the 'Greatest Hits' tag itself had an adverse effect on a number of sales for those shows.
I'm sure you could argue that, but I don't see it happening yet. This has been an awful year for the summer concert season, and The Who have done reasonably well. The only US show I made (MSG) was pretty well packed, plus I gather that Shoreline and HB were sold out, too.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 16, 2004 6:13:48 GMT
>>Roger apparently jump-started The Who in 1994 with the DST tour, which was considered a financial disaster. The QUAD tour took two years to make back the start-up costs, but the turn-out was enough to encourage the current round of Who activity. It appears that ticket sales and ticket costs have both increased with each tour<<
Not quite true. The tour before this current jaunt had plenty of empty seats and unsold tickets. Obviously the opposite is the case with the current tour as they've either never played these countries or haven't played them since the 60s'.
>>The show is not always the same, however. Even the greatest hits show has an element that changes from tour to tour, and often from show to show. Since 1989 the changes in the tours have been radical. Compare 1989 with DST with QUAD with the 2000 (Lifehouse) tour, with 2002 (John's gone!). It's actually been something of a rollercoaster ride<<
DST is not The Who. Quadrophenia was one tour. The 'Lifehouse Tour'? Don't make me laugh. The band chuck a couple of Who's Next tracks into the set and it becomes 'The Lifehouse Tour'? It was the usual greatest hits with a couple of new additions, hardly a rollercoaster ride.
>I just praise the Lord I'm not that docile. Your justification fits well enough when applied to the casual fan who just knows a few songs from the radio, but not so well when applied to the fans who see every tour.
See above. The tours have varied considerably in the last fifteen years. <<
See above. The ONLY way you can justify any 'considerable variation' is to factor Quadrophenia and the 1989 Tommy gigs into the equation - both of which were exceptions to the norm. Every other tour after Quad, and every tour before the '89 Tommy was top heavy with greatest hits. If you could dissect each gig played gig between 1989 and 2004, and count the exact amount of times each track was played,you'd be left with greatest hits topping that list by a mile.
>>Do you mean how many fans see every show? I know there's a core group that follows the tours, but certainly it's not 20K people. Again, more like a hundred<<.
Now you're assuming that only 100 people in whichever country the band are playing will follow each tour?! Don't confuse Internet demographics with the real world
I'm not talking about the fanatics that travel the globe following the band to every venue, I'm talking about people who will see the band just once or maybe twice per tour.
|
|
|
Post by Ralf on Aug 16, 2004 7:17:29 GMT
>If that's your point of view, then logic decrees that you're under the impression that the vast majority of Who fans can't wait to shell out an ever-swelling amount of cash each tour for tickets to a show which remains exactly the same year after year after year. <
But you surely forget that most of us outside the US would indeed be glad to see ANY Who show, no matter what setlist - I live in Germany - last time they played here was in 96 - that's 18 years, man. Now be honest: if you were in my place, wouldn't you be more than happy to see the band, whatever setlist they have? You see things very strictly from your own personal point and it seems you see the band on each tour and even more than once per tour. Surely I understand the setlist problem from your point, but I would say the vast majority of fans is in a position like me, i.e. we haven't seen the band live for years on end. So it strongly depends on how many shows somebody has the opportunity to see. BUT don't misunderstand me: of course, there are two sides to this: as far as CDs are concerned, we all have the same problem and I agree absolutely with you there: dozens of CDs with the same setlist.............
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 16, 2004 7:57:33 GMT
But you surely forget that most of us outside the US would indeed be glad to see ANY Who show, no matter what setlist - I live in Germany - last time they played here was in 96 - that's 18 years, man. Now be honest: if you were in my place, wouldn't you be more than happy to see the band, whatever setlist they have? You see things very strictly from your own personal point and it seems you see the band on each tour and even more than once per tour. . Last time The Who played in my corner of the world was.........never. If I wanna see the band play live, I have to fly to England. There's nothing stopping you doing the same. And I bet when you saw them in '96 you didn't have to pay over £500 for flights and accomodation. See, you've got it better than me and don't even realise because you're too busy making assumptions. I don't see them on each tour, or more than once on each tour. You say I'm looking at things from a personal point of view, but you're wrong. Infact the opposite is true. If I only gave a f**k about my own experience I wouldn't bother ranting at you about it. In all honesty, I could quite happily never see another Who gig again if it's 'greatest hits' - and that isn't just linked to the current line-up. I started feeling that way having seen my third 'greatest hits' set when John was still with us. I simply think that The Who are letting their fans down through nothing but sheer laziness, that's why I get so frustrated and annoyed with the setlists. And I get even more frustrated and annoyed when people defend the band for having such a third-rate attitude concerning this issue. Look, here's a smiley-man-thingy to show just how annoyed and frustrated I get. And I really do look like this when that situation arises!
|
|
|
Post by Ralf on Aug 16, 2004 8:57:30 GMT
Yes, but you never read my mail to the end: Basically I agree with you on the setlist problem from a collector's point of view, and from a non-concertgoer's (for lack of possibility) point of view - I am disappointed and annoyed, too. Still if there WERE a concert here in Germany, I'd be there, no matter what setlist. You wouldn't - o.K. And as to flying over to London for a concert: That's for people who have a lot of money, I definitely couldn't afford that.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 16, 2004 10:09:51 GMT
I did read it to the end, as my reply shows. The only part I didn't address was CD tracklists, which wasn't relevant to the argument....and that was the bit where you agreed with me!
You may not be able to afford to fly to England to see The Who, but there are always times when The Who will come to you. I don't have that luxury.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 16, 2004 11:37:10 GMT
Oh, really? Do you mind telling me why you think so? This is generally considered an upbeat song about enjoying life. Where do you see the suicide references?
"If anyone wants to know how sarcastic Townshend could be, they only needed to hear "They Are All In Love" and "Blue Red And Grey", in which Townshend tortures himself and everything he loves until it bleeds". "Before I Get Old", page 465
"Pete: "Glyn Johns wanted it on the album. I cringed when he picked it. He heard it on a cassette and said, 'What's that?' I said, 'Nothing.' He said, 'No. Play it.' I said, 'Really, it's nothing. Just me playing a ukulele.' But he insisted on doing it. I said, 'What? That f**king thing? Here's me wanting to commit suicide and you're going to put that thing on the record?'" linernotes "By Numbers"
I never considered "Blue Red And Grey" a happy song. People who are really suicidal never talk about their problems and try to fool people by telling them how great they feel - in fact they feel terrible. The people who are telling everybody they want to commit suicide are the ones who will never do so. "I like every minute of the day" --> very sarcastic!
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 16, 2004 21:32:53 GMT
>Last time The Who played in my corner of the world was.........never. If I wanna see the band play live, I have to fly to England. There's nothing stopping you doing the same. And I bet when you saw them in '96 you didn't have to pay over £500 for flights and accomodation. See, you've got it better than me and don't even realise because you're too busy making assumptions.
>I don't see them on each tour, or more than once on each tour.
If you see them once per tour, then you only hear the setlist one time. So when you complain about the setlist, you're complaining about what? It's been too similar for your taste for the last three tours? Or is it the similarity of the Encore disks?
I'm in the US, but they'll never play in my town. I generally average at least $500 to see a show, including ticket, travel and accomodations.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 16, 2004 21:41:56 GMT
"If anyone wants to know how sarcastic Townshend could be, they only needed to hear "They Are All In Love" and "Blue Red And Grey", in which Townshend tortures himself and everything he loves until it bleeds". "Before I Get Old", page 465
"Pete: "Glyn Johns wanted it on the album. I cringed when he picked it. He heard it on a cassette and said, 'What's that?' I said, 'Nothing.' He said, 'No. Play it.' I said, 'Really, it's nothing. Just me playing a ukulele.' But he insisted on doing it. I said, 'What? That f**king thing? Here's me wanting to commit suicide and you're going to put that thing on the record?'" linernotes "By Numbers"
I never considered "Blue Red And Grey" a happy song. People who are really suicidal never talk about their problems and try to fool people by telling them how great they feel - in fact they feel terrible. The people who are telling everybody they want to commit suicide are the ones who will never do so. "I like every minute of the day" --> very sarcastic! I looked again, and I don't see it. If Pete was feeling suicidal and sarcastic, it doesn't show here. I can't hear it in his expression when he sings the song, either, which would have changed the meaning. I think it'll just have to stand as an upbeat little song about enjoying the world. Some people seem so obsessed with the morning Get up early just to watch the sun rise Some people like it more when there's fire in the sky Worship the sun when it's high Some people go for those sultry evenings Sipping cocktails in the blue, red and grey But I like every minute of the day I like every second, so long as you are on my mind Every moment has its special charm It's all right when you're around, rain or shine I know a crowd who only live after midnight Their faces always seem so pale And then there's friends of mine who must have sunlight They say a suntan never fails I know a man who works the night shift He's lucky to get a job and some pay And I like every minute of the day I dig every second I can laugh in the snow and rain I get a buzz from being cold and wet The pleasure seems to balance out the pain And so you see that I'm completely crazy I even shun the south of France The people on the hill, they say I'm lazy But when they sleep, I sing and dance Some people have to have the sultry evenings Cocktails in the blue, red and grey But I like every minute of the day I like every minute of the day
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 17, 2004 3:03:39 GMT
> If you see them once per tour, then you only hear the setlist one time. So when you complain about the setlist, you're complaining about what? It's been too similar for your taste for the last three tours? Or is it the similarity of the Encore disks? What am I complaining about? Take the time to actually read my last-but-one post. You'll find I made my reason for complaint more than clear in the final half. The Encore discs? When did they come into this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by finky on Aug 17, 2004 3:14:11 GMT
hmmm I never thought of it as a suicidal song. if there is sarcasm in the lyrics its possible that it was directed at people that think their concepts of what is pleasurable is more valid or worthwhile than anyone elses
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 17, 2004 3:34:16 GMT
>I simply think that The Who are letting their fans down through nothing but sheer laziness, that's why I get so frustrated and annoyed with the setlists. And I get even more frustrated and annoyed when people defend the band for having such a third-rate attitude concerning this issue.
Do you mean this?
Remember that they're busy people and they have plenty of other things to do besides play music concerts. I don't think you can realistically complain about their laziness.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 17, 2004 3:57:02 GMT
>Not quite true. The tour before this current jaunt had plenty of empty seats and unsold tickets. Obviously the opposite is the case with the current tour as they've either never played these countries or haven't played them since the 60s'. The 2002 tour? I actually made about five or six of the US shows on that tour, and I didn't see many empty seats at all. There was stiff competition for tickets at ticket outlets. It was well supported by the US fans. These were fairly large venues, too, running in the 10-20K seat range. The current tour has not been quite so well supported because of the circumstances. Mansfield MA had three weeks notice and had empty seats. MSG was full, and Shoreline and Hollywood Bowl were, too. Again, good support from the US, historically The Who's major fan base. The Pacific tour played in much smaller venues, making one suspect this was actually a vacation, and that they played a few gigs along the way so it would be tax deductible. >DST is not The Who. There was only one man difference between that and the 2000 tour. >Quadrophenia was one tour. The 'Lifehouse Tour'? Don't make me laugh. The band chuck a couple of Who's Next tracks into the set and it becomes 'The Lifehouse Tour'? It was the usual greatest hits with a couple of new additions, hardly a rollercoaster ride. Various fans noticed the emphasis on Who's Next in the set list, and also noted that Pete had just released his LIFEHOUSE CHRONICLES. It's possible he intended the tour to support that release. >>See above. The tours have varied considerably in the last fifteen years. << >See above. The ONLY way you can justify any 'considerable variation' is to factor Quadrophenia and the 1989 Tommy gigs into the equation - both of which were exceptions to the norm. Every other tour after Quad, and every tour before the '89 Tommy was top heavy with greatest hits. If you could dissect each gig played gig between 1989 and 2004, and count the exact amount of times each track was played,you'd be left with greatest hits topping that list by a mile. If you're going back before 1989, then when are you starting? You can't really count the days before they had any Greatest Hits. 1989 was their first big post-retirement tour, so I started counting from then. What songs do you consider "greatest hits" anyway? >>Do you mean how many fans see every show? I know there's a core group that follows the tours, but certainly it's not 20K people. Again, more like a hundred<<. >Now you're assuming that only 100 people in whichever country the band are playing will follow each tour?! Don't confuse Internet demographics with the real world I'm not. There really is a core groups of fans who follow the tours and try really hard to get front row tickets at each show. Some even fly across the Atlantic for the UK gigs. There's another group that always makes it to a few shows, like I did in 2000/2002. >I'm not talking about the fanatics that travel the globe following the band to every venue, I'm talking about people who will see the band just once or maybe twice per tour. And you think the tours are too similar for these fans? I dunno. The greatest hits are there, I agree, but I definitely see a change in the emphasis. As I said, the 2000 tour seemed to support Lifehouse Chronicles. This 2004 tour has supported Then and Now, including the new songs. From reports about the rehearsals, the 2002 tour was aimed at some of the later albums, including Who By Numbers, Face Dances and It's Hard, but they dropped most of the songs after John died.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 17, 2004 4:18:51 GMT
Here's the 2000 Tour standard setlist:
I Can't Explain, Substitute, Anyway Anyhow Anywhere, I Don't Know Myself, My Wife, Baba O'Riley, The Seeker, Bargain, Getting In Tune, I'm One, Pinball Wizard, The Real Me, Magic Bus, Behind Blue Eyes, You Better You Bet, Who Are You, 5:15, Won't Get Fooled Again, The Kids Are Alright, Let's See Action, My Generation.
During the UK warmups, they also did "Pure and Easy."
These are the ones from Lifehouse Chronicles:
Pure and Easy I Don't Know Myself Baba O'Riley Bargain The Relay Getting In Tune Behind Blue Eyes Who Are You Let's See Action Won't Get Fooled Again
That's about half, which is what made some fans suspicious that it was a Lifehouse tour.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 17, 2004 5:18:45 GMT
. During the UK warmups, they also did "Pure and Easy." These are the ones from Lifehouse Chronicles: Pure and Easy I Don't Know Myself Baba O'Riley Bargain The Relay Getting In Tune Behind Blue Eyes Who Are You Let's See Action Won't Get Fooled Again That's about half, which is what made some fans suspicious that it was a Lifehouse tour. From that list you can remove Won't Get Fooled Again, Who Are You, Behind Blue Eyes and Baba O'Riley as they are setlist regulars. You're now left with 5 Lifehouse tracks. With those tracks outnumbered by 15 or so 'Greatest Hits', that looks to me like a 'Greatest Hits' tour. You're only fooling yourself if you consider that a 'Lifehouse Tour' I'm sure on occasion the band have played an equal amount of Tommy tracks. Did that make those shows part of a 'Tommy' tour? No. There are 3 tracks on that 2000 list from the My Generation era. Using your logic that means those shows were OVER half way to being the 'My Generation' tour! Listen to yourself. A handful of non-greatest hits tracks get placed on a greatest hits setlist, and suddenly that tour 'becomes' something else altogether? Why are you thinking like that? Because you're so used to seeing the same old stuff on those lists that a minor deviation seems to be a major change...thus proving my point! To call it a 'Lifehouse Tour' is a reflection of wishful thinking, nothing more. I for one believe the band made a hugely wrong choice not to tour Lifehouse at that time. It worked incredibly well at the PT lifehouse shows, taken on the road with The Who, it would have been a truly classic and memorable concert experience.....but no.....we got greatest hits with a handful of Lifehouse era tracks. Admittedly, it was a wonderfully refreshing change, but not enough of a change. In 2000 the band took the easy option, and that missed opportunity, though providing us with an unquestionably excellent batch of shows, deprived us of what would have been an even better batch of shows....and one that may have even served to finally pull the band's mindset out of the 'greatest hits' rut. Still, as long as you're happy that you got yet another Who's Better Whos Best clone of a show, that's the main thing.
|
|
|
Post by BillyBill on Aug 17, 2004 7:07:44 GMT
Sorry, but these posts are just coming off as the rants of someone who can't be pleased. To me the fact that Pete was playing electric guitar for the whole show, and was the only guitarist in a stripped down five piece band, DID make the 2000 shows extremely memorable. For the first time in many many years, it actually felt like The Who. But no, it's not enough. "It could have been BETTER!" Most everything in life COULD be better.
Really, what would it take for you to be satisfied? Because I can't see it ever happening... A completely new set of rare or unplayed songs with just Pete (playing Gibsons through Hiwatts), Roger, Zak, and another bass player? That will never happen. And you know it will never happen, which is why I don't see the point of complaining about this stuff...just deal with it.
I know you're gonna turn this around into some "More like YOU..." or "Listen to what you are saying..." or whatever the things are that you do. But geez, you need to stop acting like anyone who doesn't get as angry about this as you do isn't as smart as you or is some mindless drone...maybe different things make different people happy or they have more important things in their life.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 17, 2004 10:38:05 GMT
Sorry, but these posts are just coming off as the rants of someone who can't be pleased. To me the fact that Pete was playing electric guitar for the whole show, and was the only guitarist in a stripped down five piece band, DID make the 2000 shows extremely memorable. For the first time in many many years, it actually felt like The Who. But no, it's not enough. "It could have been BETTER!" Most everything in life COULD be better. Really, what would it take for you to be satisfied? Because I can't see it ever happening... A completely new set of rare or unplayed songs with just Pete (playing Gibsons through Hiwatts), Roger, Zak, and another bass player? That will never happen. And you know it will never happen, which is why I don't see the point of complaining about this stuff...just deal with it. I know you're gonna turn this around into some "More like YOU..." or "Listen to what you are saying..." or whatever the things are that you do. But geez, you need to stop acting like anyone who doesn't get as angry about this as you do isn't as smart as you or is some mindless drone...maybe different things make different people happy or they have more important things in their life. Calm down Billy. The fact is The Who (at that time) COULD have taken a better show to the stage in 2000. Yes, as I said myself earlier, what we got WAS excellent, but we all know The Who were capable of more. It's like that old 'motivational trick'. Mr Motivation Guru says says "Stand up straight. Now stretch, reach as HIGH as you CAN, really try to touch the sun with your fingertips". So everybody stretchs and strains, fingertips attempting to spear the heavens. Then Mr Guru says "Is that really the best you can do, the furthest you can reach?". Pained grunts of agreement all around...until Mr Guru says "Ok then, do it again, this time on tip toe". And with the consumate ease, everyone does it again and achieves an extra 3, 4 or 5 inches in reach. The Who at those shows in 2000 were giving it all....but not on tip toe. Most everything in life COULD be better? Yes and no. Life could be better maybe if that guy over there had more hair - ain't gonna happen. Life could be better maybe if that girl in the corner was born taller - ain't gonna happen. Life could be better if the illiterate kid stuck on the factory production line could be the Managing Director - ain't gonna happen. You see Billy, that's the difference. The 2000 shows COULD have been better because The Who COULD play/perform better. It was a situation which could have been improved in a number of ways, unlike a million and one other aspects of life which "could be better" but never will. Stop toying with words and attempt to put forth a realistic argument next time. You accuse me of writing posts that come off as the rants of someone who cant be pleased. That's a rather foolish comment. Have you been following the discussion? I think not, as you've ignored every point I've put forward (valid or invalid), in favour of arguing with me seemingly on the basis of disliking my attitude. Now maybe if you'd like to counter, analyse or agree with some of the issues so far raised in the discussion, we can carry on.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 17, 2004 11:19:02 GMT
Calm down Billy. The fact is The Who (at that time) COULD have taken a better show to the stage in 2000. Yes, as I said myself earlier, what we got WAS excellent, but we all know The Who were capable of more. It's like that old 'motivational trick'. Mr Motivation Guru says says "Stand up straight. Now stretch, reach as HIGH as you CAN, really try to touch the sun with your fingertips". They're retired, for God's sake. Be happy they're playing at all.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Aug 17, 2004 11:22:11 GMT
>From that list you can remove Won't Get Fooled Again, Who Are You, Behind Blue Eyes and Baba O'Riley as they are setlist regulars.
>You're now left with 5 Lifehouse tracks. With those tracks outnumbered by 15 or so 'Greatest Hits', that looks to me like a 'Greatest Hits' tour.
Actually, I wasn't the one who identifed this. There were several fans on various lists that named it the Lifehouse tour.
I'm not going to remove these songs from consideration because they're regulars. They're on Pete's LC, so he's only taken advantage of the geatest hits in setting up his setlist to support the album. It still stands at about half.
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Aug 17, 2004 18:19:15 GMT
They're retired, for God's sake. Be happy they're playing at all. That's an idiotic statement on two levels: Firstly, we're talking about the band in 2000. Secondly, 'retired' is defined as meaning "Withdrawn from one's occupation, business, or office; having finished one's active working life". I'll let you figure out why you've used that word incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by BillyBill on Aug 17, 2004 18:25:27 GMT
Calm down Billy. The fact is The Who (at that time) COULD have taken a better show to the stage in 2000. They also could have just stayed home. But instead they did what were (IMO) the best Who concerts since '79. That, to me, is enough. To me it's a bit like turning down a perfectly good Les Paul because it's the wrong color... Sure they are capable of a little bit more, but I don't think on that particular tour that it's fair to expect them to do more than what they did. Three nearly 60 year old guys playing the way they did...I think they already did far more than anyone had a right to expect. I'm not saying that a Lifehouse tour wouldn't have been great, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that. What I'm saying is that, for ME, what they did was enough. I do agree that NOW they should mix it up a bit more. There's been three tours in the past four years and everyone's had a chance to hear the hits by now. (however I reserve the right to go see a show of the same set if I choose to do so) But in 2000 I think a greatest hits tour was the right thing to do. I wasn't talking about things we don't have control over. What I was getting at was (and this will annoy you I'm sure) basically a variation on "just be happy with what you have". Like I said about the Les Paul earlier..."yeah, this is good...but I want more!" I don't know...make a list of the things it would take at a Who show to make you satisfied. Yes I have been following it and have been biting my tongue (or fingers or whatever) for a while because I know what it's like to get into these things with you...also, because I've been trying to stay out of it for so long is the reason that when I finally did post something it came off a bit abrasive. I'm sorry about that. I didn't ingore every point you made, I either disagreed with them or I agreed with them...either way I saw no reason to address every one in my post. I see your point on just about everything and understand where you're coming from, I just don't always agree with it. I just wish you would do the same. it just bothers me having my (or seeing other people's) opinion's or statements called "foolish" or "idiotic". I'm perfectly fine with having a "discussion". That's what I'm here for. But these normally always turn into "arguments", and I'm not interested in that.
|
|