Sorry if this is a repeat discussion....I couldn't find it elsewhere.....and have this this topic on other sites........

Should artists be required to play all of their big hits live (for casual fans)...or are you fine with them playing whatever they want? My opinion is the latter.

Last night, I saw Crosby Stills & Nash....and they ended up not playing "Teach Your Children"....I overheard grumblings about it while walking out. Last year, I saw Ray Davies in Milwaukee where he didn't play "Lola"....and there was a guy after the show (who probably drank one too many) who was visibly upset and was yelling out at the stage (after Ray and band left) that it was total bulls*it not hearing "Lola" and he felt ripped off. On the other hand, I see Ray sort of frequently, and don't mind when he gives "Lola" or "Celluloid Heroes" or other standards the night off (I saw him 5 times that tour, and "Lola" ws missing from 3 of the shows).

I've heard artists on both ends of it. On one side, Paul McCartney has said in an interview (which I can't locate) that he goes into each show with the mindset of most fans seeing him for the 1st and only time and has to think about playing every big hit they would want to hear. On the other side was the Grateful Dead who just played what they wanted and a different setlist every night.....even once they had their big breakthrough mainstream single (that ruined the GD scene) "Touch Of Gray", many new jumpers on would go to a GD show and not necessarily get to see it played that night. I once heard a new-comer complain back then the Touch Of Gray and Truckin should be played every single night....and he got laughed off.....Deadheads may me a unique fanbase compared to most though. I guess the other end would be some of Bob Dylan's born-again tours where he only played stuff from those albums and nothing else.

So again......
When you go to a concert....do you expect a greatest hits show and the big songs.....or do you think an artist/band should play what they feel like playing? Does whether you see an act multiple times (you're a big fan) or only once change your expectations?

They should play a few, but they shouldn't have to play all.

Dom Irrera (comedian) discusses that in the documentary "Heckler". How it's a lose/lose situation for comedians. You're a hack if you do your famous bits in every set but, if you don't do them, you're letting down fans that came specifically for those bits.

You don't want to be an oldies band, but that's what a lot of the people are there to see.

The irony of Garden Party is that Ricky Nelson went back to being an oldies act.

Arlo Guthrie says 'no'

Tell him to stay out of New Orleans.

And Kankakee.

I think the artist should largely be in control of what they play, however, I also think that there should be truth in advertising. With someone like Van Morrison, you know that you're going to hear only what he wants to play. Other artists though who typically bring the hits shouldn't do a complete 180 without at least warning their fans. I like the movement recently by some artists to play entire albums or something like that, in which case they typically advertise the show as such. As long as the audience has a rough idea of what they're paying for, particularly with today's ticket prices, the artist should have control.

It's funny--I bought tickets back in February to see Eddie Vedder in December, and about ten minutes ago my wife just asked me if I wanted to borrow her copy of Eddie's solo ukelele CD to "prepare" for the show.

I'm two-faced about it. If I like an artist's most recent album, then I'd want to hear the new stuff, but if thought that album sucked, I'd probably be bored by a setllist heavy with new material.

Of course, as I think about it, there is a definite trade-off. I just counted--I have roughly sixteen different versions of Pete Townshend playing "Pinball Wizard" for an audience, which doesn't make for very interesting at-home listening--but being at a show and watching Pete play the intro to that song in person is certainly a "bucket list" items.

What I really like is when an artist pulls out something from that back catalog that I wasn't expecting--that's the sort of thing that tends to lodge in my long-term memory about a particular show. I saw Springsteen back in 1992, and the song that sticks out in my memory was "Trapped". So although I don't go to many concerts these days, I try to not go into them with too many expectations. That way, I tend to be pleasantly surprised.

I went to see The Bluetones a few years back, after hearing nothing from them for several years. I was expecting a stroll down memory lane, but I didn't recognise a single song that they played all night! Whereas I got the fact that they wanted to try out all their new material, I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one in the audience wanting to hear at least one familiar song- and I came away feeling more than a bit let down.

I saw Hall & Oates a few years ago, and they just can't.
When they tour they have to limit their shows to about 90 minutes, or Hall will wear his voice out.

Someone here mentioned seeing Huey Lewis in Vegas, and he played jazz standards or something and didn't play a single hit, and he left feeling ripped off.

To me, it depends on the artist. Some classic artists have awful newer material (like, say, Prince or Iron Maiden) and should really stick to playing the good stuff, with maybe 1-2 tracks off the new album.

When Metallica flopped with St. Anger, the entire album disappeared from the setlist mid-tour and they went back to their classic material. Luckily, they didn't have to do that with Death Magnetic. (Still, they're doing a Ride the Lightning thing now where they play that entire album, so it all depends)

It's a tradeoff. The artist doesn't want to feel like a sellout or a has-been, but the fan wants to get what they came for.

I guess the older the act, the more you want to hear the "classics". Iron Maiden really pleases their fans last night by playing many of their standards like "Run To The Hills". We saw them at MSG a few years ago and that set had more of the recent songs which disappoints people.

Probably the only group I see regularly that's been around for a long time yet still plays new material is Porcupine Tree. Somehow Steven Wilson can get away with that.

Depends on the artist and the number of hits they've had. If it's billed as a hits tour and only the hits are served up, I'm fine with that. But I can get ticked off when an artist with new music out or imminent trots out only the tried and true without performing anything new, or at most one song. (Are you listening, Stevie Nicks?)

That said, I do think artists need to deliver their best-known/signature songs unless it is made absolutely clear when advertising the tickets that the night has another purpose. There will always be people in the audience who haven't seen the artist perform those hits live and for whom those top tracks are the reason for their purchase and attendance. Even with the number of times I've seen Heart, I would be inconsolable if they did not perform "Alone" (and pretty upset if I didn't get "Crazy On You" and "Straight On," too), but I could live with a rest for any other hits; I'd rather hear the new stuff.

The maddest I have ever been following a concert was Alison Moyet's tour for "Essex" here in Atlanta in '94. I'm a huge fan, and had never had the chance to see her before that. The woman has exactly one US hit in "Invisible," and she didn't sing it in what was a nearly two-hour set. My friends and I were speechless and still refer to it the most blatant disregard for a fan base ever. I'm still pissed off about it 18 years later.

I think they should at least mix in 4-6 of their big hits, a hodgepodge of material from past albums, and their new material they're touring for. Morrissey does this perfectly, IMO. Plays a fair number of Smiths tunes, a selection of his older solo work, but showcases his new stuff.

Of course, if I went to a Stones show and they only played songs from Voodoo Lounge I'd probably be peeved.

30 years ago, when I saw The Who, they didn't play My Generation, but they were on stage for 2 hours and 40 minutes, so I didn't care.

It is their show, they should play what they want.

We saw Pat Benatar in concert when True Love came out. The first 3 or 4 blues numbers were met with polite applause. As it became clearer that she wasn't going to sing any of her hits, the boos rained down. At one point, she was literally drowned out by a chant of "REFUND!" I left early. If the show had been promoted as all blues standards, I wouldn't have had a beef, but then again I wouldn't have bought a ticket.

On the other hand, I live for those times when I see the Stones pull "Dead Flowers" or "Dance" or "Factory Girl" or "Worried About You" or "Crazy Mama" out of their catalog.

No act can be required to play a particular set list, but truth in advertising would be nice.

Wow, that blows. Pat Benatar, no hit songs? That's like a giant middle finger to the audience.

I mean, I can understand it if it were Cheap Trick and they didn't want to play The Flame, a song forced on them, but that's different.

My feelings were different in the pre-internet days, but now anyone interested in going to a show can easily find out what an artist is performing during a particular tour, so artists should be able to do whatever they want (as long as they make it clear in advance). My 26-year-old nephew recently saw Springsteen for the first time and, even though he enjoyed the show, he was disappointed that Bruce played so many new & recent songs. After 10+ years of doing all of his classics with a smattering of new songs, this was probably the wrong tour for nephew to check out. I've also heard Iron Maiden fans get upset about recent tours, as they alternate between mostly new material and recreating a classic '80s setlist. All you have to do is check their website or fan sites to find out if the current tour is for you.

R.E.M. spent years playing mostly recent songs, so fans knew they wouldn't be hearing "So. Central Rain" or "Feeling Gravity's Pull." Somehow they did pretty good for themselves without playing what the fans wanted to hear.

They still closed with "End of the World As We Know It", right?

This is a tough one for me; a lot of the bands I like (metal, mainly), have rabid fans and draw on catalogues that are 30 years or more in depth – they can’t do everything. And even if they only add one or two songs from each album to the list of hits that people first identified with, you end up guaranteeing someone isn't going to here "their" song. But on the other hand, if the artist has any sense of artistic self-worth left, they don't just want to do the nostalgia circuit greatest hits thing. Nor do I really want to go see a band on a nostalgia show - the vibe at a rock concert is off without youthful energy.

A couple of examples - I saw Green Day a couple years back, and they played absolutely everything that a casual fan would recognize, and a bunch I didn't. They also did most of the new album they were supporting. Total show length - 3 hours. They covered everything, but most acts don't have the luxury of a 3 hour show.

On the other hand, when I saw Metallica on the Death Magnetic Tour, they had dropped a lot of what I consider their "anchor" songs from the set, knocking the number of songs I've seen them do live every time I've seen them to exactly 1. But they were still working hard to appeal to new fans, and threw in some older album cuts instead of the standards. It was a show for an audience they expect to see them more than once.

Maiden got mentioned up thread, and I would like to defend them - for many people of my age, Maiden stopped being great in the early 90's, and everything after then wasn’t good. However, when I saw them on the Final Frontier, I was struck by how young the audience was, how well they knew the newer songs, and how good the music was. It wasn't My Maiden, but it was still good music. And the newer fans loved it. That's why they're a perfect band for doing the historical album / period tour thing, because they do have two different audiences that they can tour for; there’s some crossover, but fans can pick and choose if they wish. I’ve subsequently bought albums from the new period, and enjoy them. Not as much as Powerslave or Number of the Beast, but I’m not 16 any more.

I guess in the end, I expect a balance, and it depends on if the artist are touring a new album, releasing a new album because they want to do a tour, are just going out to have fun, but don’t have an album to sell, or are touring because they can’t afford not to, but haven’t done viable new material in a long time.

If a headlining show is 2 hours, and there’s a new album involved, I would say 30-45 minutes should be from that album, 30 minutes should be their greatest hits, and the rest should be what the artist wants to play – deep album cuts, covers, other greatest hits, etc. If the band isn’t going to follow that breakdown, there probably needs to be advance warning.

With very few exceptions, I think leaving the greatest hits out just to seem artistically relevant is doing a disservice to your fans, and if you’re not Neil Young, David Bowie or the Grateful Dead, you are going to alienate a lot of people. Very, very few artists can get away with it.

Jason

Even Bowie, if he played all Earthling or something, I think I'd be pissed.

Interesting conversation. For me, I never go to a band expecting to hear "certain" songs. I expect to, but I don't have a "they better play x" mentality. I'm more interested in what the band thinks is a great 90-120 minutes of music that hangs together as a show. For bands I see all the time, I always enjoy the more random songs more than the big hits, because it's more unique, and I've already had a great moment with the more famous songs. That said, I just saw Squeeze for the first time in like 25 years, and it was 90 minutes of non-stop, full-on hits, and I had a hilariously good time knowing every song like the back of my hand.