Chad Gracey thinks a 17 song setlist is 'a lot' Options

[dangum]

During the first leg of the Live / Bush #Alti-mate tour where Live was playing the same 14 track setlist night after night, a fan asked Chad Gracey on his Instagram page how many songs Live would be playing on their European tour.

Chad replied with "a lot"



Now, that the European tour is over we finally know what 'a lot' means to Chad.

'A lot' is 17 songs. That was the greatest number of tracks performed on their 8 show tour.

Live played as few as 14 songs on the Euro tour (same as their co-headlining US tour), while the average for their solo shows was 16.

Do you think a headlining act touring a country where the biggest fans exist should play such a limited number of songs?

Is 95 minutes enough?

In my opinion the answer is a resounding "No" for both.

Live did try to mix things up a little - for example Overcome (full band and Ed solo), They Stood Up for Love were added. Shit Towne got an extended guitar solo from Chad Taylor. Ed venturing out into the crowd was cool... but Live needs to do more.

[Wambangalang]

I don't know. I'm 35 and my endurance is pretty shitty. I work out and work on my feet all day, but when I'm rocking out to Live's music (yes I still throw myself around my house listening to live for shame) I probably last an hour until I crash. Couldn't imagine what I'll be like at 50. Playing in a rock band with the intensity that these guys bring looks hard.


With that said, they seem to have gone back into the meth mode that was evident during the Live at Paradiso era, where all the songs were played faster than the original album versions so they could apparently squeeze more content into a set. That can't be easy on the nerves. Plus it sounds shitter. Slow down guys. The songs sound better the way they were originally intended. I hate to propose to tell Live what they should do because I was thrilled with my concert experience last year, but it's the one gripe I have. Either way rock on guys most bands of your era have become the memory that dies.

[san_sao]

I don't know. I'm 35 and my endurance is pretty shitty. I work out and work on my feet all day, but when I'm rocking out to Live's music (yes I still throw myself around my house listening to live for shame) I probably last an hour until I crash. Couldn't imagine what I'll be like at 50. Playing in a rock band with the intensity that these guys bring looks hard.

I'm 42, and I prefer shows to run a little closer to two hours, but 90 minutes and 17 songs would still be good by me. I guess it's a "mileage may vary" thing. I prolly have more energy now than I did in my 30s.

With that said, they seem to have gone back into the meth mode that was evident during the Live at Paradiso era, where all the songs were played faster

I think speeding up some songs would work, e.g. - Stage, Heropsychodreamer, PLOTR...

[jcs420x365]

I'm 42, and I prefer shows to run a little closer to two hours, but 90 minutes and 17 songs would still be good by me. I guess it's a "mileage may vary" thing. I prolly have more energy now than I did in my 30s.
I think speeding up some songs would work, e.g. - Stage, Heropsychodreamer, PLOTR...

90 minutes would be great if there was a little more setlist variety. Too short if they are wedded to playing all or most of the hits.

Could be worse also - I can think of a few bands from the 90s off the top of my head (blink-182, Offspring) that have been around for 25 years and are still topping out at 75 minutes (and doing relatively few deep cuts).

Oh, and having video is a bs excuse for not switching the set more - a lot of the stuff at ALTimate tour was basic screensaver stuff.

This post has been edited by jcs420x365: Jul 20 2019, 10:48 am

[Voodoo Lady]

Oh, and having video is a bs excuse for not switching the set more - a lot of the stuff at ALTimate tour was basic screensaver stuff.

Not doubting that. Thanks. I haven’t seen it yet.

[Bob]

I'm mixed on this topic, as IMO, 17 songs isn't a lot. I'm 44 and a drummer that's been in bands for 24 years, and I'd play longer than that if I had the material. There's nothing wrong with 2 sets and an encore that's a total of 25 songs with the catalog that Live has. Take a break, switch the stage up and do an acoustic set, then come back out and rock the encore so I leave with ringing ears and a smile on my face. Most cover bands in the Seattle area play 2+ hours and take breaks between sets.

I did some research on a few other bands currently playing and Weird Al is doing ~22 songs on his tour, Dream Theater is playing less songs (10), but their runtime is longer (~81 minutes), and my wife saw Garth Brooks a few weeks ago and he played 30 songs. I realize these bands aren't apples to apples, but they're all older, with more material, and they're still managing a longer play time.

In the end though, it doesn't really matter, because you know that Live isn't going to change, no matter how loud we scream on a forum, and the casuals (like my wife who just wanted to see Ed again) that are going to the shows *are* happy. These days the casuals also make up the bulk of the crowds, so if they're still coming out and filling seats, there's not much we can do.

Between the sub-par quality of material on Local 717 and the less than stellar setlists since the band re-formed, being a Live fan is hard these days. I've been trying to figure out what keeps me around, and I think I've got it: guilt after being an unwavering fan since I first heard them in 1996, and CG is why I became a drummer in the first place. However, I'm betting if I had a therapist, they'd tell me to get over it and enjoy the music that I like, but it's OK to move on. Easier said than done.

That said, I am currently enjoying The Turn, despite Live's best efforts to remove it from their history. It's a fantastic album, and I often wonder what would have happened if we turned back the clock and CCP made it a TGF album instead. It would have been a win-win for the fans and Live. They get to keep making records with awesome guest musicians and we get new music, but the Live moniker is saved for if Ed ever came back. If not, they stay as TGF and release albums and tour when they want to. I realize TGF only sold 20,000 albums, but we all know it's the tours that make money anyway, so maybe that wasn't a bad deal in the end. Set up tours with other bands (it's not like they don't have connections) and everyone has a good time.

In other music news, I'm also listening to Steven Wilson's newest album called To The Bone. He's the singer/guitarist from Porcupine Tree. He has a guest vocalist named Ninet Tayeb that's got an amazing voice. Look up Pariah on YouTube if you're curious. I always get chills at 3:15 after that buildup. Maybe you will too.

Sorry for the rant. I've been sitting on that for a while now and was trying to figure out how to put it into words.

This post has been edited by Bob: Jul 21 2019, 10:07 pm

[jcs420x365]

I did some research on a few other bands currently playing and Weird Al is doing ~22 songs on his tour, Dream Theater is playing less songs (10), but their runtime is longer (~81 minutes), and my wife saw Garth Brooks a few weeks ago and he played 30 songs. I realize these bands aren't apples to apples, but they're all older, with more material, and they're still managing a longer play time.

Please allow me to nerd out in a similar manner for a minute: checked my records and Springsteen's average set time on his last tour in 2016 was 3h27m over 75 shows (with no set breaks!). They played 144 songs on the tour (113 twice or more), no small feat given that the first 21 songs of the set were identical for the first 35 shows or so. He would have been 67 that year and longest show was 4h5m!