Should Live Call It Quits?, Is it time? Options

[Hoodstock]

I am a huge Live fan. I have enjoyed every CD (except V, which I can't even listen to except for Simple Creed) but I'm finding that the band has lost originality. I tried making a CD of my favorite songs recently and had trouble placing songs in order since every song is about love or includes water in it in some way. I miss the fun songs like Waitress and Shit Towne, they are lacking from newer live CD's. Instead we get songs that include earth elements, are about love over and over again, and sorry attempts to protest the war in some way. I would appreciate a new live CD that did not include songs about love, and had nothing to do with water (streams, rivers, ect.) or the sun, and did not mention the war (those songs especially never even seem to be very good at all) (p.s. I am not stating this as any type of comment on the war). Unless Ed can come up with lyrics on original topics that are radio worthy in the U.S., or that make me want to turn up Live and rock my speakers again , maybe live should hang up their hat and do greatest hits tours ever so often.

The newer Live seems stale and old before I even replay the CD.

[edstipe]

They have mixed up their sets quite a bit during this past tour. I don't think that setlist argument holds much merit anymore. The biggest problem is that they have toured non-stop for over a year, and the law of diminishing returns(as you said) is begining to take effect. You can't play the same area multiple times a year and have the fans as excited as they were for the first show. They need time off(not 5-6 years) but maybe 1-2 to figure out their direction. Taking off until you are 40 years old is never a good move.

You clearly have no idea what it means to mix up a setlist. During this last tour, Live played a grand total of 30 different songs during the entire tour. That basically meant playing almost the exact same set every night, but exchanging Simple Creed/Rattlesnake from time to time, plus a few extra songs that were played during the Amsterdam show. That's it. Mixing up the order of songs does not qualify as mixing up a setlist; in fact, it only makes it seem like a deceitful attempt to APPEAR to be shaking things up without really doing so. The same could be said for Ed's claim to have "burned the selist," then going out and playing the exact same songs they had played during the entire tour.

I hate to bring up Pearl Jam again and again, but I'll use them as an example of what it means to shake up a setlist. During their recent tour, they did a three-consecutive-night stint in San Francisco. During those three shows, they played three COMPLETELY different setlists, with at least 50 different songs played over the three shows. It's a normal thing for them, and it keeps fans interested in the show and willing (and anxious!) to go to all three nights. I'm not expecting Live to do the same thing, because I realize that Pearl Jam is very unique in their willingness to play such a wide variety of their songs. But surely if Pearl Jam can play over 50 different songs in three nights, Live can play at least 40 over the course of an entire tour, don't you think? I'll tell you this -- even when PJ fans have been down on their albums, their message boards and performances have throbbed with excitement, just because there has been so much to discuss in terms of what new "rarities" they are pulling out, different takes they are putting on old songs, etc. That's what it takes to build and maintain a solid fan base. Live needs to get a clue and see that it takes much more than switching around a few songs to keep fan excitement up.

This post has been edited by edstipe: Oct 9 2006, 9:08 am