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

[Voodoo Lady]

When it comes to the setlist and its length, I am at the point where I just want to throw in the towel. But here goes.

Dream vs. expected vs. reality: A two hour plus Live heading show in a small venue (no other bands on the bill), with some deep cuts in the setlist would be my dream come true. What can be feasibly expected, based on price of concert tickets, 90 minutes with some surprises and shake ups to the setlist is what fans deserve for the money we pay. In reality, we get a 70 minute same ole thing, night after night, canned show.

However, I’ve got to accept that Live have made the decision to do the latter for some type of reasons. -I’d love to know them. It has to be based on someone’s lack of stamina, but whose? Is it Gracey? Are they worried about wrecking Ed’s voice? Is it Chad T. or Pat? As Merica said, props to the old guy McCartney. That is some CRAZY stamina for 77. Is he sitting at a piano most of the time, though?

When it comes to the setlist, the fact that it’s stagnant bothers me more than their show being 10 minutes shorter than what I expect. I can come up with no other reason than lack of effort. Wait, two reasons. Someone (I believe LiveForNow) mentioned in another thread, perhaps they are tied to their video in the background, and not being able to switch that up. Or maybe they have backing tracks (pretty positive they do), and can’t switch it up. The covers really irritate me, but with them, I don’t know why it does so much. Honestly, most other concerts I attend have covers, and I’m not bothered. With Live, is it because they haven’t yet covered a song I actually like? Is it because they are just my favorite band, and I’m selfish & only want to hear their stuff? In a perfect dream world, take the two covers out, and add in Hold Me Up and Susquehanna. I’m just trying to “be a good fan” and accept it is what it is, and we will never know the reason for their decisions (because no interviewer ever asks those questions!!! ).

It could be way worse. I went to a Whitesnake show in the spring, and they only played 14 songs. It was the shortest show I’ve ever been to. I felt ripped off. They must have needed to get back to the nursing home.

[+Ed+]

Well, while completely irrelevant, i have an example other than Pearl Jam or 311 I always recall when speaking about lame setlists.

My fave russian band is 26 years old. They are a pretty diverse grunge-funk-powerpop-hardcore band called Tequilajazzz. While being all over the radio and tv during the late 90s, their hiatus for 6 years made their fame fade.

Anyway, they are pretty relevant locally, in their hometown and they always gather 3-5 thousand people twice a year for their traditional gigs. With their lead vocalist and basist being 53, they play for around 3 (three) hours a show and throw in 2-5 old rarities from nearly 30 years ago be it a big show or a tiny club


Oh and btw. They played the club where they began in 1993 this year. 70 available tickets were gone in 20 minutes.

They played for 3,5 hours and the songs played were from all of their albums.

That said, 17 songs is awful for the international stars.

Ps Here is a horrible picture i took that night btw



This post has been edited by +Ed+: Jul 17 2019, 1:56 pm

[Hoodstock]

I would fall asleep.

Quality over quantity any day.

LOL - You're saying Paul McCartney doesn't put on a quality show because he plays lots of songs? Bruce Springsteen would be to much for you too!

If you'd fall asleep at a concert you must have narcolepsy or you're not aging well.

[Hoodstock]

I would fall asleep.

Quality over quantity any day.

LOL - You're saying Paul McCartney doesn't put on a quality show because he plays lots of songs? Bruce Springsteen would be to much for you too!

If you'd fall asleep at a concert you must have narcolepsy or you're not aging well. Maybe you would fall asleep at a 2 hour Live show because it would be the exact same game 7 every single night.

In 5 years you'll be supporting a 10-14 song setlist so you don't miss your bedtime.

[Bremang]

watch Hoodie come back with a third update ragging on SJN

[Hoodstock]

watch Hoodie come back with a third update ragging on SJN

That was a tac on edit. Don't know why it double posted. I swear, if they did half hour sets the guy would defend it.

[LiveForNow]

I'm happy with a 90 minute set. 70-90 minutes is what I like for shows. Keeps the momentum.

I remember when Live was playing 2 hour plus shows during SFBM tour, and some people would leave during the second encore. 90 minutes is perfect.

I'd love to see The Ed version of Live do something that SJN1279 would criticize. They could release a cover of Raffi songs and SJN1279 would say that it's a smart business move to get into children's music.

[dangum]

Let's keep this respectful and not turn it into a SJN1279 bashing contest. Even though most fans on this forum would disagree, he is entitled to his view.

[Bremang]

Let's keep this respectful and not turn it into a SJN1279 bashing contest. Even though most fans on this forum would disagree, he is entitled to his view.

I for one have never seen such disrespect toward the guy

[LiveForNow]

Let's keep this respectful and not turn it into a SJN1279 bashing contest. Even though most fans on this forum would disagree, he is entitled to his view.

Fair point. I will refrain from posts like that in the future.

[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.

[mattdm11]

I guess be happy they are playing? I have no interest in seeing them because Ed turns my stomach and am not a fan of his singing at this point. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think they are going to do anything more than a 15 song setlist that is their most well known songs, and maybe a "rarity". They are a hits band now, and that's about it.

[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]

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...

Agreed. Would love those three in there. The Heaven, Turn My Head, and LC encore is a snooze fest.

I’ve got a year on you, and my stamina is fine indoors. Outside venues, no. Last year I had legit heat exhaustion, and I’m seeing Līve again outside in New Orleans’ heat and humidity. You’d think I’d learn. Climate change is real.