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

[SJN1279]

I'm not quite convinced yet that Live should call it quits.

They still put on a solid (though repetitious and predictable) live show, and they still seem to be genuinely happy playing music together. And, despite the mediocrity of their last few efforts, they have put out a few songs (Night of Nights, Like I Do, Overcome) in recent years that have been mostly adored by their fans.

However, it is clear to even the biggest fan that their creativity has taken a big hit in recent years. This is not only true on their albums, but in their live show as well. Despite the tightness of their performances, playing the same set over and over again is eventually going to dwindle their fan base to smaller and smaller numbers. Without any promise of newness or unpredictably to a show, it becomes less and less likely that fans are going to get as excited for shows, and less and less likely that they will be willing to shell out $35 or whatever to attend. This has already happened to myself and a handful of other fans I have chatted with.

There is a simple principle of economics that I can apply to this: the law of diminishing returns. It basically states that the more you get of something, the less desirable it becomes. This is true in all aspects of life (food, sex, sleep, etc.), but especially to things we have to pay for. To apply it to Live -- the more we get of the same old lackluster songs, and the more we get of the same old predictable setlist, the less likely we are to be interested in the band.

So, I fear, if Live continues on its current path, eventually the band will be FORCED to call it quits due to a shrinking fan base that ultimately makes it unprofitable for them to make music at all. Call me a pessimist, but I truly believe that it's a path they're already treading on.

The solution? In my eyes, Live needs to take 5 or 6 years to work on their next album. They need to make sure that the entire band comes together to create a set of songs that will blow people away. They need to give more songwriting duties to other members of the band (hey, even Pearl Jam has songs on each album with music/lyrics written by guys besides Eddie Vedder, and he's known to be pretty controlling). They need to put their entire heart and soul into EACH AND EVERY song on their next record, and not to settle for mediocrity. I'm a firm believer that if a talented band puts enough time and effort into perfecting a song, eventually it will be something solid, if not spectacular. It's obvious that they didn't take the time to do that with SFBM or BoP (or V for that matter).

In the meantime, they need to also work on re-learning some of their older stuff so that they can pull out surprises during their next tour. I guarantee you the enthusiasm and excitement level from us fans here would shoot up 1000% if we only had some new songs in their performances to discuss and gloat about. That doesn't mean pulling out 2 or 3 songs and playing them every night, but sprinkling in different songs from show to show so that we keep coming back here to see what's new. It's not like it would take a whole lot of effort on their part, either.

As a whole, they need to start caring again. Not just caring about being happy and making simple, mindless music, but about rediscovering who they are and the reaching for the ceiling of their creativity. If they can do that, they can make a comeback in a big way. If not, I'm afraid they're time may be running out.

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.

[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

[GvB]

turn up the volume to lalalalalalalal.

Did you quit listening after hearing la la la?
Then you missed all the rest.

GvB.

[mrmcpheezy]

Yea...you figured me out. Gotta get those posts in. But, actually, when I said I changed my mind, doesn't that imply that I'm admitting you're right?

IF YOU RECOGNIZE THIS THEN ADMITTING IT OUTRIGHTLY SHOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT AT ALL.

[XtasyOfDreams]

You were able to read into my very first post in this thread further than even I could. But, now you can't even read what I've been saying?

You're one of those people who in an argument needs to hear "You are right." How annoying.

[mrmcpheezy]

maybe I'm wrong in saying that other people are telling exact in straight words to not like them anyore...oke..but it's just the whole feeling I get by the way many ex-Live fans are telling on this board what their opinion is... their way of talkin like it's not only their way of thinking, but like the things they are saying are just facts ...it gives the feeling they want you to stop listening Live, but maybe your right it's nowhere straight the case.

Well, a certain amount of what is said is factual. Nearly every song on live's past three albums has followed the typical, verse-chorus, pop song structure. Another fact: following such a common and simple song structure is inherently uncreative. And typically, a lack of creativity is a bad thing.

So these are all facts that have been stated by myself and others numerous times. None of them touch on whether or not you should like the band. They simply point out objective aspects of the band's recent music. You're still more than welcome to like the music, but don't act like what they're doing now is extremely creative. If you'd like to say that it is, then you would need to point out other objective aspects of their work that is creative.

That's my view, at least. Like whatever you want, but be able to seperate your personal feelings and enjoyment from the music's objective aspects.

well, again I must say I can't give any examples, cause maybe there are no for real...but again the feeling I get. M<aybe I'm the only one who get this feeling and get my conclusions out of that, but i'm just feeling that way. Answers to board members who were askin you several times why YOU come back, were that you want to make something clear to them. You are posting here to make clear your statement Live isn't that good aymore, aren't you ?? (no attack against you, cause you must feel free to spread your meaning, just a question to make my feelings towards you clear).

Yeah, that's a part of the reason I come here, but again, it has nothing to do with whether or not you like the band, or whether or not you should.

again..it's all about my feelings...I guess...there will be some exact examples I guess but I dunno at this moment. Think you were right :my post was not very meaningfull, but see it as some frustrations. I don't mind people telling they don't like Live anymore, or they hate Live, or they want them to quit, or whatever... as long as they don't tell it in a way like it are facts...keep it your opinion.

But sometimes the reasons people no longer like live are founded in something other than personal taste - sometimes it actually has something to do with what live is or is not doing objectively. So of course these facts will get stated along with their personal feelings. Is that a problem?

[mrmcpheezy]

I agree with SecretInsomia and found some proof.
It's often not litterlarly said that people shouldn't like for example "V", "BoP" or "SFBM".

But the suggestion lies under it.

Here we go:

From the topic Deconstructing "SFBM":

SFBM IS fucking formulaic and is god damn opposite of intense, so you shitlickers who think that SFBM is the "real" Live and that the other fuckin' four albums are just "fist-pumping" or "depressing" clearly don't understand how bands progress and what a great album is and you can fist-pump on my dick till I splooge on your ignorant face.

From the topic "The 5 Best Live Songs, period":

Flow had the whole "Flow" freakout part that isn't cool.

From the topic: "Everything under the Live setting sun":

Quote: keep the good music coming.
Reply: lol.

From the topic Bold prediction, Lives future:

.... but I still stick to what I'm saying. How can you say the next album is going to be a return to their best stuff when SFBM IS one of their worst? The guitars aren't solid on SFBM so what makes you think they will be solid on the next one?

and read the whole topic: "Maybe Live should call it quits" again, and find out what it suggests (only the title sais enough).

Those are only a few examples.

GvB.

There are just as many, if not more, examples of people talking about how much live "rocks" and how "awesome they are" and shit like that.

Again, some of those comments are objective facts (sfbm is fucking formulaic) and some of those are just revealing of personal tastes. Again, no one says that you shouldn't like the band, simply that you should recognize the drop in objective quality of the writing in recent years. Like it all you want, but don't attempt to call it good music, or creative, or technically challenging or anything else that it isn't.

[mrmcpheezy]

I'm not quite convinced yet that Live should call it quits.

They still put on a solid (though repetitious and predictable) live show, and they still seem to be genuinely happy playing music together. And, despite the mediocrity of their last few efforts, they have put out a few songs (Night of Nights, Like I Do, Overcome) in recent years that have been mostly adored by their fans.

However, it is clear to even the biggest fan that their creativity has taken a big hit in recent years. This is not only true on their albums, but in their live show as well. Despite the tightness of their performances, playing the same set over and over again is eventually going to dwindle their fan base to smaller and smaller numbers. Without any promise of newness or unpredictably to a show, it becomes less and less likely that fans are going to get as excited for shows, and less and less likely that they will be willing to shell out $35 or whatever to attend. This has already happened to myself and a handful of other fans I have chatted with.

There is a simple principle of economics that I can apply to this: the law of diminishing returns. It basically states that the more you get of something, the less desirable it becomes. This is true in all aspects of life (food, sex, sleep, etc.), but especially to things we have to pay for. To apply it to Live -- the more we get of the same old lackluster songs, and the more we get of the same old predictable setlist, the less likely we are to be interested in the band.

So, I fear, if Live continues on its current path, eventually the band will be FORCED to call it quits due to a shrinking fan base that ultimately makes it unprofitable for them to make music at all. Call me a pessimist, but I truly believe that it's a path they're already treading on.

The solution? In my eyes, Live needs to take 5 or 6 years to work on their next album. They need to make sure that the entire band comes together to create a set of songs that will blow people away. They need to give more songwriting duties to other members of the band (hey, even Pearl Jam has songs on each album with music/lyrics written by guys besides Eddie Vedder, and he's known to be pretty controlling). They need to put their entire heart and soul into EACH AND EVERY song on their next record, and not to settle for mediocrity. I'm a firm believer that if a talented band puts enough time and effort into perfecting a song, eventually it will be something solid, if not spectacular. It's obvious that they didn't take the time to do that with SFBM or BoP (or V for that matter).

In the meantime, they need to also work on re-learning some of their older stuff so that they can pull out surprises during their next tour. I guarantee you the enthusiasm and excitement level from us fans here would shoot up 1000% if we only had some new songs in their performances to discuss and gloat about. That doesn't mean pulling out 2 or 3 songs and playing them every night, but sprinkling in different songs from show to show so that we keep coming back here to see what's new. It's not like it would take a whole lot of effort on their part, either.

As a whole, they need to start caring again. Not just caring about being happy and making simple, mindless music, but about rediscovering who they are and the reaching for the ceiling of their creativity. If they can do that, they can make a comeback in a big way. If not, I'm afraid they're time may be running out.

Hella.

[mrmcpheezy]

And you're one of those people that in an argument is unwilling to say "I was wrong".

[GvB]

Is there anyone who is prepared to look after those children?

GvB.

[GvB]

I bring in a (i've got to admit old) lyric:

"It's easier not to be wise, and measure this thing by your brain."

People: what I want to say with bringing this line on is this.
We maybe just THINK too much when we listen to Live, and maybe forget to FEEL when we listen to it I guess.
How the song is made technically does not matter to me too much although I had music lessons in the past and I know a few things on music theory.
What I feel about it is more important to me.

About the lyrics: you can still tell from it how important love is and how bad hate and war are (if you did not realize that already) but Ed just tells it in a way which is more quiet and calm and with less difficult words.
He is not angry anymore, but if you listen to "Home" then you find out that it still bothers him that there is war, you will hear the tears in his voice, he is still sad about it.
That's what I hear in it.
Do with it what you want.

GvB.

[DesertWater]

Did you quit listening after hearing la la la?
Then you missed all the rest.

GvB.

Lol

Without a doubt, Edstipe writes some of the best posts.

[rocknerd]

Call it Quits are you mad!

+LIVE+ are our generations rolling stones. Like all great musicians (the WHO, BOB DYLAN, PATTI SMITH, JIMMY PAGE & ROBERT PLANT, NEW YORK DOLLS, HENRY ROLLINS and PAUL MCCARTNEY)
They will continue to make great music for those who want to hear it.

[edstipe]

Call it Quits are you mad!

+LIVE+ are our generations rolling stones. Like all great musicians (the WHO, BOB DYLAN, PATTI SMITH, JIMMY PAGE & ROBERT PLANT, NEW YORK DOLLS, HENRY ROLLINS and PAUL MCCARTNEY)
They will continue to make great music for those who want to hear it.

Are you serious? I like Live, and probably always will, but putting them on the same level as any one of those artists is quite simply ABSURD. You've listed a bunch of musicians who, in some way or another, have made an imprint on the face of the very meaning of music. I'm sorry - Live is a good band, but their level of respect and influence within the industry are absolutely nothing compared to those artists listed above. Talk about crazed fanaticism.

[crustyclown80]

Are you serious? I like Live, and probably always will, but putting them on the same level as any one of those artists is quite simply ABSURD. You've listed a bunch of musicians who, in some way or another, have made an imprint on the face of the very meaning of music. I'm sorry - Live is a good band, but their level of respect and influence within the industry are absolutely nothing compared to those artists listed above. Talk about crazed fanaticism.

LOL. Cut him some slack. He is a rock-nerd afterall right?