Length/Quality of Songs - for the older fans Options

[disciple_de_+LIVE+]

Hey all - newcomer to the board. Been a Live fan since Mental Jewelry - heard Waterboy on a mix tape and went out and bought MJ and TC that same day.............

Just reading through a lot of threads here, I can tell a lot of older live fans have the same issues with their new material as I do. Obviously bands evolve and they lose the desperation/angst/intensity in their albums. I see that happening with almost every band I like.

But with Live (and maybe I am too critical because they are my favorite band) I feel like they have been just writing songs to fill an album. I recently read an interview in which Ed said something like he would prefer to just release music as singles or EPs rather than full length albums. I think that V, Birds of Pray, and Black Mountain all features songs that were created as fillers for the album. I have a couple reasons to think this:

1.) There are numerous songs on those albums that they have never played in concert. If you were proud of these songs, wouldn't you get them in the mix at least once to see how they are received?

2.) a lot of these songs are between 3 - 4 minutes in length. Seems that they are sticking to a certain formula and just chunking out songs. Whatever happened to the 6 and 7 min epic songs that really defined their early career? PoD, WD, Ghost, GHMO. I would love to hear a 10 min studio song where they jam out with tons of verses and solos and general craziness. Anyone who has seen the band knows how hard they rock and these short songs on the end of their new albums don't do that any justice

Here are the songs I consider filler on those albums:

V - Flow, The Ride, OK

BoP - Rivertown, Out To Dry, Bring the People Together

Black Mountain - Home, All I Need, You Are Not Alone

Obviously some of you will like these songs I mentioned, and to each his/her own. But for me those songs are listenable but seem like B-sides more than anything else. Anybody out there feel the same?

I hate for my first post to be so critical, but I think its good discussion material...

[Pokey]

Yeah I tend to agree with this ... I never really considered Flow or Rivertown filler though as I like them for whatever reason, Flow because I guess they went out of their way to have a guest vocalist sing on it, you wouldn't bother otherwise .. I dunno.

But yeah I totally agree when it comes to playing songs in concert makes them seem like filler. I'm certainly not the biggest fan of the new material, but if Live were at least playing more than half the new albums at gigs it would make them seem more credible. So many bands when releasing a new album will play the entire album at gigs supporting that album (11-13 songs) and the rest of the set is filled with crowd favorites and rarities. Or at least play each song from the album at some point during the tour.

If you've only just released a new album, you have an entire tour with many dates to play everything from it at some stage, why not do it unless you honestly don't believe in the material?

[SJN1279]

So many bands when releasing a new album will play the entire album at gigs supporting that album (11-13 songs) and the rest of the set is filled with crowd favorites and rarities.

When a band does this, it generally puts the majority of the audience to sleep. I'm glad refrains from that practice.

[+Ed+]

That is a nice thing to discuss. Well done and welcome aboard.

I was definitely first of all interested in the mixtape you mentioned You still have it? What is the name of it? Could you please be more specific?

On topic. You know, the majority of the bands lately (and I consider 'lately' to start with 1999-2000 really) do not bother that much about the length. I mean, not really 'not bother' but they tend to somehow preliminary make them radio-friendly. Let me clarify from the very start, I am a big fan of everything Live have released you know. Anyway I still feel that it is not the length of the song that matters. For example (bad example though) the best songs by The Offspring (and once again I clarify that I mean their 'Ignition' and judge mostly by the texts) can be not longer than 2 minutes. On the other hand we all are aware of the band baring the name The Mars Volta, who have epic tracks longer than 10 minutes. Anyway, none of those formulars work nowadays.

I sincerely love Live with all my heart and whatever you name it, be it soul or be it taste.... I do think that there will hardly be any epics like PoD and W,D. The present audience (majority of course) does not really need them. I can predict reading blaming replies to this like... c'mon, we are the majority and we are not happy... But fellas. Let us face the truth. Ed really is sincere, as I sense it. Now he feels like writing the songs that we all get lately. Anyway, Live will hardly ever be back to smash the charts... It is really sad, but I can not feel anything of modern stuff to be spinned on the radio along with nice Live tunes. They make quite poppy songs that do not become popular! Ain't it an interesting thing? I bet it is. Anyhow, it gets me offtopic.

The stuff that orked 10-15 years ago will not work and will leave the band with less money. That means they can easier stop functioning. Is it a way out? Hardly. But I do not think that length is what matters.

Sorry, if it is too long, end of workday here, I am getting tired

When a band does this, it generally puts the majority of the audience to sleep. I'm glad refrains from that practice.

A VERY strange statement.


PS ohohoh sorry forgot to add one more thing. Pokes, I do not know which bands you mean. I unfortunately can only judge by one band from overseas that I saw on stage, meaning Depeche Mode, who are really huge (maybe even bigger than the Beatles in Russia) here. Saw them twice in 2001 and 2006. Both times they played around 4-6 songs off the new records.

This post has been edited by +Ed+: May 13 2008, 9:19 am

[Pokey]

When a band does this, it generally puts the majority of the audience to sleep. I'm glad refrains from that practice.

... Well then that's the band's fault for making shitty songs that can't capture people's attention. Also doesn't say much for your confidence in the band. Once again you seem more worried about what other people think of Live and their commercial success than the quality of their songs/performance/setlists. I don't understand this logic of only wanting to hear songs that you know, only coming for the big hits and the stuff you hear on the radio. How in the world do people like you discover new music? I'm guessing the only way is when it's shoved down your throat. The whole point of playing the new material is getting people exposed to more new stuff, you'd think as a band that would be as much of a goal as sending people home happy. Playing a new album in it's entirity leaves plenty of room for a good few crowd pleasers.

Yes while I agree that I'd rather not hear any of SFBM in concert (save maybe Sofia because that was done well) it just looks bad for a band's credibility to ignore half of their newest album that the tour is promoting.

[Nedra]

Welcome!

I have been a fan of LiVE since the beginning, too.

I agree with you that through time, the albums seemed to include a few "lesser quality" songs compared to the earlier ones in which every song had meaning/relevance.

I'm not sure it entirely has to do with length, tho.

To some degree I think it has to do with Ed's life experiences. As he got older, his intensity, questioning and searching diminished somewhat as his happiness/contentment grew, perhaps?

I don't believe songs were purposely written as fillers. Although some of the songs you mentioned don't touch/mean as much to ME, I think Ed certainly believed in them.

And one other point about which songs are played in concert: Not all studio songs transfer well to stage. I think that at least some songs not played live had nothing to do with whether the guys were "proud" of them.

My two cents...

[disciple_de_+LIVE+]

I was definitely first of all interested in the mixtape you mentioned You still have it? What is the name of it? Could you please be more specific?

It was a mix that a friend made for me. I prolly have it but it was basically Death of a dictionary, waterboy, and the REM Monster album. Nothing on there that you don't have already.....funny thing was that my friend was not a big live fan so there is no explanation why he had a copy of DOAD...just a music freak

On topic. You know, the majority of the bands lately (and I consider 'lately' to start with 1999-2000 really) do not bother that much about the length. I mean, not really 'not bother' but they tend to somehow preliminary make them radio-friendly. Let me clarify from the very start, I am a big fan of everything Live have released you know. Anyway I still feel that it is not the length of the song that matters. For example (bad example though) the best songs by The Offspring (and once again I clarify that I mean their 'Ignition' and judge mostly by the texts) can be not longer than 2 minutes. On the other hand we all are aware of the band baring the name The Mars Volta, who have epic tracks longer than 10 minutes. Anyway, none of those formulars work nowadays.

I agree that song length doesn't dictate quality or really anything. But for instance when I got Black Mountain and looked at the track lengths, EVERY SINGLE ONE was below 4 min. it just seemed too standard and radio friendly. And for a band who no longer enjoys the mainstream success that they once did, i would think they would not adhere to any industry norms when it comes to songs.

[dangum]

In my opinion: longer does equal better. You only need to take a look at Live's track record of longer songs to see that they're among some of Live's best (I'm talking about Pillar of Davidson here).

There's something about an introduction that's longer than 30 seconds, a slow buildup, more than 2 verses... These are all qualities that may not be radio friendly but make for a fulfilling musical experience. Of course the album doesn't have to be full of 7 minute epics, but don't fill the album full of 3 minute pop songs where the intro, first verse and chorus is done 60 seconds into the piece...

[Badman]

for a band who no longer enjoys the mainstream success that they once did, i would think they would not adhere to any industry norms when it comes to songs.

Exactly! I have been whining around here for a good amount of time that live should add more prog elements to their music and now that you put it like that there is no reason they shouldn't. One of the biggest draws that live had on me was the drama... I LOVE dramatic bands and if anyone knows any good ones I wanna hear them! Bright eyes, Arcade fire, pink floyd... all are dramatic to me and I am always hunting for more!

Dangum also made a good point about the intro... There is no live song with good pause before any singing

[slainte]

There's something about an introduction that's longer than 30 seconds, a slow buildup, more than 2 verses... These are all qualities that may not be radio friendly but make for a fulfilling musical experience. Of course the album doesn't have to be full of 7 minute epics, but don't fill the album full of 3 minute pop songs where the intro, first verse and chorus is done 60 seconds into the piece...

After my husband's first LiVE show, this was the reason why he loved the show. The slow intro grabbed him and held his interest through the rest of the song. He is by no means a music conessoir and his attention span is short to be generous in description and for LiVE to hold his interest is a big + in my book.

And if LiVE continues with the "intro, first verse and chorus is done in 60 seconds..."maybe they do belong with Rhianna, Fergie and the like.

This post has been edited by slainte: May 13 2008, 12:34 pm

[Bob]

Dangum also made a good point about the intro... There is no live song with good pause before any singing

Back in the day, Live used to open with Dam at Otter Creek (TC tours), Rattlesnake (Secret Samadhi tours) and Where Fishes Go (TDTH tours). THOSE were most definitely perfect "intro" songs that also kicked some serious butt.

Unfortunately, since then, there haven't been many good intro songs. I suppose Like I Do, but I don't think that's a song that's meant to start a set - that's middle of the set, "grab the audience by the crotch and don't look back" material.

[jaybb]

Hey I like "The Ride." Though I think I'm the only one ever to enjoy it.

This post has been edited by jaybb: May 14 2008, 1:40 pm

[Hoodstock]

Back in the day, Live used to open with Dam at Otter Creek (TC tours), Rattlesnake (Secret Samadhi tours) and Where Fishes Go (TDTH tours). THOSE were most definitely perfect "intro" songs that also kicked some serious butt.

Unfortunately, since then, there haven't been many good intro songs. I suppose Like I Do, but I don't think that's a song that's meant to start a set - that's middle of the set, "grab the audience by the crotch and don't look back" material.

I agree with your first statement but disagree with your second statement slightly. I thought Intro, followed by Simple Creed, was an awesome way to kick off a concert. I thought it definately grabs the audiences attention.

This post has been edited by Hoodstock: May 14 2008, 2:42 pm

[Alex]

V - Flow, The Ride, OK

BoP - Rivertown, Out To Dry, Bring the People Together

Black Mountain - Home, All I Need, You Are Not Alone

Obviously some of you will like these songs I mentioned, and to each his/her own. But for me those songs are listenable but seem like B-sides more than anything else. Anybody out there feel the same?

I hate for my first post to be so critical, but I think its good discussion material...

I disagree with your V ones... I highly doubt any of those three were constructed as filler.

Rivertown is my favourite BOP song...

And SFBM is an album of filler in my opinion.