Defend the Indefensible : Concert reviewers that complain about the setlist

I've got a weird fetish for setlists though.

Exactly -- the songs being played, not the ones that weren't played.

In the full review, he talked about the mood in the arena (how people were dressed, and so on) and then spent most of the review making the complaints I excerpted above, which don't mention *crowd* reaction/response/participation at all, only his own.

Of course artists can play whatever they want. And critics can critique whatever they want. A performance is a two-way experience.

if you're good, you can do whatever the hell you want. i've seen neil young do nearly entire sets' worth of new or unreleased material (for a long time, maybe even still, he had a habit of touring behind his upcoming album instead of his current/previous one). i've seen the magnetic fields this summer play most of their new album and very little of 69 love songs or anything earlier. husker du sometimes played their newest album straight through, in sequence, and little else.

a really good live band can put over any good song, whether you've heard it before or not.

I've been to plenty of shows where the new or obscure material has blown me away, sometimes even better than the old material. I've also been to plenty where the new/obscure material has sucked the life out of the show and I've left. The performer can play whatever they want, and each audience member can enjoy it or not. If the performer wants to build a following they need to tap into a vein that the audience tends to like. Usually that's hits (most artists); sometimes it can be obscurantism (Phish, others).

However, you can't complain about the list without saying why. If the songs you don't like were still awful when played live, explain it.

Re: fact checking cuz and Neil Young: Neil's Time Fades Away was a new album of material recorded live on the previous tour - I've always thought that was a genius move. Running On Empty (Jackson Browne) is similar although a lot of it was recorded backstage/on the bus.

There was a fairly well-known reviewer here in Boston who was famous for not being anywhere near the stage and asking friends what the set list/good tunes were at the end of the night.

Too late to redirect this thread to DTI: JD Considine? The worst and most prominent of the retrograde, received-wisdom critics, in my opinion.

oooh, who?

which kind of brings us back to where we started! "the cure would totally have rocked last night if they had opened with 'boys don't cry' and 'just like heaven,' then brought the tempo down with a couple of slow ones, then surprised the crowd with a daring and brilliant cover of britney spears' 'toxic.' "

(I don't mean to be singling out this review so much, it's merely a good example of a style of review that seems to crop up from time to time)

(xposts)

The question of what The Cure chooses to play, when faced with two hours or so to represent 25 years of material, seems to be about as important a question as could be answered by a review.

The real problem is not complaining about the setlist; it's complaining, period. Just tell us, and we'll celebrate or grumble.

As Matt said in his last post, #1 may be true, but it won't necessarily make for a good gig. And as many of us have said, #2 may be true, but it doesn't necessarily make for interesting writing.

That's true, Chuck, but in the case of the cited review maybe there are Cure fans who wouldn't think the setlist sucked. ("Wow - they played "Forever" instead of that stupid "Why Can't I Be You"? Cool!") The question is whether they played the material they chose well. The fact that they played "Forever" instead of "Friday I'm in Love" seems significant - worthy of putting in a review. Complaining about it seems like a waste of time, though. Just report it.

(Though I'm sort of with Myonga in re: thinking that live reviews are generally pretty useless regardless.)

I think there are as many reasons for a concert review as there are concert reviews: for fans who couldn't get to/get into the show; to explain the group's relationship to its fans; to report on whether an old dinosaur still has it; to explain the artist's appeal when that seems inexplicable (he said high-mindedly, hoping no one looks up the duff review he wrote last night) ...

So a reviewer's job is to agree with the fans? I mean, no matter WHAT the reviewer says, people are going to disagree with him. (A critic is not a "reporter." Period. He is writing HIS OPINIONS.) Determining which songs to play, and what order to play them in, is an aesthetic choice the band made. So it's as much fair game as anything else, as far as I can see. (And yeah, it might be *boring* to talk about which songs they should have played. Or it might not be; it depends. Oddly, one of the only live reviews I ever wrote for Spin was about a Cure show in Philly! I remember writing about how some of the music sounded a little like Uriah Heep, and about somebody who threw up in the seats in front of me. I may or may not have written that the show would have been better if the Cure would stuck to their best songs; i.e., songs they wrote before 1981. Maybe I'll go back and check.)

Then why doesn't "Sound of the City" get the dread 86? Just curious.

I remember you yammering on aboot the length of yr hair when you were in the army and somebody in the audience doing something you called "the spider dance".

but as for the general worth of live reviews, no matter how opionated they are, they're still doing the job of recording a moment for history. why does a newspaper write about yesterday's weather? or yesterday's awards ceremony? or give a detailed account of the football game that everyone already saw on tv last night? i've always wanted to believe that they do it, among many other reasons, because if they don't nobody else will.

Of course not, but depending on the artist, a reviewer's job can be to explain what the fans see in him/her/them (not what the fans SAY they see, not useless junk like "and the fans ate it up," but what they do see and hear - what the artist is bringing to the table, what musical itch he or she is scratching). And I think that doesn't immediately translate to pandering to the fans, particularly if you can give examples of people who are doing similar things but better.

A critic is not a "reporter." Period. He is writing HIS OPINIONS.

Every review (even your live Cure review as you describe it) is a mix of reportage and opinion, and that mix depends on the publication and the audience. In my case (and the Globe and Mail is also a daily so I reckon it might be the same), I'm only being sent to review concerts because their sheer size makes them news events. So my tendency (and perhaps the tendency of other daily writers) is to lean toward reporting (of course there's opinion in any review). Which is why spending all that room not describing the Cure's setlist but complaining about it seems like a waste of time and space. (It also doesn't answer the first question I would have about a Cure setlist: Now that "Pictures of You" is in a computer commercial, do they bother playing it anymore? I'd have assumed they still do, but if they didn't do "Why Can't I Be You" ...)

Besides, after 25 years, doesn't everyone already have a pretty well-defined opinion of the Cure?

Somewhat later, Bruner complains: "If the audience was underwhelmed by the more obscure tracks, then he didn't allude to it at all (the full review is at Chain of Flowers, or of course, the Globe website)." Um, it seems to me that the last sentence of the review -- "But there was an obvious passion in the playing, and the roller-coaster acceleration that capped Forever nearly made up for the fact that almost no one in the packed house knew the song" -- certainly *does* allude to it.

Then Bruner disingenuously claims: "In the full review, he talked about the mood in the arena (how people were dressed, and so on) and then spent most of the review making the complaints I excerpted above, which don't mention *crowd* reaction/response/participation at all, only his own." Bullshit. The review was a bit over 500 words, and the "complaints ... excerpted above" comprise roughly 150 words. Do the math. As for not mentioning the crowd's reaction, the bit Bruner quotes to start this thread says, "Even though the audience was sent into ecstasy by the thrumming, bass-driven Inbetween Days, sang lustily along with Just Like Heaven and clearly adored the sad, sweet perfection of Love Song..."

Learn to read, pally.

Second, I didn't attend this gig, so I wasn't being an overly sensitive fanboy on this thread. I mention this because it seems that you believe that I read your review as a negative one, i.e. you think that I think that you hated the gig. That isn't true. It's fairly obvious that you enjoyed the gig from the last two paragraphs, which I didn't cite because the thread is about reviewers who complain about the set list. Essentially, you're defending your entire review, I'm complaining about one particular (not uncommon) reviewing tactic.

Maybe my definition of a "paragraph" is different from yours, but I count five paragraphs (all italicized at the top of this thread) that address which songs were and were not played. Crucially, the setup for all of that comes from the line "A pity, then, that the band made so little effort to appeal to that broad base of support", which I interpret as "why didn't they play more of their big hits?"

Speaking of being disingenuous, the review is 500 words long but the first half is about the festival itself plus the opening bands. You even cited my acknowledgement of this. The second is about the Cure's set, and most of that consists of the parts I cited. After reading your review, I'm still not sure what the crowd thought about the 80% of the set that didn't consist of "Inbetween Days"-type hits (never mind the fact that it's well-known amongst Cure fans that they change their setlist every night, generally don't play hits-laden sets (even at festivals), and delve into obscurities almost every night).

I object to the fact that you combined selective quotation and willful misreading of my review to support your argument. You object to reviewers that complain about the set list. The key word there is “complain.” Since understanding words seems to stymie you, let’s look at what “complain” means. Generally, in this context it means “to express unhappiness about something … make a protest about something.”

Keeping that in mind, let’s look at what you say my review does: “this reviewer spent MULTIPLE paragraphs discussing what HE thought were deficiencies in the set list.” Yep, that would be making complaints alright.

Except look at what I wrote. First: “A pity, then, that the band made so little effort to appeal to that broad base of support.” That expresses unhappiness, all right, but does it mention the set list? No, it’s just a general complaint. But because I’m a generous sort, we’ll give you this anyway, and move to the next paragraph.

“That a full third of the Cure’s two-hour set was given over to its eponymous new album seemed fair enough.” This does, in fact, mention the set list, but where’s the complaint? Most readers would understand the phrase “fair enough” to be at worst non-committal.

Next: “Sure, this is the band’s 25th Anniversary, but that doesn’t mean they have to live in the past.” Again, where is the complaint in this? “What was strange, though, was that the rest of the set made only the most cursory nod to the quintet’s commercial successes.” I have to suppose you take this as a complaint, but frankly I don’t see it. Having established earlier in the review — in a bit you conveniently fail to quote — that this was a festival celebrating the overwhelming influence of the Cure, the reader might reasonably expect that the Cure’s own performance would highlight its success. That it didn’t struck me as worthy of remark. But calling the move “strange” is hardly the same thing as suggesting it was wrongheaded, bad or a disappointment, which I could have done had I wanted to complain. But I didn’t, did I?

Anyway, next graph: “Even though the audience was sent into ecstasy by the thrumming, bass-driven Inbetween Days, sang lustily along with Just Like Heaven and clearly adored the sad, sweet perfection of Love Song, that wasn’t enough to entice Cure frontman Robert Smith and his crew to uncork other hits. So there was no Friday I’m In Love, no High, no Why Can’t I Be You.” Here, I list hits they did play, then mention hits they didn’t — the point being that they didn’t play all their hits. This is meant to reinforce the previous point that they gave only a cursory nod to their chart successes. It’s not much of a complaint, though, is it? There’s not even an “unfortunately” in the paragraph. As for your ridiculous contention, later in thread, that I’m “all ‘boo, what about “Why Can't I Be You”, 'cause I really like that song’" — wtf??? Where in the review do I say anything even remotely like that??

Finally: “Instead, presented a set that emphasized the old and relatively unknown, drawing heavily on early-’80s albums such as 17 Seconds and Pornography, and ending the show with the ultra-obscure Forever.” Again, this is description, not complaint. Describing that material as “old and relatively unknown” isn’t judgmental — it’s a straightforward statement of fact. Only an idiot would take that as complaining about the set list.

So let’s sum up: Of the six paragraphs you cite, only two contain sentiments that could legitimately be considered complaints, and only one of those refers to the set list. Yet not only do you accuse me of spending “MULTIPLE paragraphs discussing what HE thought were deficiencies,” you actually capitalize multiple, like there are many, MANY paragraphs of complaint in the review.

If you want to complain about reviewers who carp that the band they saw didn’t play their favourite songs, fine — find a review that says that, and quote from it. But don’t foist your semi-literate misinterpretations on my prose.

Oh, and then there’s your cute insistence that your post included an “acknowledgement” that half the review was about the festival itself and the opening bands. What you actually said was “he talked about the mood in the arena (how people were dressed, and so on) and then spent most of the review making the complaints I excerpted…” Again, let’s look at the key phrase: SPENT MOST OF THE REVIEW. “Most” means “the greatest in number,” and the reason I suggested you do the math is that 150 words in no way constitutes “most” of a 500 word review.

But I expect you’re as good at math as you are at reading.

so - what about the common quandary when an act goes on tour behind a new album but the new album isn't available for purchase yet, so you have no way of knowing the songs outside of any singles. does this impact your enjoyment at all, positively or negatively?

also wtf was Considine's problem

pet peeve I've had lately - concertgoers loading up setlist.fm in the middle of the show

I'm one of those who likes to be surprised, the only way I glance at the setlist is if I'm on the fence about going. personally I think that "holy shit I wasn't expecting *that* song" moment is one of the coolest concert experiences you can have. but it gets ruined sometimes when someone pulls out their phone to look up the setlist, which of course your eyes are drawn to since it's a bright object in a dark room, and suddenly you know a big chunk of what's coming.

granted there are obviously folks who pull it up just because they wanna know what's playing *now*. thats fair. but when I last saw Todd Rundgren (who is kind of famous for his unpredictable sets) the couple next to me had it open nearly the entire time. I thought that was pretty irritating. of course how do you bring it up without seeming like a total dork? I'm embarrassed even posting about it here!

some people update the setlist during the show as well, which is helpful or annoying depending on where I am at the time (at the same show or not)

Don't be embarrassed about seeing Todd, frogbs. This is a safe space.

Maybe I'm misreading something here, but most artists don't play exactly the same set night after night, so I'm not seeing why the surprise would necessarily be ruined.

I'll cop to the fact that I use setlist.fm pretty fervently, especially when I'm going to see someone where I only know a certain percentage of their catalogue and not necessarily all of their shit, it helps me focus my preshow listening. I'll make mixes of the songs that are most frequently being played on the current tour, because to me personally it's more satisfying to hear a song if I recognize it than if I don't. like I saw Emmylou Harris with my dad last year and as much as I love her and have heard a ton of her music, I haven't heard nearly everything, especially anything she's done in the past 20 years or so, but I was able to figure out the handful of her more recent songs that she'd be most likely to play. it definitely helped me when my pops and I saw Graham Nash recently because I was really just doing that for his sake and knew fuck-all of Nash's stuff except for the real iron horses, of which he did several. but I was able to recognize pretty much every song he did thanks to a little strategic planning (and yeah, he was one of the types who does pretty much always play the same set)