VR setlist evolution

[Falcon]

? And by the way, this is an arena tour. Nobody plays arenas with a one hour and a half shows, that's just way too short

Size of venue should have nothing to do with length of set, that's just goofy.

[jarmo]

Basically you pay more for the ticket and get the same club show.....

They're gonna play three nights in London in January. I wonder if they'll change more than the covers and whether or not Spectacle is played.




/jarmo

[mikegiuliana]

Basically you pay more for the ticket and get the same club show.....

They're gonna play three nights in London in January. I wonder if they'll change more than the covers and whether or not Spectacle is played.




/jarmo

Let me ask you did you trhink wehn new gnr played 2 hour shows in America that it was a bit short? I mean msg had two bands beside gnr, hours of waiting for them to see two shitty bands..

Now take a little rant away, axl backstage, the bands little boring solo away and the venue is very short.. I enjoyed the msg show, I never thought about the time, but that is a band with huge options to play 3 hours worth of songs..

In a first year of a tour I don't mind if the setlist isn't changing much, it's not a big deal to me as long as the band plays and rocks the songs the rest doesn't matter.. Could they switch a song for another? I say sure, but I personally don't mind one song will not change anything for me.. They have switched the covers at times, their album is 56 minutes long so anything longer is fine with me,, It's not a king's ransom to see a show, it's fast paced and energetic and that's all I want to see..

[jarmo]

Let me ask you did you trhink wehn new gnr played 2 hour shows in America that it was a bit short? I mean msg had two bands beside gnr, hours of waiting for them to see two shitty bands..

I don't have a problem with the length of the show.

Obviously as a concert goer I'd prefer three hour shows with different sets each night (we have Pearl Jam for that  ).

But when bands that don't rely on big productions (like VR) play the same set every night, it's kinda sad. I remember Duff's quote from 1991 when he explained why GN'R didn't use setlists. It was something about like "going to a 9 to 5 job" if they had a set list and say the same thing between songs.

I understand when Depeche Mode (who also played 2 hrs during their last tour) does the same set night after night. They rely on certain things in their shows (like backing tracks). Kinda hard to start jamming in the middle of the song....




/jarmo

[mikegiuliana]

Fair enough, I'm sure it will change eventually and I don't know the reason behind it..

Looks like a job for you jarmo, give vr an interview and ask why they don't change the setlist, or simply why dirty little thing (which rocks) isn't played?

I'm dead serious, anyone going to a signing or meeting the band or whateevr should ask about the setlist and why lta and dlt aren't played..

[Ignatius]

? And by the way, this is an arena tour. Nobody plays arenas with a one hour and a half shows, that's just way too short

Size of venue should have nothing to do with length of set, that's just goofy.

Of course it does. Arenas shows are always in the 90-120 minute frame. Always.

[Falcon]

? And by the way, this is an arena tour. Nobody plays arenas with a one hour and a half shows, that's just way too short

Size of venue should have nothing to do with length of set, that's just goofy.

Of course it does. Arenas shows are always in the 90-120 minute frame. Always.

I've scene a bazillion arena shows and many have fallen under the 90-120 minute range.
Alice in Chains, Nirvana, The Cult, Manson, Janes Addicton, Foo Fighters.. just to name a few.

I don't do arena shows much anymore anyway, the last one I had tix for was GNR in Dallas a few years back...

[Ignatius]

I've scene a bazillion arena shows and many have fallen under the 90-120 minute range.
Alice in Chains, Nirvana, The Cult, Manson, Janes Addicton, Foo Fighters.. just to name a few.

I don't do arena shows much anymore anyway, the last one I had tix for was GNR in Dallas a few years back...

I'm not going to argue since what you are saying may be true and I have no evidence to prove you wrong. Allow me to say however that I've seen another bazillion arena shows and all of them fell into the 90-120 range. Nirvana ( this was in 92 when they only had a few albums out), Radiohead, Oasis, U2, The Cure, Black Crowes, Green Day....

Let me ask you something, what's the point in doing an arena show if you are gonna play a set shorter than 90 minutes? VR's first tour was a club tour. The album had not been released yet and the tour helped to rise hype and momentum for the album. That tour was flawless. But, now VR has a solid fanbase, solid album ( backed up with sales and critics) and solid reputation, why not be a little more ambitious? They have been to some extreme by playing arenas now, they should live up to the expectations and give people their money's worth.

Question to the ones who have attended or will attend? to both legs.? Are the tickets more expensive now than they were on the first leg?

[mikegiuliana]

It's obvious and bigger venue is more expensive, if you see vr at joe's bar then at msg the cost is more for the band

Let me ask you something, what's the point in doing an arena show if you are gonna play a set shorter than 90 minutes? VR's first tour was a club tour. The album had not been released yet and the tour helped to rise hype and momentum for the album. That tour was flawless. But, now VR has a solid fanbase, solid album ( backed up with sales and critics) and solid reputation, why not be a little more ambitious? They have been to some extreme by playing arenas now, they should live up to the expectations and give people their money's worth.

Think for a second, I agree they could switch up the setlist, but they have 13 songs on their album and they have been playing up to 15 songs total, so what more can one band do that only has one album under their belt? They are a fast paced band with no long epic type songs, unless you go with the extended slither.. They could throw in fillers, but who needs them?? I want to see vr rock, the time of the show doesn't lessen the quality of the performance.. The band has been out with an album since june, it's november, that's not a long time, most bands couldn't go from clubs to bigger venues in such a short period..More fans are getting to see the show and that's what counts..

[coolman78SLASH]

I don't know if I'm 100% correct, but even GnR in 87 played only short sets like VR does now, as they only had AFD out, and they threw in 3 to 5 covers as well (whole lotta rosie, heartbreak hotel ect) They've only been touring for some months, and the majority of the audience are seeing them for the first time, so it's still new and fresh for most people. They are adding some covers, and it's difficult for a band to rehearse in new songs when they are on tour, isen't it? Now, if they still have almost the same set list next year, then we can start to complain.. until then.. Enjoy the fact that we have a GnR related band out there, and maybe soon we can have two if Axl releases the CD soon !!

[Cocaine__tongue]

? And by the way, this is an arena tour. Nobody plays arenas with a one hour and a half shows, that's just way too short

Size of venue should have nothing to do with length of set, that's just goofy.

I don't think it's goofy at all. The tickets are more expensive. They have been touring for quite some time now and mostly everyone should expect to see something diferent, that's all. Do you imagine U2, for example, playing one hour and a half in Staples Center (first arena that came to my mind, i know velvet revolver haven't played it!!). it would feel quite weird. Bands such as velvet revolver play longer shows, it's a reality.

[mikegiuliana]

? And by the way, this is an arena tour. Nobody plays arenas with a one hour and a half shows, that's just way too short

Size of venue should have nothing to do with length of set, that's just goofy.

I don't think it's goofy at all. The tickets are more expensive. They have
 been touring for quite some time now and mostly everyone should expect to see something diferent, that's all. Do you imagine U2, for example, playing one hour and a half in Staples Center (first arena that came to my mind, i know velvet revolver haven't played it!!). it would feel quite weird. Bands such as velvet revolver play longer shows, it's a reality.

Ok by your u-2 comparison to vr then new gnr should have played longer then 2 hours.. Lots of fillers to make that show more than an hour and a half.. How one could compare one of the bigget rock bands to a band with one album is crazy..

Maybe vr seems bigger then they are to you because you know them already, but not everyone sees this then more then a new band with one album under their belts.

Maybe we can throw in a matt sorum boring drum solo and a boring rant to make the show eclipse two hours?? I don't need that crap, I rather just have a fast paced action filed show. IT'S QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY. If you can't go and see a show with up to 15 songs then I don't know what you are looking for.. No one is suppose to play anymore then what their matierial is, contraband is 13 songs, they give you that or 15 so what more do they owe you.. People make it sound like they've been toruing for years and have multiple albums..

They have one album, I'm sure they made bigger venues so people could see them, 1000 seaters won't cut it twice..

Tickets are more expensive because the band is paying for ten thousand seats rather then say 1000 with standing room.. It's like rent, if a store is in an bad neighborhood you buy a soda for a dollar, in time square it would be 2 dollars, but you still get the same soda, it's just the place they are selling it at is more expensive.. It may cost 5 grand to rent our some small venue, but 50 thousand to rent out msg, the cost is more for more people to see it..

Once the band gets more material then you can complain if things don't change, this is still more or less a first real concert for a new band..

[Falcon]

Let me ask you something, what's the point in doing an arena show if you are gonna play a set shorter than 90 minutes?

To allow more people to see them.

They have been to some extreme by playing arenas now, they should live up to the expectations and give people their money's worth.

I saw them a month ago at a festival, they palyed an hour or so.? My expectations were more than met and I got my moneys worth.


The bottom line is this, they've got one record out with 13 songs on it.? They're generally playing 9/10 selections a night from their debut album and adding 5/6 cover songs to round out the set.

I suggest if you have issues with the length of shows, your expectations not being met or not getting your moneys worth, don't attend a show.

[younggunner]

I enjoyed the msg show, I never thought about the time, but that is a band with huge options to play 3 hours worth of songs..

Huge options? What new gnr album have I missed? They played AFD, 2 covers, an illuison and 3 new songs. Thats not a huge stelist....

If they played illusions etc we woul dhave a great deal of people on this board complaining about how they only are playing old gnr sets. The same people who cried the day after Axl walked off stage in Detroit and the set ended a few sonsg earlier. The same people who were complaing how GNR ripped them off because they played a sSHORT set. but a different band does it around here, the more dangerous undpredictabe we dont give a fuk band does the same thing night after night after night..with the same "rants" at the same time in the show..like a godam creed show...its all good, its acceptable....interesting....

ill bet when CD is out they play all of cd and thow in a few old gnr classics...and as they begin to tour and get to that second and 3rd album we will have a totally unpredicatble set like th eold days....

[Booker Floyd]

Huge options? What new gnr album have I missed? They played AFD, 2 covers, an illuison and 3 new songs. Thats not a huge stelist....

He said "huge options"...meaning AFD, LIES, UYIs, and even The Spaghetti Incident?.  Not to mention one of many new songs.

If they played illusions etc we woul dhave a great deal of people on this board complaining about how they only are playing old gnr sets.

Now youre changing the subject, unsurprisingly, to some asinine hypothetical. So because fans would complain about old material, they should stick with...AFD?  Instead of half AFD, half UYI?  That makes a lot of sense.

The same people who cried the day after Axl walked off stage in Detroit and the set ended a few sonsg earlier. The same people who were complaing how GNR ripped them off because they played a sSHORT set.

I dont know who complained that GNRs shows are too short...Well, I guess I did, but that more due to them playing zero minutes than anything else.  The only thing I can think of is that GNR tickets were more expensive.

but a different band does it around here, the more dangerous undpredictabe we dont give a fuk band does the same thing night after night after night..with the same "rants" at the same time in the show..like a godam creed show...its all good, its acceptable....interesting....

Yeah man, nobody has expressed any discontent with VRs setlist.  Nobody!  You really called them on it.

The point that poster was making is that GNR has significantly more material than VR has at the moment.  GNRs recorded, what?  100-plus songs?  VR has about...20 at most.  Therefore, one has a bit of an advantage in the variety department. 

ill bet when CD is out they play all of cd and thow in a few old gnr classics...and as they begin to tour and get to that second and 3rd album we will have a totally unpredicatble set like th eold days....

 Ill bet that youve been making that bet for years. 

Second and third albums...

[younggunner]

meaning AFD, LIES, UYIs, and even The Spaghetti Incident?.  Not to mention one of many new songs.

i know what he meant. But he and others would be the same people complainig that they are just stealing the old material. Its obivious last tour was a warmup of sorts and the band was sticking to a simple setlist that the fans can enjoy as they break in in a live setting. Axl has said this is a reunion of osrts,,,because of th eplaying of the old material basically for one last time as a complete set.

Well, I guess I did, but that more due to them playing zero minutes than anything else.

?

The only thing I can think of is that GNR tickets were more expensive.

And with that you got a full production. Lights, fireworks,cakewheels,camera effects, confetti, etc. Not to menthion a full set night in and night out of 2 hrs plus. Yes they were expensive but it wasnt a cheap tour in terms of entertainemtn.

The point that poster was making is that GNR has significantly more material than VR has at the moment.GNRs recorded, what?  100-plus songs?  VR has about...20 at most.   

No they dont. GNR arent going to play the old catalogue. They would have that advantage if they decided they were going to tap into the old catalogue. Instead they kept it slim pickings soley because they felt playing afd and the few others was the way to go in terms of bridging the gap until they play th enew stuff.

Ill bet that youve been making that bet for years. 

Second and third albums

lol yes i have. And I still stan dby it. When things EVENTUALLY get rolling Im pretty confident GNr will be playing all the new songs with a few classics thrown in. And then as the tours move on and the other albums see th elight of day we will have an unpredicatble setlist.

My proble with VR is that they are talking this big and dangerous game yet its so predicatble and machine like. If they just did what they are doing without yapping like hardasses then I wouldnt have a problem.

[Booker Floyd]

i know what he meant.

Oh, so you changed the subject anyway.  Okay.

?

I was at Philly, and their set-length wasnt exactly everybodys complaint...I dont recall anybody bitching about set-length in any city...which means it was probably few people, if any.

And with that you got a full production. Lights, fireworks,cakewheels,camera effects, confetti, etc. Not to menthion a full set night in and night out of 2 hrs plus. Yes they were expensive but it wasnt a cheap tour in terms of entertainemtn.

I wasnt talking about production...I was referring to the alleged set-length complaints.

No they dont. GNR arent going to play the old catalogue.

They did.  If we can stay in reality for one thread and discuss the 2002 tour, that would be good.

They would have that advantage if they decided they were going to tap into the old catalogue.

See above.

Instead they kept it slim pickings soley because they felt playing afd and the few others was the way to go in terms of bridging the gap until they play th enew stuff.

Until they play the new stuff...meaning - they played the old stuff.  Now, with that squared away, like I said, "GNR has significantly more material than VR has at the moment."

lol yes i have. And I still stan dby it. When things EVENTUALLY get rolling Im pretty confident GNr will be playing all the new songs with a few classics thrown in. And then as the tours move on and the other albums see th elight of day we will have an unpredicatble setlist.

Its still completely unfounded speculation.

My proble with VR is that they are talking this big and dangerous game yet its so predicatble and machine like. If they just did what they are doing without yapping like hardasses then I wouldnt have a problem.

Fair enough.  In fact, I agree. 

[jarmo]

So Booker, you don't think my original "complaint" about them playing the same set night after night is a big deal?

Instead of trying to make this a GN'R ropic, I'd appreciate if you focused on VR.


They're gonna play five nights in London in January. I wonder how much they'll mix up the set list.....



/jarmo

[Booker Floyd]

So Booker, you don't think my original "complaint" about them playing the same set night after night is a big deal?

No.  A fair complaint, yes.  My main complaint is that its too similar to the promo tour setlist...aside from that, unless youre following the band around the country and watching every show, it shouldnt be a big deal.

Instead of trying to make this a GN'R ropic, I'd appreciate if you focused on VR.

That topic was being discussed well before I came in.

[younggunner]

I was referring to the alleged set-length complaints.

?

Until they play the new stuff...meaning - they played the old stuff.  Now, with that squared away, like I said, "GNR has significantly more material than VR has at the moment."

Of course they woul dhave more of a catalogue if they wanted to use all th eold gnr material. BUt they didnt and stayed away from that. If they werent goin to release the album in 2002 what would you expect them to play? So they decided to just use AFD and a few selects to bridge the gap until they play their material.

Its still completely unfounded speculation.

no, its common sense. Do you really thing that GNR will be playing the same set when the album is out? Do you honestly think Tommy, Robin, Brain and the band would rather play the old material rathe rthan the new material they they have been working on all these years?
So they are going to release CD and instea dof touring on that they will be playing 2002 all over again.SUrrree.
Just listne to what Axl said at the VMsa regarding the how th eplayers are intense about playing th enew material...

Fair enough.  In fact, I agree.

cool