Pardon if there's already a thread for this.

I got thinking the other night after writing a review of Jon Spencer Blues Explosion's show, about the growing movement of bands playing whole classic albums in their entirety. JSBX didn't do it (even thought they're touring behind three reissues) but last night here in town Echo and the Bunnymen did it, Cracker/Camper Van Beethoven is doing it in a couple weeks and Weezer is doing two nights of it next month.

What do you all think of this approach to live shows? I can dig the reverence and spectacle, especially if it's a band that's reuniting like Pitchfork gets for their fest most years, but for the most part it strikes me as flat and kinda boring. Part of the attraction of a live show is not knowing what song is coming next, especially for a band with a sizable catalog, and having different songs from different eras of a band's career fit in weirdly or perfectly next to each other.

If a band's going track by track - even if they jumble the order around a bit - it just seems really predictable and safe. A great marketing ploy, for sure, but if I give you my $20-$30 I want to go on a ride where I don't know what's up ahead.

(disclaimer: I'm looking for thoughts, ideas and insights that could very soon get worked into a story on this phenomenon. Just putting that out there from the start)

This is sort of how I feel. This essentially turns a band into what so many people accuse The Stones of having been since at least 1980: A Touring Jukebox of their greatest hits.

As much as I didn't really enjoy the Wilco show the other night, I also don't think I'd like a full album performance of any of their first 3 albums.

Plus, I would think the tendency here would be to play the album Note For Note, and not play with the tempo or any other elements in the least bit. Maybe a band could make this approach more interesting by playing all of the accompanying b-Sides? or by encoring with songs from three bands (or however many) that influenced their approach? But a straight re-hash of an album played live sounds like something you could have fun with if a bar band does it, or if a band plays another bands' album (c.f. Phish Halloween Shows) but I don't think I'd pay money to see this from any of the bands your talking about.

Now, if The Stones said they were playing Let It Bleed, Beggar's Banquet and Sticky Fingers? SURE!

I think it's pretty cool especially if they also do a regular set in addition to the album set and don't necessarily play the album note for note. Like, I would have enjoyed going to one of those Springsteen album shows.

It's a way to revisit albums that people have found a love for after the initial release, it's a way for bands to revisit a time when their creative outputs were peaking, and it's a way to sell tickets.

In a couple of weeks, I'm going to see Flaming Lips play one of my favorite albums, not only by them, but at least top 5 of all time, The Soft Bulletin. I personally can't wait, because I've seen the Lips a handful of times in the last 9 years or so and even more now than ever, it's all about the spectacle with not much substance. I've also seen Sonic Youth perform Daydream Nation at a Pitchfork Fest a few years back. The terrible festival sound ruined what should've been a great concert experience. This past Friday, I saw Dead Confederate perform Neil Young's Tonight's the Night, and in hindsight, that was a mistake.

I guess that's what I was driving at. Can't just be the one album.

i agree that this approach is a little safe and flat. some of the early adapters had good intentions by playing revered albums at special events/festivals. it was a novelty and it excited fan bases. (if i recall correctly, this kinda sprouted out of the all tomorrow's parties festivals.) but now the albums are less revered and the shows are happening everywhere. i don't really have a problem with it since it doesn't change whether i go to a show or not. if i like a band, i'll see them. if i like an album that's being played in its entirety, i'll see a band perform it. i think the worst thing about this is if a band that doesn't tour often is performing an album from front-to-back and it's one that you don't care for.

i agree that it ruins some of the anticipation, though. i've seen bands play an album almost exactly as it sounds on the recording. i've also seen bands shuffle their albums live. the latter is an interesting approach, though it isn't much different than bands with only one album. i mean, they basically do the same thing. also, some bands play the same exact set every night and anyone who's interested in searching out set lists could know ahead of time what'll be next anyway.

my favorite example of this was girls against boys at touch & go's 25th anniversary show. they got on stage and casually said, "we're going to play venus luxure. we hope that's ok." people lost their shit. it hadn't been announced beforehand. they apparently just felt like doing it when they prepped for the show. and they killed it. as an encore they played a couple other non-venus songs. fantastic show.

I've mulled over this phenomenon before and have had thoughts on it.

I think its starting/has become a gimmicky thing for a band to do. The thing is, sometimes its completely the band listening to the fans and actually doing what the fans are requesting night after night. It wasn't long ago that Rivers Cuomo refused to do any Pinkerton songs live. He absolutely detested the fact that the album was DOA. Probably about the time the Green album was released, people were coming around on the album, and requesting songs live. Seems like he's embracing the album now and just going with the flow.

You also cannot discount that there is a certain amount of reminiscing going on with the current 30-40-somethings. We're older, we're disenchanted with a lot of music out today, and dang it, we're wanting to relive our college years. I'm more lenient with bands doing full-album sets when they're re-uniting as well. See Dino Jr and the Pixies.

Bottom line though--it sells tickets. You know what you're going to hear, and know that its not going to be 2-3 good songs you like and then 20-some songs that were culled from b-sides and whatnot. I think people like that. They don't like being surprised. Personally, I'm in love with being surprised--but I know a whole heck of a lot of people who go to 1 or 2 shows a year and want each one to be a dynamite and memorable experience.

Interesting that this approach is taking off as the album has fallen to near irrelevance as an artistic format. There are still great albums, of course, but they're no longer the standard/presumed way that music is delivered and consumed.

I can climb on board if the full album treatment is one "Act" of a show with two or three segments and everything else is a scramble. But that Cracker thing from earlier - two full albums gets kind of monolithic.
Weezer is doing one night with the Blue Album, one night with Pinkerton, so I'd assume they'd have to cut those sets with the rest of their catalog since both those albums are right around 40 mins on the dot.

This is an argument I'm still kicking around in my head, so thanks for the input.

I ran this idea by our main music writer, who emailed back this morning; "I'd pay good money to hear bands do their bad albums front to back. "Coney Island Baby" by Lou Reed- I'm there."

Also reminds me that I just saw Queens of the Stone Age play their s/t debut about a month ago at the Ryman. Great show. Another example of an album that was out of print and came out in 1998, about 2 years before I found out who QOTSA was.

What are the live album performances that'd qualify as legit "events" and make it worth it? Seems like to do that they'd have to go hand in hand with a reunion of some sort, where by playing a certain album in full you're disposing of any worry of filler for most of the set.

Two I thought of last night;
Neutral Milk Hotel (full or close to full lineup, not just Mangum) doing "Aeroplane..." front to back
Guns N' Roses, classic lineup give or take Adler, doing "Appetite For Destruction"

Also, I gotta imagine Soundgarden has this card up their sleeve for the tour for their new record, whenever it comes out. "Superunknown" in full could do some business. Not nearly to the level of NHM or GNR, but it's definitely in play.

Superunknown has way too much filler for that.

when weezer did that here, the first set was other stuff and then the second set was the album of the night. had it been the other way, i think a lot of people would've left at the break.

I'll probably go for the Blue Album night. Back in October the Thermals did "My Name Is Jonas" for their one-song encore and the crowd went apeshit.

Was totally thinking about this the other night when I went to see Echo & the Bunnymen. Sure, the songs are great, but it does feel a bit boring despite how great the albums are. I think its pretty cool as part of a festival.

The pixies did all the B-sides BEFORE playing the album on the doolittle tour.

Largely this is a phenomenon I find unappealing. I can't quite put my finger on why--but it is definitely due to a lot of the reasons already listed.

But I think perhaps it boils down to the kind of emotional/sentimental connection I have to a full album. And honestly, there are only a handful of albums that I have that kind of reaction to. Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is one I can think of off hand that I would enjoy seeing Wilco play live side A to side B.

Ultimately, I think most of the albums that would have been key during my prime sentimental album era (high school) aren't albums I have any interest in hearing anymore--my musical taste has shifted beyond what sentimentality could save.

Ok, as I'm thinking about it more there are a few more albums I would definitely enjoy seeing played whole live--Sixpence None the Richer and Jars of Clay's respective self-titled albums. I could totally get behind that.

Just saw on Pf that The Cure will be doing their first 3 album in their entirety.


I could get behind this. They just don't do most of this material anymore.

TheTheory--just saw JoC recently and its their s/t album's 20th anniversary. They did almost the entire album at different points of the night.

I'm bad about wanting to see what bands I'll be seeing have been playing as they get closer to the show I'm going to. I understand if you only have one album out but some bands just make their setlist and just do it over and over every night. Always seems to me that would just be boring as shit as a musician. At least mix it up some and in today's world, bands know people do this so why not make it fresh? If I love your band why should I travel an hour up to road to see you in back to back nights if you're just going to play the same set?

I don't have a problem with bands doing this. Hell, I LOVED the Pixies show where they did "Doolittle" but like was mentioned, they did every single b-side from that whole era (7 or 8 songs in addition to the album). Plus an encore of other stuff (I think).

But, I do agree that this has lost some of it's novelty.

I'd probably go see Jesus & Mary Chain do "PsychoCandy" or maybe Elvis Costello do a small club show of "Imperial Bedroom". I'm sure there are others. All depends on if you like the band or not.

yeah, i always thought it'd be boring for musicians to do the same thing every night too. but i see it regularly, especially with bigger acts. leonard cohen even had the same rehearsed banter between songs when he toured a couple years ago. this is why i kinda like when a "hey, we're playing this whole album" show is mixed up. i saw gary numan play the pleasure principle last october and it was basically on shuffle. cool idea. everyone heard every song they planned to, but not quite in the manner that they expected. i didn't hear any complaints.

this is getting a little off-topic and i should mention i'm not a musician, so this is a genuine question, but i often hear bands reply to deep track requests with "we don't know it anymore" and i think "how hard can it be to remember a song you actually wrote and performed for years?"

Depends on how complex the song is, when was they last time they played it, and how many people there are in the band who have to remember their parts, and the cues and all.
It it were a solo/acoustic show, there might be less reasoning behind it, but there is a lot of rehearsal involved in playing music. Gotta give respect to the bands who have been around a long time who can still dig deep into their catalog and play most anything they've done.

I think it's a fun idea, although I think it is a much better idea to accompany the playing of the album with a set of assorted tunes, especially for a band with a deep catalog. And, avoiding note-for note recreations is a good idea as well. I mean, if you're just gonna try to make it sounds as close to the record as possible, I start to feel like I could have just saved my ticket money and cranked up the stereo.

holy shit, it's been 20 years already? That album was the first CD I owned. That can't be right... ok, Wikipedia says 1995, which DOES sound right. I knew I wasn't 7 when that first released. I was still listening to cassette tapes of Michael W. Smith and Carmen back then.


That is one thing I love about Bob Dylan... he never seems to do the same setlist twice.

I think it is excusable to not know your songs if you've been fairly prolific. I mean, I'd probably have trouble remembering after 50 songs... let alone artists who have hundreds to their credit.

What I don't get is when the on-stage "banter" is the same show-after-show, ala the aforementioned Leonard Cohen. Whenever I notice that it drives me nuts.

Batmotorfinger would be pretty cool though.

Good stuff all and please keep it coming. Looks like my story is going to run ahead of the Weezer shows here in early June.

Thanks very much.