xjsb125 wrote:18 songs in Vancouver, 17 last night. Good enough for me. Don't like the sets? Don't buy the ticket. Problem solved.
Considering the NY show sold out in seconds, and the only option was stubhub, I didn't buy a ticket for this very reason. I paid 70 bucks 2 years ago to see Pearl Jam play a 32 song set. Ill be damned if I pay that to see OLP play not even half of that.
I'm with Jskot. If it were the sm/clumsy tour I would pay the money, but seeing the sets before hand I wouldn't pay more than $40. I would pay to see a live dvd of a full show but I wouldn't go to more than 1 show on this tour. I think if the band wanted to capitalize and make more money they would do 2 shows per city and do an album a night much like the sm clumsy tour. This way you get people to go to 2 shows and make more profit. I think the sm/clumsy tour was the best tour I've seen of the guys and I have been going to their shows since 97
senseofurgency wrote:the way you guys go on, i would assume that this is a regular olp tour with the regular number of songs in a regular olp set. didn't they just do like a 25 song set a couple of years back? you guys are clearly so hard done by, try being an olp fan living in the uk (or anywhere out of north america for that matter)
didn't the guys say that the main objective for this tour is just getting out there as quickly as possible? which would probably mean that these won't be the only shows in the states/canada in the near future.
and also, just because one band does something doesn't mean another has to, that argument pisses me off.
My apologies for not submitting my arguments for your approval prior to posting
I saw them in Chicago when they last stopped off in 2009. They played 16 songs, which totaled just over an hour. I saw them in Chicago last week. They played 15 songs, which totaled just over an hour. Are you seeing the trend? You act as if me wanting to see the band play longer shows is a bad thing...
Just because one band does something doesn't mean another has to. But playing 70 minute sets is kind of a joke, especially when the opener plays 45 minutes. As I said before, if OLP wants to make it as an indie band, they need to extend their act.
RileyLewis wrote:I think all of the reasons defending OLP can be countered pretty easily. If the concern is their being tired after 3 or 4 nights in a row, then the answer is to only schedule shows so that you have a max of 2 shows every 3 days, so you always have constant breaks to rest. If the concern is Raine's voice, I don't believe it, as the Evening With tour had him doing anywhere from 24-28 songs per night.
Every day off during the tour costs money, so you know they could play 2 nights a week for 3 hours and that would also give them time to rehearse an entirely different set for each show but then they'd probably be losing money to tour -- it's just not as cut and dry as your answer suggests. On the Evening With tour, they played 10-11 songs and got a 30 or 40 minute break before coming back out to play another 13-14 so that comparison is apples and oranges. Instead of looking at that, look at the rest of the Burn Burn tour before and after the Clumsy/SM shows.
I don't know why some shows are 18 songs but a couple have been just 15... all I know is I just saw OLP play 2 freaking great shows and they're doing a lot of things lately that I think are headed in the right direction. Sure, I'd love to see them play 20+ song sets with tons of variety -- as long as the quality of their performance wouldn't suffer. But what they are doing this tour is still pretty great IMO, and they're still talking about bringing out more old songs to play.
-Josh
I <3 Kiwi
"The fundamental thing about music is its destiny to be broadcast or shared." -Colin Greenwood of Radiohead
I have not really been reading up on set list but get the gist of what songs are being done..
They have been playing 90 minutes which is norm for most bands now adays. I know there were afew shows that were shorter for whatever reason. It is not really how long they play but the quality of the show. What good is it if a band plays 20 + songs if they perform shitty and I have seen it..
It can not be easy for a band to be on the road.I really do not know how they do it. 4 different cities in 4 different nights. Wears you out. I enjoyed the show I went to. It was fun to see the band again.
YOu have to remember this is really just a warm up tour. I am sure they will change it up a bit next time around. Maybe add a new song or two. From past experience that is how they would do it.
The only time I saw OLP play a longset( besides the SM/Clumsy shows) was the Montreal CLub SOda show. 23 songs and 2-1/2 hours. I do not think they will ever play that long again. Only a handful of people play long sets ..
Look at Bruce Springsteen. He use to do 3-4 hour sets. Last time I saw him he just about did 2hours.. Do not know what he is doing this time around.
There are some bands that can do that and good for them..Like I said out of all the shows I have been to( and it is well over 2000 now) I do not know many acts that play more then 90minutes-2 hours tops.
I feel love, I feel a power. It comes to me in the darkest hour. And I want to feel it again Teach the young people how to think, not what to think-Sidney Sugarman
I think there are valid points on both sides of the set list length argument. Personally, I prefer quality over quantity and if they can do a 90 minute show every night that's outstanding I'd take that over a 2 hour set that fizzles out.
Having said that, the Chicago stop on this tour was very disappointing. The 70 minute set really left a lot to be desired and frankly felt like they mailed it in. I think there were numerous reasons (really small venue, 4th night in a row, etc.), but nonetheless it felt odd. I've been fortunate enough to catch several shows throughout the years so I had a good base of comparison. As I mentioned in another thread though, there were several people around me that were seeing them for the first time and I hate that show was their first impression of OLP live.
auolp wrote:I think there are valid points on both sides of the set list length argument. Personally, I prefer quality over quantity and if they can do a 90 minute show every night that's outstanding I'd take that over a 2 hour set that fizzles out.
Having said that, the Chicago stop on this tour was very disappointing. The 70 minute set really left a lot to be desired and frankly felt like they mailed it in. I think there were numerous reasons (really small venue, 4th night in a row, etc.), but nonetheless it felt odd. I've been fortunate enough to catch several shows throughout the years so I had a good base of comparison. As I mentioned in another thread though, there were several people around me that were seeing them for the first time and I hate that show was their first impression of OLP live.
I heard the Chicago show was extremely short.. That was one of the shows I meant. Hopefully those people would think of seeing the band again> I saw Sam Roberts perform at the JUNOS( same year as OLP). I t hought their performance was not good at all and I love them on record. My friend caught a show and told me to see them again. I went again and now see them when they come through here. Just saw them in Canada last Feb. I usually give a band at least 2 shows if I am a fan from cd's, Anyone can have a bad night..I am lucky with OLP though. Out of all the shows I went to there were only a handful that I would say was not up to par. Actually one show I say they were so not into it. Just going through the motions. As I sad though anyone can have a bad night.
I feel love, I feel a power. It comes to me in the darkest hour. And I want to feel it again Teach the young people how to think, not what to think-Sidney Sugarman
Yeah and "mailed it in" is probably too harsh of a statement. The set they did play sounded great...it just left everyone wanting a little more. I think it was just a product of being the 4th night in a row and having such a high energy show in Detroit the night before. I think once you've experienced them when they are on their A game and full of energy it's just a little disappointing to see a "good" show. Nonetheless it was great to hear the new material and the stops since then appear to be getting more songs. As mentioned, I would expect the full tour later in the year to be consistently in the 17-20 range and I don't think you'll see them doing many stretches with four shows in a row.
Yeah the Regina show was only 70 minutes as well, 15 songs. It felt like the opening band was almost as long. The quality was great, but quality > quantity is a weak argument. I would take 50 mediocre songs over 2 great songs, for example. There is a balance somewhere in between. I think 15 is too short. Around 20 is good, probably. If having 4 or 5 shows in a row is the reason that the tail-end locations get shafted, then the obvious answer is not to book them that way.
I'm grateful they played Regina since it wasn't even on the tour originally, but I hope their full tour in the fall/winter/spring is a bit fuller, and more varied.
Dang!! I'm still upset about not being able to attend the Seattle show. I am only 20. That would have been AMAZING to see to the debut of "if this is it".
Can't wait for the youtube stuff.
and if i don't make it know that i've loved you all along.
This is great! Thanks for sharing. I was up front being blinded by the amazing light show. I have been to hundreds of concerts, small and large and I gotta say the crowd energy was amazing! The fact that Raine was dealing with a family crisis ( that he announced during the show ) and still performed remarkable was just beyond words...How did you manage to stay so still? Best show I've seen in Seattle! artpunk27 2 days ago
and if i don't make it know that i've loved you all along.
we can have some snippets on Clumsymonkeydotnet's Youtube? 
