cilekagaci.com
Which song should they play?
I don't think the answer to that question is a random mix of the songs with 40% song A, I think the answer is 100% song A. If you play any of the other songs, you make 20% of the audience happy, if you play A you make 40% happy, it strictly dominates. In other words, I don't think playing the songs at a concert in proportion to their last.fm statistics makes sense since at home listeners have as much time as they want but concert time is a limited resource that should be used on the best songs.
So I would be interested in the rank order of listening stats vs. rank order of concert songs and look for anomalies. Unforgiven (I, II, III?) are probably going to make that list since I've actually heard of that one and I am definitely not a Metallica fan.
The answer may vary by band. My favorite band, Reel Big Fish, recently did a tour with lots of "deep cuts" and few A-side hits. I loved it, and I think lots of long-time fans did too. But was it economically optimal?
A few interesting observations:
1. Metallica seems to have realized themselves that St Anger wasn't something they wanted to play after that tour. The Load album seems to have been similarly dropped pretty hard.
2. It appears they never even tried playing the majority of Reload live. This is interesting to me as a musician, because I'd have thought that Metallica would be the type of band to try a lot of their songs live before recording them, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
3. Very shocked that they never played Unforgiven II live, since it was a single and everything.
4. I really liked the Audience vs Band chart.
Favourite album is S&M.
At some point, I reckon Hetfield lost the magic and was forcing things from that point.
In general, they didn't play new stuff live.
Here's to hoping they play fixxxer live one day.
From the same album, I was really shocked they'd never played Prince Charming live. Can really imagine that going down a storm, it's just the right pace for a good gig song.
Throw in them and 2x4 for your next setlist please :-) Bit of variety's good and I can imagine them all going down well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Kind_of_Monster_(film)
But probably also because it's awful.
Which doesn't surprise me, as I think their work used to be much better in the past.
With no evidence I feel that this is something of a trend at the moment; I've recently battled our designers when they have sacrificed readability.
I'm 29 and have excellent vision, I can't imagine how hard this could be to read for people who don't.
I still distinctly recall the day in 2003 when I first uttered the previously unthinkable phrase "more crappy Metallica" on hearing their new release.
I actually downloaded their latest album when it so publicly got leaked on the internet. Then, with dashed hopes, deleted it an hour later.
Shame.
I think Metallica is in a similar place with the amount of history they have, and yet I'm not sure anyone would ever slap the label "oldies" on their work. :)
I've seen Radiohead live a few times and I'm always very sad that I never saw them in The Bends/OK Computer era- they barely ever play songs that far back any more. It's a huge deal when they play Creep, too.
I'm not saying that every band should just play crowd-pleasers, of course, but it's nice to hear the stuff that made the band every now and then.
As someone else mentioned, some gigs where artists did the deep cuts, and others where they focused on "big hits" would be ideal.
Macca's plumbed the depths of his Beatles stuff - only a handful of 'his' that I think he's never done live. There's loads of Wings stuff he could do live, and loads of 80s stuff that he never touches. A couple of "deep cuts" shows would be great. "Hey Jude" is great and all, but give me "Magneto and Titatnium Man" one more time :)
I saw the Beach Boys (well, most of them) in 1993(?), and they were doing some 'deep cut' stuff - Vegetables(!), Wind Chimes (IIRC), etc. A couple people booed - WTF! I was the only one in the upper deck singing along with this stuff, so maybe that was an issue - there's just not enough people at a 30k seat arena who want to hear the deep tracks to make it worthwhile to do there. Smaller venues would be great though.
When I am home listening to Metallica I might prefer the lighter songs like Unforgiven II. Whereas a concert is not just 'music', it is a whole performance! An energetic song definitely makes a difference. Thus, the chart is partly right saying that the songs from the extreme left would make people more happy, but how would playing those set the mood for the concert which determines the overall experience?
What I'm saying is that from a musicianship perspective they're a disaster in a live setting. Lars can't maintain a steady tempo and is constantly pushing and pulling the beat...I'm sure he refuses to use a click track, but he should as he's just not talented enough to stay on tempo. I don't know how Rob stays with him other than the fact that he's just really a great bassist.
They blast right through the breaks in their songs without taking a breath. For example, watch Harvester of Sorrow in Seattle from Live Sh!t, recorded in the 1992. They take a break after one of the mesaures and walk around for a few seconds and then come in hard with "All have said their prayers...". It was an amazing effect and man, we'd go nuts in the pits, freezing during the break and then just smashing sh!t up when they came back in. It was, to use a word that has sadly lost its meaning, epic.
These days they don't even pause between songs, much less breaking at the end of a measure for effect. They just bleed one song right into the other. For a guy who's been going to shows for over 20 years it's been tough to watch them stop caring about how they play.