Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

The Muse Thread - Hate This & I'll Hate You


CountingDemons

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I don't get the pleas for any band to "drop the hits". Think about it - if you were attending your first Muse show and they DIDN'T play PIB/Hysteria/KoC/etc, how pissed off would you be?

 

The correct solution is to play longer shows to allow more song variety. They will be 6 albums in soon, so there's no excuse to play shows for the same length as you did when you only had 2 albums. 15-song sets at your own headline show is lame when you're on Muse's pedestal.

 

This, yes, thank you. People seem to forget that not everyone going to a show has seen the artist in question before, or knows their music all that well. The hits will always get played-they were hits for a reason. People like them.

 

The band should judge all their songs the same and pick which ones are best for the show. Pick some of the hits that are relevant, and some of the deeper cuts. Rotate. That's what the back-catalogue is for.

 

If you have five big hits, play three of them, and play two that the mega fans are likely to enjoy. Then rotate the next night. Ie, one night do Hysteria, Plug In Baby, Supermassive Black Hole, Cave and Dying Atheist, the next do Time Is Running Out, Feeling Good, Starlight, Sober and Blackout.

 

It would encourage people to see them more, as you'd have to go to a few gigs to see all the hits (though come on, which fans really haven't seen Muse before?), it would alienate neither group of fans, and it would keep the setlist exciting.

 

Radiohead and Arctic Monkeys do something similar; works okay for them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But remember that most people can afford to only attend one show. "Encouraging" further shows to budget fans by only playing a handful of hits one night is being a scumbag. Radiohead gets away with it because their audience is of a different mindset (even though it is admittedly hilarious how many people still expect to hear "Creep" at their shows), and they have calmer crowd vibes too. Although I still don't completely agree with their practices.

 

Though last I checked, Arctic Monkeys DO play their hits at every show...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But remember that most people can afford to only attend one show. "Encouraging" further shows to budget fans by only playing a handful of hits one night is being a scumbag. Radiohead gets away with it because their audience is of a different mindset (even though it is admittedly hilarious how many people still expect to hear "Creep" at their shows), and they have calmer crowd vibes too. Although I still don't completely agree with their practices.

 

Though last I checked, Arctic Monkeys DO play their hits at every show...

 

Arctic Monkeys often drop favourites such as Teddy Picker, Fake Tales of San Francisco, Mardy Bum and Cornerstone.

 

It's just as nasty to charge extortionate ticket prices, and then play the same songs as ever. If most fans can't afford to see a band twice, why did Muse play the whole of Origin of Symmetry at a festival? On a single tour, some people can go to the arena leg, the stadium leg, and a festival. I did on the Resistance tour, and I know a lot of other people who did.

 

Is anyone that bothered about seeing one particular song?

 

I'm not saying play a set of b-sides, I'm just saying limit the untouchable songs to one or two, not the five or so that Muse currently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But remember that most people can afford to only attend one show. "Encouraging" further shows to budget fans by only playing a handful of hits one night is being a scumbag. Radiohead gets away with it because their audience is of a different mindset (even though it is admittedly hilarious how many people still expect to hear "Creep" at their shows), and they have calmer crowd vibes too. Although I still don't completely agree with their practices.

 

Though last I checked, Arctic Monkeys DO play their hits at every show...

 

So that being the case, "where do you stand on the same set every night" Vs. "every show must be unique" debate eternal to concert audiences. Everything else you've written inclines me to believe you'd be the latter, but what you've written there seems to be more of a defense for the former. Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic Monkeys often drop favourites such as Teddy Picker, Fake Tales of San Francisco, Mardy Bum and Cornerstone.

 

It's just as nasty to charge extortionate ticket prices, and then play the same songs as ever. If most fans can't afford to see a band twice, why did Muse play the whole of Origin of Symmetry at a festival? On a single tour, some people can go to the arena leg, the stadium leg, and a festival. I did on the Resistance tour, and I know a lot of other people who did.

 

Is anyone that bothered about seeing one particular song?

 

I'm not saying play a set of b-sides, I'm just saying limit the untouchable songs to one or two, not the five or so that Muse currently have.

 

"fan favorites" is a whole different animal than "hits" IMHO. Your arguement makes a ton more sense when you use the first term (at least it does to me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They definitely need to play longer shows. I was a little disappointed when the band finished their set and exited the stage five minutes before schedule when I saw them live (unless they had a good reason). Yes, I know, it's just five minutes and they were amazing and fantastic, but JUST ONE MORE SONG, PRETTY PLEASE. :sad:

 

If it was the Resistance tour, the reason was that the band's arena production took longer than typical to load out after the shows. That's what I heard from a guy who worked the local Muse arena gig back in 2009 anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic Monkeys often drop favourites such as Teddy Picker, Fake Tales of San Francisco, Mardy Bum and Cornerstone.

But "favorites" aren't always "hits". When I think of AM's "hits" that any first-time attendee of their shows wants to hear, I think of Dancefloor, Crying Lightning, Brianstorm, etc. They can still afford to rotate out the lesser-known singles like Cornerstone every now and then.

It's just as nasty to charge extortionate ticket prices, and then play the same songs as ever. If most fans can't afford to see a band twice, why did Muse play the whole of Origin of Symmetry at a festival? On a single tour, some people can go to the arena leg, the stadium leg, and a festival. I did on the Resistance tour, and I know a lot of other people who did.

That makes no sense. I'm personally lucky enough to have been able to afford seeing them several times last tour, but that sure as hell didn't mean I could afford Reading/Leeds. You have a slight advantage in the UK since you have all 3 of arena, stadium, and festival shows, but even there, most fans DON'T go to multiple shows on the same tour. And at a festival, you're going to get tons of people who don't give a rat's ass about the headlining band at all. (which is why I personally disagree with their choice to break out OoS at a fest) Just because you, I, and your friends can afford multiple shows does not mean most fans can.

So that being the case, "where do you stand on the same set every night" Vs. "every show must be unique" debate eternal to concert audiences. Everything else you've written inclines me to believe you'd be the latter, but what you've written there seems to be more of a defense for the former. Just curious.

I'm a little unclear on what you're asking me, but I'll attempt to elaborate:

 

You brought up the band's stage production on The Resistance tour, and I'll admit that restricted both the song order and song choice flexibility. (they had to raise/lower those damn towers at certain points to correlate with specific songs) And my main complaint with the tour was indeed show length, because they were still able to cram all the hits into every show, which is a good thing. But because they never played more than 90 minutes at arena shows, they didn't have space to throw in some of the hardcore "fan favorites", so to speak. So I think the shows should definitely be unique in some regard, but because of the production last tour, they really weren't given that freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "favorites" aren't always "hits". When I think of AM's "hits" that any first-time attendee of their shows wants to hear, I think of Dancefloor, Crying Lightning, Brianstorm, etc. They can still afford to rotate out the lesser-known singles like Cornerstone every now and then.

 

That makes no sense. I'm personally lucky enough to have been able to afford seeing them several times last tour, but that sure as hell didn't mean I could afford Reading/Leeds. You have a slight advantage in the UK since you have all 3 of arena, stadium, and festival shows, but even there, most fans DON'T go to multiple shows on the same tour. And at a festival, you're going to get tons of people who don't give a rat's ass about the headlining band at all. (which is why I personally disagree with their choice to break out OoS at a fest) Just because you, I, and your friends can afford multiple shows does not mean most fans can.

 

I'm a little unclear on what you're asking me, but I'll attempt to elaborate:

 

You brought up the band's stage production on The Resistance tour, and I'll admit that restricted both the song order and song choice flexibility. (they had to raise/lower those damn towers at certain points to correlate with specific songs) And my main complaint with the tour was indeed show length, because they were still able to cram all the hits into every show, which is a good thing. But because they never played more than 90 minutes at arena shows, they didn't have space to throw in some of the hardcore "fan favorites", so to speak. So I think the shows should definitely be unique in some regard, but because of the production last tour, they really weren't given that freedom.

 

 

Got it, sorry if I wasn't very clear. I get your position better now. I really think Muse's arena production was the primary thing that led to short/repetative shows last tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I know I'm jumping in on the conversation, but I've been a huge Muse fan for years, and I saw them twice on their North America tour in 2010.

 

The stage production actually didn't restrict their setlists as much as stated above. They didn't have to have New Born as the third song every single time (except for the few times Knights filled that slot). They could have moved New Born to "close" the piano section. If they did that, then Matt could have played the intro, which would have been so much better than the slow, neutered Morgan version. Also, only at the end did they figure out that Citizen Erased flowed so well from the guitar to piano sections. For example,

 

Exogenesis: Symphony Part I (Overture)

Map of the Problematique

Knights of Cydonia

Supermassive Black Hole

MK Ultra/Dead Star

Hysteria

Butterflies & Hurricanes/Assassin

Resistance/Guiding Light

Citizen Erased

United States of Eurasia

Ruled By Secrecy/Sunburn/Feeling Good/Cave

New Born/Space Dementia

Starlight/Undisclosed Desires/Bliss

Unnatural Selection

Time Is Running Out

Plug In Baby

 

Uprising

Stockholm Syndrome

Take A Bow

 

Looking at that setlist, the variety is astounding! Between that and the standard Uprising opening, they really could have done so much. And the majority of those songs are songs they played this last tour.

 

Also, they didn't have to play such short sets. Look at their Turin gig from 2009:

 

Uprising

Resistance

New Born

Map of the Problematique

Supermassive Black Hole

MK ULTRA

Hysteria

Butterflies & Hurricanes

United States of Eurasia

Sunburn

Guiding Light

Undisclosed Desires

Starlight

Plug In Baby

Time Is Running Out

Unnatural Selection

 

Exogenesis: Symphony Part I (Overture)

Stockholm Syndrome

Man with a Harmonica intro + Knights of Cydonia

 

Nineteen songs should have been the minimum number of songs for a band with six albums. Seriously. I saw them in the fall 2010 tour and they played 15 songs for less than 90 minutes. I also don't count jams/Nishe/riffs/etc. Sure, they are fun if they are spontaneous, but when they were pre-planned. If they have longer sets, then they can mix it up more. But when they only give themselves 15 songs, no variety. That's why I appreciate Coldplay. Yes, the sets don't vary between consecutive shows, but they sure do vary from the beginning of the tour to the end. Plus their shows last a full two hours.

 

On a side note, why do concerts have to be so short? For example, Paul McCartney, AC/DC, and Bruce Springsteen all play for three hours or longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I know I'm jumping in on the conversation, but I've been a huge Muse fan for years, and I saw them twice on their North America tour in 2010.

 

The stage production actually didn't restrict their setlists as much as stated above. They didn't have to have New Born as the third song every single time (except for the few times Knights filled that slot). They could have moved New Born to "close" the piano section. If they did that, then Matt could have played the intro, which would have been so much better than the slow, neutered Morgan version. Also, only at the end did they figure out that Citizen Erased flowed so well from the guitar to piano sections. For example,

 

Exogenesis: Symphony Part I (Overture)

Map of the Problematique

Knights of Cydonia

Supermassive Black Hole

MK Ultra/Dead Star

Hysteria

Butterflies & Hurricanes/Assassin

Resistance/Guiding Light

Citizen Erased

United States of Eurasia

Ruled By Secrecy/Sunburn/Feeling Good/Cave

New Born/Space Dementia

Starlight/Undisclosed Desires/Bliss

Unnatural Selection

Time Is Running Out

Plug In Baby

 

Uprising

Stockholm Syndrome

Take A Bow

 

Looking at that setlist, the variety is astounding! Between that and the standard Uprising opening, they really could have done so much. And the majority of those songs are songs they played this last tour.

 

Also, they didn't have to play such short sets. Look at their Turin gig from 2009:

 

Uprising

Resistance

New Born

Map of the Problematique

Supermassive Black Hole

MK ULTRA

Hysteria

Butterflies & Hurricanes

United States of Eurasia

Sunburn

Guiding Light

Undisclosed Desires

Starlight

Plug In Baby

Time Is Running Out

Unnatural Selection

 

Exogenesis: Symphony Part I (Overture)

Stockholm Syndrome

Man with a Harmonica intro + Knights of Cydonia

 

Nineteen songs should have been the minimum number of songs for a band with six albums. Seriously. I saw them in the fall 2010 tour and they played 15 songs for less than 90 minutes. I also don't count jams/Nishe/riffs/etc. Sure, they are fun if they are spontaneous, but when they were pre-planned. If they have longer sets, then they can mix it up more. But when they only give themselves 15 songs, no variety. That's why I appreciate Coldplay. Yes, the sets don't vary between consecutive shows, but they sure do vary from the beginning of the tour to the end. Plus their shows last a full two hours.

 

On a side note, why do concerts have to be so short? For example, Paul McCartney, AC/DC, and Bruce Springsteen all play for three hours or longer.

 

I'm not sure what you mean regarding Coldplay, I've seen them 9 times since 2003 and I've never seen them go 2 hours. They don't play that much longer than Muse really.

 

All those acts you mention at the end have 2 things going for them though:

 

1. They've all been around decades longer than modern bands like Muse or Coldplay. Further, they all started in an era when bands recorded/released music more frequently than the present standard, resulting in them amassing more material than most current bands do in a comprable amount of time.

 

2. They are all acts who have the exception of playing longer than average. It's a bit unreasonable IMHO to compare the average with the high end outliers. Even discounting those notable exceptions though, Muse are still a tad on the short side though, so your point stands anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "favorites" aren't always "hits". When I think of AM's "hits" that any first-time attendee of their shows wants to hear, I think of Dancefloor, Crying Lightning, Brianstorm, etc. They can still afford to rotate out the lesser-known singles like Cornerstone every now and then.

 

That makes no sense. I'm personally lucky enough to have been able to afford seeing them several times last tour, but that sure as hell didn't mean I could afford Reading/Leeds. You have a slight advantage in the UK since you have all 3 of arena, stadium, and festival shows, but even there, most fans DON'T go to multiple shows on the same tour. And at a festival, you're going to get tons of people who don't give a rat's ass about the headlining band at all. (which is why I personally disagree with their choice to break out OoS at a fest) Just because you, I, and your friends can afford multiple shows does not mean most fans can.

 

I think Arctic Monkeys have three hits; Brianstrom, When the Sun Goes Down and Dancefloor. They also happen to be three favourites.

 

But is Plug In Baby a hit or a favourite? It didn't break the top 10 over here. Supermassive Black Hole reached number four and I wouldn't say that it's as revered as Citizen Erased, which reached number 122.

 

Muse's undroppable songs, it would seem, are Plug In Baby, Starlight, Feeling Good, Knights of Cydonia, New Born, Supermassive Black Hole and Hysteria. All I was trying to say in the first place is that I think that's too much. Feeling Good, New Born and Plug In Baby all sound tired to me, and could do with a break from the set. I don't think that would put fans off from seeing them. You just go and see them again on the next leg/tour.

 

And the reason, they said, they played Origin in full was that everybody had already seen the Resistance set before. That's not my judgement that people had seen it before, it's the band's. Sure, I know people that had seen it, but I also know people that had watched Glastonbury when it was broadcast live on tv over here. And I know people that keep tabs on them via YouTube and forums.

 

Oh, and I would not want to see three hours of Muse. I love them, they're great. But there's such a thing as overstaying your welcome, and sometimes succinctness is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Arctic Monkeys have three hits; Brianstrom, When the Sun Goes Down and Dancefloor. They also happen to be three favourites.

 

But is Plug In Baby a hit or a favourite? It didn't break the top 10 over here. Supermassive Black Hole reached number four and I wouldn't say that it's as revered as Citizen Erased, which reached number 122.

 

Muse's undroppable songs, it would seem, are Plug In Baby, Starlight, Feeling Good, Knights of Cydonia, New Born, Supermassive Black Hole and Hysteria. All I was trying to say in the first place is that I think that's too much. Feeling Good, New Born and Plug In Baby all sound tired to me, and could do with a break from the set. I don't think that would put fans off from seeing them. You just go and see them again on the next leg/tour.

 

And the reason, they said, they played Origin in full was that everybody had already seen the Resistance set before. That's not my judgement that people had seen it before, it's the band's. Sure, I know people that had seen it, but I also know people that had watched Glastonbury when it was broadcast live on tv over here. And I know people that keep tabs on them via YouTube and forums.

 

Oh, and I would not want to see three hours of Muse. I love them, they're great. But there's such a thing as overstaying your welcome, and sometimes succinctness is better.

 

Again though, most people in the audience will not "go see them on the next leg", and if they don't hear the songs they came for, they may well not go see them on the next tour either. People want to hear the songs they know, and they want to hear them at the show they go to. Sure, 15 people in the front row may be mad that they don't play blackout, but in reality, they're a small segment of the overall audience, as are people who go to a large number of shows on the same tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again though, most people in the audience will not "go see them on the next leg", and if they don't hear the songs they came for, they may well not go see them on the next tour either. People want to hear the songs they know, and they want to hear them at the show they go to. Sure, 15 people in the front row may be mad that they don't play blackout, but in reality, they're a small segment of the overall audience, as are people who go to a large number of shows on the same tour.

 

I disagree. I think people do go to more than one tour. No, they're not a majority, but they're certainly more than fifteen people, and it's not giving the rest of the crowd much credit to suggest they're happy just seeing the hits.

 

I'm not saying "Muse, do the b-sides", I'm simply saying they should structure it a bit better so that they're not just playing the same few songs, every night, of every tour. So you don't see Plug In Baby? So what? Surely you'll see Feeling Good? Or Hysteria? Or if they drop that, they won't then replace it with one you're unlikely to know, will they?

 

It just keeps things fresh, not only to those that have been to see them before, but it means that some songs, like New Born don't get tired and lethargic. Sometimes, it's best to stop playing something for a while and then rework and bring it back, like they did with the Origin performance. Like the current God Put A Smile Upon Your Face arrangement, Blur's renunion performance of Country House or Radiohead's Creep opening to 2009's Reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think people do go to more than one tour. No, they're not a majority, but they're certainly more than fifteen people, and it's not giving the rest of the crowd much credit to suggest they're happy just seeing the hits.

 

I'm not saying "Muse, do the b-sides", I'm simply saying they should structure it a bit better so that they're not just playing the same few songs, every night, of every tour. So you don't see Plug In Baby? So what? Surely you'll see Feeling Good? Or Hysteria? Or if they drop that, they won't then replace it with one you're unlikely to know, will they?

 

It just keeps things fresh, not only to those that have been to see them before, but it means that some songs, like New Born don't get tired and lethargic. Sometimes, it's best to stop playing something for a while and then rework and bring it back, like they did with the Origin performance. Like the current God Put A Smile Upon Your Face arrangement, Blur's renunion performance of Country House or Radiohead's Creep opening to 2009's Reading.

 

If they took Plug in Baby out, I guarantee you a large portion of the audience would react with much more than a "so what". The nature of arena/stadium shows is such that the audience is so large that a good portion of the audience aren't even all that familiar with a band's lesser known songs. Surely you've been to an arena gig where large numbers of the audience got the blank cow stare during the deep cuts? In structuring a set, a good band's responsibility is to try to ensure that the largest possible percentage of their audience hears what they came for. Unfortunately, it's impossible to please everyone, so you have to do the best you can. Radiohead gets away with it because, by and large, they drove off their casual fans a decade ago when they took the plunge into heavy experimentation. IMHO, a lot of the critisism levelled at Muse's live shows these days is justified, but I just can't agree with your particular arguement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they took Plug in Baby out, I guarantee you a large portion of the audience would react with much more than a "so what". The nature of arena/stadium shows is such that the audience is so large that a good portion of the audience aren't even all that familiar with a band's lesser known songs. Surely you've been to an arena gig where large numbers of the audience got the blank cow stare during the deep cuts? In structuring a set, a good band's responsibility is to try to ensure that the largest possible percentage of their audience hears what they came for. Unfortunately, it's impossible to please everyone, so you have to do the best you can. Radiohead gets away with it because, by and large, they drove off their casual fans a decade ago when they took the plunge into heavy experimentation. IMHO, a lot of the critisism levelled at Muse's live shows these days is justified, but I just can't agree with your particular arguement.

 

We'll agree to disagree. Personally though, I think anyone who pays that much to see a band for one song is wasting their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...