Should an artist play the 'old stuff'?

[Mr Ploppy]

Something I have been thinking about for a few days now.

Apparently, Jarvis Cocker won't play ANY Pulp material when he does live shows to promote his solo projects. Pulp were a very sucessful band and had a huge fanbase, alot of which probably follow Jarvis now.

I understand he wants people to concentrate on his solo work - but surely throwing in a few Pulp songs (which he wrote) would not do any harm.

It seems odd to me that someone like Jarvis can have the sucess of Pulp and then turn his back on those many years to ensure 'fans' only hear his new catalogue live.

A similar thing with Brett Anderson when he formed the shortlived 'The Tears' band. He flatly refused to play an Suede tracks.

What is the harm in throwing 1 or 2 into the mix to appease the public who afterall, buy his music and line his pockets with money. I can understand if there is some bizzare copyright problem, but if you are the frontman who pens the tracks (etc) then that issue is no argument.

Back to the Jarvis thing...

Lets say for example someone was at Glasto and really liked Pulp but had not given Jarvis' solo albums a chance. Knowing that if they go and watch him they will not get even 1 Pulp track thrown in the setlist - they decide to watch somebody else. End of story.

But on the other hand, that same person hears that Jarvis usually throws 1 or 2 Pulp favourites in the set towards the end - they would go and watch him and at the same time would be exposed to his new solo work and may grow to like that equally as much - therefore - new solo fan = more records sales.

Brett Anderson & Jarvis are not the only examples of this - there are many.

[glasto_freak]

People go to a gig to be entertained, and so the artist should give the crowd what they want. But i could also sympathise that Jarvis is trying to make a career of his own and doesn't want to spend all his sets looking back.

[radioshed]

If it's a solo career following a band then it is fair enough to play whatever you want, as it can be a totally different venture musically. But if you were going to see an older act say Elvis Costello promoting new material, then i would want the classic thrown in.

[ahardbattle]

YES They bloody well should !!!

It's fine if an artist wants to do stuff off their new album, but throw us an old favourite or 2. I've been utterly disillusioned by a couple of bands that refused to do any of their classics. I accept that an artist who is now in a completely different band or solo career can be a different issue all together though - but still...

They must realise that for us it may be a once in a lifetime chance to see them and if we don't get to sing along or experience that song that means so much to us - well they blow any chance of us buying that new album!!

Play a classic in the encore and we'll be blabbing on about how brilliant the gig was for weeks!!!

[bombfrog]

At thir own gigs then maybe not but at a festival then yes.

[incident]

I think it's up to the artist, but it's stupid not to play quality material that you've got a legitimate claim to..

The case of Jarvis is an excellent example - I won't get to see him at Glasto, and the fact he doesn't play any Pulp has put me off buying a ticket for his Nottingham show a couple weeks before.

[PabloCoke]

Most acts will do a "festival set" with all the classics thrown in, but if a band has split up and an artist is starting a whole new different project then i wouldn't expect them to play stuff from a different band.

Someone like Jarvis is only playing a small tent because he's doing something different to his last band, if he started playing pulp stuff without the rest of pulp I'd imagine they would be a tad pissed off with him anyway, and he would need to be playing a far larger area.

Edited May 16, 2009 by PabloCoke

[badmart76]

shakin stevens last year, prime example... how many people turned out early for a bit of green door and this ole house??? and what did we get? a load of new drivel...!

[stuartbert two hats]

It depends on the act and how relevant they are. If I went to, say a U2 gig and they played mainly recent songs, focussing on their latest couple of albums then you can make a good case for it as they're still selling those records. Fair Enough. If I was a fan(which I'm not incidentally), I'd probably be excited to hear a new track.

If you do that kind of thing are you're say Shakin' Stevens, then DO NOT TAKE THE PISS WITH YOUR NEW SONGS

Anyone who was at the Pyramid last year will understand why I used caps there! I didn't go to see him because I respected him as an artist and wanted to hear where his creative journey was taking him. I wanted to hear Green Door!

[jamseyboy]

Strange one this.....if you think about it its a bit like Bucks Fizz......stay with me while I explain.

You get a group that has a certain amount of success and develops a following, people know the songs and like to sing along at concerts. They split up and appear as solo acts becoming either successful or in the case of the mighty BF highly unsucessful.Then one munckin says " I know I,ll start singing the old songs" and low and behold a 2nd BF is born. The second munchkin looks at his ex band mate and says " well blow me if he can do it so can I" and just like a bad day in hell a third BF is born.

Now from my understanding Jarvis is distancing himself from his Pulp days and concentrating on his new songs. If he found that the audience were only turning up because of his past glories then surely this would be very upsetting ( he may bare a buttock or two) and after a while revert him the old songs. You can see the headline "jarvis Cocker from Pulp" and before you know it he has reverted into a watered down version of his old group. Then all his exbandmates ( of which therre were many) all say "well if Jarvis can do it then so can we" and before you know it we have hundreds of little Pulps popping up all over the place.......a bit like toads in Australia ( you would end up squashing them under your car tyres everytime you went to the shops).

So based on this convoluted theory I would like him to stay as he is............and just write new songs for me to sing along with.

[Mr Ploppy]

shakin stevens last year, prime example... how many people turned out early for a bit of green door and this ole house??? and what did we get? a load of new drivel...!

Edited May 16, 2009 by Mr Ploppy

[Laura_Babs]

Something I have been thinking about for a few days now.

Apparently, Jarvis Cocker won't play ANY Pulp material when he does live shows to promote his solo projects. Pulp were a very sucessful band and had a huge fanbase, alot of which probably follow Jarvis now.

I understand he wants people to concentrate on his solo work - but surely throwing in a few Pulp songs (which he wrote) would not do any harm.

It seems odd to me that someone like Jarvis can have the sucess of Pulp and then turn his back on those many years to ensure 'fans' only hear his new catalogue live.

A similar thing with Brett Anderson when he formed the shortlived 'The Tears' band. He flatly refused to play an Suede tracks.

What is the harm in throwing 1 or 2 into the mix to appease the public who afterall, buy his music and line his pockets with money. I can understand if there is some bizzare copyright problem, but if you are the frontman who pens the tracks (etc) then that issue is no argument.

Back to the Jarvis thing...

Lets say for example someone was at Glasto and really liked Pulp but had not given Jarvis' solo albums a chance. Knowing that if they go and watch him they will not get even 1 Pulp track thrown in the setlist - they decide to watch somebody else. End of story.

But on the other hand, that same person hears that Jarvis usually throws 1 or 2 Pulp favourites in the set towards the end - they would go and watch him and at the same time would be exposed to his new solo work and may grow to like that equally as much - therefore - new solo fan = more records sales.

Brett Anderson & Jarvis are not the only examples of this - there are many.

[Kyelo]

I went to see Audioslave, pre Rage Against the Machine reunion and they played Rage songs. The crowd went nuts and because the singer was Chris Cornell of Soundgarden, it sounded new and f*cking amazing because of his voice! Was proper bo' as they say lol

[Mardy]

I;'d rather an artist did their new stuff, challenged themselves and their audience a bit than become a Butlin's caberet act doing the same old songs from 30 years ago.

They're the artist, they write the amterial, they are the creative ones who write, they shouldn't be dictated to by the audience.

thnk about Dylan 66 , Judas and all that. We'd never have had that muscial revolution without him defying his audiences' wishes.

[Kyelo]

I;'d rather an artist did their new stuff, challenged themselves and their audience a bit than become a Butlin's caberet act doing the same old songs from 30 years ago.

They're the artist, they write the amterial, they are the creative ones who write, they shouldn't be dictated to by the audience.

thnk about Dylan 66 , Judas and all that. We'd never have had that muscial revolution without him defying his audiences' wishes.

[Mardy]

So if you saw Dylan tomorrow you'd expect him to only play stuff from his last couple albums?

[karlpowell]

look at Ian brown , I love the roses stuff and i like his solo stuff , when he plays the old stuff the place erupts

[Mardy]

I think the key question is

are you (primarily) an artist or an entertainer?

that's the crux of it, I reckon.

[stuartbert two hats]

dylan continually reinvents his material though, it's bloody awful and having seen him, I'm in no hurry to see it again, but rather that than him never going electric in the mid 60s.

I think an artist should follow his/her muse, not meekly play what the audience wants.

Now, is shakin' stevens an artist? that's a whole other question.

Personally I think Van Morrison playing Astral Weeks in it's entirity for 400 notes a ticket is pretty much admitting you're creatively and artistically bankrupt.

[Originalshez]

There are certain songs which an artist MUST play at every gig. For me, it's unimagineable that Springsteen wouldn't play 'Born To Run', or if I saw The Who that they wouldn't play 'Won't Get Fooled Again'. Even if they are promoting new material, there are still a couple of 'defining' songs that I believe an artist should play every night.

[Mardy]

I'm not convinced those full albums gigs are so bad. I think there's more artistic integrity in reproducing a classic piece of music in full that just playing the hits. No-one calls classical musicians artistically bankrupt when the play a Beethoven symphony.

The classic album recreation I'm most familiar with is "Pet Sounds", which is a wonderful rendition of a classic album that was never played live originally. Not only that, it was recorded in much higher definition than we currently have for the 60s studio version (I can get seriously geeky on Beach Boys stuff, I won't go into details about lost master tapes!)

I don't take issue with the broader point that if you're focussing on past glories rather than new music you're probably not at your creative peak. I just take issue with the implication that tackling a full album of old music is the nadir of creative bankruptcy. I'd say it's worse to just churn out the hits.

[stuartbert two hats]

yeah, some fair points there, I think. I shall have a cup of tea and ponder

I think the big difference with your first analogy is that the classical musicians didn't create the piece. They're more like actors playing a role that somebody else has written, if you see what I mean.

[srvman]

someone who always seems to get the right balance, i feel is pete doherty, some libs some babys, some of his own, but porportioned perfectly i think

[Mr Ploppy]

Remember my true question tho please folks...

Its not a matter of 'playing the oldies' - its a matter of chucking just 1 or 2 in there to appease the masses.

I am not saying an artist should do 50% new album and 50% old stuff... I am saying 1 or 2 tracks wont hurt.

Some great views on here and I agree with some at both ends of the spectrum - such as full album gigs can be great.

But imagine if Paul McCartney did a gig but insisted that he didnt play any Beatles tunes.

:-)

[Mardy]

it is really interesting I agree, and I think there's a massive dichotomy in that, as a punter/fan I often want them to play the songs I know, BUT (and it's a huge but) I think it's absolutely up to them, and I'd rather be disappointed in the short time about the classics they didn't play but enjoy they ongoing creative ability in the long term.

If they're playing the old songs because they feel there's life in them, if they feel they can do it justice, maybe reinterpret it, then that's really cool. If they're playing them because they know the audience will go nuts for them, well, that's pretty tragic I feel and not likely to lead to a happy contented existence for the artist, i guess.