Should an artist play the 'old stuff'?

[jayhpool]

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]

Put it like this if I was an Oasis fan(which I'm not)I'd be cheesed off and would lose faith if they played nothing pre 1999. A lot of acts are like that, hows about Springsteen with only songs from the 00s? Na doesn't work.

For people like Jarvis Cocker(even Paul McCartney), well the fact of the matter is if it wasn't for the past they wouldn't be headlining anything. Yeah Cocker might get a slot but the majority of fans are pass overs from his 90's Pulp stuff.

Edited May 16, 2009 by BenchBuddah

[Mardy]

Put it like this if I was an Oasis fan(which I'm not)I'd be cheesed off and would lose faith if they played nothing pre 1999. A lot of acts are like that, hows about Springsteen with only songs from the 00s? Na doesn't work.

For people like Jarvis Cocker(even Paul McCartney), well the fact of the matter is if it wasn't for the past they wouldn't be headlining anything. Yeah Cocker might get a slot but the majority of fans are pass overs from his 90's Pulp stuff.

[Magic Bus]

Paul Weller was a real disappointment, as he seemed to completely ignore all the stuff that made him famous - and was what we had come to hear.

Seemed very self indulgent and he obviously saw Glasto as an opportunity to promote himself, rather than achieving a balance, and saying "Thank you for getting me where I am today".....

[Rachie]

I can totally under stand were your coming from with Jarvis.

Even when he was with pulp, i went to atleat one gig were he refused to do the classics (not just common people, but babies ect). Ive read before that he just dosent want to re-do history over and over.

I can see his point if im honest, especialy in an artists point of view.

Im torn. I worship jarvis, and i know he can and does carry himself of quite well without the 'pulpness' - as ive said before, hes a performer, and a very very excellent one, so even without common people, you still wont see him and leave feeling short changed.

But also im a huge huge HUGE pulp fan...so it still stings abit that he dosent play it. But i reconise him as his own artist now so... just take it as it is, Hes still excellent at what he does.

another band that came to mind was The Tears. hahaha when i saw them how i longed for Trash. lol.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Rachie

[Kyelo]

absolutely, but wouldn't it be better if artists had to make more decent music rather than relying on past, faded glories? if every artist had to start from scratch every time there might be a different approach.

[Kyelo]

you're not suggesting that's what he (Bruce) does are you?... 'cause he does loads of oldies. Hardly anything of his new album

[mandypants]

I think if you're doing a festival gig then you're touting yourself to a new audience, and not just a big room full of fans, so there needs to be something else to get different people in to see you. In my eyes, a festival spot is an ideal place to show your wares to a wider audience, I have gone to see bands that I wouldn't have paid to see at their own gigs and thought 'go on then, impress me'. Muse did it for me in a big way when I saw them at Leeds, whereas Smashing Pumpkins disappointed.

When touting yourself to a new audience, IMO, it would pay dividends for you to play some of your older, well known material, because that is all the non-fans will have heard, and that is what will bring them to see you.

[Mr Ploppy]

I think if you're doing a festival gig then you're touting yourself to a new audience, and not just a big room full of fans, so there needs to be something else to get different people in to see you. In my eyes, a festival spot is an ideal place to show your wares to a wider audience, I have gone to see bands that I wouldn't have paid to see at their own gigs and thought 'go on then, impress me'. Muse did it for me in a big way when I saw them at Leeds, whereas Smashing Pumpkins disappointed.

When touting yourself to a new audience, IMO, it would pay dividends for you to play some of your older, well known material, because that is all the non-fans will have heard, and that is what will bring them to see you.

[cookywooky]

fair enough a solo artist playing tracks from there previous bands but brett anderson not playing tracks from when he was in suede is fair game, you dont see carl(dirty pretty things) and skaghead pete peppering there setlist with old libertines tracks do you? and as far as people going to see jarvis falling in love and buying his new penned dittys don't everyone use piratebay or the like to download now?

[cookywooky]

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

[Vacant0]

Agree with a lot of whats already been said (you can all guess what - because I can't be arsed to quote)

Jarvis Cocker as an example though: seen him live a couple of years ago and he was brilliant even without playing any Pulp stuff and fair play to him for not resting on his 'past glories' or whatever - at festivals though, I think bands should really be playing a lot of their 'greatest hits' (RHCP didn't do that at Reading and were pretty awful - as an example) - back to Jarvis, would be nice of him to chuck in a Pulp song or two near the end maybe - doesn't have to be one of the massive hits either - Sorted for E's and Whizz would be pretty good.

[abu hamster]

Rolf is gonna break out his new dubstep! :angry:

[Mr Ploppy]

cooky, I just wrote a huge reply to your posts but deleted them due to feeling as though I was being suberviant to somebody who is advocating the acceptabillity of downloading illegal music (which as far as I can recall - that pirate site IS). Although if I am incorrect and piratebay is not the one that has been plastered allover the news recently - you have my apologies.

Vacant0 - you have my exact thoughts - pinpointed. I dont want or expect a portion of Pulp - just 1 or 2 would do fine!

But... that raises a new question....

If Jarv gives in to temptation and does play e's & whizz (for example)... what happens when people that loves the set buy a ticket to watch a solo show and dont get any Pulp whatsoever? 1 Pulp track is cool, but none is uncool.

And again - I reiterate that the Jarvis example is just an example - this whole thing applies to various bands/artists.

:angry:

MrPloppy

[Rachie]

i seriouly dont hold out much hope with jarvis playing any pulp.

in the later years of seeing them live it seemed he was 'pushed' to play the classics, deffianly wasnt off his own back if he played them

:angry:

but yeah.. it will be good....but would be amazing if he finshed with es n wizz.........

[Rachie]

*is sitting here listing to his n hers....almost to tears with enyoment* god i love pulp.

*if you try, if you try, you might get your happy ending, your happy ending that you deserve*

Edited May 17, 2009 by Rachie

[Sam Crawley]

I think your poll is not very balanced in terms of answers... I think fairer choices should just be "yes" or "no".. or the answers you gave for the options should be rephrased.

[tylerdurden]

Totally tricky this one.

Its like, imagine Led Zeppelin, just after the release of IV, not playing any tracks from it, because they were sticking with songs from I, II, III. :angry:

You could see a band at a festival and you could like one or two "Classics" but they could have just made, what would later be considered, a truly classic, seminal album, and in the years to come, you'd be gutted if they'd have left out those tracks from the set.

I agree though older artists, those who have been around for a while, who already have "Classics" and "Greatest Hits", should always play them. Just to keep the crowd happy, the people that pay their bills.

It must be soul destroying though for an "Artist" to re-iterate a song that they once felt so strongly about, night after night after night, theres all sorts of horror stories of that, Radiohead with Creep is a good example, and Led Zep with Stairway, I think Percy Plants quote was something like: "Theres only so many times I could go out there and mean it"

Which is very true.

[dj267]

It's not true the everyone in the audience goes to a lengends' gig wanting just to hear the oldies (even if it may be the case for a lot of people.) For example, I love love love the Specials (as it is only right to) but am gutted by the fact that they've booted out their song-writer, and thereby demonstrated that they have no interest in being a 21st century band. I would love to hear what the Specials wouldcome up with in the way of new material...

If you've spent an evening treating a performer like a proper artist, listening to them and assessing their new stuff, it makes it even better when they pull out a classic. I find one hit after another rarely works.

Edited May 17, 2009 by dj267

[Mr Ploppy]

*if you try, if you try, you might get your happy ending, your happy ending that you deserve*

[grumpyhack]

If you're a one or two hit wonder like Shakey without any solid albums behind you then you've got to do your hits.

If you've a string of classic albums and a large volume of work like Springsteen or Van Morrison then almost certainly you're not going to fit everything into a Glasto length set and some people will be disappointed not to get their particular favourite.

I remember seeing Van a few years ago and some people were calling out for Brown Eyed Girl. "What do you think this is -a fooking old folks home?" he replied.

Ten minutes later he was doing it. But his set did last over three hours.

Best comment was from John Otway who played his only hit and then said "Now I'm going to play the B side - and do you know it sold nearly as many copies as the A side!"

[venuss]

My ideal would be ....... 80% Old: 20% New

I was at Suzanne Vega on the Accoustic last year

she openned with a track from her new album WTF

her next two songs were from the new album WTF

loads of people shouted "play the old tracks"

I don't think she played any more new songs ..... good thing too

We did not go to see her play/ promote her new album

We went to hear the songs that we grew up with and made us want to go and see her that night

[mandypants]

Rolf is gonna break out his new dubstep!

[mouth]

i think at glastonbury most of the artists are people i would like to see but would probably not get around to going to see perform at there own gigs so for me i think the ones that made them famous are essential. who wants to here songs you cant sing a long to.