|
Post by bmac on May 2, 2016 17:13:50 GMT
I want to start of by saying I am a huge ELO fan. Which, of course, makes me a huge Jeff Lynne fan. The term genius is appropriate, IMHO, when used to describe Jeff in a musical context. I am very much looking forward to seeing him when he come to New York City in September. But there are things about Jeff that make me wonder about him. Not that he needs to be an angel in order to love his music mind you.
Two things that bother me about this tour are the show length and setlist. In this day and age playing less than two hours is not acceptable. The show he did in the US last year were apparently shorter than that. Back on the Time tour he rushed through many of ELO's best songs by doing a medley which is fine if you are playing a two and a half hour set. Not if you are playing less than an hour and a half as he did back then. The other day he only played 18 songs, two fewer than he had been playing. I know he was not feeling well but if you can get through 18 songs you can get through 20. Especially when 20 is not enough to begin with. Also, when he played the O2 he only changed one song if I recall correctly. If you are going to play four night at a venue you know you will have people attending multiple shows. I thinking playing different songs would be the right thing to do. Some are pointing at his age for the length of the shows but I saw Springsteen a week ago and the guy played 3 1/2 hours. And he expends more energy in one song than Jeff does the entire show. I'm not saying he has to play that long or run around like Bruce does but it pokes holes in the age argument as Bruce is only a year or two younger than Jeff.
Please don't get me wrong, you can have a great show that only lasts 1:45, and the reviews of this tour show that is what we are getting, which is great. I just wonder if Jeff is looking to, as someone else noted on an earlier post, play as short a show as he possibly can which makes one wonder if his heart is into this show as much as we are being led to believe.
Would love to hear others feelings on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by eldorado on May 2, 2016 18:46:01 GMT
Yeah it hasn't felt quite right. He's not engaged. He's backed by a glorified tribute band, who facilitate him standing there singing the songs. It's fine, and again, don't get me wrong, I'm super glad it's happened, but he's not in the same league as Springsteen as a live act. He's not a living vibrant live act, and yep, the set is ridiculously short. It would have been something if he maybe came out for the encore just him and an acoustic guitar and played something unpredictable each night. Surely he's still capable of that, and it would make each show slightly unique.
|
|
|
Post by jackpunch on May 2, 2016 20:07:57 GMT
Hang on though. He's never enjoyed playing live previously but somehow he's managing to squeeze out 1.45 now. He's never going to do a Springsteen, and to be honest 3 hours of JL would be dull.
I reckon he's enjoying it....just..but probably cos he can rely on the band to cover so much of what he used to worry about. My guess is, there'll be more ELO live but prob one off festivals/single city gigs.. i.e., 3 or 4 nights at the o2 rather thsn a tour
|
|
|
Post by elophile on May 2, 2016 23:08:58 GMT
...to be honest 3 hours of JL would be dull. What? No way! 3 hours would be heaven.
|
|
iopia
Junior Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by iopia on May 2, 2016 23:35:46 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say he's not enjoying it. To be perfectly blunt, he's rich and he's not senile - if he didn't want to do it he wouldn't do it. Thing is, he's never loved playing live, so of course he's going to want to take it easy. The guy hasn't toured in 30 years, he doesn't have the stamina that people like Springsteen, McCartney or Waters would have. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's a black and white issue where you can say "he's not doing 3 hour sets and playing rarities every night, therefore his heart isn't in it". I think he's enjoying having an experience he hasn't had in so many decades, without having to worry about getting burned out from playing 3 hours every night or having to relearn 30 songs to rotate constantly. Yeah, he's not going to be the most energetic performer out there, but at the end of the day, he's a shy old man who's enjoying having a relatively relaxing comeback tour - short sets, limited song pool, and a great band behind him if he messes up. He's enjoying playing on front of thousands of people every night without the usual stresses of live performance, which I can understand.
|
|
|
Post by ShardEnder on May 3, 2016 0:36:00 GMT
I won't do this often, but in Jeff's defence, his setlists this time around have been far less static than during the Time Tour, where every night was identical with the exception of ELO's then-latest single, The Way Life's Meant To Be, being added on the European leg in favour of Here Is The News. The fact he also chose to take a short break and postpone one show rather than risk cancelling the whole tour suggests that Jeff does care to a degree, though I'll agree that whether his heart has ever been in playing live is questionable...
For those who hate static setlists, I suggest you take a look at what Queen pushed on their fans in their later years. Yes, there were a few occasional deviations from the template, but the Magic Tour in particular was seen by many fans as short-changing. In terms of concert length they rarely failed to deliver, but if Freddie Mercury knew that would be his final tour then why did he feel the need to indulge in nearly ten minutes of (often loosely-performed) rock and roll covers instead of singing a few more of the band's own hits?
|
|
|
Post by soonerorlater on May 3, 2016 10:04:02 GMT
Whoa there !!!!
I was most privileged to have seen Queen several times with the remarkable Freddie Mercury front and centre and I think the Magic Tour set list was fantastic. In fact I haven't come across anyone who saw it that thinks otherwise and it certainly had the nod over the Works Tour set list, a couple of years previously. Queen always did add the odd cover version to their set, from the earliest days onwards, particularly some rock 'n' roll standards. When you play for a couple of hours or so you can do that sort of thing!
Back to the thread - I certainly think that Jeff's heart is very much into this and I can't see much evidence to the contrary. Having pretty much sold out the entire tour he didn't have to invest as much in the light and laser show as he has but he did, he wanted it to be a great visual package as well as an exemplary sound experience. Above all, he didn't have to add further nights at the O2 or come back in June with further dates in Manchester and Birmingham. He could just have left it with the original schedule and lets face it, some on here were very surprised at how well they sold!
I think we're seeing a life-long reluctant stage performer re-appraising his approach and attitude to short-bursts of touring. Let's rejoice at it and go with it while it still lasts!!
|
|
|
Post by pikerman on May 3, 2016 10:40:59 GMT
Amen to that.
|
|
|
Post by bmac on May 3, 2016 11:56:09 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say he's not enjoying it. To be perfectly blunt, he's rich and he's not senile - if he didn't want to do it he wouldn't do it. Thing is, he's never loved playing live, so of course he's going to want to take it easy. The guy hasn't toured in 30 years, he doesn't have the stamina that people like Springsteen, McCartney or Waters would have. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's a black and white issue where you can say "he's not doing 3 hour sets and playing rarities every night, therefore his heart isn't in it". I think he's enjoying having an experience he hasn't had in so many decades, without having to worry about getting burned out from playing 3 hours every night or having to relearn 30 songs to rotate constantly. Yeah, he's not going to be the most energetic performer out there, but at the end of the day, he's a shy old man who's enjoying having a relatively relaxing comeback tour - short sets, limited song pool, and a great band behind him if he messes up. He's enjoying playing on front of thousands of people every night without the usual stresses of live performance, which I can understand. I think you have nailed it. My problem is that if you are going to go on a tour you should be prepared to play a minimum of two hours. Should be longer but two hours will suffice. And if you are going play four night at a venue throw in a few different songs. Having said all that I will say that the reviews so far have been spectacular so the quality is making up for the lack of quantity.
|
|
|
Post by nickheynes on May 3, 2016 13:27:16 GMT
1.45.is fine for me. Yes, if Jeff was doing a gig in my living room (are you reading Craig Fruin?)then Id love him to play some rarities or more deep cuts,but thats not likely. He didnt have to come out to play.Im glad he did.If he doesnt do it again Im delighted to have been able to have witnessed one of the best concerts ive been too.(And that includes Queen!!)
|
|
|
Post by nickheynes on May 3, 2016 13:28:05 GMT
BTW have you heard Macca recently???!!! Just sayin
|
|
|
Post by queenofthehours on May 3, 2016 17:04:36 GMT
Jeff's heart may not be in the "live" part of playing live music but it most certainly is in the "music" part. We all know what a perfectionist Jeff is so it's likely that his sole aim on the tour is to play his music well to his fans and for him that means being absolutely perfect on every track and moulding the sound to the closest perfection he is aiming for. And every single song WAS well played and every guitar solo WAS spot on. The best live players will always be those that can improvise or play ten-minute solos but Jeff is such a perfectionist that he wouldn't dream of being so ragged.
We all know his true passion was never on the stage but in the studio so expecting great things from him in terms of stage presence is like expecting a cat to lay eggs. Not that Jeff doesn't have stage presence, he easily has his audience enraptured by his own refusal to act the rockstar. Don't we love him BECAUSE he doesn't play the rock star game? Because we can see ourselves, the man in the street, in him? He has never been the most active person on stage, just watch the Wembley film. The most I've seen him move was on the Rockpalast DVD and then I think it was the Dutch courage that helped. Plus back then he hadn't developed a preference for the studio instead of the stage.
Sometimes I think we are projecting our hopes for Jeff to produce new music onto how we want to see him live but the two are quite different. We want to see some kind of sign from him and we think it will come from the stage because that is the obvious place - but it isn't for Jeff. Hasn't all the things that made ELO special been things that could only happen in a studio? Other bands are the opposite - they break free on stage where Jeff only breaks free in the recording studio.
Perhaps Jeff would love to play longer sets but is at the mercy of his health, his patience or just the tour's budget. Do we want Wilbury-guitar style Jeff or OOTB Jeff? In each arena the fans were mixed between the casual Mr Blue Sky fans and the serious die-hards. Everywhere in Jeff Lynne's world there are two sides so finding a balance is not going to be easy.
If Jeff had chosen to independently tour, without anybody's hand up his back, would he have chosen that band? Would he have chosen those venues or so many dates? Would he have picked different songs to play? There are too many questions. The only answer is to sit back and enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by f4monty on May 4, 2016 15:34:10 GMT
I saw Bryan Ferry a few nights before ELO and his set was a bit shorter than Jeff's.
Yes I would've liked a longer set but the guy is eligible for his pension and many people I know of a similar age wouldn't be able to do what he's currently delivering.
He's also never been particularly animated on stage. Wasn't it Bev who used to do most of the chit-chat in the live shows? But Ferry was just as shy.
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on May 4, 2016 16:27:30 GMT
...to be honest 3 hours of JL would be dull. What? No way! 3 hours would be heaven. Seriously, I'm with elophile on this one, no way 3 hours of Jeff Lynne would be dull, particularly if after the first hour and a half he has ran out of big hits and is forced to start playing some songs from his back catalogue. That would be the most interesting thing. I could be 5 hours listening to that and I don't think I'd get tired. I went to a Macca concert which lasted 3 hours and I could have gone on for another very long while.
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on May 4, 2016 16:30:47 GMT
BTW have you heard Macca recently???!!! Just sayin What do you mean? He is going to play in La Plata (Argentina) in a couple of weeks.
|
|