Bright Eyes Set list

[kookiemnstr8]

Originally posted by azaghal1981:
  Yeah but that reply would've been trite and boring. His smart-ass response was funny and justified.

Plus I don't think he would be able to string that many words together into a sentence.

[allmy$to930]

Yeah but that reply would've been trite and boring. His smart-ass response was funny and justified.  

...and completely ineffective.

[kookiemnstr8]

Originally posted by allmy$to930:
   

Yeah but that reply would've been trite and boring. His smart-ass response was funny and justified.  

...and completely ineffective. [/b]

And a polite response would have been?

[allmy$to930]

And a polite response would have been?  

I think it would have been effective. Poison Oak dude was never told directly that he wouldn't get to hear his beloved song.  I don't think the guy was trying to be a heckler...I think he just wanted to hear the song.

[gloriaabortion]

Were you the Poison Oak guy by any chance?

[eilo97]

I thought all the new songs sounded excellent, and I agree that it's important for him to play the new material.  But I think the setlist last night would have been more appropriate for a night AFTER the release of the album.  I loved hearing the new songs but also would have liked to hear a few more that I knew.  I think that is one of the major reasons why the crowd wasn't too into it-- people just didn't know what he was playing.

[azaghal1981]

So most of the crowd didn't download a leaked
 copy of the new EP?  

[Reod Dai]

I really enjoyed the show, despite the lack of older, recognizable material.  Conor is my favorite singer/songwriter (as cliche as that may sound), so I pretty much enjoy anything he does.  It didn't matter that I was unfamiliar with the songs he was playing.  And yes, I think we saw a much different side of Bright Eyes last night, and a much different side of Conor.  I remember thinking a number of times throughout the show that they were really rocking out, and that that was something I'd never really seen from them before.  I think that the setlist was pretty well put together, too.  There were periods of intense energy, broken up by quieter songs here and there.  I really enjoyed seeing Rachel on drums, and I've never seen anyone rock a violin like Anton did (with the possible exception of the violinist for The Frames).
 
 As for the openers, I enjoyed McCarthy Trenching, and thought that Wooden Wand were just okay.
 
   

Originally posted by allmy$to930:
   

And a polite response would have been?  

I think it would have been effective. Poison Oak dude was never told directly that he wouldn't get to hear his beloved song.  I don't think the guy was trying to be a heckler...I think he just wanted to hear the song. [/b]

If artists took the time to inform every person who shouted out for a song that they wanted to hear that they weren't going to play that song, it would get old pretty damn fast.  I would like to think that most people are aware that bands usually decide on setlists in advance and practice those songs, and that in most cases (there are exceptions), calling out for a song is going to do absolutely no good.  I would like to have heard "Trees Get Wheeled Away" myself, but I didn't shout it out half a dozen freaking times.
 
 He pretty much toured nonstop for the entire year of 2005, including separate tours for Wide Awake and Digital Ash.  During that year of touring, he fully showcased the new albums and played plenty of old stuff from Lifted and the like.  After taking a year off and writing a bunch of new material, can you really blame him for wanting to play it?
 
 
   

Originally posted by allmy$to930:
   

Frankly, I think he's moved on as an artist since "Lifted."

That is a bizarre statement, seeing that he closed with "Make War" from Lifted.[/b]

Considering that that was the only song he played from Lifted the entire show (I think, there may have been a second), I'd say that there's nothing bizarre about that statement at all.
 
   

Originally posted by allmy$to930:
 This is especially true when he is willing to play cover songs and allow a member of his band to play a song from a side project.

Just a slight correction here...Jake Bellows is not an actual member of Bright Eyes, and Neva Dinova is not a side project.  I'd say that since Jake is taking time off from his own band to play with Bright Eyes, allowing him to play one of his songs was perfectly understandable.  And Conor has been playing covers live for years.
 
   

Originally posted by Joe M.:
 The best tour is still the Lifted tour with the mini-orchestra and Winona Ryder watching from the balcony...

Agreed.  I saw them on that tour at the Showbox in Seattle, and that show remains to this day one of the best I have ever seen, definitely in my top five.  Ah, for the days when Bright Eyes shows weren't packed with legions of screaming teenage girls...
 
   

Originally posted by Jack Black, Caucasian American:
 Why does M. Ward have to associate with that little wanker? He's so above him!

Indeed.  You should express your opinion to Matt.  I'm sure that he would immediately see the light and agree with you, considering you know Conor so much better than he does.  Jim James apparently sees something in him, too.  What the hell is the matter with him?

[allmy$to930]

Well done, Reod Dai. I don't think anyone has ever put so much effort into a single post.
 
 Thanks for clearing up all of my erroneous statements.

[Reod Dai]

You must not frequent forums where people have actual discussions, then.  You'll notice that I only actually corrected one statement of yours.  I was simply commenting on the rest, using quotes so people would know I was replying to something specific rather than just babbling.  I'm used to people posting like that, but you're right, you don't see it much around here.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Jack Black, Caucasian American:
  I disagree. If someone wants to be an "artist" let them go play in a room by themself. If someone has a paying audience, they should be obliged to at least attempt to make their audience happy.
 

i disagree with this, rhett.  he's the artist, not you, so let HIM decide what music fits together and sounds good for the evening.  if you want to hear certain songs, play them yourself, or pop them into your iTunes.
 
  you dont want people who arent qualified to tell you how to do your job do you?
 
  that said, i doubt he made "no attempt" to make the audience happy.

[root]

i was happy  

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I let my boss tell me how to do my job. He is the one who ensures that I get paid.
 
 The paying audience plays the role of the boss.
 
 Just my nine cents.
 
 If an artist mostly plays music from an unreleased album, they won't be getting my money again.
 
   

Originally posted by le sonick:
   

Originally posted by Jack Black, Caucasian American:
  I disagree. If someone wants to be an "artist" let them go play in a room by themself. If someone has a paying audience, they should be obliged to at least attempt to make their audience happy.
 

i disagree with this, rhett.  he's the artist, not you, so let HIM decide what music fits together and sounds good for the evening.  if you want to hear certain songs, play them yourself, or pop them into your iTunes.
 
  you dont want people who arent qualified to tell you how to do your job do you?
 
  that said, i doubt he made "no attempt" to make the audience happy. [/b]

[Bombay Chutney]

It depends on the setting.  In a situation like this, where the performer could easily be playing a bigger hall at higher prices, they should play whatever they want.  You're paying for the opportunity to see a performer in a more intimate setting, at a decent price,  at the expense of not getting all of the songs you wanted.
 
 However, if you're talking about acts that are playing huge venues and charging hundreds of dollars per ticket, then yeah - they need to cater to the audience a bit.  The reason they're in a position to play for those prices is because of their catalog and their hits - not because everyone is so anxious to hear what they're up to next.  At a minimum they need to mix it up a bit.
 
 If I'm paying the equivalent of a car payment for a pair of tickets - you owe me some hits.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Good points.
 
 Though I don't think there's any artist I like enough to go and see them play mostly unknown material. And there's no artist period who I'd pay more than a couple of twenties to see. But that's just me. I'm not as big of a showgoer as some of y'all.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
  It depends on the setting.  In a situation like this, where the performer could easily be playing a bigger hall at higher prices, they should play whatever they want.  You're paying for the opportunity to see a performer in a more intimate setting, at a decent price,  at the expense of not getting all of the songs you wanted.
 
 However, if you're talking about acts that are playing huge venues and charging hundreds of dollars per ticket, then yeah - they need to cater to the audience a bit.  The reason they're in a position to play for those prices is because of their catalog and their hits - not because everyone is so anxious to hear what they're up to next.  At a minimum they need to mix it up a bit.
 
 If I'm paying the equivalent of a car payment for a pair of tickets - you owe me some hits.