I was at nights 1 and 4 at the Phoenix terrified they'd play "Thugs" on nights 2 or 3. Instead, they didn't play it at all--then played it three nights later, in Calgary, at a venue that's literally across the sidewalk from where I now work.
Also, in honour of you people who dig "Last Night I Dreamed You Didn't Love Me," I'm gonna give it a fresh listen tonight. I don't think I've heard it since 2006. (And having said the first Phoenix show was its live demise: I now see it was played, at the very least, in Calgary three nights later as well.)
NWOntario Wrote:I was at nights 1 and 4 at the Phoenix terrified they'd play "Thugs" on nights 2 or 3. Instead, they didn't play it at all--then played it three nights later, in Calgary, at a venue that's literally across the sidewalk from where I now work.
Also, in honour of you people who dig "Last Night I Dreamed You Didn't Love Me," I'm gonna give it a fresh listen tonight. I don't think I've heard it since 2006. (And having said the first Phoenix show was its live demise: I now see it was played, at the very least, in Calgary three nights later as well.)
lol...I was at that Calgary show (and the next one), I won't tell you how many times I've heard Thugs in the 18 shows I've seen. :wink: Can't say I'm crazy about Last Night I Dreamed You Didn't Love Me, but I'm glad I was able to hear it live, and that I got to hear the whole album that night. It was cool that they didn't play it in order, but that being said I'm very excited to hear FC front to back, it should be a unique experience.
NWOntario Wrote:Also, in honour of you people who dig "Last Night I Dreamed You Didn't Love Me," I'm gonna give it a fresh listen tonight. I don't think I've heard it since 2006. (And having said the first Phoenix show was its live demise: I now see it was played, at the very least, in Calgary three nights later as well.)
Funny how we all have a general love for the Hip but waver in our song appreciation!
Just rewatched Rush's "Time Machine Tour" over the weekend and it reminded me of how an "album show" should really go. What an epic concert this was to see.
First Set
The Spirit of Radio
Time Stand Still
Presto
Stick It Out
Workin' Them Angels
Leave That Thing Alone
Faithless
BU2B
Freewill
Marathon
Subdivisions
Second Set - Moving Pictures Album
Tom Sawyer
Red Barchetta
YYZ
Limelight
The Camera Eye
Witch Hunt
Vital Signs
Third Set
Caravan
Drum Solo
(Love 4 Sale)
Closer to the Heart
2112 Part I: Overture
2112 Part II: The Temples of Syrinx
Far Cry
Encore:
La Villa Strangiato
Working Man
(with Cygnus X-1 Teaser Ending)
I think people need to drop the "why don't they do 3 hr concerts" whining. The Hip have never played sets like that. Outside of the M@W tour, which shows where in the 2.5 hr range, they have consistently played for approximately 2 hrs every show for as long as I have seen them (first show 1996). Gord has publicly stated that tours are hard on his voice, and that it's difficult for him to sing 3 nights in a row. If that's the case, do you think he could hold up singing for 3 hrs a night?
How about we just appreciate what they are doing, giving us a unique show with songs that many of us have never heard, or at least haven't heard in a long time.
I think the "whining" is directly correlated to the ticket price...
jgardz Wrote:I think the "whining" is directly correlated to the ticket price...
Bingo.
:thumb:
Escape@Hand Wrote:I think people need to drop the "why don't they do 3 hr concerts" whining. The Hip have never played sets like that. Outside of the M@W tour, which shows where in the 2.5 hr range, they have consistently played for approximately 2 hrs every show for as long as I have seen them (first show 1996). Gord has publicly stated that tours are hard on his voice, and that it's difficult for him to sing 3 nights in a row. If that's the case, do you think he could hold up singing for 3 hrs a night?
How about we just appreciate what they are doing, giving us a unique show with songs that many of us have never heard, or at least haven't heard in a long time.
Then they shouldn't be charging $100-$140 for the top tickets in Canada. The ticket sales have spoke for themselves two tours in a row; half empty arenas await again in Canada.
Windsor was sold out and they just added another show there for July 3rd, Granted it only seats 5grand but there are not many 5000 seat arenas around so they will have to play big arenas and only take half full.
Rye Wrote:Escape@Hand Wrote:I think people need to drop the "why don't they do 3 hr concerts" whining. The Hip have never played sets like that. Outside of the M@W tour, which shows where in the 2.5 hr range, they have consistently played for approximately 2 hrs every show for as long as I have seen them (first show 1996). Gord has publicly stated that tours are hard on his voice, and that it's difficult for him to sing 3 nights in a row. If that's the case, do you think he could hold up singing for 3 hrs a night?
How about we just appreciate what they are doing, giving us a unique show with songs that many of us have never heard, or at least haven't heard in a long time.
Then they shouldn't be charging $100-$140 for the top tickets in Canada. The ticket sales have spoke for themselves two tours in a row; half empty arenas await again in Canada.
Actually they can charge whatever they want, and clearly they made enough money on the last tour to be able to charge more for this tour. You may not like that, and that's fine. I'm not particularly happy paying $140 to see them, but I made the decision that I was willing to pay that much to see them and that's the end of it.
Clearly, you don't value 2 hrs of the Hip at $140, and that's ok. There are a lot of people, including myself, that do believe it's worth that much. But the belief that because the Hip are charging "x" amount of dollars means they should play for "x" amount of time and place "x" amount of "deep cuts" is faulty logic.
Complain about ticket prices, and complain about the setlists all you want, but they two different complaints. My point above was that people need to get past this perception that the Hip regularly play 2.5 hr sets, because they don't.
I think the ticket price/setlist complaint absolutely is related. How are they charging $100-$140 per ticket to play just under two hours when Pearl Jam charges $70 and plays 30 songs every night? And the fact that Hip tickets were on Groupon two days ago suggest that they are charging too much.
If they were playing theaters, 2.5 hour shows and mixing up the setlist, I wouldn't have a problem with the price. Since 2011 (with the exception of the 2012 US tour) the setlists have been redundant and the band has been getting worse, not better over the past 10-15 years.
I don't know how these points can be argued. Like I said, the ticket sales speak for themselves. You can get seats in the first ten rows in the 100s for Winnipeg and it was the same story two years ago. The band should be embarassed playing these half empty places. It has nothing to do with changing musical tastes, my friends would go see Pearl Jam every night of the week if they could (changing setlists, always curveballs). Everyone I know feels like they've seen The Hip's show before, and a much better version of it.
Rye Wrote:I think the ticket price/setlist complaint absolutely is related. How are they charging $100-$140 per ticket to play just under two hours when Pearl Jam charges $70 and plays 30 songs every night? And the fact that Hip tickets were on Groupon two days ago suggest that they are charging too much.
If they were playing theaters, 2.5 hour shows and mixing up the setlist, I wouldn't have a problem with the price. Since 2011 (with the exception of the 2012 US tour) the setlists have been redundant and the band has been getting worse, not better over the past 10-15 years.
I don't know how these points can be argued. Like I said, the ticket sales speak for themselves. You can get seats in the first ten rows in the 100s for Winnipeg and it was the same story two years ago. The band should be embarassed playing these half empty places. It has nothing to do with changing musical tastes, my friends would go see Pearl Jam every night of the week if they could (changing setlists, always curveballs). Everyone I know feels like they've seen The Hip's show before, and a much better version of it.
What Pearl Jam charges is in no way related to what the Hip charge. The Hip charge the maximum they believe they can get for tickets, and there is nothing wrong with that principle. By your logic, Taylor Swift should be playing 5 hr concerts because she charges so much for her tickets (when she plays more like 15 songs). Furthermore, Pearl Jam have a much bigger revenue stream than the Hip (they charge for their fan club, while the Hip do not, they have their own Sirius radio station, get way more airplay, especially in the U.S.) and clearly leave money on the table in regards to ticket pricing. Just because they decide to do that does not mean the Hip should.
And the Pearl Jam comparisons need to stop. The Hip have consistently, throughout at least the last 20 years, played approximately 2 hr shows, with the exception of one special tour in 2000, and while Pearl Jam is known to play longer sets, they are a rare exception, as most bands play no more than 2 hrs. I paid $125 for Coldplay a couple of years ago, and I watched their setlists for that tour and every night was exactly the same. That is typical of rock/pop bands. The Hip still play for 2 hrs a night (give or take) and the setlists do change from night to night. Perhaps not to your liking, but it's not the same every night.
What Pearl Jam charges is in no way related to what the Hip charge. The Hip charge the maximum they believe they can get for tickets, and there is nothing wrong with that principle. By your logic, Taylor Swift should be playing 5 hr concerts because she charges so much for her tickets (when she plays more like 15 songs). Furthermore, Pearl Jam have a much bigger revenue stream than the Hip (they charge for their fan club, while the Hip do not, they have their own Sirius radio station, get way more airplay, especially in the U.S.) and clearly leave money on the table in regards to ticket pricing. Just because they decide to do that does not mean the Hip should.
And the Pearl Jam comparisons need to stop. The Hip have consistently, throughout at least the last 20 years, played approximately 2 hr shows, with the exception of one special tour in 2000, and while Pearl Jam is known to play longer sets, they are a rare exception, as most bands play no more than 2 hrs. I paid $125 for Coldplay a couple of years ago, and I watched their setlists for that tour and every night was exactly the same. That is typical of rock/pop bands. The Hip still play for 2 hrs a night (give or take) and the setlists do change from night to night. Perhaps not to your liking, but it's not the same every night.[/quote]
fine lets play the game compare them to phish
phish charges 60 bucks a ticket for 3 + hours of them urinating in your ears
and never play the same song twice in a row
they also do 3 nigh stands
I wish the hip would take a page from phish and kill it
also how about trey with the dead is that the show of the decade?
Here are the price levels for Taylor Swift at Ford Field in Detroit: $200.00, $139.50, $87.00 & $49.50
There are also Platinum options and VIP options.
It's 2015; brace yourselves to be paying these price ranges for headlining performers in big venues.
The Hip being compared to Pearl Jam and Phish will continue (and DMB and Radiohead) because those are their peers as far as live shows go. Taylor Swift I'd compare more to Madonna and U2 is probably the only other rock band in that category.
The Hip are are relatively bare-bones live act and the fact is, for similar acts that play longer shows, change their setlists more, and have a relatively minimalistic stage, there are much cheaper tickets to be had.
I don't remember ever seeing Pearl Jam or Phish tickets on Groupon. The ticket sales in Canada speak for themselves. If The Hip want to play arenas, they need to cut their ticket prices.