Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GetLuckySometimes

"Echo" from March 13, 1999

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

This is my very first post, but I have browsed your forum off and on for months. It's fantastic! Anyway, I was hoping to track down a recording of "Echo" from March 13, 1999 at the Fillmore. It appears to be the only time he ever played the song live and I would LOVE to hear it. Does a recording exist? 

Thanks so much!

 

( I ran a search before posting -- sorry if I missed this being shared elsewhere on the forum)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the whole show to Dime A Dozen about a year ago, so it's on there as a torrent if you know how to download torrents. Otherwise, I think the Live Petty site took my rip of it and posted it to their site.

And....upon looking...it looks like they did! https://livepetty.com/1999-03-13-san-francisco-ca-aud/

This show was a really weird one. Tom started playing "Learning to Fly" and then stopped midway, but I can't remember during which song that's tracked onto in this version (possibly "The Letter"?). In any case, the show's got a great set list: lots of cool covers that they frequently played on their early 1999 shows as well one of the first performances of "Sweet William" can be found towards the show's end. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikemono said:

I posted the whole show to Dime A Dozen about a year ago, so it's on there as a torrent if you know how to download torrents. Otherwise, I think the Live Petty site took my rip of it and posted it to their site.

And....upon looking...it looks like they did! https://livepetty.com/1999-03-13-san-francisco-ca-aud/

This show was a really weird one. Tom started playing "Learning to Fly" and then stopped midway, but I can't remember during which song that's tracked onto in this version (possibly "The Letter"?). In any case, the show's got a great set list: lots of cool covers that they frequently played on their early 1999 shows as well one of the first performances of "Sweet William" can be found towards the show's end. Enjoy!

Thanks so much. I can't wait to listen. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mikemono said:

posted the whole show to Dime A Dozen about a year ago, so it's on there as a torrent if you know how to download torrents. Otherwise, I think the Live Petty site took my rip of it and posted it to their site.

And....upon looking...it looks like they did! https://livepetty.com/1999-03-13-san-francisco-ca-aud/

This show was a really weird one.

Thanks for this!

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys. I am sorry, but since I aged about 30 years in the last two or three years (not sure if that technically makes me a dog) I no longer seem to follow how to convert, transfer formats, downloads and so on. I no longer find my way around these things, no longer seem able to do the computer geek work. I much rather just buy records these days, or share them stuff straight up, person to person. In short, I've become too comfortable for my own good. But as far as that go, I really draw a line at selling my soul for comfort, at dealing with the darkest forces, the semi-monopolies that offer the sweetest sugar and the least resistance for the price of my dwindling integrity and a dying planet. So, please, kindly inform me, do I have to be a registered Amazon customer to download this one?!? Too bad, if so. If not, thank you for directing this old dog to a fair and Amazon free transaction. Been looking for this one. Seems awesome! Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Let me go check.

I click the link with show details. I click the download link and go here:

 

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/vyWA8pHxDRdBojYixoSJAD8S6Z51aiP700vw6Le1Cak?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&mgh=1

 

Then  I click and go here with the folder:

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/vyWA8pHxDRdBojYixoSJAD8S6Z51aiP700vw6Le1Cak?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&mgh=1

I click the folder and the list of songs appears:

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/vyWA8pHxDRdBojYixoSJAD8S6Z51aiP700vw6Le1Cak/folder/YyKaWzxgT3-0Yo6LUSqTIw?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&mgh=1

 

I click the checkbox next to file name at the top and the whole screen highlights and on the upper right corner it says download. Click that and it downloads as a file. Then you unzip the file when its on your computer and either play it as Flac or convert to mp3 or different type of file.

Hope this helps.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 16, 2019 at 2:32 PM, mikemono said:

In any case, the show's got a great set list: lots of cool covers that they frequently played on their early 1999 shows as well one of the first performances of "Sweet William" can be found towards the show's end. Enjoy!

That's a good version of Sweet William, you can feel the band's energy and enthusiasm for the song; rare to hear something performed before the album release. Nice organ soloing from Benmont. I've not heard many live versions of this but this one is really darn good! 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry for taken a bit to find my way back here. It works great, thank you for your support.

Cool to finally get to hear the live Echo!

See, now I've managed my way through the set too, and while audience recordings are always a bit of a challenge for me these days - my patience, much like my computer savviness and general willingness to suffer for a good cause, has been in decline for some years now, regrettably - this one was quite charming. Now, I've heard various songs from the 99 Fillmore run before, obviously, and collected a few, but as it turns out this is my first complete show of the lot. And despite the less than optimal sound quality (oh, I've heard far worse of course!), it's really a treat hearing it.

That it was a treasure setlist was a known fact already. A set somewhat typical of the Fillmore residencies and certainly quite cover heavy then. Still. it's interesting hearing for real, in proper context, some of the variations to the set, compared to the already impressive and eclectic mix they performed during their SF stay in 1997. I  would even venture to say that while they really got into their groove in the 20 nights of 1997, throwing out all kinds of gems and some of their best ever performances, the combination of the few new entries here and the set structure itself, makes this 99 set even better, even more effective, as I hear it. The flow through those songs seem close to perfect to me.* It's really a killer opening with the likes of Rip It Up, Jammin Me, Runnin' Down A Dream back to back. The latter do serve some good purpose when performed at such an early stage of the night, for a change.** 

Obviously, the rare tracks performed here is the real bonus, for me. I do also take several fantastic renditions of the previously heard stuff too from this set, though. There's a warmth, more or less acoustic quality to the sound, a glow that shines through a lot of the material, giving it a certain hue, isn't it?

I won't go into listing all songs and reactions here and now, but perhaps worth mentioning, since extended jams been discussed elsewhere lately, is that I really find the treatment of It's Good To Be King here, to be among the best of them all. The "dirty" sound on Mike's guitar, how prominent those singing, then crying, then wailing strings is to the dreamscape they create, is very special. Ben's magic is usually so crucial to what makes this song, to me, but with this treatment Mike is what keeps the song afloat and carries it far and wide. The breakdown of the performance, while very typical as such, works wonder too, unusually effective and scary even, since what they very slowly and carefully start with, before the build up and instrumental end segment, is some very tiny, spooky and quite amazing, etherical even, movements that an unexperienced ear would not appreciate, or even notice. A tremble from another dimension.. and incidentally one of the best sounds and atmospheres they have ever found and/or created.

Another peak moment for me - at the same time among the few regrets hearing this show - is the Never Been Anyone version. Well, what to regret about it is how comparatively little they make of a total gem like that. I mean, they hit pure gold here, I think! Now, I know I don't say this often, but they really should've let themselves go a bit with it, then, made it a lot longer, even. At least let it play out for some full 4 or 5 minutes. There are so much that could be added here, the little build-up (yeah, very little) at about a minute of the performance, seem to beg and cry to be followed throw with a steady little bass line, some more harmonies and the patented magic work by Ben, perhaps some of Mike too. Yet, they just leave it, at hello.. To me, there is something instantly intense and amazingly beautiful with this arrangement and Tom's singing and just after some minute of this, when I am prepare to really let the song take off and become one of their most legendary performances ever, it stops. Judgement?!  Ok, those are some of the best 1:30 minutes I've heard in a long time, anyway.

Another really good feature of this recording is the audience presence. At least large parts of this tape display a lot of atmosphere. The audience reactions and singing along, just at the rare and perfect level to boost the music enough, make the whole experience extra intense, without taking over or drowning too much of the real action out. That Stones moment they all treat themselves to there in the midst of all of it, is a perfectly sweaty and feverish take. It's very close to becoming a bar band moment, but by hitting the perfect spot with the TPATH performance of the song and the recorder being lucky (skilled?) with his location and sound levels, it all stays on the right side of the line and right there this tape captures an amazing aspect of the band to me, quite hard to get on tape, actually, and not heard that often.  

And yeah, Echo.. nice find, nice version! Did I hear me say that before.. 

 

-----

* Yes. Being me, I would of course suggest that the intensity and originality would have been lifted that last notch, had Tom had the guts to skip at least I Won't Back Down or Free Fallin' in exchange for some other, overlooked original song of theirs (the way they included stuff like Cabin Down Below or Honey Bee as staples back in 97). Well, he did skip Refugee, so ok. Not as effective -as I see it- but a rare and welcome move, never the less by that point in time. Speaking of, this is 20 years later, none of it matter, just saying. Besides, Sweet William and Echo is plenty pay off for the audience, in terms of rare non hit originals being performed. The likes of two such in one show did not happen every night, let alone in a set with so many other rare songs.

** Another piece of setlist philosophy from the old mountain, for the not so faint hearted: Rip It Up is a great opener, I think! Backed with Jammin' Me like this, I think the other one they opened with at the 99 Fillmore run (and for many of the 97 shows too) - Around and Around - is perhaps an even better choice. On the other hand, if one decides to stick with the short and kicking Rip It Up, I would then perhaps have preferred to let it ring and transmute straight into Love Is a Long Road, on that final hanging chord, or something like that. Not unheard of, not totally crazy, just a hunch I have when it comes to the fine print of these things. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shelter said:

Another peak moment for me - at the same time among the few regrets hearing this show - is the Never Been Anyone version. 

I was actually disappointed with that version.  The Heartbreakers are usually quite faithful to the original song with their covers, and this is a longtime favorite Rick Nelson tune for me.  This time, Tom changes all of the lyrics, as if he's re-writing the song for Adria.  While that is cute and touching, it doesn't serve the song well.  Oh well, at least they did do the chorus nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TomFest said:

I was actually disappointed with that version. 

Right, I can see what you mean. The original is fantastic, no doubt! For me the pro with this interpretation is in the music. The sound and vibe of it, with seemingly very little effort, the light touch and yet the endless depths that opens under this version fascinates me. The main con, again, is everything they could have done with the song, but decided not to. Another con may indeed be the changed lyrics. Perhaps a bad call, like you say. I suppose a fuller exploration of this masterpiece would have required the original lyrics. Like you say, it doesn't exactly serve the song this way, nor its potential. So perhaps, given the "cute" personal approach here, perhaps it was better cut short.

Again, though.. I can't help but thinking where that beautiful touch with arrangement and melody could have gone to. I just love it when they sound like this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 22, 2019 at 10:36 AM, Shelter said:

Cool to finally get to hear the live Echo!

See, now I've managed my way through the set too, and while audience recordings are always a bit of a challenge for me these days - my patience,

I thought it was a pretty good performance of the song. Could've been that tour's Southern Accents, a somber title track that shows off the more tender side of the band, Tom's wistful lyrics and the group's tasteful playing.

Having listened to many a bad audience recording it's nice to find ones that are of higher quality. But with rare exception most of the time I mainly listen to soundboards if they're available. Still, I'm impressed with tapers in general, the patience, technical savvy and generosity is awesome!

 

On January 22, 2019 at 10:36 AM, Shelter said:

1997, throwing out all kinds of gems and some of their best ever performances, the combination of the few new entries here and the set structure itself, makes this 99 set even better, even more effective, as I hear it.

I'm pretty sure this is the first '99 Fillmore show I own. I like it but prefer the '97 run, if for no other reason than they were still pulling out the extended Mary Jane's. The last night of '97 also has the benefit of being a high quality (soundboard? fm broadcast) recording. 

But it's nice to have a complete '99 Fillmore. The High Grass Dogs video disappointed at the time with song selection, so it's nice to have a complete show and get a feel for it. And what a version of Sweet William! I never knew the song existed till I heard an '08 show, so it's fun to hear it close to when they recorded it. A lot of energy in this take, I think.

While one of my favorite live recordings is the July (?) show from Boston I think from the Echo tour, I think the '97 shows have an interesting overall sound, a bit like Wildflowers but with a much looser flow or feeling. The second major live shows with Steve and while I think he did damn good in '95 this run of shows in both deep cuts and sound of guitars just work really well for me. Heavy but airy at the same time. Still, it's a minor difference overall I think, there was something special when this band settled in somewhere, be it for twenty nights or five, about as close to hearing their clubhouse rehearsals, a sense they'd discarded their usual approach for something a lot more inspiring for those on stage and off.

cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I like it but prefer the '97 run, if for no other reason than they were still pulling out the extended Mary Jane's. The last night of '97 also has the benefit of being a high quality (soundboard? fm broadcast) recording. 

Sure thing. I already covered the plentitude of material in '97 (and, your're right, that Mary Jane is fantastic, btw). And while I like the '99 arrangements/sound - perhaps especially in those Fillmore shows, as just mentioned* - I agree that the '97 arrangements/sound that you speak so warmly of, was great too. (I might find '97 to be a bit "thinner", "whinier" in comparison, not when you bring it up, as an answer to my set list ponderings, but that sound superiority might be imagination, or recording aspects or whatever.)

Overall, these guys almost always sounded good to me, the sound was never a big issue. That said, as I have been going on about at some length elsewhere, they did seem to pass a certain milestone level around 1990, when adding Scott to the picture, when the sound was upgraded from fairly straight-up standard rock'n'roll (if admittedly great in every way at that!) to a much fuller, richer and more band specific sound throughout.** This, again, largely due to Scott's multi-instrumental talents, but also perhaps other arrangements or live sound technology improvements took place, since it seems Howies very special, even magical, additions to the sound seems to have become more well defined and brilliant during the 90s. My personal opinion is that from then on, early 90s, they kept developing their live sound slowly, towards a heavier, grittier sound, yet full of nuances all the way to the end. The 2012, 2013 or 2014 shows stands out for me as being some sort of summit in that respect. Even if some dimensions were lost along the way, others was gained.***

Ok, I'm drifting..  Back to the point. Whether you quoting me just there, was aimed at certain affirmation of what I said or a counter arguments on your part, is not clear. Perhaps just thoughts unconnected. My original main point - regarding my reaction to hearing this '99 show in full - was that I think despite all the impossible-to-beat aspects of the '97 run (that we agree upon) a case could be made that the "arch" Tom and Mike always talked about when it comes to their idea of creating the perfect setlist, seem slightly more perfected in '99. Again, the flow song-to-song throughout the show, seems some of their best to me. Perhaps you're just tired of set list analysis and went elsewhere by decision? Sure, I can't believe you missed what I was saying.. In retrospect, it seemed like an invite. Haha.. Incidentally you also missed that I actually agreed to being totally floored by a IGTBK version! Doesn't that deserve some gloating?

Nah, just being obnoxious. Of course, as always, you are free to quote whatever you like and respond with whatever you like. My treat. Only too bad if someone notices you quoted me, that hadn't read my full post, and then goes on reading what's expected to be a response. They may get the wrong idea.

 

 

----

*Being it just imagination, or perhaps due to the fact that playing the same venue several times gives you the chance to go into the real micro tuning of your sound rig.

** While Mike and Ben always had a very personal and special touch and style, one could perhaps venture to say that the main pre Into The Great Wide Open TPAHT characteristic was Tom's voice. 

*** This does not take into account the very obvious temper/groove change that took place when Stan quit/was fired. One dimension lost there, as far as I'm concerned. Neither does it count for the arguable loss that happened when Howie took off. It's not that l lose sleep over it, but sometimes I do wonder what it would have been like to hear TPATH with the... positively mindblowing gravity of their later tours and the groove of Stan and the soul of Howie intact.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 1, not 2, but 3 JJ Cale songs from this '99 Fillmore show! That's a serious tribute right there! I love the Letter too...what a neat choice. The residency shows (Fillmore, Beacon, Fonda, Vic Theatre) are among their most special shows, for sure. The intimacy and variety of set list are a dream for hard core fans. And the band is having the time of their lives. I with you, MJ2LD, in that I too prefer the '97 run. There's something magical about them, maybe since they were the first of their kind for the band. I do recall Tom saying in one of the bootlegs, that those shows "might be the pinnacle for them as a band." Like they felt they had achieved something truly special at that point in their career...Looking back, it was approximately the half way point for them as a live/performing band...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shelter said:

Whether you quoting me just there, was aimed at certain affirmation of what I said or a counter arguments on your part, is not clear. Perhaps just thoughts unconnected.

More just a statement of opinion. We disagree as to the sound of the '97 shows, the "thinner" adjective but that's just a matter of taste, no argument or attempt at persuasion necessary.

8 hours ago, Shelter said:

Again, the flow song-to-song throughout the show, seems some of their best to me. Perhaps you're just tired of set list analysis and went elsewhere by decision?

 

8 hours ago, Shelter said:

In retrospect, it seemed like an invite.

A set list discussion is never far away and this could be a new angle, what they were attempting to achieve, the "arch".  The topic is like a shark in the ocean, swimming just under the surface, patiently waiting...now there's a few drops of blood in the water...

2 hours ago, RedfordCowboy said:

I too prefer the '97 run. There's something magical about them, maybe since they were the first of their kind for the band. I do recall Tom saying in one of the bootlegs, that those shows "might be the pinnacle for them as a band." Like they felt they had achieved something truly special at that point in their career.

It could just be that very point, the first time they tried something like this had some indefinable quality. Or maybe people on message boards romanticize things. Both. 

2 hours ago, RedfordCowboy said:

Looking back, it was approximately the half way point for them as a live/performing band...

Interesting. They never did play a show as lengthy as that last night in '97, not that it's all about length but what one does wi...moving on. Maybe too that show in particular stands out, not just for the number of songs played but because they were more balanced between what the players most enjoyed performing, with a nod towards their more popular tunes and very inspired takes; the jammy Mary Jane, IGTBK, the mellow I Won't Back Down, acoustic American Girl and so on. 

They were always tight as a band, and now capped off a twenty night run were no doubt at peak playing and singing with total confidence. Music wise the show's building off the past of course but also the more recent albums, Wildflowers (Tom's favorite and something he was quite proud of), She's The One and Playback, an eclectic mix of songs. There's a fun energy in particular the return of Louie, Louie towards the very end, at that point you get the feeling the band didn't want to stop! This from a group who would usually do one encore and zip away while the crowd kept hoping and clapping for more.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 25, 2019 at 4:01 AM, Shelter said:

and, your're right, that Mary Jane is fantastic, btw

I gotta say the only live rivals in my opinion are from the Last Dj Tour.

On January 25, 2019 at 4:01 AM, Shelter said:

the "arch" Tom and Mike always talked about when it comes to their idea of creating the perfect setlist, seem slightly more perfected in '99. Again, the flow song-to-song throughout the show, seems some of their best to me.

I don't know I think it really just comes down to song selection preference. If this set of tunes work really well for you that's good. Unless one gets completley avant-garde most shows, even ones with different songs from night to night generally follow a rough formula I suppose. I think Tom pretty much came up with the backbone arch back during the ITGWO tour, which is fine. What are ya gonna do? There's fast songs/slow songs and midtempo. 

It's really down to song preference, so for you, if this show hits all the right notes (pun intended) I'm glad, especially since it's a good recording.

Aside from truncating MJ in '99 I don't know if there's that much difference in performances of songs, guitars sounds sure. In addition to the longer MJ I like the sound from that show, and just the feeling of it, that last night just seemed like the band going all out in ways they wanted to; even ending with All Over Now, well, nearly ending with it.

I think for me, it was always less about the flow of a show at its basic structure and more the particular blocks used to build it, pre-fabricated homes instead of unique dwellings.

Turns out this is less a shark than a guppy.

But please expound on the show some more, you or anyone, this and the Supernatural Radio/Climb That HIll from '97 and the recent show with Nightwatchman are quite the TPATH finds!

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 25, 2019 at 4:01 AM, Shelter said:

My personal opinion is that from then on, early 90s, they kept developing their live sound slowly, towards a heavier, grittier sound, yet full of nuances all the way to the end. The 2012, 2013 or 2014 shows stands out for me as being some sort of summit in that respect. Even if some dimensions were lost along the way, others was gained.***

It seemed to me that while Steve cut back on fills and such he hit harder than Stan or his drums were mic'd differently. Well, Benmont did say he drove the band so maybe that added to it. I think the band did get heavier and less jangly as time went on and I like that sound that emerged. The band that played the Echo tour despite being the same group minus drummer from ITGWO tour had become heavier. They moved away from what Benmont called the "chamber music" approach as well. Songs seemed to be more riff/chord based and everyone following that versus somehow coming together and finding space for unique moments, that unique sound they had from the very beginning till Wildflowers. If they still did that it was in a more subtle way, in this way they seemed like most other rock bands. 

How much of this, if you agree with it, could be based on Tom's songwriting growth freedom from Full Moon Fever and Wildflowers and the diminishing impact of Stan is up for debate or at least discussion. Who knows?

But it seems like they gradually became heavier as part of this songwriting evolution on Tom's part or as a side effect, with Mojo really pushing them into another direction. How could they not be heavier after that record? 

In the live setting I think it fit and I enjoyed it. Whether or not they were going to end up there, they often seemed like they really wanted to be a midtempo groovy swamp kind of blues/cover band with rock mixed in and had there been more residencies I'd think there'd be more of this, especially if they'd formally retired from the big tours. No big tours, no need to satisfy a crowd there for the hits, the residencies, be they '97, '99 or '13 all have this in common.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

Turns out this is less a shark than a guppy.

More like the boy who cried wolf... You' ve been barking up the set list tree for so long you don't even realize this is a real... eh.. shark circling. But, duly noted, this does not mean you have to fire the harpoon. Oki. :D

14 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I think it really just comes down to song selection preference. ( ------ )What are ya gonna do? There's fast songs/slow songs and midtempo.

No. There's so much more to it. Really! Think about it, it's complex. In fact, this is part the reason I've been so passionate about the set list issue over the years.

There is tempo, yes. There is also - quite regardless of taste and preference - sound, vibe, atmosphere, mood, if you will, to some extent there is lyrics. Then there is song intro characteristic, song outro characteristic, keys, arrangement, just to mention some of the most obvious.

Quite similar to the constructing/sequencing of an album (including the vastly different crafts of 2 side vinyl vs one side CD, as discussed elsewhere and else...when), yet very different for various reasons, creating functional set list "archs" is an art in its own right! But, I realize that between an artist's major hits, the audience member's (or performer's) personal preferences and hunger for rare songs, this is an aspect most overlooked by a lot of people. But I would still suggest it's real and serious and something most acts do consider more or less. Also, it's interesting.

Moreover, I am pretty certain it is an artform not overlooked by Tom, though. On the contrary. Signs abound that he was a master, even. Perhaps more than he may have dared making use of. See, his "problem" as I see it, and as I've been trying to discuss from many various angles and sides in my days, is not that his standard typical arch did not work. No, I think he mastered this quite well. But he became so satisfied with what worked so well for him, that he went with it more or less permanently, and not only in terms of arch shape, then, so to speak, but also in fairly exact content.*

Tom was hardly one to explore this art form further in public, especially, of course, as long as he knew what 15 songs he must include, there were limited possibilities usually. With me their standard core setup - while fully functional - outstayed it's welcome a bit (old news!) and the great possibilities of different archs and different songs as building blocks and so on, is exactly what had me voice concern back in the days. I knew Tom knew these things and that he was good at it, so why not wish for him to excel, or at least work some more with this tool.

The residencies are great examples of when he allowed himself to work a bit differently. And I think - at least somewhat regardless of my views on some of the songs (a few even that I'm not that crazy about) - that this '99 show, here discussed, was one of there best in that respect. One of the best alternative archs he performed, that is, and thus one of the best in general. This is not to say this is an purely objective fact, of course, if anything work or not will always be in the eyes of the beholder. But I will strongly suggest it's a lot more than purely subjective, is all, that it goes way beyond how you like the songs individually or their mere tempo. My belief is that this is a lot more complicated than you seem to think, apparently.

That is, I can marvel at great "archs" even from acts I don't like as much, or find songs effective in their role, even if their not my favorite. There's a very much technical aspect of the senses, involved, is my point. But of course, like we do with Tom, knowing an artist and knowing the material, may help to add aspects, to better compute these things, to make a insightful analysis of their archs, the actual ones and the imagined ones.** Ok, I think I made my point.

Further, as a related side note, I think Tom was quite the master at constructing/sequencing albums. Perhaps especially LPs.  (This, to me may be a vague partial explanation to the fact that I do find some of the pure CD era albums slightly overloaded and scattered? It's a different and back then new art form.)

 

15 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

They moved away from what Benmont called the "chamber music" approach as well. Songs seemed to be more riff/chord based and everyone following that versus somehow coming together and finding space for unique moments, that unique sound they had from the very beginning

Yes. It's interesting how developing sometimes mean finding your way back to something. I do think you're right about them closing back in on the riff driven in the latter stages of their career. But to my mind they did so without losing or stripping much of the multi layered musical touches built up and incorporated since the important entries of Scott, Lynne and Rubin. They do have more dimensions to work with in 2017 than they did in 1977 or 1987. They did have an original touch from the start, but my idea is, again, that more than half of that uniqness was in Tom's voice in the beginning. While, by that last tour, his voice was still a rare and unique quality to the equation, it was just one of several unique features of their sound and vibe. So, yeah it was going back in certain ways - perhaps most of all in terms of surface aesthetics - but most of all it was also a keep on going, a much fuller, richer and multi layered, heavier machine than they ever were. Or something like that.

 

-----

*That is: not often was there more than one song title allowed to play a certain role, fill a certain slot, in the arch of each tour. What's more, despite there being several other ways to construct a groovy and successful arch, the arch itself often stayed the same, the main slots increasingly filled with the same songs even, from tour to tour. As I said..  old news.. but here in the arch context. Sorry.

**I suppose, I could - if I had the guts and stamina to sit through it and focus on the details - form a fairly logical opinion on how the latest R Kelly arch worked. That's how technical and detached this skill, this art form can be. At least a rough analysis could be had from music theory and from listening to lyrics, moods, sounds. That said, I'm not mr Kelly work with archs as much as he does phalluses, so it may prove futile. Never mind....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, Shelter, but fundamental issue is that most people would see them one night per tour.  

To what extent does Tom or any band also need to consider the set list int terms of people who are gonna be listening to all the bootlegs of the entire tour? 

 Unless it's The Grateful Dead, & it seems there that DeadHeads cared passionately about set lists & things, whether that band did or not. Acid has a lot to answer for. But I digress. (Steeples fingers, peers over spectacles, puffs pipe, pretends to be Sherlock Holmes).  Key point: most people = one night per tour. 

Discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...