Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hoodoo Man

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers "cover songs"

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, TomFest said:

It's beyond absurd to see you guys calling it a bad song.  You lose all credibility saying things like that.

I understand how much you like the song and its place in rock-n-roll history. But I don't care. My taste is my taste. I think it's a generic and rather dull rock song. It's all opinion aside from noting that it inspired people. I get that but still don't care.

10 minutes ago, TomFest said:

I see shit like that and I just don't even want to read what you have to say.

Okay.

10 minutes ago, TomFest said:

There's more with your nonsense about how you can arrange an album better than Tom

Hmm. I think maybe you've gotten the wrong idea from those topics. They are meant to be fun diversions, a little bit of escapism. I think everyone involved respects Tom's (and the bands) artistry. It's funny, because even people not on the board, some guy recently did his take on Southern Accents. I think albums that are generally considered weaker get those types of topics, weaker or perhaps lesser liked, like the Last Dj, Southern Accents, Mojo etc. People don't seem to touch FMF/WF, HE, DTT etc. 

But anyway, I think you're taking those topics way too seriously.

13 minutes ago, TomFest said:

how you can make setlists better than Tom,

Hmm. Well, I could've made a set list I'd like to hear sure. I don't know if I considered myself better at it per se, I think, I could be wrong, but the general feeling of your post is people like us, on this Forum think we're suddenly above Tom (and the band) when it comes to album track listing, set lists etc. instead of how I see these, which are hardcore "nerd-like" discussions of music but generally with a light touch.

However, when it comes to the set list, overall, if you and/or others are fine with how he selected it, the order of songs, the 2010 onwards trifecta of ISHKI/Ref/Run (generally speaking) to close out a set, that's fine. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that even within the band, at least both Mike and Benmont would've liked some deep cuts thrown in; I could be wrong but I think TDK playing Can't Stop the Sun and some of Mike's instagram videos show that.

But really, these topics aren't meant to grind your gears, if that's what you're getting from it than good that you're not reading 'em. I just take all this as interesting and fun, hearing what others think of songs, albums, set lists, covers and so on.

17 minutes ago, TomFest said:

Tom didn't like Steve Ferrone's drumming.  You actually believe that Tom just tolerated Steve Ferrone?

That is not one of mine.

18 minutes ago, TomFest said:

Maybe I'm just cranky with cabin fever, but there is some looney stuff on this forum.

Ha ha! More like The FunnyFarm than Mud.

cheers!

Share this post


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

As time went on, the band had more and more original songs that went unplayed in concert, or barely played.  Thus as time went on, time spent on a cover song was crowding out more original songs than had been the case in previous years.

-.......

- Anyone can do a cover song.  Only TPATH could do their own songs.  There are many fine cover bands.  Cover bands generally do cover songs because they don't have original songs that people want to hear.  Yes there is a spot for an occasional cover song.  But doing the same long cover song 132 times, when you have so many of your own great songs that have been played less that a handful of times, and many not even played once live......

- How many times before a tour started, did we hear Tom say something like "We aren't promoting a specific album, we're just going to reach deep into our own song catalog this time"?  And we'd optimistically hope that was true, then we'd find out that the setlist was pretty much the same as on previous tours.  Did Tom not appreciate his own songs, or did he underestimate the audience's interest in his songs?  Or did he tailor it just right, for the fan who knew the Greatest Hits and Wildflowers albums, and not much else?    Nor did they have any interest in hearing songs they didn't know?   And yet if the idea was to only play songs that the casual audience member already knew, why play obscure covers such as JJ Cale songs that were never hits anywhere?  

Drew, I totally 100% agree. Before you arrived here, I was saying the same thing and largely I think that's it. Every point you make is valid and true. While I now take the covers as they are, enjoying the ones I like, skipping those I don't, it's a shame Tom didn't select more of their own tunes to play in concert. What a waste. Sure, every so often someone will cover an obscure TPATH song but the opportunity for TPATH to bust out Finding Out or Magnolia is gone. 

And yes, it was beyond ridiculous that Tom would promise that and not deliver. Even the Free from Free Fallin shows were not as incredible as they could've been...that is, if you want to hear TPATH songs and not cover songs, no matter how well played. But how you and me (and a silent minority?) feel seems to really be a very small portion of fans. Oh well? Yeah, oh well they played it, terrible song. Carol? No thanks. Heck, Swingin' doesn't even make my top twenty TPATH songs but I'm glad they pulled it out, especially the Red Rocks version.

It's refreshing to read someone else's somewhat similar take on the covers and TPATH. I don't get why they didn't play their own songs.

Fault Lines, well...played once and gone. But even more telling, the original youtube clip or portion of it disappeared. Official word requesting its removal? It would seem so but I don't know. Good luck finding it online though. Sure, maybe most of the audience would head for the beer lines/bathrooms during obscure numbers but it's too bad TPATH (or just Tom) didn't realize that there were some hardcore fans out there in the crowd who would've enjoyed hearing Mystery Man or whatever.

All moot now.

But I agree with your overall summation of the issue Drew and wanted to express that. 

ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

I don't think we're going to get anywhere by being snarky about other people's opinions.  If someone sees TPATH as the world's greatest cover band, and goes into spasms of ecstasy each and every one of the 132 times

Did I sence a certain contradiction in terms forming right there?

Hey, man.. I never took issue with your opinion. It's your arguments. :D

Well.. your latest post above does have some good meat on it, and I enjoy and respect many of the points you make. We DO, after all, agree on a lot more things than you may think. As for me I just tried my best to focus on the covers in this case, and I always was a sucker for opinions backed up with perspective and insight, so I'm sorry if I came after you too harshly calling you on it. 

As for agreement.. I think I said enough here, already. Not agreeing is ok. It's even fun. And educational even. I try not to be dogmatic (if sometimes sarcastic), but I'm afraid I ask others not to be either, that's all.   

As for the secret club.. Gee man.. It's just that it's the most widely shared common knowledge in the history of rock'n'roll! Maybe that's why I tried saying what I did about all of this to begin with. Are you kidding? It actually takes some considerable ignorance (being snarky, are we) to ask me that. In all honesty, I wish I could point you in the direction of everything I've said on this subject around here over the years (Not to mention all I thought everybody knew about said history). But I even if I did do so, I'm not sure you would really look - like I said, some see it and other don't (and, yes, it's fine, just stating the obvious here) - since actually I even tried it again, in this very thread - just above (in my attempt at keeping this about the covers, remeber) to explain exactly that. That is, my take on how I think playing covers is an integral part of playing music and always was. That it's perfectly normal - for strummers as well as for certified songwriters. That performing music, at least in part, goes well beyond all that trademark and copy right territory of cutting albums and slabbing your name right beneath Volkswagen on the tour poster... If anything, not ever playing covers would be the artificial way to go, to some extent. (At least it's a thought - I'm not done with that one yet.) What I've been trying to describe: Internally doing covers is about exploring the legacy, expanding on familiar ideas, discover or deepen the understanding for your roots, paying tribute and having fun. Externally it's sharing that fun, showing the crowd your roots and legacy, to offer them something unique (in that it's not part of any of your albums) flex your band a bit on slightly unfamiliar territory.. dynamics, man.. dynamics and DNA.. In short, it's what musicians - much like storytellers - done for all eternity of human culture. Then -- yes -- we can of course discuss how much it should be done and in what way - that sure is taste - and we are discussing that, aren't we.. and we even agree on some of it, as we agree - I think all of us do - that we would have so loved to hear all those rare originals! So what exactly is your problem. I am really sorry if you need to talk down at me just cause you missed all the times this has been talked about at various depth and length, including just recently in this very thread. I apologize to you if you took offense with what you took to be me being secretive. I thought I was exteremely inviting and open when I shared my view on this and much else, that I even offered up a lot of substance and thoughts to support it, rather than just stubborn opinion. But from the cherries you picked to move on with, it really seems to me that I failed. Again.. I am sorry if you didn't see that or if I was vague about it. 

I really regret now that I took to this specific thread, in defence of Hoodoo's great idea and the honor of the covers. It was not to be the best ride. Not the best carried out mission I ever was on. :D It's all good man, please don't be mad at me. It's not worth it. It's fine if you don't see any of it, it is. It's fine if we don't agree. It's fine whichever way you want it, really. If you can keep one thing from this post, focus on it and take it with you it's this: It's ok, man!

Love and peace.

Moving on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2020 at 8:36 AM, Hoodoo Man said:

OK we have a cover song thread with other folks doing TPHB but Tom and the Boys did an amazing amount of cover songs. 

In honor of the passing of Bill Withers I will start us out with this Fillmore gem.  I know not everyone loved these guys doing cover songs, but they were an amazing band and seemed able to cover most genres with aplomb. 

To remind us all of the original quiz question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I appreciate musicians covering other musicians' songs.  

Personally, I'm a big fan of music from 1950s & 1960s that TP and Heartbreakers cover, whether it's blues, country, R&B, rock & roll or soul. I might've known some of it, but following up on what music the guys from TPATH enjoy is an excellent way of continually expanding my horizons.  As we're all music-lovers here, we're probably going to be asked (at some stage) "How do you know about that musician? How'd you hear their song in the first place?"  

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one who follows up on songs I hear & tries to find out who else covered it & who the person was who created it... There's a whole network of who is influencing & inspiring who.  Fascinating.  (It'd be even more fun if I could play!) I love Eric Clapton MTV Unplugged (as did half the world) - especially how the music he selected is actually a masterclass of music heritage and the earlier generation of musicians who inspired him.  

It's quirky to consider how TP started out playing gigs at 1960s school dances (where people wanted to let loose & dance) & somehow that joy never seemed to leave him. Anyway, it's fascinating exploration, leading to many treasures.  It has been keeping me entertained for a long time now.  In old days needed people with The Knowledge (i.e. uncles with excellent taste & my local 2nd hand vinyl shop) but now is made easier with sites like secondhandsongs.com  Oh my my oh hell yeah all the songs TPATH cover are a gift to music-lovers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Thanks for a nice write-up there, providing some exellent context to your rationale! Love it.

 

7 hours ago, Big Blue Sky said:

Tomfest makes excellent points.  Well worth considering & reflecting on, not just immediately reacting to.  

First, I better say that this is not to pick a fight.. that I know you can handle it, and maybe even appreciate where it comes from.. But that there seems a bit ascew to me. The point, at least a general outline of it, seemed to be that a lot of things* people put their passion, time and energy into sharing and discussing here** - that is, their consideration and reflecting abilities, if you will - is to be considered "looney". Am I then to understand that the lunacy in all that considering and reflecting on things, is well worth considering and reflecting on? I'm not sure.. but there is a certain charm to that, agreed. 

What I think might be worth conisdering and reflecting on, is what would happen to a place like this if people didn't discuss things now and then, sometimes even to the point of disagreement. To me, keeping the lid on whatever little opinion and content people has to share seem slightly destructive. Take all that away and all you will have is a very tiny choir, with some synchronized harmony Amens on their reportoire. 

I can agree with TomFest (and that is exactly, I thhink, why I ended up quite misunderstood in the above posts) : plain whining and nagging won't get us anywhere. It won't contribute to good discussions or a good vibe. But if people expand on why they think certain things, if they can paint a bigger picture and share new or interesting angles, I don't see the lunacy in doing so, on any level or any subject.*** Even if it involves critical thinking or a negative conclusion or two. It's not important to me what people like and what they don't like - being here gives us common ground enought, one would suspect - it's what it means and how it all fits that is interesting to discuss. Again, just nagging is pointless. But, so are mindless shouts of praise, really - even if that, at least, lifts the spirit some. After all, there always was a BIG difference between posts just nagging endlessly, or repeating the obvious endlessly, and the ones that tries to find new angles, adding perspective, dimension and examples - insight and dimension - to an argument, keeping the dream not just alive, but expanding and moving. It may be worth considering the difference, before just immediately reacting.

See, personally I have long since processed and filed the fact that people like TPATH. To me, if this board was just stacked full of posts saying precisly that, it would be less worth while coming here. It used to be about sharing and discussing things and thought, and maybe it can still be, if at a mellower and sligtly less populated level these days. Let's be constructive, for sure! But let's not call the passion for lunacy.

Thank you kindly for reading! Remeber, I come in peace.

 

 

-----

* Including, but not limited to, songs, sounds, albums, tracklists, setlists, covers.

** Usually in a very polite manner too, may I add

*** If I don't like a certain tomatoe soup or a certain guitar effect pedal, due to this or that specific quality, it may be worth reflecting upon and talk about how these things work with people who are interested and share your passion in them. It's not about being better than the effect pedal maker or whoever it is cooking soup, surely. So why wouldn't it be ok to discuss how a certain song work in an album context, what it meant for the live experience that the setlist was what it was, or how a certain drummer adds (or lacks) this or that technical quality in relation the music played - and what any of it may mean to you, for better or worse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a 100 threads in the forum complaining on the merits of set lists and or complaints about how static the setlists were. We all know the set list barely changed from show to show and even year to year so to me there is not much point dissecting that. Tom was a perfectionist and had a very specific view of what the band should do and what it should play; it was his name in front of it all. We all know they began as a cover band and whatnot so again it's just rehashing old news. It's almost like Republicans and Democrats, they are not going to agree on some things and here the issue seems to be you either liked covers or you felt they crowded out originals that were never played or rarely played. Do I wish they had played Swingin in Boston for the last show I saw rather than Oh Well, Hell yes!  they played it for the second date the next night so I missed out on that but life goes on and I've heard the version from that tour on Youtube from other cities.  

For me covers done by a band like this are the ultimate nod, homage or tribute.  I may not like Eddie Vedder but his version of I won't back down from just after Tom's passing moved me in ways that are the exact opposite of hearing him playing live with Tom. 

I first saw the band in 1987 at Great Woods in Mansfield MA. The show was 17 songs and four of them were covers but seeing them live for the first time my immediate reaction was to try and find tickets for the next show the next night ( it was sold out) but I became a lifelong fan at that point.  I nearly lost my shit when they played the Clash.  Hearing the band playing Chuck Berry made me appreciate Chuck a bit more. Did I walk away sad not to hear Spike? Yes, but I was super excited to catch them again two years later on the next tour. They played three covers out of 15 including 'should I stay or should I go' again and another song I've never heard of "lets work together" by Wilbert Harrison which if Setlistfm is correct was the only time the band played it so yay me for being there and hearing it (not that I can recall it now).

I'm sure I would have found Buddy Guy sooner or later but hearing Stevie Ray Vaughan play him and give him a nod on one of the bootlegs was what got me curious about Buddy. The Stones,  got Muddy and a whole lot of other musicians famous who had toiled in relative obscurity for decades. 

Now did I like all the covers? not so much, I don't like Bluegrass so Little Maggie is a skip or pass for me. But I have a deep respect for the band and would never mention to Mike or any of the other members that it bored me to tears to hear the song.

For sure I have an appreciation of other people's opinions and I am not a fan of crowd think and echo chambers but I'm not sure we need multiple pages debating the merits of covers when we have done that time and again.  I do enjoy the re-tracking threads for various albums but for the most part I like all of the bands albums and now have connected on some level with nearly all of them. It took me years to like Mojo and the last DJ is just now growing on me slightly in all likelihood due to listening to them with other arrangements and excising some of the lesser tracks. 

Now back to the covers;

 

Share this post


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

Take all that away and all you will have is a very tiny choir, with some synchronized harmony Amens on their reportoire. 

Ha ha!

6 hours ago, Shelter said:

After all, there always was a BIG difference between posts just nagging endlessly, or repeating the obvious endlessly, and the ones that tries to find new angles, adding perspective, dimension and examples - insight and dimension - to an argument, keeping the dream not just alive, but expanding and moving. It may be worth considering the difference, before just immediately reacting.

See, personally I have long since processed and filed the fact that people like TPATH. To me, if this board was just stacked full of posts saying precisly that, it would be less worth while coming here. It used to be about sharing and discussing things and thought, and maybe it can still be, if at a mellower and sligtly less populated level these days. Let's be constructive, for sure! But let's not call the passion for lunacy.

All of it, nicely said and thanks for saying it; I agree with you.

Cheers all.

 

Share this post


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

There must be a 100 threads in the forum complaining on the merits of set lists

Don't be so conservative : )

1 hour ago, Hoodoo Man said:

Tom was a perfectionist and had a very specific view of what the band should do and what it should play; it was his name in front of it all. We all know they began as a cover band and whatnot so again it's just rehashing old news. It's almost like Republicans and Democrats, they are not going to agree on some things and here the issue seems to be you either liked covers or you felt they crowded out originals that were never played or rarely played.

Every so often topics get rehashed on forums, it's just how it goes. I could be wrong but it seems like relatively a new perspective shared by Drew on this issue and led to some interesting if perhaps slightly heated discussion. Maybe it's like a wave cresting and breaking and now there's smooth sailing ahead for sharing discussing covers. For me, refreshing to find someone else with the same opinion on covers, a definite rarity on the 'Farm.

1 hour ago, Hoodoo Man said:

Do I wish they had played Swingin in Boston for the last show I saw rather than Oh Well, Hell yes!  they played it for the second date the next night so I missed out on that but life goes on and I've heard the version from that tour on Youtube from other cities

The healthy perspective to have no doubt...!

cheers

 

Share this post


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

"Carol" is one of the greatest rock and roll songs ever written.  It inspired millions of kids to play guitar - including the guys in TPATH and the Stones.  Chuck Berry is deservedly a legend to these guys.  ... It's beyond absurd to see you guys calling it a bad song.  You lose all credibility saying things like that.

Chuck Berry was a pioneer and co-creator of rock and roll, certainly he deserves the status he holds.  As to the song Carol itself, it sounds like a lot of other Chuck Berry songs that preceded it.  When Carol was released as a single by Chuck Berry, he had already had 10 singles that reached the top 10 in the R&B charts - all of them charting at least 8th and several at 1 or 2  (and many in the top 10 mainstream charts).   Carol reached the 9th spot on the R&B charts.   So he had 10 other more popular songs at that point, and had yet to release Bye Bye Johnny or Jaguar & Thunderbird, which TPATH covered successfully in the 70's and 80's.   

All of our opinions  are subjective here, our personal taste.  I understand TPATH's salute to Chuck Berry, and his songs added some energy to TPATH shows.  I wouldn't say that Carol was one of Chuck's very best, or particularly original considering the songs he'd already written, but no I have no problem with your thinking it's one of the best anyone has ever written.   If you don't like myself and MJ2LD thinking it's not that great, and it disturbs your thinking to read our opinions, that's fine too.  "Bad song" was an overstatement.  It's an "ok" song but I'd rather hear a TPATH original, or even a better Chuck Berry song , or maybe a song like Stairway To Heaven (I'm not sure I can imagine Tom singing that, but as long as we are talking about all-time great rock and roll songs, why not?).  But Tom and the band wanted to do Carol, it now stands as their only cover song on their final tour, so good for them to start and end their touring (1976-2017) with Chuck Berry covers in their sets. 

22 hours ago, TomFest said:

There's more with your nonsense about how you can arrange an album better than Tom, or how you can make setlists better than Tom...

 I suppose we could limit our comments to "it's good that Tom did that", or "everything that Tom did was equally cool".  I don't think I've been short on positive comments about Tom's songs or the band's performance.  My comments come from a fan's perspective, a single fan, myself.  I'm not suggesting that I can write better songs than Tom, or perform better music.  When I say I wish he'd done different setlists, especially in his final 20 years of touring, it's because I wanted to hear more of his own great songs, not fewer of them. Would it have been "better" to hear more of his songs over the years or the same"greatest hits" oriented setlists again and again?  I can't say which is "better" in terms of overall audience satisfaction, I'm only saying what I would have preferred as a fan.   

As to arranging an album better than Tom, I did start a topic about choosing a new track order for Highway Companion.  The HC album is the least popular among TPATH fans according to our internal poll, so I felt it was ripe for exploration.  I also thought that having the two "extra" songs tacked on to the HC special edition was not particularly artistic, and tried to imagine how the album could have sounded integrating them a different order.  I happen to prefer my (final) version of the 14 track HC more than the official release.  But it's merely an alternative, not a claim that I'm "better" at ordering an album than Tom was.  I hope other people here enjoyed coming up with their own preferred track listings, and enjoyed sharing and reading the reasoning behind those, perhaps it gave them a new appreciation for those songs.  But if someone didn't like the idea of messing with Tom's chosen track order, they didn't have to read that topic.  

I will note that Tom usually used an outside producer to assist with the sonic outcomes and even with the songs that appeared on the albums.  We know that initially Denny Cordell and later Jimmy Iovine had a hand in deciding which songs would make it to an album.  It was about bringing in a different point of view.  It didn't mean that Cordell and Iovine were "better" at creating songs or albums than TP.  For a long time when I played the FMF vinyl, I would pick up the needle before Zombie Zoo played, having listened to all the other songs, in order.  Was I saying I was "better" at choosing the album layout than TP?  No, I was just acting on my personal taste, for my own listening pleasure.  Years later I found out that TP didn't like Zombie Zoo either.  Now some people like ZZ and that's fine, I personally would have liked Waiting For Tonight instead.   And I'd have preferred Trailer instead of Spike on Southern Accents, as was almost done originally.  Again just a matter of taste, not about being "better" than TP.      

22 hours ago, TomFest said:

...or how sure you are that Tom didn't like Steve Ferrone's drumming.  You actually believe that Tom just tolerated Steve Ferrone?

Well I do recall reading (around 1999 I think it was) that Tom wanted Steve to "put more air" into the songs.  You can interpret that however you want.  Tom also did the drumming on Highway Companion himself.  You can interpret that any way you want.  I do think that Steve's drumming got better in terms of TPATH's music after 2005.  Was it possible that Steve was listening to Tom and adapting?  Who knows.

I do think that Steve gave Tom what he wanted in a drummer - someone who kept time perfectly, a "basic" drummer who took orders well and didn't argue. Stan even in his final TP-authored studio track wasn't listening to orders, as he didn't play Mary Jane's Last Dance the way he was told to play it.  Did that give the song a better outcome or a worse one?  You make the call. 

When I hear Ringo Starr playing drums on To Find A Friend on Wildflowers, he doesn't sound at all like the same drummer from The Beatles.  The drumming there sounds like the rest of the album, very simple, likely exactly what he was asked to do.  It's funny to think of the Johnny Depp line "I could have had Ringo?" because on the WF album (and STO for that matter), I don't really feel they "had Ringo" but that's another matter.   

When Tom reunited Mudcrutch, he wanted Randall Marsh to simplify his drumming.  We know this based on the Randall Marsh interview of 10 or so years ago.  And you can hear it when you listen to Mudcrutch of the 1970's vs. Mudcrutch of the 21st century.  Personally I preferred Randall's earlier Mudcrutch drumming, although it was arguably a distraction from the rest of the song.  Stan I think did a better job of keeping the drumming interesting while still keeping the focus on the song itself.  But I can see why Benmont said the first thing that impressed him about (1970's era) Mudcrutch when he first heard it was Randall's drumming.     

So do I think that Tom "just tolerated" Steve as a drummer?  No I think he was mostly happy with the way Steve played what he was asked.  As noted however, I do think Tom made suggestions to Steve over the years which did improve his "fit" within the band.            

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

It's an "ok" song but I'd rather hear a TPATH original, or even a better Chuck Berry song , or maybe a song like Stairway To Heaven

Hmm, well I was kind of kidding on Stairway to Heaven.  I do think STH is an all-time great song, but I didn't ever have a desire to hear TPATH perform it.  And reflecting back on the formation of the band, they were actually rebelling a bit against the popular 1970's style songs of the time.  Their covers generally reflect their roots/influences, and probably Led Zeppelin wasn't one of them.  Then again, I'm pretty sure that Mike could handle the guitar parts of STH, since he could handle anything.      

Edit - Actually I Should Have Known It does have seem to have a Led Zeppelin influence.  I don't think that Led Zeppelin inspired TPATH's 20th century work, but by the 21st century it's hard to overlook the LZ influence on the "heavy blues" ISHKI.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

When I say I wish he'd done different setlists, especially in his final 20 years of touring, it's because I wanted to hear more of his own great songs, not fewer of them.

I understand people being tired/sick/revolted at this topic as it's gone on for pages and posts on here over many years but I don't think anyone could quibble with your statement; who didn't want to hear more of Tom's songs? At heart, that's the reason for set list critiques; just wanting to hear more of the underplayed tunes on those records; performed by the band that wrote them.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

"Bad song" was an overstatement.  It's an "ok" song

I'm sticking with bad. I tried listening to it, TPATH's take and while Benmont is impressive as always, the song itself isn't good. I get that Berry originated a lot of this style, inspired people etc. but that opening riff just sounds incredibly generic to me. 

ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Stairway to Heaven.  I do think STH is an all-time great song, but I didn't ever have a desire to hear TPATH perform it.

I hate that song. I realize I've now further disqualified my opinions on here even more than usual. It's a definite skip on bootlegs for me. Just don't like it; I don't even feel like explicating.

As for Zeppelin that TPATH could've covered: 

Levee for Mike's slide playing.

Kashmir for Benmont and just interesting to hear them TPATHerize it.

Same with No Quarter.

Maybe the Rover too for the lyrical content, kind of a rebuttal to the feel of 13 Days perhaps.

More later. Maybe.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Johnny Depp line "I could have had Ringo?" because on the WF album (and STO for that matter), I don't really feel they "had Ringo" but that's another matter.   

I'm not sure I quite remember this. Wasn't the implication Depp saying Tom could've played with Ringo instead of Stan and acting as if Stan was lucky to be playing with Tom?

If not then forget it. But if so, I think it's a gross underestimation by Depp and not understanding how bands work. You can't just slot people in and out. Sure, Ringo Beatles drummer, doesn't mean he'd be the best drummer for TPATH, in fact, he wouldn't be. Musical chemistry can't be underestimated; it's beyond chops or popularity or even having played in a much bigger and more beloved band.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Hmm, well I was kind of kidding on Stairway to Heaven.

I think that would've been interesting, not Stairway but a different Zeppelin song, to see TPATH during the Stan era put their "chamber music" approach to zeppelin, thereby altering the hard rock feel of some of the above songs, keeping the essential vibe but filtering it through their musicianship and chemistry. Oh well. (no pun intended)

ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:
6 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Johnny Depp line "I could have had Ringo?" because on the WF album (and STO for that matter), I don't really feel they "had Ringo" but that's another matter.   

I'm not sure I quite remember this. Wasn't the implication Depp saying Tom could've played with Ringo instead of Stan and acting as if Stan was lucky to be playing with Tom?

As I remember it from the RDAD (Bogdanovich) documentary film, Johnny Depp co-owned an LA area nightclub called "The Viper Room", which often had live bands performing.  Depp and Petty were friends from Depp playing "Eddie Rebel" in the official ITGWO video, and Depp asked if TPATH could perform at an opening for his club.  Stan was reluctant to play what was evidently going to be a show for no pay, and said he was living in Florida now.  Tom somewhat angrily told Stan that if he wouldn't do it, he could get Ringo to fill in.  Stan then decided to play the Viper Room show.

In the RDAD documentary, they apparently show the band performing at that Viper room show, which would have presumably taken place in 1994.  Stan appears to be playing the drums on Crawling Back To You.  Obviously if this concert was actually filmed or even recorded as an audio, it would be one of the great "lost" performances.  I think they said (or implied) that they played a lot of the Wildflowers songs at that show, possibly all of them.  

The RDAD documentary was released in 2007, and includes a then-recent interview with Johnny Depp.  Depp was apparently unaware that Stan was hesitant to play his club in 1994, but finds this out in the interview.  At first he seems happy that Stan relented and played, but then he says something like "Wait, I could have had Ringo?" - with the implication that he'd have rather had Ringo, since Ringo was a bigger star than Stan or possibly even Tom. I don't think that Depp was implying that Stan was lucky to be playing with Tom, but did seem to imply that he'd have preferred Ringo, probably for the star power - but perhaps he thought Ringo was a better drummer (if so, this would show that Depp didn't know a lot about TPATH music).  

My comment was just a play on Depp's comment, in observing that when Ringo did play on a couple of TPATH songs on the WF and STO albums, he wasn't playing the same way he did with the early Beatles.  He was playing in a very stifled, limited way, IMO.  So even though TP "had Ringo" for those songs, he didn't really have Ringo's freely creative drumming that was evident with The Beatles.     

 

Share this post


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

As for Zeppelin that TPATH could've covered: 

Levee for Mike's slide playing.

Yes!  Although covering Stairway To Heaven would be a somewhat ridiculous and thankless task for any band not named Led Zeppelin, I could possibly see them covering When The Levee Breaks, at least from a band performance point of view.  That song would suit Tom's voice and delivery.  Mike could play the searing slide guitar part very well.  Benmont would likely find something interesting and appropriate to play, as he always did.  Steve's heavy, pounding drums could have been just right for that song.  

Additionally, Led Zeppelin rarely performed that song themselves, as they felt they couldn't properly duplicate the heavy, echoing drum sound on stage.  I believe they only played it live twice, once in Chicago (probably because of the "Going to Chicago" line in the song), and once in Europe.  So if TPATH performed it, it's not like it would have been something that was already done to death by Led Zeppelin.  Furthermore, the original song was a Delta/Chicago Blues one that had been reworked by Led Zeppelin, so by playing it TPATH would not only be paying tribute to LZ but also to early 20th century blues.  

But if all that sounds perfect, I'm not sure if the song would have been right for a TPATH crowd.  It's a very cool song, but it's also long, slow, heavy.  I like the song a lot, but it's not the type of thing you expect to hear from TPATH, so it might not have been well received.  It might not have the right mood for a TPATH concert,  I don't really know.  Otherwise though, if they had to pick a song from LZ to cover, I could see that one being a strong choice.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Stan relented and played, but then he says something like "Wait, I could have had Ringo?" - with the implication that he'd have rather had Ringo, since Ringo was a bigger star than Stan or possibly even Tom. I don't think that Depp was implying that Stan was lucky to be playing with Tom, but did seem to imply that he'd have preferred Ringo, probably for the star power -

Thanks for clarifying; it's what I figured based on seeing that clip a while ago.

30 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

possibly see them covering When The Levee Breaks, at least from a band performance point of view.  That song would suit Tom's voice and delivery.  Mike could play the searing slide guitar part very well.  Benmont would likely find something interesting and appropriate to play, as he always did.  Steve's heavy, pounding drums could have been just right for that song. 

I think Stan would've been good too, either drummer really.

 

30 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

sounds perfect, I'm not sure if the song would have been right for a TPATH crowd.  It's a very cool song, but it's also long, slow, heavy.  I like the song a lot, but it's not the type of thing you expect to hear from TPATH

But I think it would've worked, while not a big hit single I think enough in the crowd would recognize it.  Besides, part of the fun of a live concert is hearing a band do the unexpected. The closest thing in feel to Levee is All or Nothin' and they did play it a few times on the ITGWO tour. Anyway, I think it could've worked, especially for the reasons you state above.

ciao

Share this post


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

The closest thing in feel to Levee is All or Nothin' and they did play it a few times on the ITGWO tour.

All or Nothin' was made for live play, it's a shame they didn't do it more.  When I first heard that song on ITGWO, I didn't care for it that much.  And some of the lyrics could have been improved (it's a Campbell/Petty song, so I assume that Tom was trying to fit lyrics to Mikes music), although the chorus is great.   Hearing it live though, even on those rare and not-perfectly recorded bootlegs, is awesome.  Mike really gets to shine on the guitar spot.  I wonder if they recorded this and considered it for Live Anthology; maybe they don't have a good recording of it.  They need to release more live stuff officially.    

As an aside, but still related to TPATH - I see from Wikipedia that Stairway To Heaven was first performed by Led Zeppelin live, about a month before the studio album was released.  And according to John Paul Jones, the crowd seemed bored and uninterested it.  He figures they were waiting to hear some songs they already knew.  Unfortunately that's a problem for many listeners, they tend to love songs they already know, but aren't always ready to give new or unfamiliar songs a fair chance.  

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...