Post by journeytoarcana on Jan 24, 2005 10:28:51 GMT -5
Yes, the setlist debate has gone on for quite some time, and I'll try to sum up all of the arguments (pro and con of including old material in the list) that have been listed, and then I'll state my case on the matter.
Currently, there are two main constituents in the Fates Warning live set sweepstakes: Those who would like to hear only Zonder-era material, and those who would like a few (if not many) Zimmerman-era tracks to be inlcuded in the setlist. I have yet to come across anyone who thinks they should ignore songs from 1989 - present, but there are a' many (and they are quite vocal about it) that feel all pre-1989 material should be ignored completely, with the occassional nod to No Exit thrown in for nostalgia purposes.
Pro old material argument
- These songs established the band in their formative years, and should be included
- The setlist should pay hommage to those who are paying to get into the door, not necessarily those who are still buying the band's albums.
- Their early progressive material (Epitaph, Night on Brocken, Exodus, Guardian) pioneered the genre and are considered "classics"
- Ignoring half of your career output is financial suicide
- Yes, Ray can handle select Arch tunes
Con old material in the list
- The band is tired of playing those songs live
- The Arch material doesn't fit in with what they are dong today
- The band has grown past their early heavy metal years
- Barely any of the members who are in the band today were in the band during the Zimmerman-era
- We, as a band, don't like playing the old material live
- There are some royalty rights issues by playing material that solely doesn't have Jim's name penned to it
While both sides seem to battle in this tug-of-war, it seems the true sticking point is "we, as a band, don't like playing the old material live". I mean ... how can someone argue with that? Considering Mark (who is sadly not with Fates anymore) has made his negative feelings shown about the old material in interviews, should he have had any input into the list, then it is easy to guess where some resistance has come from.
Ray, on the other hand, was an enormous fan of the Arch years, and his taste in music is more synonymous with the heavier material. Whether he is capable of conveying the old falsetto material live is not the issue here, but instead his preference in the live setting. I'm sure Ray is very proud of his accomplishments since 1988 and doesn't prefer the old stuff to the new, but what I'm trying to say is that I haven't heard Ray ever say in an interview that he doesn't like the early material.
Score's tied ... 1-1. That leaves Jim.
Jim has made his feelings known about this topic, and seeing that the input above could go either way, fans have been misled to believe that Jim is an authoritarian tyrant who calls the shots and "all else be damned". I don't think this is the case, though. Just recently Jim mentioned that "we've decided on the set list for weeks" and all other interviews that address the "King Matheos" topic have pointed to Jim being very fair in the decisions and direction and even the setlist of the band, and even though he has the final say, Fates Warning is still a very democratic process. However, one does get the impression that the input of the other members get weighed compared to Jim's input.
So, since I am in the "pro" list, I won't beat to death my stance on the issue as much as I will try to correct some misconceptions on the "con" side. If there are more arguments on the "con" side (as the ones listed above are just those which I have heard over the years) do feel free to add them. I love fiery debate and new ideas to bounce around (should you "con" people have any ... hahaha)
I'll address each in a separate post.
toodles
jta
Currently, there are two main constituents in the Fates Warning live set sweepstakes: Those who would like to hear only Zonder-era material, and those who would like a few (if not many) Zimmerman-era tracks to be inlcuded in the setlist. I have yet to come across anyone who thinks they should ignore songs from 1989 - present, but there are a' many (and they are quite vocal about it) that feel all pre-1989 material should be ignored completely, with the occassional nod to No Exit thrown in for nostalgia purposes.
Pro old material argument
- These songs established the band in their formative years, and should be included
- The setlist should pay hommage to those who are paying to get into the door, not necessarily those who are still buying the band's albums.
- Their early progressive material (Epitaph, Night on Brocken, Exodus, Guardian) pioneered the genre and are considered "classics"
- Ignoring half of your career output is financial suicide
- Yes, Ray can handle select Arch tunes
Con old material in the list
- The band is tired of playing those songs live
- The Arch material doesn't fit in with what they are dong today
- The band has grown past their early heavy metal years
- Barely any of the members who are in the band today were in the band during the Zimmerman-era
- We, as a band, don't like playing the old material live
- There are some royalty rights issues by playing material that solely doesn't have Jim's name penned to it
While both sides seem to battle in this tug-of-war, it seems the true sticking point is "we, as a band, don't like playing the old material live". I mean ... how can someone argue with that? Considering Mark (who is sadly not with Fates anymore) has made his negative feelings shown about the old material in interviews, should he have had any input into the list, then it is easy to guess where some resistance has come from.
Ray, on the other hand, was an enormous fan of the Arch years, and his taste in music is more synonymous with the heavier material. Whether he is capable of conveying the old falsetto material live is not the issue here, but instead his preference in the live setting. I'm sure Ray is very proud of his accomplishments since 1988 and doesn't prefer the old stuff to the new, but what I'm trying to say is that I haven't heard Ray ever say in an interview that he doesn't like the early material.
Score's tied ... 1-1. That leaves Jim.
Jim has made his feelings known about this topic, and seeing that the input above could go either way, fans have been misled to believe that Jim is an authoritarian tyrant who calls the shots and "all else be damned". I don't think this is the case, though. Just recently Jim mentioned that "we've decided on the set list for weeks" and all other interviews that address the "King Matheos" topic have pointed to Jim being very fair in the decisions and direction and even the setlist of the band, and even though he has the final say, Fates Warning is still a very democratic process. However, one does get the impression that the input of the other members get weighed compared to Jim's input.
So, since I am in the "pro" list, I won't beat to death my stance on the issue as much as I will try to correct some misconceptions on the "con" side. If there are more arguments on the "con" side (as the ones listed above are just those which I have heard over the years) do feel free to add them. I love fiery debate and new ideas to bounce around (should you "con" people have any ... hahaha)
I'll address each in a separate post.
toodles
jta
