Post by journeytoarcana on Jan 24, 2005 11:24:51 GMT -5
The band has grown past their early heavy metal years and Barely any of the members who are in the band today were in the band during the Zimmerman-era
This is a two-fold argument. Basically, on one side, what this means is that "Fates Warning doesn't play aggressive music anymore, and therefore the live setting should reflect this trend as well".
Some fans have bitched and moaned about the direction Fates has taken since No Exit. Some have stated they liked Perfect Symmetry for what it was, but then after this Fates became bored and looked for a more "commercial" route. Their songs became easily digestible and the fan base that expanded from this was (according to some) comparable to what happened to Judas Priest after "Breaking the Law" and "Living After Midnight" hit the airwaves - the fan base became chock full of ignorant "catchy-tune" pedestrians that like short, choppy tunes to sing along to rather than the grandiose epic material that Fates was performing beforehand.
I don't agree with either side of this one, but will only say that Fates would have a watered down fanbase a little bit later in the decade due to some other factors thrown into the mix.
What I will say is this: This "having grown" argument gets confused by many of the "con" people as just a few select old fans bitching about the direction Fates went in, and thus, the content of the setlist should reflect this. Bullshit. The direction Fates takes musically is none of the fan's business. Sure, we can bitch about its merits and whatnot, whether we like it or not, but the only way to truly make a statement about not liking an artists music is to not buy it. Period.
The setlist, on the other hand, has NOTHING to do with the direction Fates has ventured musically. The setlist is for the people paying the tickets to get into the door. Old - mid career - and new ones just getting into the band. If the fan base is broken down into 20% old, 60% mid career, and 20% new (a difficult thing to compute, I admit) then the setlist should reflect this as well. When you have fans yelling out "The Sorceress", "Anarchy Divine", "Epitaph", and "Fata Morgana", and your setlist consists of 75% mid career, 25% new and ZERO% old, then you are doing an injustice to those people who are considered your constituency.
When Fates opted for this 75/25/0 route on the Inside Out tour, they weren't eliminating old songs "because none of the members were in the band when those songs were released", because Frank and Joe were still in the band. They were doing it for another reason - ie, the philosophy that the new material is automatically superior to the old. Which is even more ironic, considering the band has repeatedly said in interviews since 1997 that INSIDE OUT WASN'T SUCH A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE THEY REPEATED THEMSELVES or IT DEFINTELY WASN'T "ALBUM OF THE YEAR!" (as Mark stated about APSoG when it was released). So much for this "evolutionary" theory of Fates Warning's music.
When the old fans came out for the 1994 and 1997 tours, the old material was ignored, the old fans balked, and refused to see the band again in the live setting because of this. The last sentence = financial suicide, and it's probably the primary reason the Nevermore tour of 2000 was cancelled and why Fates was stuck opening for ................ (drum roll) ...... Savatage.
The old fans do not (I repeat, do not) want the new songs abolished from the setlist. Nor do they want Fates to make a No Exit Part 2. What they want is recognition that when they were in high school back the 80's, that they played their Awaken the Guardian cassette in their walkmans with pride and for a reason ... a reason that they knew this band was something unique and special when everyone else was listening to Poison and Motley Crue. Being a fan of something as obscure as Fates meant something, and for many o' fans, it still does.
This is a two-fold argument. Basically, on one side, what this means is that "Fates Warning doesn't play aggressive music anymore, and therefore the live setting should reflect this trend as well".
Some fans have bitched and moaned about the direction Fates has taken since No Exit. Some have stated they liked Perfect Symmetry for what it was, but then after this Fates became bored and looked for a more "commercial" route. Their songs became easily digestible and the fan base that expanded from this was (according to some) comparable to what happened to Judas Priest after "Breaking the Law" and "Living After Midnight" hit the airwaves - the fan base became chock full of ignorant "catchy-tune" pedestrians that like short, choppy tunes to sing along to rather than the grandiose epic material that Fates was performing beforehand.
I don't agree with either side of this one, but will only say that Fates would have a watered down fanbase a little bit later in the decade due to some other factors thrown into the mix.
What I will say is this: This "having grown" argument gets confused by many of the "con" people as just a few select old fans bitching about the direction Fates went in, and thus, the content of the setlist should reflect this. Bullshit. The direction Fates takes musically is none of the fan's business. Sure, we can bitch about its merits and whatnot, whether we like it or not, but the only way to truly make a statement about not liking an artists music is to not buy it. Period.
The setlist, on the other hand, has NOTHING to do with the direction Fates has ventured musically. The setlist is for the people paying the tickets to get into the door. Old - mid career - and new ones just getting into the band. If the fan base is broken down into 20% old, 60% mid career, and 20% new (a difficult thing to compute, I admit) then the setlist should reflect this as well. When you have fans yelling out "The Sorceress", "Anarchy Divine", "Epitaph", and "Fata Morgana", and your setlist consists of 75% mid career, 25% new and ZERO% old, then you are doing an injustice to those people who are considered your constituency.
When Fates opted for this 75/25/0 route on the Inside Out tour, they weren't eliminating old songs "because none of the members were in the band when those songs were released", because Frank and Joe were still in the band. They were doing it for another reason - ie, the philosophy that the new material is automatically superior to the old. Which is even more ironic, considering the band has repeatedly said in interviews since 1997 that INSIDE OUT WASN'T SUCH A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE THEY REPEATED THEMSELVES or IT DEFINTELY WASN'T "ALBUM OF THE YEAR!" (as Mark stated about APSoG when it was released). So much for this "evolutionary" theory of Fates Warning's music.
When the old fans came out for the 1994 and 1997 tours, the old material was ignored, the old fans balked, and refused to see the band again in the live setting because of this. The last sentence = financial suicide, and it's probably the primary reason the Nevermore tour of 2000 was cancelled and why Fates was stuck opening for ................ (drum roll) ...... Savatage.
The old fans do not (I repeat, do not) want the new songs abolished from the setlist. Nor do they want Fates to make a No Exit Part 2. What they want is recognition that when they were in high school back the 80's, that they played their Awaken the Guardian cassette in their walkmans with pride and for a reason ... a reason that they knew this band was something unique and special when everyone else was listening to Poison and Motley Crue. Being a fan of something as obscure as Fates meant something, and for many o' fans, it still does.