theonewhothrowsthelastbookonthefire wrote:

---

saw119 wrote:

---

They created lots of music but they actually only feel like playing a tiny percentage of it on stage.

---

 This is true.  I think some album-by-album shows would be good (some of the recent shows could almost have served as Different Class shows).

---

It isn't true.  On the recent tour they played 34 different songs, from Separations through to We Love Life.  Admittedly on the main headline dates they did play the Different Class show, but plenty of other songs got an airing.  I'd be surprised if any other band on a tour this year would have played so many different songs.

http://www.setlist.fm/stats/pulp-bd6bdda.html?year=2011

1 Something Changed   25
 
  This Is Hardcore   25
 
  Disco 2000   25
 
  Sunrise   25
 
  Sorted For E's & Wizz   25
 
  Common People   25
 
  Do You Remember the First Time?   25
 
  Babies   25
 
9 I Spy   21
 
10 Underwear   19
 
  Mis-Shapes   19
 
12 Bar Italia   18
 
13 F.E.E.L.I.N.G.C.A.L.L.E.D.L.O.V.E.   17
 
14 Pink Glove   12
 
15 Pencil Skirt   10
 
16 Razzmatazz   9
 
17 Monday Morning   6
 
18 Bad Cover Version   5
 
  Joyriders   5
 
20 Acrylic Afternoons   4
 
  Party Hard   4
 
  O.U. (Gone, Gone)   4
 
  Live Bed Show   4
 
24 The Fear   3
 
  Like a Friend   3
 
  Countdown   3
 
27 Lipgloss   2
 
  Mile End   2
 
  Wickerman   2
 
30 Sheffield: Sex City   1
 
  Have You Seen Her Lately?   1
 
  The Trees   1
 
  His 'n' Hers   1
 
  Help the Aged  1

saw119 wrote:

---

Well using the same website as you ArrGee, Suede on their 2011 reunion dates, which is their second year of reunion shows, played 52 different songs in 29 shows. I would also add that Suede have much less of an overall repertoire than Pulp having only been active from 92 - 03!

---

Not a like for like comparison as Suede did six dates (3 in London + 3 in Dublin) where they played albums in their entirety.

Compared to most bands that were headlining festivals this summer, Pulp played a wider variety of songs.  

Pulp in their current guise, from Separations onwards, have only been actively releasing records for about the same period (1991-2002) and have about the same number of releases in that period.

That setlistfm list is missing a rendition of A Little Soul played in France.

TheDev wrote:

---

I think it's a bit strange how they only did festivals and haven't played Sheffield.

---

 I actually think that the reason they only played festivals was to reach as many people as they could. I also think they were quite nervous about the whole thing. If you're just one act out of dozens that are performing then it's alot easier than having to carry a nationwide tour on your own. I think this slight lack of confidence manifested itself in that DC heavy setlist. They need to believe in themselves a bit more.

saw119 wrote:

---

I actually think that the reason they only played festivals was to reach as many people as they could. I also think they were quite nervous about the whole thing. If you're just one act out of dozens that are performing then it's alot easier than having to carry a nationwide tour on your own. I think this slight lack of confidence manifested itself in that DC heavy setlist. They need to believe in themselves a bit more.

---

I suspect there was a confidence issue regarding ticket sales.  Until you set up the gigs you can't be 100% sure anyone would turn up. 

Wireless was a surprising gig to announce first as it seemed to be the last thing I would have expected Pulp to headline.  The support also left something to be desired (The Horrors were a bonus for me), which effectively meant people were mainly attending for Pulp.   The ticket sales were good if not outstanding (apparently 10,000 shy of capacity, but with 40,000 or so in a field very respectable).

The buzz generated off Glastonbury (which was a bit different from the normal festival set) ensured Brixton sold, and had a UK tour of mid-size venues been announced off the back of Reading and Brixton, I believe it would have sold out as well.

 

But to go back on topic, I see Stone Roses are reforming.  One of their fans doesn't see it as a good thing.  Cheeky bugger, Pulp are more life changing than those one hit wonders ...

http://www.nme.com/news/the-stone-roses/59839

Meanwhile, some Stone Roses enthusiasts were less enthusiastic about a potential reunion in case it damaged the group's legacy. Mattie Bennet said: "NO. As much as I love The Stone Roses, this will be bad. Nostalgic bullshit. Leave that to Suede and Pulp. Not life changing bands. Their legacy will be destroyed."

 

^Well, Pulp's life changed after Stone Roses cancelled their headlining set.  

I've been wanting to ask this: What is a "heritage act" and why is it a bad thing? 

caetano wrote:

---

What is a "heritage act" and why is it a bad thing? 

---

Old bands playing their old hits to old fans purely for the money.

Like the Stones since the eighties.

Personally I see no issue with it.   

I think going to a festival is de rigeur for 'da yoof' of today isn't it? It seems that irrespective of cost, or interest in the music, they all go to festivals. In my day we just went to the park and got drunk on cider! Ahh, Sheffield I do love thee. Have you seen them live before TheDev?

I was hanging on for a Sheffield gig, I was certain that they'd announce something late in the summer. As it happened I was asked if I wanted Brixton tickets for my Birthday, so I thought why the hell not?

So glad I did now!

TheDev wrote:

---

I can see that but a festival ticket is very pricey in this day and age, even if you were just going for the day to see Pulp. I didn't go to Leeds because tickets were about 90 quid, not an amount that I have spare.

Seeing a band at their own gig is usually cheaper than a day ticket at a festival, so a UK tour would be more accessible for those who couldn't afford to see them at one of the UK fests they played this year (or travel all the way down to Brixton)

---

 

Wireless was around £55 including booking fees, but a couple of weeks ahead of the gig there were a few tickets on Seatwave/Viagogo for less than £45 including fees, which was just about acceptable, so I got one.

I agree that £90 is a lot to pay to see one band.  I thought £45 was a lot just to see Pulp, but then I thought I'd never see them again as I was going to Reading.  If Brixton had been announced ahead of Hyde Park, I'd not have gone, which I would have had a few pangs of regret about now.

I'm always amazed at people buying festival tickets without know who is playing.  If I was forking out £100/day, I'd want to know what I'm letting myself in for. 

Just heard that news on Radcliffe & Maconie myself. Interesting that they should be pushing the new material already. Apparently they've been rehearsing for several months so maybe they've already worked some new material up. They're promising a world tour as well. I do find it interesting how different bands handle the reunion thang. This big press conference and huge promises makes the Pulp reunion seem rather understated and elegant, classy I think you'd call it rather than crass!