Do You Want An Artist/Band to Play All Their Singles In Concert?

I’m curious if people actually prefer to hear all the singles of someone they go to see live or not.

I know why they do this. These are the songs that get radio-time and are used to promote the band and all, so I imagine a lot of people go just to see those songs performed. I get that, and it’s fair. Bands have to play what the fans want.

But are the people who go just to see the singles really, truly fans?

What about the people who are actual fans, who own every album, know every song, not just the singles?

Playing singles caters to the people who likely will only go see a band once, while the bigger fans will likely see them at any opportunity they can. But there’s no point to see them again, unless you don’t mind seeing the same set list.

It’s weird to me that artists cater more to people who like them less, but then again, there might be more of them then repeat viewers. But I doubt it, because every concert I’ve ever been to, 90% of the people somehow know every single lyric of every single song that every single band plays.

If you go to see your favorite artist, chances are they are going to play each and every single they’ve ever had. This isn’t so bad for newer artists with a couple of albums. But for the ones with lengthy careers with over 10 albums, and likely two singles from each, that’s 90% of their set list for each tour, and each concert. The other 10% is likely songs from their newest album.

It’s fine to see them once, but what’s the point ever again? Usually, the singles aren’t even their best songs, though this will be different for literally everyone, what with each person having their own tastes and all, but it’s a real shame to know you will never even see them perform anything but their singles.

There are a few bands I would love to go see a second time, but not to see a near-identical set list, despite having hundreds of songs to choose from.

And then there’s those wily artists who have so many songs that are typically long that instead of playing an entire song, play one verse and the chorus, then jump into another song.

This drives me insane! I personally would rather hear 12 full songs instead of 25 fractions of songs.

One of the only bands I’ve seen that actually play varied sets is Alkaline Trio. As a result, I am about to see them for the fifth or sixth time.

alkaline trio live blue lights

These guys have a ton of songs from nearly a dozen albums, and each set is unexpected, for they seem to choose from all of them. Of all the times I’ve seen them, they only played one song at each concert, it was their closing song, so I guess they always close with that, and they played another one of their most popular songs all but one of the concerts I’ve seen them in. I may have seen a couple more played twice over the years, but for the most part, they’ve played different songs, which is why I keep coming back for more. Heck, they even did a tour of songs they hadn’t played in a while a few years back.

Most other bands, after I realize they’ve played nothing but singles is one and done. I won’t go see them again.

So what do you think? Do you like it when artists play singles and nothing but? Or do you prefer a varied set to encourage seeing them again?

Die Hard Series Ranked

All of my life, I have heard people rave about the Die Hard movies, mainly the first one. Growing up in the 90’s and watching nothing but 80’s and 90’s action movies, I cannot figure out how I never saw any of them. Heck, I never even saw a movie with Bruce Willis in it until The Expendables came out, with the exception of Pulp Fiction, which I dislike, s the actor never really caught my interest.

But one thing I always thought was that the Die Hard’s aren’t as good as every made them out to be.

Well, I am glad to say I was mistaken. The series, and especially that first one, is definitely not overrated, and is up there next to series’ like Rambo as some of the greatest action movies of all time.

So I will rank all five movies from worst to best in my opinion.

#5

A Good Day To Die Hard

2013

a good day to die hard

The fifth and final movie has John McClane team up with his son to kill some folks, and as an action movie, it’s okay. As a Die Hard movie, it’s pretty lousy. It’s as if the producers wanted to make some extra cash and tossed Bruce Willis into a half-assed movie and slapped Die Hard on top of it, knowing the name itself would make them millions.

It’s very short, it lacks the intense action and story of the others, and ultimately is a big let-down. I’d give it a 6/10.

#4

Die Hard With A Vengeance

1995

die hard 3

The third movie changes up the Die Hard formula. It’s the first one that doesn’t take place during Christmas, and it’s missing the entire cast from the first two except John, who gets teamed up, also a first, with Samuel L. Jackson to solve a bunch of life-or-death riddles.

It’s a clever, action-filled movie, but lacks what the first two were. 8/10

#3

Die Hard 2: Die Harder

1990

die hard 2

These next three movies are in a class of their own, beginning with Die Hard 2.

This movie is one of the best action movies out there. Battling terrorists in an airport is as intense and awesome as you could imagine. Truly a great movie. 11/10

#2

Die Hard

1988

die hard

This movie is just barely better than it’s sequel. My jaw hit the floor when watching this. The characters are all intense and likeable, and the action is top notch. One of the greatest movies of all time. 11/10

#1

Live Free Or Die Hard

2007

live free or die hard

This is definitely my favorite of the series. The fourth entry takes all the action, intensity and…John McClanenyness that made the first two so epic and takes it up a notch, using more modern technology for bigger action than was possible in the 80’s and 90’s. They used this technology to simply improve the Die Hard formula, and it worked out very well. 11/10.

Overall, besides the fifth one, this series is remarkable and I will enjoy these movies until the day I die.