Ending a concert with a new song?

[KevShmev]

I don't get why some bands do this.  Okay, if you are a band with only a couple albums, that is one thing, but once you reach a certain point, it is not a good idea, especially if you are a mainstream band with songs that everybody knows.  I am a big believe in ending a concert with a song that everyone in the crowd is almost guaranteed to know.

I say this because I was reading reviews of the opening night of U2's tour from Friday, and they ended the concert with a new song that will be on an album that isn't even out yet, so not only is a new song, but it is one no one had heard yet.  And they end a show with it??   Granted, U2 has a long history of ending concerts with a song from their most recent album, but still, major mistake. Nearly every review said the concert ended with crickets.

Who's with me, that bands should always end a concert with a crowd favorite?

[Zoom E]

I was at the Vancouver show and have to say it was rather unsatisfying that they ended with a new song, since that left everyone expecting that they were going to come back out and end with something familiar. On top of that, it was a very mellow song, thus being a bit of a buzz killer with the show ending on a subdued note.

[Nel]

New songs seem like the sort of thing you do in the middle of a set, like right before or after intermission, or as the second or third song. Not at the end. Even if it's a great song, none of the audience knows it and you're ending the show with a fizzle.

[fadetoblackdude7]

Depends on the song for me. If the song ends the show on a great note, so be it.

When I saw DT on the BC&SL, they ended with TCoT and it was absolutely perfect.

[ChuckSteak]

I think the bands should play whatever they want to and I have no problem if a band decides to end a concert with a new song.

Much worse is to always play the same songs year after year.

Take for example, Frank Zappa. He played lots of songs live that were never released on studio albums. He played lots of medleys, jams, different solos. I admire that and I think the music world needs more of that. If the concert was good, why does the last song matter so much? You should consider the concert in its entirety, not only the last song.

[Elite]

When I saw DT on the BC&SL, they ended with TCoT and it was absolutely perfect.

Yeah, but everybody in the audience knew that song, because they had heard the album.

[fadetoblackdude7]

When I saw DT on the BC&SL, they ended with TCoT and it was absolutely perfect.

Yeah, but everybody in the audience knew that song, because they had heard the album.

Guess I misunderstood what "new song" meant. If we're strictly talking about a song that has yet to be released on album that no one knows, then yes I agree. Don't end with that.

But I also consider a new song to be on the album they're touring for, which I am all for.

[Mosh]

DT don't really apply here IMO. I think KevShmev is mostly referring to mainstream bands with a lot of hits, not niche bands like DT who do not play to an audience of casual fans.

I mostly agree. The end of the show is the best time to break out the big hits. The audience anticipates it and the energy level peaks.

[ErHaO]

I don't think it is a good idea for most artists, especially stadium rock like U2 or other big artists. And even moreso during festivals, where the majority of the crowd likely only knows the most popular singles.

But I could see it work for the likes of Steven Wilson (a new audiovisual epic) or a new composition in classical music. As long as it musically fits as an ending of a show and the set up is clear to the audience (though for classical shows I usually get a booklet with the program, so it is hardly a surprise when the show ends). Or ending on a crowd "game" like Sonata Arctica does (their Vodka song), not really a song but it is loads of fun and easy enough for the audience to pick up. Furthermore, I once attended an acoustic show of Damian Wilson and he basically taught us a song while telling a story about it, and it worked really well, but that only really works in an intimate, small scale show.

If you are going to do it, it needs to be either a very special/epic experience or something fun for the crowd to interact with. The ending of a concert is really important for the overall perception. I think it is better to have a small so-so mid section of the concert and end with a bang than the other way around.

[Elite]

I once attended a festival where Europe was one of the bands playing. The crowd literally didn't care for them at all, until they played their final song. Imagine how that would have been if they had not played The Final Countdown.

I kind of pity bands like these on festivals; people know this one song of yours and want to hear it, so they play a full set of tunes people don't care about, to finally play that crowd-pleaser at the end.

[ErHaO]

I once attended a festival where Europe was one of the bands playing. The crowd literally didn't care for them at all, until they played their final song. Imagine how that would have been if they had not played The Final Countdown.

I kind of pity bands like these on festivals; people know this one song of yours and want to hear it, so they play a full set of tunes people don't care about, to finally play that crowd-pleaser at the end.

Yeah, this is why I usually vastly prefer separate shows over festivals. Usually longer sets, a much higher ratio of fans and people into the music, better lightshows, and better sound (often).

That said, some bands do manage to engage non-familiar crowds, but that does not work well for all genres.

[Ben_Jamin]

I honestly don't care. I'm there to listen to music. And if said band decided to end with new music I wouldn't mind. I'd be happy actually because we get to hear a new song, regardless if it goes well with the crowd or not.

I'm more tired of the faux encore act. 3 separate styles of bands all said the same thing akin to "We're not going to do that rock n roll encore bullshit." I applauded loudly and said thanks, when I meant the bands after the shows. Its not really an encore if the audience expects it. Plus, curfews suck, and I don't understand why bands don't plan ahead for those.

[millahh]

Definitely depends on the band/song/setting.  First time i saw The Dear Hunter (opening for dredg), they ended with This Body, and it was before TCS had come out.  For them, it worked...but that crowd was going to be receptive to it from that band.  For arena rock, it would be odd.

[KevShmev]

DT don't really apply here IMO. I think KevShmev is mostly referring to mainstream bands with a lot of hits, not niche bands like DT who do not play to an audience of casual fans.

I mostly agree. The end of the show is the best time to break out the big hits. The audience anticipates it and the energy level peaks.

For the most part, yeah.

However, I do think it was odd for DT to end that little 30th anniversary tour with Behind the Veil (a song from their most recent album that had never been played before).  I get the point, doing the whole set list in chronological order, but that last song, which will be new, had better be one that the fans are all going to know, and I doubt that was the case with Behind the Veil.

If you are going to do it, it needs to be either a very special/epic experience or something fun for the crowd to interact with. The ending of a concert is really important for the overall perception. I think it is better to have a small so-so mid section of the concert and end with a bang than the other way around.

Very true.

I think the bands should play whatever they want to and I have no problem if a band decides to end a concert with a new song.

Much worse is to always play the same songs year after year.

Take for example, Frank Zappa. He played lots of songs live that were never released on studio albums. He played lots of medleys, jams, different solos. I admire that and I think the music world needs more of that. If the concert was good, why does the last song matter so much? You should consider the concert in its entirety, not only the last song.

Because it is the last impression.  Imagine watching an otherwise great movie with a bland ending.  It's not nearly as satisfying.  Same logic applies here. 

[Mosh]

DT don't really apply here IMO. I think KevShmev is mostly referring to mainstream bands with a lot of hits, not niche bands like DT who do not play to an audience of casual fans.

I mostly agree. The end of the show is the best time to break out the big hits. The audience anticipates it and the energy level peaks.

For the most part, yeah.

However, I do think it was odd for DT to end that little 30th anniversary tour with Behind the Veil (a song from their most recent album that had never been played before).  I get the point, doing the whole set list in chronological order, but that last song, which will be new, had better be one that the fans are all going to know, and I doubt that was the case with Behind the Veil.

For sure, I thought that whole setlist was odd in general. I'm not a bring-back-Portnoy fan but this is one area where he would've probably come up with a better setlist. In this case, I think reverse order would've made more sense. Open with Behind the Veil, close with Metropolis and A Fortune In Lies (or Afterlife).

[KevShmev]

Even though the song selections weren't the best, I think the format Portnoy used for the Score set list was really good:

Starting off with a couple new songs
Everything else in Set 1 and most of Set 2 in chronological order
The end of Set 2 being a couple new songs
The encore being a fan favorite

[Orbert]

I once attended a festival where Europe was one of the bands playing. The crowd literally didn't care for them at all, until they played their final song. Imagine how that would have been if they had not played The Final Countdown.

I kind of pity bands like these on festivals; people know this one song of yours and want to hear it, so they play a full set of tunes people don't care about, to finally play that crowd-pleaser at the end.

They could have turned it around.  Come out and play "The Final Countdown" first.  Everyone knows the song, everyone is fired up at that point, and hopefully more receptive to whatever else you have.  Follow it with another uptempo tune, keep the energy going.  Unless the band is a true one-hit wonder and the rest of their songs literally suck ass, the rest of their set could keep up that energy level.

Jethro Tull used to open their show with a new song, often the opening track from the new album, then play their signature song "Aqualung" second.  Boom!  From this point forward, you don't know what to expect because most people would have thought that "Aqualung" would be the encore.

[KevShmev]

That's kinda cool.  I saw Tull back in the mid 90s with ELP, but I have zero recollection of what the set list was like.

Radiohead is an odd one, too, as far as this topic goes.  Their set list sometimes look like they wrote all of the songs they were gonna play on pieces of paper and then pulled them out of a hat and simply played them in whatever order they got pulled out of the hat.    I remember them ending some shows on the In Rainbows tour with House of Cards, which is a major WTF.

[Elite]

Radiohead is probably slightly weird in this regard as well, as I wouldn't call at least half of their en entire catalogue a good 'closer' for a live-show. What works as a closer on their albums might not work in a live-setting at all. That said; House of Cards is a really weird closer indeed. Then again, even if they did want to end with a song from In Rainbows, there's not a whole lot to choose from that I think would actually work. Bodysnatchers, or Jigsaw Falling into Place? Maybe even Weird Fishes?

Keep in mind I have never seen Radiohead live. I want to, but tickets are always pretty expensive and sell out quickly

[Prog Snob]

If it's an exceedingly anticipated song that fans have been waiting for with bated breath I would get it.

[KevShmev]

Radiohead is probably slightly weird in this regard as well, as I wouldn't call at least half of their en entire catalogue a good 'closer' for a live-show. What works as a closer on their albums might not work in a live-setting at all. That said; House of Cards is a really weird closer indeed. Then again, even if they did want to end with a song from In Rainbows, there's not a whole lot to choose from that I think would actually work. Bodysnatchers, or Jigsaw Falling into Place? Maybe even Weird Fishes?

While true, they play more than enough songs that would be great to close a show. Just about any song they regularly play from OK Computer would be great to close a show, except for No Surprises.

[Nick]

It was rather annoying when Dream Theater did this on The Astonishing tour.

[cramx3]

Not a fan of the idea from a big time band in a big time concert.  Typically those types of songs take the life out a bit even midset, if the hits were played and then a new song ends the concert, I could see lots of people heading to the exits. 

At these big concerts, people are heading to the exits during the encore anyway.

Metallica Sunday night, my friend commented about why people were leaving before they played Enter Sandman.  Def Leppard a month ago, people left before they played Photograph (but they had already played Pour Some Sugar on Me).   When performing for so many people, its very like;y that many there aren't seeing you for the rare songs but the hits.  When you end the song on a rarity, a lot of those people don't have the interest. 

[Samsara]

If it is a new song that isn't out yet, and no one had had the ability to hear it, then I agree that's a very strange and unsatisfying closer.

If it is simply a new song on a band's latest album, I am all for that. I'm a big fan of sprinkling new songs into all portions of a setlist, particularly the closer if it has some sort of message you want to resonate.

The problem with U2's approach in this case is that if no one has had a chance to hear the song or read the lyrics yet, even if it was something that they wanted to resonate, many probably left not getting the message.

If a band really feels compelled to leave the audience with a taste of something that is unreleased yet, there are other ways. I remember Queensryche was playing the song "Hostage" over the PA at the end of shows in 2005 (after the encore and they had left the stage) as a preview for Mindcrime II which was coming in 2006. It was very well received (ironically, it was actually meant for their previous record, it was just reworked for Mindcrime II) and left people with a lot of anticipation for Mindcrime II (the song was a bit different on the album, but the differences probably didn't resonate with casual fans not familiar with the tune's history).

[Cyclopssss]

Worst idea EVER. The place for a new song to debut during a tour is the spot before the last song. That way you still go out with a bang. Now everybody's just left with wft?

[El Barto]

Metallica Sunday night, my friend commented about why people were leaving before they played Enter Sandman.  Def Leppard a month ago, people left before they played Photograph (but they had already played Pour Some Sugar on Me).   When performing for so many people, its very like;y that many there aren't seeing you for the rare songs but the hits.  When you end the song on a rarity, a lot of those people don't have the interest.

Both nights I saw Metallica I left during the encore. Partly because those damn Mexicans shut down the metro at midnight, and partly because I'm not a Sandman fan and absolutely hate NEM. Metallica rotates the first song of the encore but ends with NEM and Sandman, so I know when it's time to leave.

OP: the worst was Queensr˙che using a video of a song nobody knew as the encore. Man, talk about a letdown.

[MirrorMask]

Unresolvable transport problems would be the only reason I would ever see myself leaving a concert I paid for. If I'm at the concert, I'm interested enough in the band regardless of what they perform.

[Orbert]

Same here.  Unless I know what's coming and actively dislike the remaining song(s), I'm hanging around and getting every song my hard-earned money paid for.

Also, people grossly overestimate how much difference it makes leaving a venue five or 10 minutes earlier than everyone else.  The traffic will still suck, you will still spend the next hour in your car looking at other cars' brakelights, and other people are still enjoying the concert while this is happening.

[MirrorMask]

I remember once leaving a festival Maiden headlined (so just figure how many people there were), I walked to the bus stop BEFORE the one actually in front of the arena where they played, so I sat on an empty bus that, once reached the arena, couldn't even let in all the people that wanted to 

It was a hot summer evening so I was completely wasted both from the concert and the long day in the sun, and I still compliment myself of having thought of going to the previous bus station even if I was (happily) devastated 

[FOXAN03]

To be fair this is what the Astonishing concert felt like to me. London was the first show and the album had only been out around 10 days, I hadn't been able to listen to the album enough for it to really sink in .... especially a fully double album of new material! I just had no connection to any of the music i was hearing.

[Orbert]

Most concept albums are probably like that when they go on tour.  The band is understandably quite proud of their latest release, and the obvious thing to do is go out and play it in its entirety.  But it's a lot of music, and the audience won't be familiar with it, or at least not very familiar, so it gets lost on most of them.  Concept albums typically take several listens or more to really "get", and this will be the very first time for most people in attendance.

Unless the album is chock full of catchy tunes and some really awesome stuff, it's understandable why so many come away feeling a bit underwhelmed.

[cramx3]

Well DT's presentation of TA after release is still a bit different than playing an unknown song for the encore in a set of known songs.  It was pretty clear DT were playing all of TA and I personally don't think there was enough time between release and shows for the audience to fully digest the album and be able to appreciate it live.