4 ms·

Cool idea, but I'm going to quibble a bit on the Audience vs. Band Chart. Suppose for simplicity that a band has four songs A, B, C, and D that respectively 40%

Cool idea, but I'm going to quibble a bit on the Audience vs. Band Chart. Suppose for simplicity that a band has four songs A, B, C, and D that respectively 40% 20% 20% and 20% of people would prefer to hear at a concert. Now suppose the band can only play one song. Which song should they play? I don't think the answer to that question is a random mix of the songs with 40% song A, I think the answer is 100% song A. If you play any of the other songs, you make 20% of the audience happy, if you play A you make 40% happy, it strictly dominates. In other words, I don't think playing the songs at a concert in proportion to their last.fm statistics makes sense since at home listeners have as much time as they want but concert time is a limited resource that should be used on the best songs. So I would be interested in the rank order of listening stats vs. rank order of concert songs and look for anomalies. Unforgiven (I, II, III?) are probably going to make that list since I've actually heard of that one and I am definitely not a Metallica fan.

Bo102010 15y ago
The graphic brought up these same kind of questions for me. If you're a band with a new album out, how much from that album should you play? Would you rather boost demand for it, or keep long-time fans happy so they come back to the show next year? The answer may vary by band. My favorite band, Reel Big Fish, recently did a tour with lots of "deep cuts" and few A-side hits. I loved it, and I think lots of long-time fans did too. But was it economically optimal?
- prawn 15y ago
  Makes me wonder if artists with some history couldn't double up on gigs in a given city, playing classics in one show and favouring newer material in the other. Of course, hardcore fans would attend both.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Some artists alternate tours that way. The last two Iron Maiden tours, for instance.
  - jamesbkel 15y ago
    Steely Dan does a similar thing. Last time they were in Boston they did some along the lines of two shows that were specific albums from start to finish, plus a random collection of songs to finish up the show. Then there was a third show that offered an online-vote for the entire setlist.

Bo102010 15y ago

The graphic brought up these same kind of questions for me. If you're a band with a new album out, how much from that album should you play? Would you rather boost demand for it, or keep long-time fans happy so they come back to the show next year? The answer may vary by band. My favorite band, Reel Big Fish, recently did a tour with lots of "deep cuts" and few A-side hits. I loved it, and I think lots of long-time fans did too. But was it economically optimal?

prawn 15y ago
Makes me wonder if artists with some history couldn't double up on gigs in a given city, playing classics in one show and favouring newer material in the other. Of course, hardcore fans would attend both.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Some artists alternate tours that way. The last two Iron Maiden tours, for instance.
- jamesbkel 15y ago
  Steely Dan does a similar thing. Last time they were in Boston they did some along the lines of two shows that were specific albums from start to finish, plus a random collection of songs to finish up the show. Then there was a third show that offered an online-vote for the entire setlist.