What song that hasn't been performed recently would you like to hear again?

[Husek]

The one thing I notice about this thread is that most of us are essentially asking for the same setlist we had back in late 90s/mid 00s. Kiss the Carpet, Flood 2, VT, FALAA, Something Fast, Train, Body Electric.

I'm all for the new songs, and I really love them (On the Beach and Caligula are masterpieces). But I'd take Kiss The Carpet, Come Together, Logic , Fix, or even Anaconda over them any day.

[eastmidswhizzkid]

It's just the version they did that mixed in parts of the Phantom guitar line but (as usual) left out half the words.



One of those things where you might initially think it's neat, but you'd really just prefer to hear Floorshow done right.

I don't think Von would be up to doing Floorshow, at least not without major support from backing vocals, these days anyway.

sounds awful to be honest. even Andrew isnt allowed to fuck about with my beloved Sisters songs.

I kinda love the Phantom Riff tho. like andrew’s voice sounds like s**t but that riff goes hard

i must have been feeling particularly jaded when i lstened to this last time as it sounds a whole lot better now! it must have been a real buzz to hear it live after all those years.

[Being645]

They could do Always Look On The Brigjt Side Of Life again ... ...

[tooyoung]

Some Kind of Stranger
Nine While Nine
Driven Like the Snow
Neverland
Lights
Heartland
War on Drugs
Slept

[jost 7]

Black Planet (of course)
Walk Away
Body and Soul
Floorshow (real)
Some Kind of Strange

so LLoyds, whats more likely? this or Trump becoming president of Russia?

[sam1]

Possession would be grand to hear again, along with Neverland...we live in hope!....and while we are on the subject, Driven Like The Snow is well overdue a debut.........

[DJW]

Couldn’t agree more re Driven Lije The Snow. Struggling to imagine why Von has never performed it.

Would make for a very atmospheric set opener with an extended intro IMHO

[ruffers]

Floorshow. He can mumble through it but get the Doctor on song and it's dream come true time for me.

[Jeremiah]

I don't follow all the news about set lists so I'm not sure when they last played it, but Vision Thing would make a great opener for the current set.

[Fallon]

I'm assuming that Slept is permanently retired due to lyrical content that the band can't fully stand by anymore (and to be fair that is a total assumption) but that spaghetti western riff from Pearson was a real 'moment in time' for me in my walk with the Sisters. It'd be nice if they snuck in a reprieve somewhere, even if we don't really need to hear songs that refer to pistol whipping girls in their entirety.

I also think we're probably not going to see too much in the way of major setlist shifts anymore, save for the possibility of adding brand new songs. I'm quite certain that part of the band's business model involves a) minimizing the performance royalties paid to co-writers who were credited on Sisters releases (obviously there's a few hits that can't be avoided, and it's like Lemmy said about Good Golly Miss Molly), and b) maximizing the performance royalties paid to the people who are currently in the band, or who have been in the band after the Sisters stopped releasing records, but whose songwriting contributions might have more affordable contract stipulations around them.

But even so, they could swap out Crash And Burn for a modified version of Slept once in a while, no? It seems to have fallen out of favour among Sisters fans, is it just one of those songs that people think is a bit too on-the-snub-nose or something? Not saying they should've busted it out immediately after Terri Nunn got onstage with them or anything, but it'd be nice if it resurfaced for a minute. I still love it. That riff, and that ominous chorus.

[H. Blackrose]

The band doesn't pay performance royalties for live covers. The venue pays that.

[Fallon]

The band doesn't pay performance royalties for live covers. The venue pays that.

I'm an entertainment lawyer who worked for a major label for around 30 years. Believe me, I know how it works. You misunderstand me. My point is that the setlist needs to contain enough songs written by people currently in the band, to give them maximum exposure to performance royalties. I never suggested the band was paying performance royalties- that's a nonsensical conclusion.

Every time Ben plays FALAA, a performance royalty goes to Eldritch and the the co-writers who aren't in the band, as well as the publisher of the record. Every time Ben plays Susanne, a performance royalty goes to Eldriych plus Mike Varjak et al (no publisher to split with there, hence my comment about more agreeable/affordable stipulations). Every time Ben plays But Genevieve, a performance royalty goes to Ben, Eldritch and Dylan.

Given that setlists, famously, aren't infinite, there's logically fixed amount of money that any given show can generate in performance royalties for the band. My point was that, save for a smattering of mandatory classics, the band is always going to have as many songs which financially benefit the songwriters in the current line-up as possible.

[Husek]

The band doesn't pay performance royalties for live covers. The venue pays that.

I'm an entertainment lawyer who worked for a major label for around 30 years. Believe me, I know how it works. You misunderstand me. My point is that the setlist needs to contain enough songs written by people currently in the band, to give them maximum exposure to performance royalties. I never suggested the band was paying performance royalties- that's a nonsensical conclusion.

Every time Ben plays FALAA, a performance royalty goes to Eldritch and the the co-writers who aren't in the band, as well as the publisher of the record. Every time Ben plays Susanne, a performance royalty goes to Eldriych plus Mike Varjak et al (no publisher to split with there, hence my comment about more agreeable/affordable stipulations). Every time Ben plays But Genevieve, a performance royalty goes to Ben, Eldritch and Dylan.

Given that setlists, famously, aren't infinite, there's logically fixed amount of money that any given show can generate in performance royalties for the band. My point was that, save for a smattering of mandatory classics, the band is always going to have as many songs which financially benefit the songwriters in the current line-up as possible.

Well, Chris is back on stage, it wouldn't; hurt to have Arms and Still back

[Nyth Grandbeard]

I didn't even know royalties were a thing for live performances, you learn something new everyday. That said i would totally take one less doctor jeep/detonation boulevard, and ribbons if it meant that they could fit arms, war on drugs, or any other number of songs in the budget for their sets.

[Fallon]

The band doesn't pay performance royalties for live covers. The venue pays that.

I'm an entertainment lawyer who worked for a major label for around 30 years. Believe me, I know how it works. You misunderstand me. My point is that the setlist needs to contain enough songs written by people currently in the band, to give them maximum exposure to performance royalties. I never suggested the band was paying performance royalties- that's a nonsensical conclusion.

Every time Ben plays FALAA, a performance royalty goes to Eldritch and the the co-writers who aren't in the band, as well as the publisher of the record. Every time Ben plays Susanne, a performance royalty goes to Eldriych plus Mike Varjak et al (no publisher to split with there, hence my comment about more agreeable/affordable stipulations). Every time Ben plays But Genevieve, a performance royalty goes to Ben, Eldritch and Dylan.

Given that setlists, famously, aren't infinite, there's logically fixed amount of money that any given show can generate in performance royalties for the band. My point was that, save for a smattering of mandatory classics, the band is always going to have as many songs which financially benefit the songwriters in the current line-up as possible.

Well, Chris is back on stage, it wouldn't; hurt to have Arms and Still back

Well, he's not a permanent member and is more like a contractor. For him the flat fee is negotiated in advance per tour. The band doesnt need to incentivise him in the same way. He's more of a foster Sister, if you will.

This is why I think there's a reasonable chance we will get a new song or two, now that Eldritch has confirmed Kai as a permanent Sister.

[ribbons69]

The band doesn't pay performance royalties for live covers. The venue pays that.

Given that setlists, famously, aren't infinite, there's logically fixed amount of money that any given show can generate in performance royalties for the band. My point was that, save for a smattering of mandatory classics, the band is always going to have as many songs which financially benefit the songwriters in the current line-up as possible.

According to a recent article on the BBC, although performance royalties are a thing, the amount paid per ticket for royalties is dwarfed by the amount that goes straight to the band. The comparison was based on a £150 ticket.
£4.50 in performance royalties compared to £93 straight to the band.
Sisters tickets are 50 odd quid for the Roundhouse so that would be £1.50 in royalties and £30 for the band. It's how that £30 (multiplied by 6000 over two nights) that is distributed that is probably more important to Ben and Chris.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2kdxlv8x05o

[Fallon]

You're talking about two different things.

Ben doesn't choose his income streams; he's paid whatever he's owed in royalties, hes paid whatever his touring fee is, and he's retained by whatever retention agreement exists with Andrew.

The question of which source generates more income for the band as an entity is only a secondary consideration, and it's a consideration for Andrew, not Ben. Andrew has to make enough money off the tour to pay everybody's fees, and to put something back in the kitty for retainers etc. Ben is not just booked from tour to tour, he's a member of the band. It's pretty normal for an agreement - gentlemens' or contract - to take the form of "I'll pay you x amount retainer to make yourself available for band activities, y amount in tour fees, and I'll also guarantee a minimum amount of performance royalties across the life of the tour". The tours need to make enough money to fund those entitlements.

So while you're right that performance royalties are not the chief moneymaker, they are the thing that makes for good relationships. Ben can be the biggest Sisters fan in the world, and the biggest Socialist in the world, but I still don't think we need to ask him "from a financial perspective, would you rather play songs that legally have your name on them, or songs that don't?". Andrew could hire - and likely would have hired - any cover musician he wanted, if this wasn't a going concern within the band.

Von's only playing for fun so he doesn't need to make a huge profit, but he needs to "sustain and retain" as they say. It's clear he wants the band to be a forward moving entity, which means he wants songwriters in the band, and he wants people whose presence in the band matters. He's not going to achieve that - or enjoy the benefits of it - if his attitude is "who cares about royalties, compared to the ticket take?".

Sorry but it just literally is the case that performance royalties matter.

[ribbons69]

Sorry but it just literally is the case that performance royalties matter.

If the BBC's assessment is correct and it's £1.50 per ticket if the ticket is 50 quid then presumably that is spread out over a lot of people then. Everyone that contributes to the Sisters setlist (including Dolly Parton if they have another stab at Jolene) and everyone that contributes to the support bands setlist. That must be a complicated spread sheet. Is it an even spread? Do the support get the same percentage ? How does it work for a festival like Download that has hundreds of bands? Do Toad The Wet Sprocket opening the Friday on the Samuel Smith Best Bitter stage get the same as headliners Metallica?

[Fallon]

Sorry but it just literally is the case that performance royalties matter.

If the BBC's assessment is correct and it's £1.50 per ticket if the ticket is 50 quid then presumably that is spread out over a lot of people then. Everyone that contributes to the Sisters setlist (including Dolly Parton if they have another stab at Jolene) and everyone that contributes to the support bands setlist. That must be a complicated spread sheet. Is it an even spread? Do the support get the same percentage ? How does it work for a festival like Download that has hundreds of bands? Do Toad The Wet Sprocket opening the Friday on the Samuel Smith Best Bitter stage get the same as headliners Metallica?

You're misunderstanding the relationship slightly. It's not per-gig, it's per-performance of song. The process is the same, but seperate, for every band on the bill.

This is literally what licencing and collection agencies do, in association with representative bodies like unions or artists associations. The venue pays a royalty collection org in their country, that org has agreements with other collection orgs in an artists's own country, and they pay out to the artists who have signed up with them (the choice of collection org may not always be one the band makes). That's why songwriting credits are so important, and why people sometimes sue each other for credit. It's also, as I say, why there's likely a very strong inclination inside the Sisters camp to limit the amount of performance royalties being directed to people outside of the current songwriting partnership. When was the last time they played a cover?

Note that the rates and entitlements can vary between countries: not just according to the agreements between the collection orgs in different countries, but also according to countries with specific tax agreements with each other, etc.

Note also that the metric will change based on how big their appearance fee is. This is the real reason why festival sets at big festivals tend to involve a greater emphasis on "the hits" - its not just to appeal to the casual audience, its because the bands can afford to play more of them due to receiving a higher overall fee.

[H. Blackrose]

Speaking of performance royalties, I miss "Crash and Burn", but if you're only going to do one Pearson song, "Summer" is it

[mh]

I miss Flood 2.

It probably did suffer a bit from being over-played, and was probably due being rotated out to give other songs a chance, but it feels like it's time to bring it back. On a good night there's a suitable epicness to how it's performed.

[Husek]

I miss Flood 2.

It probably did suffer a bit from being over-played, and was probably due being rotated out to give other songs a chance, but it feels like it's time to bring it back. On a good night there's a suitable epicness to how it's performed.

We were eating good and we didn't know, we took Flood II for granted.

Truth be told I miss both Floods, I also miss the formula 20 songs + an instrumental + a silly cover.

Pipeline, Missirlou, Top Nite Out, Instrumental 86, any of them would work (Top Nite Out preferably lol).
Police Car, Revolver, Gift that Shines, John Im only dancing, all those out-of-pocket covers were always pleasant in the set.

[Planet Dave]

Less of the royal 'we', I appreciated Flood II immensely. I don't miss it cos a change is as good as a rest, and I find it makes for a more enjoyable night generally to not go in worrying about what they might or might not and did or didn't play, best to just let them get on with it. In all truth the only way they could really do any sort of justice to Flood II nowadays would be if Kai and Ben sang most of it, and then everybody would complain that Kai and Ben are doing all the vocals.

Which brings me nicely round to answering the OP - Comfortably Numb please, with Kai on vocals where appropriate. Cheers!

[Erudite]

War on Drugs

[Bartek]

Far Parade