Heartland

the reality is that regardless of band or venue, the sound is never perfect everywhere

i went to see carter usm last week and the sound was shocking. the middle range was non existent and the bottom end eq was distorted and f**ked so bad you could only feel it, not actually hear it... the net effect was that the whole thing sounded like a swamp of noise

i went to see the damned the next night at exactly the same venue and stood in exactly the same place, and it wasn't much better.

likewise i went to see kmfdm at a different venue a couple of days before and stood front-left for most of the gig and it was shocking there. all you could hear where the drums. then i wandered to the middle of the venue and it was crystal clear. i've seen the cult where you couldn't hear anything other than billy's guitar. i've seen grinderman where all you could hear was nick and the bass.

all venues have pockets where the sound is great and where the sound is shocking. my personal experience would suggest the more electronic a band's bass and drums, the less suited to huge echoey cavernous venues (like manchester academy 1) they are, as it all tends to merge into one thick fwapp sound

i've been to see the sisters where the sound is shocking, but i've also been to see them where it's amazing.

don't blame the sisters - an iffy live sound is by no means exclusive to them.

and the fact that as many people at the same gig experience GOOD sound as experience BAD would suggest that it's very much down to personal taste and where you're stood

On the whole changing-the-setlist-issue - since this was the first time I´ve seen the Girls since the Silver Bullet Tour in 06, at this gig I got to hear 5 songs that I have never heard live before. Marian, No Time To Cry, Rain From Heaven, More, and Arms.
5 "new" songs ("new" as in "songs that have not been played at any of the 7 previous Sisters gigs that I have attended"). I don´t think that´s a bad ratio.

TheGoodSon wrote:On the whole changing-the-setlist-issue - since this was the first time I´ve seen the Girls since the Silver Bullet Tour in 06, at this gig I got to hear 5 songs that I have never heard live before. Marian, No Time To Cry, Rain From Heaven, More, and Arms.
5 "new" songs ("new" as in "songs that have not been played at any of the 7 previous Sisters gigs that I have attended"). I don´t think that´s a bad ratio.

Five songs in five years.....

For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

(and no, Sabine, I did not wrote that article.....)

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810
http://dagensskiva.com/2011/11/20/trott-nostalgitripp/

playboy wrote: For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810

But the review you refer to is by no means negative overall, on the contrary the major conclusion is the Sisters are decidedly better than last time in Stockholm. Critical in some points, of course, but fair - it's an old fan. Strangely familiar to me and TheGoodSon btw

playboy wrote:

TheGoodSon wrote:On the whole changing-the-setlist-issue - since this was the first time I´ve seen the Girls since the Silver Bullet Tour in 06, at this gig I got to hear 5 songs that I have never heard live before. Marian, No Time To Cry, Rain From Heaven, More, and Arms.
5 "new" songs ("new" as in "songs that have not been played at any of the 7 previous Sisters gigs that I have attended"). I don´t think that´s a bad ratio.

Five songs in five years.....

For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

(and no, Sabine, I did not wrote that article.....)

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810
http://dagensskiva.com/2011/11/20/trott-nostalgitripp/

I have seen a few Springsteen shows over the years, and not even he (who is famous for his constantly changing setlists) all that often change more than 5 songs. And he has a heck of a lot more stuff to choose from than The Sisters...
About the reviews, the Gaffa one I agree with. Not perfect, but a vast improvement from the last time, and a great show. The dagensskiva.com is one of the dumbest things I´ve read. The reviewer calls the show "a tired nostalgia act", and then spends the rest of the review moaning about how the band doesn´t sound like in 1985 anymore. Of course he doesn´t have to like neither The Sisters - let´s face it, most people don´t - nor this gig, but he simply comes off as sounding unserious when he writes them down using tired old arguments that simply does not compute. "The Sisters are a tired nostalgia act, and they kept changing their songs so that they sound modern and up-to-date", seems to be the essence of it. Wtf?!
The guy hasn´t even bothered enough to spell Eldritch correctly. That says it all.

Oh, and also - the guy who wrote the Gaffa review is a close friend of mine. He stands by those comments about problems with Sisters shows in the past, and I agree with him, but he LOVED the show in Stockholm, every aspect of it.

euphoria wrote:

playboy wrote: For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810

But the review you refer to is by no means negative overall, on the contrary the major conclusion is the Sisters are decidedly better than last time in Stockholm. Critical in some points, of course, but fair - it's an old fan. Strangely familiar to me and TheGoodSon btw

Indeed he is, Anders...

Andrew S wrote:And due to a misunderstanding, I thought I'd ordered 3 slices of mushroom pizza, but ended up with 3 PIZZAS

...and the problem with that is?

euphoria wrote:

playboy wrote: For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810

But the review you refer to is by no means negative overall, on the contrary the major conclusion is the Sisters are decidedly better than last time in Stockholm. Critical in some points, of course, but fair - it's an old fan. Strangely familiar to me and TheGoodSon btw

One of them was not negative overall, no. In this one I just wanted to point out the fact that they have been rather lazy concerning the setlists and that they are known for low bad sound.
Just a reaction to everybody saying that they do change the setlist ("completely" from Lund to Stockholm according to some...) and for those who are writing about the "clear and loud" sound.
I don´t like these issues at all, but they exist, better to discuss it then to ignore it and calling one or two changed songs for "completely new setlist".

By the way, regardless the songs and sound. I had rather fun in Lund, there were glimpses I have not seen for a long time.

mh wrote:

Andrew S wrote:And due to a misunderstanding, I thought I'd ordered 3 slices of mushroom pizza, but ended up with 3 PIZZAS

...and the problem with that is?

The pizzas. They were crap! I couldn't finish the third

Yes, generally speaking they play on low volume, as I've understood it because Andrew sings so low that they have to push down all other sound sources. But I think they've bought some better equipment, plus you can be lucky and stand at a good spot etc. etc.

Sings low nowadays, that should be. Stumbled across this performance with the Utah Saints from 1993 the other day...and nope, he didn't sing low then;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFOPyTmebxc

(try the section between 2:00 and 2:20...)

Quiff Boy wrote:....snip....

and the fact that as many people at the same gig experience GOOD sound as experience BAD would suggest that it's very much down to personal taste and where you're stood

The more frequenly you see the same band or go to the same venue the more likely you are to know where to stand.

I've been to the Albert Hall 4 times in the last month and depending on where you are its either the most amazing sound ever or an absolute accoustic nightmare of echos and room noise. If you're not in one of the sweet spots you can actually hear the snare come from behind you as it bounces off the back walls

I'd wager the majority of the people who say the Sisters always sound amazing are getting as much of their sound from the stage monitors as the PA.

Quiff Boy wrote:the reality is that regardless of band or venue, the sound is never perfect everywhere

i went to see carter usm last week and the sound was shocking. the middle range was non existent and the bottom end eq was distorted and f**ked so bad you could only feel it, not actually hear it... the net effect was that the whole thing sounded like a swamp of noise

i went to see the damned the next night at exactly the same venue and stood in exactly the same place, and it wasn't much better.

likewise i went to see kmfdm at a different venue a couple of days before and stood front-left for most of the gig and it was shocking there. all you could hear where the drums. then i wandered to the middle of the venue and it was crystal clear. i've seen the cult where you couldn't hear anything other than billy's guitar. i've seen grinderman where all you could hear was nick and the bass.

all venues have pockets where the sound is great and where the sound is shocking. my personal experience would suggest the more electronic a band's bass and drums, the less suited to huge echoey cavernous venues (like manchester academy 1) they are, as it all tends to merge into one thick fwapp sound

i've been to see the sisters where the sound is shocking, but i've also been to see them where it's amazing.

don't blame the sisters - an iffy live sound is by no means exclusive to them.

and the fact that as many people at the same gig experience GOOD sound as experience BAD would suggest that it's very much down to personal taste and where you're stood

I was at the Carter gig in Manchester as well and I agree with everything you say. The Academy is just the most dreadful venue for sound. I saw Magazine there a few weeks ago and again it was appalling. I sometimes get dragged along to see American bands such as Avenged Sevenfold and Stone Sour at the Academy and it was just the same for them. Its amazing that any band chooses to play there.

I saw the Damned at the Roundhouse and theIr sound was ok but not as good as for the Sisters the next night.

At school I was taught that concert venues should have deep carpets and furnishings so that the sound will be absorbed rather than bouncing around. This is how old time music venues were built and hence why the Dublin venue was so good.

New venues like the Academies of this world are all hard edges where the sound becomes a mish-mash of what comes out of the speakers at you and the sound bouncing off here, there and everywhere. They are purpose built to get as many people in as possible whilst being as easy as possible to maintain/keep clean.

So i'd say its 80% the venue and 20% the band/sound desk.

Oh how I long for the days where the only venues available where Liverpool Royal Court, Manchester Apollo etc

czuczu wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:....snip....

and the fact that as many people at the same gig experience GOOD sound as experience BAD would suggest that it's very much down to personal taste and where you're stood

The more frequenly you see the same band or go to the same venue the more likely you are to know where to stand.

I've been to the Albert Hall 4 times in the last month and depending on where you are its either the most amazing sound ever or an absolute accoustic nightmare of echos and room noise. If you're not in one of the sweet spots you can actually hear the snare come from behind you as it bounces off the back walls

I'd wager the majority of the people who say the Sisters always sound amazing are getting as much of their sound from the stage monitors as the PA.

Vega in Copenhagen are famous for its good sound. I have seen a few gigs there, Veruca Salt, Kylie, David Bowie etc... and Sisters. I was pretty much standing at the same spot all shows and only Sisters managed to play extremely low and overall bad sound.
The same goes for KB in Malmö and Mejeriet in Lund. I have been at both venues hundreds of times as concert goer and played there myself. Have never heard such bad sound as the Sisters.
However.... I saw them at Annexet in 1991. A venue which then had some problems with bad sounds at most concerts. But.... The Sisters sounded fantastic.......

TheGoodSon wrote:

playboy wrote:

TheGoodSon wrote:On the whole changing-the-setlist-issue - since this was the first time I´ve seen the Girls since the Silver Bullet Tour in 06, at this gig I got to hear 5 songs that I have never heard live before. Marian, No Time To Cry, Rain From Heaven, More, and Arms.
5 "new" songs ("new" as in "songs that have not been played at any of the 7 previous Sisters gigs that I have attended"). I don´t think that´s a bad ratio.

Five songs in five years.....

For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

(and no, Sabine, I did not wrote that article.....)

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810
http://dagensskiva.com/2011/11/20/trott-nostalgitripp/

I have seen a few Springsteen shows over the years, and not even he (who is famous for his constantly changing setlists) all that often change more than 5 songs. And he has a heck of a lot more stuff to choose from than The Sisters...
About the reviews, the Gaffa one I agree with. Not perfect, but a vast improvement from the last time, and a great show. The dagensskiva.com is one of the dumbest things I´ve read. The reviewer calls the show "a tired nostalgia act", and then spends the rest of the review moaning about how the band doesn´t sound like in 1985 anymore. Of course he doesn´t have to like neither The Sisters - let´s face it, most people don´t - nor this gig, but he simply comes off as sounding unserious when he writes them down using tired old arguments that simply does not compute. "The Sisters are a tired nostalgia act, and they kept changing their songs so that they sound modern and up-to-date", seems to be the essence of it. Wtf?!
The guy hasn´t even bothered enough to spell Eldritch correctly. That says it all.

Oh, and also - the guy who wrote the Gaffa review is a close friend of mine. He stands by those comments about problems with Sisters shows in the past, and I agree with him, but he LOVED the show in Stockholm, every aspect of it.

Doesn´t Springsteen changes more than five songs in five years?? That sounds very unlikely.
In fact, it sounds unlikely for any band not to change more than five songs in five years, especially if the band in question is doing a new tour every of these five years.

playboy wrote:However.... I saw them at Annexet in 1991. A venue which then had some problems with bad sounds at most concerts. But.... The Sisters sounded fantastic.......

I was there aswell. And thought the sound was great!

playboy wrote:

TheGoodSon wrote:

playboy wrote: Five songs in five years.....

For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

(and no, Sabine, I did not wrote that article.....)

http://gaffa.se/recension/54810
http://dagensskiva.com/2011/11/20/trott-nostalgitripp/

I have seen a few Springsteen shows over the years, and not even he (who is famous for his constantly changing setlists) all that often change more than 5 songs. And he has a heck of a lot more stuff to choose from than The Sisters...
About the reviews, the Gaffa one I agree with. Not perfect, but a vast improvement from the last time, and a great show. The dagensskiva.com is one of the dumbest things I´ve read. The reviewer calls the show "a tired nostalgia act", and then spends the rest of the review moaning about how the band doesn´t sound like in 1985 anymore. Of course he doesn´t have to like neither The Sisters - let´s face it, most people don´t - nor this gig, but he simply comes off as sounding unserious when he writes them down using tired old arguments that simply does not compute. "The Sisters are a tired nostalgia act, and they kept changing their songs so that they sound modern and up-to-date", seems to be the essence of it. Wtf?!
The guy hasn´t even bothered enough to spell Eldritch correctly. That says it all.

Oh, and also - the guy who wrote the Gaffa review is a close friend of mine. He stands by those comments about problems with Sisters shows in the past, and I agree with him, but he LOVED the show in Stockholm, every aspect of it.

Doesn´t Springsteen changes more than five songs in five years?? That sounds very unlikely.
In fact, it sounds unlikely for any band not to change more than five songs in five years, especially if the band in question is doing a new tour every of these five years.

I would've felt shocked if the sisters all of a sudden bring out a brass band, a dj, a live drum set, etc. So i don't need any change in the machinery.

But yes, listen to Depeche Mode and you realize that '80s' electronic drum - based music still can sound surprisingly fresh AND loud. I don't see why we deal with preset 90s patterns from the Doktor.

I like the song ideas of Arms, Summer etc. but if we're honest, these are rough versions, no band in the universe would dare to put this on a record.

AE's songwriting process / programming has developed since the 90s and 00s shocking easy: intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, (Crash and Burn has an intermezzo at the end, not the rest of the new songs!), end of song.

BUT DO WE CARE?

No.

Rock venue?

Check.

Smoke machine?

Check.

Intro?

Check.

Lights?

Check.

Andrew Eldritch (with or without voice), a drum machine and at least some pale guitar sound?

Check.

The legend, records at home?

Check.

Idiots who pay for this, while others go on vacation and run around bare naked at a campsite?

Check.

Jesus, what else do you want!?

playboy wrote: For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

... ... oh, I'm sure opinions differ ... we had similar pictures here in Germany back in the days and for long, long years ...
Heaven knows why. From the early 1990ies to 2009, the only Sisters gig I've attended and where the sound failed (temporarily and only for some guitar parts) was in Cologne 2009 ...
Since then, The Sisters have improved all over ...
and it's nice to see that 2011-reality has made its way into Swedish media as well ... at least in parts ... ...

playboy wrote: (and no, Sabine, I did not write that article.....)

... good you say that ... but joking aside, I know that for The Sisters, you only want the very best ... ...

So, how many songs should change in your opinion from one gig to the next? And what, if YOU won't go to the next but to the over-next, or the over-over next gig? Could you please give notice then to the Sisters (and the audience here) where you've been already and what songs don't you want to hear again next time when you visit a gig within a tour?
Honestly. I do not think it's common for bands to make changes of their setlist during a tour; they usually play a "programme" - and that's it.

Not so The Sisters. They care overly for their insatiable fanbase.
They know, some will follow and see them at more than (the usual) one gig
- and they change their setlists. They also do it for the audiences at each and every place, they visit,
to have THEIR special, distinctive and unique encounter of a Sisters concert during that tour ... ...

And you still complain ... ... and Swedish media, hell, could not deny "some" improvements ...
They seem to have been sleeping nicely and deeply on the cushions of their 90ies and 2000s standard Sisters reviews, the content of which they find comfortably repeated here by you, unceasingly ... so, perfect, everythings alright ... ... no need, playboy, you write them articles yourself ... :lol::lol: ...

Playboy - you should just be thankful that, as said on the NZ radio interview, many of the venues on this tour were chosen specifically because they made the band sound good. Just imagine how "bad" the sound might be if venues had been selected on other criteria.

dinky daisy wrote:.....
But yes, listen to Depeche Mode and you realize that '80s' electronic drum - based music still can sound surprisingly fresh AND loud. I don't see why we deal with preset 90s patterns from the Doktor.....

err, I think Depeche Mode may have cheated. Just a bit!

rian wrote:

playboy wrote:However.... I saw them at Annexet in 1991. A venue which then had some problems with bad sounds at most concerts. But.... The Sisters sounded fantastic.......

I was there aswell. And thought the sound was great!

Nice that you were there as well. Yeah, the sound was really big and powerful. Did you see them more times that year?

Being645 wrote:

playboy wrote: For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

... ... oh, I'm sure opinions differ ... we had similar pictures here in Germany back in the days and for long, long years ...
Heaven knows why. From the early 1990ies to 2009, the only Sisters gig I've attended and where the sound failed (temporarily and only for some guitar parts) was in Cologne 2009 ...
Since then, The Sisters have improved all over ...
and it's nice to see that 2011-reality has made its way into Swedish media as well ... at least in parts ... ...

playboy wrote: (and no, Sabine, I did not write that article.....)

... good you say that ... but joking aside, I know that for The Sisters, you only want the very best ... ...

So, how many songs should change in your opinion from one gig to the next? And what, if YOU won't go to the next but to the over-next, or the over-over next gig? Could you please give notice then to the Sisters (and the audience here) where you've been already and what songs don't you want to hear again next time when you visit a gig within a tour?
Honestly. I do not think it's common for bands to make changes of their setlist during a tour; they usually play a "programme" - and that's it.

Not so The Sisters. They care overly for their insatiable fanbase.
They know, some will follow and see them at more than (the usual) one gig
- and they change their setlists. They also do it for the audiences at each and every place, they visit,
to have THEIR special, distinctive and unique encounter of a Sisters concert during that tour ... ...

And you still complain ... ... and Swedish media, hell, could not deny "some" improvements ...
They seem to have been sleeping nicely and deeply on the cushions of their 90ies and 2000s standard Sisters reviews, the content of which they find comfortably repeated here by you, unceasingly ... so, perfect, everythings alright ... ... no need, playboy, you write them articles yourself ... :lol::lol: ...

How many songs they should change? Well, hard to say, but at least more than five songs in five years...
First of all - they made some changes in some songs a long time ago, Temple Of Love, Anaconda, First And Last And Always etc. I think those changes should not last for ever. Also the medleys Train/Detonation Boulevard and On The Wire/Teachers. It was cool and a hell of a kick when they started playing Wire/Teachers 18 years ago. But i think if you must play the same songs all over then maybe they could do something new with them to keep it fresh and up to date. If you see what I meen?

I am also pretty sure that the fans would go crazy if they went to see them and they played Lights. And Nine While Nine. And Some Kind Of Stranger. Lucretia My Reflection (without stopping after half the song), More ( a longer and proper version), Adrenochrome, Possession, Gimme Shelter.....

Since they are no longer releasing more records they could make each tour unique.

dinky daisy wrote:

playboy wrote:

TheGoodSon wrote: I have seen a few Springsteen shows over the years, and not even he (who is famous for his constantly changing setlists) all that often change more than 5 songs. And he has a heck of a lot more stuff to choose from than The Sisters...
About the reviews, the Gaffa one I agree with. Not perfect, but a vast improvement from the last time, and a great show. The dagensskiva.com is one of the dumbest things I´ve read. The reviewer calls the show "a tired nostalgia act", and then spends the rest of the review moaning about how the band doesn´t sound like in 1985 anymore. Of course he doesn´t have to like neither The Sisters - let´s face it, most people don´t - nor this gig, but he simply comes off as sounding unserious when he writes them down using tired old arguments that simply does not compute. "The Sisters are a tired nostalgia act, and they kept changing their songs so that they sound modern and up-to-date", seems to be the essence of it. Wtf?!
The guy hasn´t even bothered enough to spell Eldritch correctly. That says it all.

Oh, and also - the guy who wrote the Gaffa review is a close friend of mine. He stands by those comments about problems with Sisters shows in the past, and I agree with him, but he LOVED the show in Stockholm, every aspect of it.

Doesn´t Springsteen changes more than five songs in five years?? That sounds very unlikely.
In fact, it sounds unlikely for any band not to change more than five songs in five years, especially if the band in question is doing a new tour every of these five years.

I would've felt shocked if the sisters all of a sudden bring out a brass band, a dj, a live drum set, etc. So i don't need any change in the machinery.

But yes, listen to Depeche Mode and you realize that '80s' electronic drum - based music still can sound surprisingly fresh AND loud. I don't see why we deal with preset 90s patterns from the Doktor.

I like the song ideas of Arms, Summer etc. but if we're honest, these are rough versions, no band in the universe would dare to put this on a record.

AE's songwriting process / programming has developed since the 90s and 00s shocking easy: intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, (Crash and Burn has an intermezzo at the end, not the rest of the new songs!), end of song.

BUT DO WE CARE?

No.

Rock venue?

Check.

Smoke machine?

Check.

Intro?

Check.

Lights?

Check.

Andrew Eldritch (with or without voice), a drum machine and at least some pale guitar sound?

Check.

The legend, records at home?

Check.

Idiots who pay for this, while others go on vacation and run around bare naked at a campsite?

Check.

Jesus, what else do you want!?

Please, let´s not forget that are two kinds of audience. The ones who are in it for the party and the ones who are in it for the music.
Be e gent and don´t exclude one of them.

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Playboy - you should just be thankful that, as said on the NZ radio interview, many of the venues on this tour were chosen specifically because they made the band sound good. Just imagine how "bad" the sound might be if venues had been selected on other criteria.

I am not sure exactly how they "handpicked" these venues. It is very very hard for a band to know how it will work if they have not been there before. Trust me, I have toured myself.
I wonder how they picked venues the previous ten years......

Von has also said that they have recorded some songs and that they will be released "as inpependent singles later this year".

playboy wrote:

Being645 wrote:

playboy wrote: For those who can read swedish, here follows som reviews from last weeks gigs. One reads "...they have been lazy changing the setlist, playing uninspired, but most of all have to low and bad sound...."

... ... oh, I'm sure opinions differ ... we had similar pictures here in Germany back in the days and for long, long years ...
Heaven knows why. From the early 1990ies to 2009, the only Sisters gig I've attended and where the sound failed (temporarily and only for some guitar parts) was in Cologne 2009 ...
Since then, The Sisters have improved all over ...
and it's nice to see that 2011-reality has made its way into Swedish media as well ... at least in parts ... ...

playboy wrote: (and no, Sabine, I did not write that article.....)

... good you say that ... but joking aside, I know that for The Sisters, you only want the very best ... ...

So, how many songs should change in your opinion from one gig to the next? And what, if YOU won't go to the next but to the over-next, or the over-over next gig? Could you please give notice then to the Sisters (and the audience here) where you've been already and what songs don't you want to hear again next time when you visit a gig within a tour?
Honestly. I do not think it's common for bands to make changes of their setlist during a tour; they usually play a "programme" - and that's it.

Not so The Sisters. They care overly for their insatiable fanbase.
They know, some will follow and see them at more than (the usual) one gig
- and they change their setlists. They also do it for the audiences at each and every place, they visit,
to have THEIR special, distinctive and unique encounter of a Sisters concert during that tour ... ...

And you still complain ... ... and Swedish media, hell, could not deny "some" improvements ...
They seem to have been sleeping nicely and deeply on the cushions of their 90ies and 2000s standard Sisters reviews, the content of which they find comfortably repeated here by you, unceasingly ... so, perfect, everythings alright ... ... no need, playboy, you write them articles yourself ... :lol::lol: ...

How many songs they should change? Well, hard to say, but at least more than five songs in five years...
First of all - they made some changes in some songs a long time ago, Temple Of Love, Anaconda, First And Last And Always etc. I think those changes should not last for ever. Also the medleys Train/Detonation Boulevard and On The Wire/Teachers. It was cool and a hell of a kick when they started playing Wire/Teachers 18 years ago. But i think if you must play the same songs all over then maybe they could do something new with them to keep it fresh and up to date. If you see what I meen?

I am also pretty sure that the fans would go crazy if they went to see them and they played Lights. And Nine While Nine. And Some Kind Of Stranger. Lucretia My Reflection (without stopping after half the song), More ( a longer and proper version), Adrenochrome, Possession, Gimme Shelter.....

Since they are no longer releasing more records they could make each tour unique.

I am with you 100% on that one - including some unexpected songs like that would be A Very Good Thing, for the audience as well as for the band.

playboy wrote: Von has also said that they have recorded some songs and that they will be released "as inpependent singles later this year".

what?