Heartland

ah'll si thee

Amos Brearly was a beacon, a shining light. There was never a finer example of what makes a Yorkshireman a Yorkshireman than he.

So the general consensus on last night was that it was "good value for money" then?

In their defence, Near Meth never claimed to be any good. The positively go out of their way to avoid ever giving a performance that could be construed as being "good".

Nonetheless, I'm sure you all enjoyed meeting up with a few friends, which was as much the evening's raison d'être for those on stage as those in the audience.

Now where is my shirt, Quifflet?

I've seen the sisters many times myself
over the last 12 years, but I have to say that
while I'm very happy to see you all having a
good time at the gig, and to hear that they
sounded good, and the new guitarist is good too etc,
I have heard them playing to usual unreleased songs now
for at least the last 4 years - a couple of
suprise covers at the end won't do it for me....
and the set lists generally remain the same.
Without any of the following, I feel no strong
desire to be in Europe to see them live again:
(a) radically different set list, with plenty of
suprise oldies
(b) new material live
(c) a new bloody record!

Ocean Moves wrote:I've seen the sisters many times myself
over the last 12 years, but I have to say that
while I'm very happy to see you all having a
good time at the gig, and to hear that they
sounded good, and the new guitarist is good too etc,
I have heard them playing to usual unreleased songs now
for at least the last 4 years - a couple of
suprise covers at the end won't do it for me....
and the set lists generally remain the same.
Without any of the following, I feel no strong
desire to be in Europe to see them live again:
(a) radically different set list, with plenty of
suprise oldies
(b) new material live
(c) a new bloody record!

To address your points, and without wanting to put words into other people's mouths:

(a) The Sisters play the songs The Sisters like.

The Sisters, and even to some extent Near Meth, have a finely tuned ear for the utterly f**king wonderful. There are many songs in The Sisters Songbook and laws of probability naturally dictate that some are going to be slightly (and only slightly) less utterly f**king wonderful than others. It pains me to say it, and I'm sure you will disagree passionately, but there are those that would not pass muster 20 years down the line, for one reason or another. (Mainly another. Read the publishing and song writing credits and you will begin to see why they have not stood the test of time. Not the only reason, but without doubt that is a contributing factor.)

I'm sure you would no more want to be subjected to sub-standard product than The Sisters would wish to dole it out. There are plenty of other "acts" that can do that for you.

(b) The Sisters wouldn't want to spoil you any more than they do already.

Audiences tend to smell even funnier than usual when they have been spoiled. And for some reason my nose tends to be more sensitive than usual at "rock concerts".

(c) See point (b), subsection 1.

Only 4 years? I've been hearing them play unreleased songs for 12 years (Come Together, 1993).
I also feel no strong desire to be in Europe as I'd hate to pay all that money and have a repeat performance of the terrible blank canvas gigs (although that was more the fault of the venue but we could have done without so much damn dry ice!)

I agree the setlist was a little uninspiring when I'd hoped for one or two new songs (and maybe a comedy cover version), but that didn't really matter as it was an unmissable chance to see them play in a small venue, plus the sound was great. Apart from the other two near Meth gigs when was the last time they played in a venue that small? 1984 maybe?

Chairman Bux wrote:In their defence, Near Meth never claimed to be any good. The positively go out of their way to avoid ever giving a performance that could be construed as being "good".

If that's them going out of their way to avoid being "good" then the performances in the next few weeks will be mindblowing.

Dan wrote:Only 4 years? I've been hearing them play unreleased songs for 12 years (Come Together, 1993).
I also feel no strong desire to be in Europe as I'd hate to pay all that money and have a repeat performance of the terrible blank canvas gigs (although that was more the fault of the venue but we could have done without so much damn dry ice!)

I agree the setlist was a little uninspiring when I'd hoped for one or two new songs (and maybe a comedy cover version), but that didn't really matter as it was an unmissable chance to see them play in a small venue, plus the sound was great. Apart from the other two near Meth gigs when was the last time they played in a venue that small? 1984 maybe?

Chairman Bux wrote:In their defence, Near Meth never claimed to be any good. The positively go out of their way to avoid ever giving a performance that could be construed as being "good".

If that's them going out of their way to avoid being "good" then the performances in the next few weeks will be mindblowing.

We like you. You can stay.

Chairman Bux wrote:

Dan wrote:Only 4 years? I've been hearing them play unreleased songs for 12 years (Come Together, 1993).
I also feel no strong desire to be in Europe as I'd hate to pay all that money and have a repeat performance of the terrible blank canvas gigs (although that was more the fault of the venue but we could have done without so much damn dry ice!)

I agree the setlist was a little uninspiring when I'd hoped for one or two new songs (and maybe a comedy cover version), but that didn't really matter as it was an unmissable chance to see them play in a small venue, plus the sound was great. Apart from the other two near Meth gigs when was the last time they played in a venue that small? 1984 maybe?

Chairman Bux wrote:In their defence, Near Meth never claimed to be any good. The positively go out of their way to avoid ever giving a performance that could be construed as being "good".

If that's them going out of their way to avoid being "good" then the performances in the next few weeks will be mindblowing.

We like you. You can stay.

What about people who venture to suggest that hearing a band
perform the same unreleased songs in an essentially uniform
rotation for 12 years might, finally, be getting abit uninteresting ?

do they get kicked off for whispering ill of the almighty?

What about people who venture to suggest that hearing a band

perform the same unreleased songs in an essentially uniform
rotation for 12 years might, finally, be getting abit uninteresting ?

do they get kicked off for whispering ill of the almighty?

I agree with you, mate. Not gonna shell out the dough to see a new hairstyle (or lack of hairstyle) and some new kid with dodgy sideburns. Continued patronage of such events will only keep Von thinking - "hey, I never have to release anything again. I'll at least have money for a new shirt and a hair cut... er, half a new shirt. Hmm, on second thought, better take a lil' more off the top, Guv'ner."

I accept that it's all a matter of taste,
but personally I don't particularly rate
much of the unreleased material,
particularly "romeo down", "will I dream",
and "summer".
Its all abit average in my opinion.

Its these 'new' tracks that we get *every* time,
simply because they *must* play them, since they're
stuck in the eternal "these are our new songs
that we are gonna play you to show you we're
not a retrospective nostalgic band that no
longer writes new songs".....
but the problem is this new stuff is now
gathering quite a thick layer of dust,
before its even become part of the bands
back catalogue. They're the equivilent of
a "sticky" at the top of a heartland thread
that everyones read and nobody wants to look
at anymore.

But hey, thats just me.

Chairman Bux wrote:(b) The Sisters wouldn't want to spoil you any more than they do already.

Now seriously, all you lucky people who met our Paramount Leader on Tuesday, would you be so kind and tell us what it was like?
Did you manage to ask some interesting questions like, for example, how his cats are. Or why he didn't include Cate Blanchett in his yearning list. And so on.
Or how many times a day he reads www.myheartland.co.uk .

Scardys your man to ask about cats or if has seen Motorhead lately

(a) The Sisters play the songs The Sisters like.

I am not so sure about that. Let's take all the Sisters songs, all the marvels and classics, all B sides, all "new" songs, everything. Now remove all songs from the list which

... will put any money in any Major Label's pocket (6 out of 10 drop out the list)

... do have one or two lines of Huss* in them (additional 2 out of 10)

... are not really suited for "live" performance (another 15% off, even with their definition of "live")

So now only stuff like rain from heaven, on the wire, and teachers is left.

Let's add one or two classics for the sake of it, FALAA and ToL (alltrough that contradicts the "can not play it live" and sometimes the "no Huss*" directive above, but uh...nevermind) and you have the combined setlists of the last 5 years.

Thats ok, since after all, it's about business and paying taxes nowadays, and not about some kind of pathetic sisters addict who would die (or at least travel half the globe) to hear a proper Floorshow or even - may I dream? - a full blown Possession, or Body Electric, Gimme Shelter or Burn or whatever.

</rant>
sorry for the rant, but this setlist is hopeless...see u in tilburg anyway...

To each his own i guess. It's true that there could be more variation in the setlist, right now it's a little bit like all meat but not quite enough fat. What i mean is, all the songs are about perfect in their current incarnations, i can't be the only one who thinks that can i?, but there should be some curiosity stuff.
i missed the likes of Slept, When You Don't See Me and Burn in Leeds 05 setlist (sure, I Was Wrong, too, but that pub has hardly the right kind of atmosphere for playing that), but i am certain that it was a heavily truncated one, and curiosity stuff will reappear in the proper gigs for paying audiences.
Btw, instead of reviving the old goth songs, i'd rather hear more new ones...Possession is great, but maybe AE doesn't wanna play it anymore coz it's simply not relevant at this age, whereas something like Burn is always relevant. Gimme Shelter, though, would've been great in 2003...maybe even now. But then, there's always Vision Thing for that purpose. Perhaps GS is more for people who yearn for the antedeluvian days..

In the end, a rockband isn't supposed to go to a gig to play the favourite songs of the audience, but the audience is supposed to go to the gig coz they happen to like the band. The opposite seems ridiculous and cynical.

dei

Sticking with the similar and familiar, helps those who are on the autistic spectrum and the anally retentive

None of them round here.

arf!

they're all in the wedding section

Phewie....now two Mod's have let that comment go, I think I'm safe

Well, if it's the reasonable conclusion that i am anally retentive and autistic because i happen to like Sisters as they are, then...well, i'm just glad i got this diagnosis free of charge.

You get a bag made out of nice soft 'rubby' material free with every diagnosis

Debaser wrote:You get a bag made out of nice soft 'rubby' material free with every diagnosis

would it be orange perchance?

gig photos + people:

http://usera.imagecave.com/eurogirls/sisters020805/

Enjoy

'kin classic!

What a KISS!

Gothic beauty?

Awww shucks!

Delilah wrote:gig photos + people:

http://usera.imagecave.com/eurogirls/sisters020805/

Enjoy

the chap with the pink shirt and record bag, stood at the bar in von.JPG is heartland member RobF