Underworld... live?
 

This is not Underworld live experience that I loved.

When I think back to the dozen or so Underworld concerts I’ve been to, I get a huge smile on my face. The visuals, the lights, the segues, the unique setlists, the new arrangements of classic songs, the never heard before snippets and sometimes even fully-realized tracks (I’m looking at you 5 Points) all gelling together to create this amazing one-of-a-kind experience. It’s an energy that can barely be described in words other than “you have to see this band live!” But with this tour (and for the most part, the Barking tour) all of that is pretty much gone.

I saw Underworld’s Barbara Barbara tour a few months back in NYC and brought with me a few friends, some of which have never seen Underworld. They thought the experience was… just good. Oddly as a rabid UW fan for 2 decades I found myself just agreeing with them. The setlist itself was fine but the uniqueness was completely missing. There were no segues, there was almost no improvisation, and the rare tracks, like Juanita, may as well have been pulled right from their respective albums. They were identical to their released versions. Sure there were a few surprises like Dirty Club (a mix that was far inferior to both Dirty Guitar and Dirty Epic) and Ring Road+Minn. And there were a few mixes that felt inspired like King of Snake and Rowla, but overall those were the exceptions and not the norms.

The visuals were almost non-existent. The dots and dashes were quite beautiful during the one (or two) times they were used, but that’s it! Not a single other time was that giant screen used other than to show some live-feed video of Karl or announce the song’s title. This was a huge missing piece.

It’s hard to watch this shift happen, and even harder to imagine why its happening. Are the visuals too expensive to create? Is the stress of mixing live too much to handle anymore? Maybe the average concert-goer just doesn’t care the same way that I do? Is the passion gone?

I’m just a fan and obviously can’t begin to know why the show’s format has changed so much, but I have noticed and think its for the worse. Have we seen the end of the amazing Underworld Live experience?

Anyone else feel this way?

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I agree completely with all of the above.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

yea - absolutely agree.

and it's like... it just doesn't make sense to essentially play the 'album versions' of songs

or, to bring all of the video equipment - to barely use it

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Couldn't agree more.

Sadly the "art" has gone. They just don't seem to enjoy the pressure of improv like they used to. Getting old... (like me)

I really enjoyed the two shows I saw this tour. But that's enough. Back in the day I'd have been trying for half a dozen.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

the unfortunate thing is ... they legitimately could re-use old fragments, structure them into (or between) songs, or even add elements of other mixes into songs**, and call them "improvs" and I'd be happy

...but now, they're kinda just going 'the Prodigy' route - playing album versions, pauses between tracks...


** for example, a while back when I saw Depeche Mode, the intro to the song "Home" was the Air Version, which then transitioned into the album mix... or like how whenever they play "Never Let Me Down Again" - they incorporate the 12" version

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I struggled with even starting this thread but its been eating me up inside since when I saw them on the Barking tour.

I look at the Chemical Brothers show from a few years back and they crushed. It wasn't mixed on the fly but it had a very live and unique feel. This current Underworld tour is all start and stop, with little to no variation. All the new tracks sounded exactly like the album (I guess I can excuse these tracks), but most of the older tracks as well. When I read on these forums that the highlights for some was Juanita I thought to myself, "why?" - it was identical to the album version, felt insanely long, and with no visuals to add any punch.

Without the improv and visuals, and with the addition of stop-and-go between each track - UWLive has become a different beast. A much much less interesting beast at that.

Like joethelion said above: why bother bringing the video equipment to barely use it?

Re: Underworld... live?
 

what's funny - is that I also almost started a similar thread back around 'Barking'
but then I thought maybe I'd come off as just complaining about not getting what I wanted (know what I mean?)

Re: Underworld... live?
 

yuuuuup. i even worried about it getting back to the band and coming off as ungrateful. (i actually thought there'd be a lot more opinions voiced in this thread but for and against.)

Re: Underworld... live?
 

so i haven't listened to the new album, or any of the live stuff since its release as a result. That said I agree on some levels here. I had a fantastic time at the bowl show, and the energy was intense, so they've still go 'it'. That said it's REALLY odd to me how Rick was talking about the freedom his new desk gives him and how the show /had/ become a scripted thing of him just controlling lights (barking/post-barking and pre-dubno?) and yet there's not a whole lot of actual use of the live format. My understanding is that there was some fumbling at coachella weekend 2, showing that it's all still being done live, but what's the point if there's no major changes from show to show?

I wonder if they've just grown away from using the live setting as a testing and experimentation ground. They obvioiusly jam out in studio and improv there still, but it'd be nice to see a curveball more often than at the setlist on the first show of a tour.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

This is it. I also wish that they would fluid nature of the live shows, but I have come to accept that this will not happen. Underworld recognise that people who come to see them don't pay good money to see a band fuck around on stage anymore. They come to see a solid performance with all the hits.

R&K have already done the nostalgia in 2007/2008. With the help of Darren Price they played some memorable gigs, with a revival of some of the back catalogue, along with new bridges and improv sections. But the energy that they had playing live in the 90s was driven by creative urges to produce music and try new things (e.g. Tomato live art jam on stage, systematically recording the shows to use in the writing process). This energy did not translate into those 07/08 shows.

The new way works for them, and I am glad to say I have enjoyed seeing them in 2014, 2015 and 2016 - they sound better than ever and I am satisfied.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Well I'd agree with you here if the new live experience leaned more towards spectacle. But it doesn't. This recent tour is by far the least visual Underworld have ever been. Had their new setup allowed for a more rigid, yet well-designed show I would understand the decision. A decision to tighten up the show and make it more of a pre-designed experience isn't a bad one. Its just that they forgot a huge piece of that.

This is the part I can't come to grips with yet. Am I satisfied? There's nothing overly satisfying about hearing Juanita played note-for-note with only a few lights tracking around the stage. As someone who, living in the states only gets to see Underworld every 4 years or so its quite possible that I'm anticipating more. So in one way I am satisfied that I got to see my favorite band in person again. And I am over-the-moon with how King of Snake, Rowla, and a few others were turned into a fantastic experience. But I used to feel that way after EVERY track. I also can't decide if I agree that they sound better than ever. The sound quality was pretty high, but who wants to hear an album track played verbatim? 5 new album tracks, 5 identical-to-album renditions.

So yes, you may be satisfied. But are you excited by it?

I assume you are speaking of non-superfans. I was with a crew of non-super fans and they weren't blown away by any stretch - at times yes of course. A few of my friends have seen them before and made comparisons. A few others had never seen them live.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I do wonder if it's satisfying for them. I honestly can't see the appeal in effectively playing the exact same thing night after night. I'm not surprised that the whole show is a bit calmer than it was 20-odd years ago, but it's strange that it's just so safe. In light of certain new directions in their music, and their history of doing things entirely in their own way, it'd be easy to imagine that they'd try out a new kind of stage show that suited their creative needs and age now, but I just can't see this trotting out the hits to sound just like the album approach being it.
I'm being totally presumptuous anyway, second guessing the guys. But it just doesn't seem to fit, somehow.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I also wonder if Rick's recent health issues might play a role in their decision. The ability to have Darren step in and play a gig that Rick isn't really there with an unscripted or highly improved set.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I thought about that a bit too until i realized that they've done this before. Darren's sets just had more scripted segues.

I think it just comes down to a decision to present their shows this way. They've played hundreds of improved shows over the years but not a single one since Barking. I don't think the decision was based on what the fans would most want - because I believe the fans would want a spectacular video show to go along with the music. I'm starting to think its cost or energy involved in creating prior to the tour.

In any event, of the +/- 15 shows I've seen I won't look back on Barking or Barbara with the same fondness.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I've only been able to see Underworld live once: NYC, 2007. But I have probably 100+ concert recordings and have loved listening to the unique setlists from 1994-2008. That's a heck of a run for freeform shows. Could it be we've gotten spoiled?

I agree, one gig from Barking and Barbara tours is enough, since other than intra song banter, it's the same gig over and over. But that's what mamy bands do. Maybe they swap out a track or add one, change up the encore, but little variation is the norm. Yet, I just read that Radiohead practiced 120 songs for their latest tour, whittling it down to 60 or so they might play each night. Talk about surprises!

In any case, UW have always been an amazing live band, so the last few static tours are a letdown. But I think Barbara is great, the latest setlist pretty solid, and I wish wish wish they'd tour the US more! Bless em that they're still making music. It's their conscious decision as to how to perform. It works for them and probably the less obsessive portion of the audience.

Hey, rumor has it they're writing the road...maybe the next tour will be freeform jams?

Re: Underworld... live?
 

but like... they could very easily somewhat change the set lists depending on the night

Like... going back to Depeche Mode - on their "Touring the Universe" tour - they had a pretty "set" setlist, but they'd rotate in/out songs in certain sections ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_o...(tour)#Setlist

And I feel like one of the major selling points of seeing UW live (and what they're known for) - is the "anything goes" vibe ... sure you are probably going to hear "Cowgirl" ... but it might be 14 minutes long, or it might be mixed with "Rez" ... and so on...

Instead we're slowly getting into "the Prodigy" zone, and playing the same songs as they appeared on the album, again and again...

(edit)

and I've seen UW... quite a few times, starting with the AHDO tour - right after Darren Emerson left... and while those performances were a bit 'rigid' (in comparison to previous years), they absolutely would tweak and improv things within the songs themselves... and honestly - those shows were really quite good! I mean, 'King of Snake' and 'Push Upstairs' were massive... I also remember them playing an incredible version of "Twist", where the piano didn't come in, until about a half way through

to me - the highlight was the OWB tour, where you had nice little interludes, some improv's and you genuinely didn't know what the next song would be

Re: Underworld... live?
 

For those who somehow missed Underworld playing live from 2005-2009, you missed out big time. This was a golden age in retrospect. 2010-2014 was the same show over and over again. Maybe they had other things to think about or just wanted some stability in the show. We've discussed it over and over.

I've seen this band at least 60 times and believe me this is far from the worst. This tour is a massive improvement on the Barking tour and the slightly modified tour that followed it. They worked hard on this and you can tell. It is a shame they chose to again not mix it up and maybe those days are over. I really hope not but for me instead of seeing them on as many gigs as possible I now see them maybe twice max three times on a tour. They have dropped a few songs here and there and included others. Some people have missed the Faxed Invitation mix up for instance.

If you havent seen UW for a few years then you wont know that this tour actually has more visuals than we've been used to. I loved the selfie cam of the 2005-2006 tour, and the big green laser for King of Snake. But this is a nice video screen. I'm sure they will do more stuff with it in future. It looks like they have invested a lot of money on new hardware.

Keep the faith.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I agree that the Barking tour was probably their worst one. But visually Barking had a great deal more going on than this current one. And while I also agree that so far Barbara has been a massive improvement, its still quite far behind AHDO-era ones.

Dropped for time constraints. My not seeing Dark Train in NYC had nothing to do with playing to the crowd or experimenting, it had everything to do with the time limit.

This is where you lost me. I haven't seen them 60 times, thats for sure so my sample-size is considerably smaller. But in every show I've seen from 1998 - present, the visuals for Barbara are undeniably less. I'd even go so far as to say non-existent for this tour. Its a gorgeous screen, and one that went wildly unused.

I was keeping the faith, but its been 6 years and I'm starting to wonder if this is the new direction. I'm not afforded the same opportunity to see them on all their smaller half-tours. This is it for me. And for what its worth, it was a bit of a missed opportunity.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

the facebook clip promoting the Glastonbury gig is showing Dark Train with all the lovely lovely visuals from a past show there. thats the good stuff.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

That's from Glasto 1998. I believe Graham Wood was manning the video controls.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Not a new fan but new to being able to actually see them live and I have to say that by the third show of Barbara for me I was wondering what had been driving all the hype from the past. A buddy had been to a few Megadogs and I have heard some of the bootlegs, but the show now is definitely a more sedate affair, bar whatever energy Karl is exuding that day. It is still great fun to see, though it is definitely a bit too processed, but isn't everything these days?

My take - nothing left to prove and, as someone above said, any experimentation or thrill of making art for the fun of it is done behind doors for themselves and no one else (or the little bit we may hear as a result). Depeche Mode has gone the same way as they have gotten older - the Home forum has an entire thread on people's wishes for the next tour and it inevitably goes along the lines of "less formularic" and "less reliance on the hits" and "someone other than Anton for stage design so it will be more interesting". Dave and Martin go off and do a lot of solo stuff now, just like Karl and Rick have done. I guess its a way of keeping it fresh and finding new outlets and challenges.

Ironically enough I popped by the forum tonight to find out what was up with the Ally Pally show for next March... :P

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Im still hopeful that with the investment in the new video screens, they will do some amazing visuals again.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

If i knew that we'd see a return to form and not a rerun of the first round of Barbara shows, I'd fly out for the Ally Pally show. But I could honestly say that even at their very best, if that show was a rehash of the one I just saw, it would be a total waste of time and money.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

What I don't understand about the live setup is the role of Price. He's doing nothing most of the time, which is a waste of his talent. I always assumed he was the new creative factor in their live shows after Emerson left.

I agree I like to see them do exciting stuff which I might not like than repeating each show every night. It worked for the dunno tour but please choose between songs in your massive back catalogue.

Next show do not focus on the band but step into the shadows, turn on mind blowing visuals and let the music surprise us again.

Has someone of this board have close contact with them? I like to hear their reaction?

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Definitely to the above. Just watched the Glasto set - there were numerous points where songs could be mixed into new directions, or a variation in the beat speed could take the crowd up even higher. Why hasn't Price been involved more than watching the laptop screens? I figure he of anyone could lend a good hand to really drive the show forward.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

its not a question of the people at the controls, thats for sure. some of the AHDO shows were crazy random with proper on-the-spot segues. the LiveHereNow shows the same.

I think I've decided to put my enjoyment-eggs in Stimpee's basket and, fingers-crossed, hope they have bigger plans for their live show than what they are presenting now. Ally Pally seems like the right time and place to make their move. But if that show *many months from now* is just this same setlist then I can't help but think this is how the want it to be.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

The fact that they've been touring the same show for a couple of years suggests pretty strongly that this is the show they are happy to give. Let all those people who saw UW prior rejoice! You might not have known how fortunate you were.

Me, I listen to the old bootlegs and reflect on the passage of time...

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Then I can't for the life of me figure out why they lug that massively gorgeous video screen with them when a projector would do just fine. Why upgrade if only to show song/track titles?

Ugh, I just don't get it. Sucks watching your favorite band slip into the realm of 'average'.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

What i find pretty odd is that they rehearsed and *killed* some material that they played once or twice on the DubNo tour. (the RFH show stands up to V2000 Stafford as the best show of theirs I've seen).

Minnaepolis, BigMouth, Spikee, Pearls Girl, Always Loved A Film, Between Stars - for example - have all played live in the past two years, and would it *hurt* to have a bit more flex on that, even if its to pre-program a couple of transitions (i.e. Dark Train into ALAF, or Juanita into Pearls Girl) they can choose 'on the fly'. It's got to stage now where I know Dark Train will fall into Burts for about 45 seconds at 5.40, and that the Cowgirl break comes like clockwork at around 7.45 (or 10.45pm) at every gig.

Also, is it too hard to sync visuals with sound, i.e. run a program where 'synth line X' = 'visual layer Y' on the video screen, so it's not so dull?

They're great live, but the shows do need to be a bit more varied.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Sadly i have to agree with the original post in this thread. Their sets in recent years have become entirely predictable with little variation in between them. One of the things i loved most about Underworld was their live sets in the past where the songs often evolved over they years into something very different from the album versions. This was always exciting to hear. Everything Everything really captured this for me. I understand the Dubnobass 20th anniversay tour going down this route so i was really hoping the set's after this tour would go back to sounding more inventive but sadly they haven't! Now it seems like they are playing it too safe, just playing each track exactly as they sound on the albums. It's really disappointing to see them go down this route.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I find synth music to be very "visual" and find it disappointing that a band with an actual visual past/identity/agency doesn't actually use visuals, especially in this age of processing capability and software. Alan Wilder put on a show as Recoil where he sourced miniature films/visuals for each of his songs from new, unknown video directors and then synced the set to each visual and manipulated synth lines/effects live around the "base" song+video. I saw that show twice and LOVED it both times even though it obviously had to be the same set list because the visuals really set off the music. Absolutely memorable. That was done on a shoestring and no one is calling his phone anymore, so I don't see why UW can't use those gorgeous screens of theirs for something more than a typeface!

The Ally Pally show - why is this listed as "very special show" and why do folks on here think it will be different (or at least has the potential to be different)?

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I should also add that i would also like to see Darren Price have more input. His productions under his Cliffhanger title were excellent, that kind of sound is something i miss from Underworlds productions.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I also wonder if this is some sort of twisted fan service? Maybe they wanna make sure that there aren't any catastrophic failures or rough spots that don't work to ruin a more casual fan's experience? Most people seeing their shows aren't gonna be religiously keeping up with them, so they won't have had the show spoiled for them on youtube either way.

More than anything, i'd like to know WHY they are doing the mostly static show. I could live with a static setlist, if the tracks were getting developed and were seeing more variety. I could also live with songs not really changing a whole lot, if the tracks on the setlist were being rotated a bit more. It doesn't even need to be rotated on the fly, for that matter, just surprise us a few times a tour. Dirty club, faxed invitation, and juanita were good additions, but why not drop even ONE unexpected song per show? I mean off the top of my head some songs that would be VERY well received and fit in the current set: Cups (hell, even just pens), most anything off AHDO, crocodile/BB, best mamgu, Glam Bucket, or any of tracks from the river run series.

at this point i'd be excited if karl simply stuck some new lyrics in somewhere, like he did that one time with 'resonator' during the the opening of rez...

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I want to say I'm also disappointed that Underworld's live show isn't what it used to be. I've been an obsessive fan since I was 13, but I've never had the chance to see them live thanks to age and geography. Nearly flew out to California this tour because of how over the moon I am with BBWFASF, but it just wasn't worth the money after reading the reviews and fixed setlists here...

Thing is, I don't think it's old age turning them away from improvisation and surprises. I think a well-polished setlist is something Rick really wants. Look at Everything Everything, for instance. The songs are all edited and polished after the fact, there's no transitions after the first 3 songs, each is a safely perfect definitive live rendition - it's how Rick wanted their live show to be presented to the world, and it's so polished, it launched the creation of Bootleg Babies just to show off their skills in improvisation!

Karl talks often about how, starting with Dubno Live and continuing on to record Barbara, the band no longer feels trapped by the "idea of what Underworld is supposed to be" that started with Born Slippy and Beaucoup Fish, and supposedly plagued them from there on out. Maybe performing by the seat of their pants was part of the "idea of Underworld" that they didn't want to do anymore, but felt forced to deliver. It's a bit telling that their more scripted shows started around 2009-2010, when Karl and Rick's creative partnership was splintering.

In that way I'm still really disappointed that the shows aren't wild and free anymore, even visually... but if it's part of their current creative process of "escaping Underworld", I guess I understand it. Hopefully it leads to more creativity in the future.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

I'm lucky enough to work at a lot of festivals and club shows so it's rare that I get a day off when there's a big gig in town. One of those rare days coincided with Underworld playing at Forbidden Fruit in Dublin a few weeks ago.

For all the criticism of the scripted show, I still had the time of my life with a handful of friends jumping around in a field to the music that's soundtracked my life played nice and loud on a sunny summer evening.

Sometimes you just need to let go of the past and live in the present.

I feel all of us who long for the 'good old days' of improv and transition are missing out on enjoying the present. I was that soldier too for a long time but that last gig really changed my mind. Yeah, I'd love a gig where the music was twisted and warped and transitioned and adlibed and all the rest, and yeah I'd *really* love the 5 screen Tomato art jam live visuals to come back, but maybe they will, maybe they won't. The past is gone, the future is coming.

I can't wait to see what they do next.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

you don't have to wait to see what they do next.

they're already doing it, and it hasn't changed. and isn't likely too either.


later
-1

Re: Underworld... live?
 

You've missed my point. If what they do next is the same as what they do now then I'm fine with that. I'll enjoy it in the moment. And if they change things up, then I hope I'll enjoy that too.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Just be glad, that despite them both nearly 60 years old, they are still playing live!!!!!

Enjoy them whilst it lasts cause I am sure there wont be many more tours if any.

& by the way I have been watching UW since the Dubno days & have to say that the recent Royal Festival Hall & Roundhouse gigs were 2 of my all time favs!!

Re: Underworld... live?
 

Word!

I used to lament the state of these forums, and by extension, that of Underworld.

But then I smacked myself in the face, realized that I/ we grew up, and that my wants count for nothing in the grand scheme of things...

Things change. We change. It's not 1999 anymore.

for me, BBWFASF is their best since AHDO, maybe even since BF. Live is great, but let's be honest... concerts are to sell records, not to appease long-term fans. Rick and Karl are doing what they want. The end. All that follows is fan speculation, a dozen+ years too late.

Re: Underworld... live?
 

*mic drop*

Well said. They're doing what they will, and that's why we love them, cause above all else, they make the art that they want to make in the way they want to make it. Do I wish I could have seen them live jam it? absolutely. in 99? please yes. in 93? oh my god where's the time machine. But also, I'd love to have seen pink floyd on the dark side tour and Nirvana play in some garage in '88, but that's all nostalgia. We're here now, enjoy these good times even though they may not have been the good times you wanted/expected/hoped them to be, they won't be forever.