[khouri]

/de-lurk

Been following the dirtysite for about 10 years now and felt compelled to add my voice to this discussion.

I think a point of view missing from this discussion is that of Underworld, who are human beings with their own personal tastes. It's rather likely the band considers the songs they've been playing to be not just the tunes concert-goers want to hear, but indeed their best tracks; the songs they are most proud of, most into, and most enjoy playing live. I can't think of any band who on a purely taste-based level prefers their more obscure or early material to the latter-day accomplishments -- unimpeachable classics like "Rez" notwithstanding, of course. It seems only natural that as they continue to mature as artists and performers, Underworld would want to play as many of their personal successes to as many people as possible -- for the band's own gratification.

The same can be said for arrangements, I think. For example, the number of times Underworld have played "Nuxx" live is all but incalculable, but they've been developing it with every subsequent performance. It probably sounds the way it does lately not because they're lazy, but because that's the way Underworld thinks it sounds best -- for now, anyway. Why would they play it in a way they thought wasn't as good?

However, it's a fact that setlists can get samey. dubman is correct in that Underworld Live is as valid for criticism as Underworld Prime is -- that is why forums like this exist. This can't just be some unmitigated orgy of praise. "Samey setlists" is a valid criticism from a diehard Underworld fan, and Underworld can choose to take it to heart or not.

I don't think leveling such criticism should be an invitation for other fans to get righteous and defensive. Certainly, as Underworld fans we're part of an experience that is as far as I can determine unparalleled in pop music. The amount of content we see and hear and the level of interactivity is nothing if not incredible. But Underworld is still a band, not a religion, and any listener -- diehard, casual or otherwise -- should be able to observe the fact that this weekend's Tokyo setlist was similar to that of other recent shows and dream of more. Again, Underworld can take that sentiment to heart or not.

Personally, I've also had moments of frustration with the setlist question, but then I hear something like Roundhouse 2, which featured a rather typical setlist, yet was one of the absolute best Underworld performances I've ever heard on my stereo or in person, and I've seen them 6 or 7 times by now and twice on this current tour. The truth seems to be found not in setlists, but in that wholly intangible, performance "thing" that changes from show to show to show -- and that's rather the whole point of the band, isn't it?

P.S. Regarding the 3-hour shows -- that's Sven Vath, Luxembourg and Live In Tokyo 2005, right? Just making sure I didn't miss one.

P.P.S. While I'm stepping out of the shadows, I'm still waiting for the rest of that Moscow show to go up on underworldlive.com -- please, guys!

P.P.P.S. The "Autotrader/Phonestrap" and "Mama.NUXX Jam" business is fabulous and I hope you continue to put more of it online -- for free or whatever.

/re-lurk for another few years