After Renigate the old argument about encores has raised its leary head.
At the Amsterdam gig, problems with monitors meant that Reni was less than keen to play on encore whilst Ian Brown was keen for one more song causing the famous bust up.
It’s not an unusual argument. Singers are used to rubbish monitors and, being closest to audience, are the most drawn to playing an encore despite the situation.
Many bands have fallen out over encores over the years and there are many differing attitudes to them…
The set reaches a climax, a dramatic pause then the orgasmic rush of the held back classic tunes, the venue is in meltdown and everyone has got their money’s worth. It’s an attractive proposition and one that is easy to drift into. The encore has been part and parcel of music since day one, a leftover from ancient times, why mess with something that works? The audience has spent good money and wants a show and wants a reward for its loyalty as you plod through the dreaded tracks from the new album…now it’s time for the hits, for gods sake even the Fall play encores!
The encore is piece of hokey showbiz teasing that has no place in a serious band’s set up. Playing an encore is like assuming your audience are dumb, clapping chimps hopping with delight as the band drags themselves out for one more song. The climax has gone and this is the sticky wet damp on the sheets of rock n roll, the leftovers, the desperate attention seeking, crowd pleasing pat on the back.
The Stone Roses never used to play encores, neither didn’t Joy Division, leave them wanting more, the tease…
What do you think? Should bands play encores? Or are they too corny? Do they show a desperation to be loved…is music bigger than getting your money’s worth ?