Author Topic: Setlist: 2006-10-02 - Shag; Omaha, NE (Read 11464 times)

davepeck · « **on:** October 03, 2006, 07:38:45 am »

I: jam > Gravity > Wake Up In A Coma > Future Peek > jam > Merge* > Surreal Radio, Fearless** > LDZ, jam > Sundance^

II: Honey Butter > Hard Luck Harry > Honey Butter, Dimension 5, The Late And The Great > Over Exposure

* with \'Electric Funeral\' (Black Sabbath) tease.
** last played 03/25/04.
^ with \'Norwegian Wood\' (The Beatles) tease.

princesscaspian · « **Reply #1 on:** October 03, 2006, 09:56:23 am »

Quote from: ;

holy amazing show! that first set looks off the hook (wtf, fearless???), not to mention the insanity to start set 2!! gaaahhhh why was this show in nebraska?

Me! · « **Reply #2 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:00:02 am »

def the best looking set list so far.... IMHO

derickw · « **Reply #3 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:16:26 am »

meh

*what... i just got a warning for a 5 character minimum for a post*

Me! · « **Reply #4 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:21:54 am »

^^^ really?

other than Surreal the 1st set is a scorcher. Fearless!!!!! Sundance!!! come on DW.

come on Honeybutter>HLH>Honeybutter!!

and as I said in another thread, any show that ends in L&tG>OE has heady written all over it.

WALSH · « **Reply #5 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:30:09 am »

Outside of the "Surreal", that looks like one of the best setlists they have dropped in A LONG TIME!!!

I still do not understand why we have to have "Jam" notated in between songs ala, "Peek"->"Jam"->"Merge". It seems very redundant, of course there is a jam, that is why there is an arrow. It just makes the setlists more cluttered than it need be.

After looking back at older setlists, this never used to be the practice. Unless it was a jam on a different song, where it was worth naming the jam;or it was just a couple band members(ala "Adrian & Jordan Jam" from a 2000 show)...there weren\'t all these notated jams, just "->"s.

princesscaspian · « **Reply #6 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:39:46 am »

Quote from: WALSH;121456

I still do not understand why we have to have "Jam" notated in between songs ala, "Peek"->"Jam"->"Merge". It seems very redundant, of course there is a jam, that is why there is an arrow. It just makes the setlists more cluttered than it need be.

ugh i hate that too! i have so many jumbled shows on my computer and i have to listen to each "jam" to figure out what show and segue it belongs in blah blah.... not fun.

davepeck · « **Reply #7 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:44:50 am »

Quote from: WALSH;121456

of course there is a jam, that is why there is an arrow.

uhhh.. really? so no songs have ever segued right into each other?? there\'s always a jam in the middle??? :hscratch: that\'s news to me..

the arrow means there is no break in music. that\'s it. by reading this setlist, i can see that they played future peek (a song which has a definitive ending), and after the end of the song, they went into a jam, without a break in the music. that jam then went into merge. it makes perfect sense.

it\'s not like we\'re talking GBFBITS > jam > X.. THAT would be redundant.. the \'jam\' in the example you pointed out is completely necessary.

davepeck · « **Reply #8 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:46:30 am »

Quote from: princesscaspian;121457

ugh i hate that too! i have so many jumbled shows on my computer and i have to listen to each "jam" to figure out what show and segue it belongs in blah blah.... not fun.

methinks you can blame poor organizational skills for that, princess.

Drew_Kingsley · « **Reply #9 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:56:28 am »

I move for a "jam > Sundance" in this setlist. It\'s a bit tricky because TPalms introduced the song as "Sundance", but then they jammed for a few minutes before they went into it. If not for the introduction, it would definitely be a "jam > Sundance" situation. Just sayin\', is all.

jking · « **Reply #10 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:59:30 am »

i always thought that > meant there was a jam and ->meant it went right into the next song.

.02

derickw · « **Reply #11 on:** October 03, 2006, 11:13:26 am »

Quote from: Me!;121455

^^^ really?

other than Surreal the 1st set is a scorcher. Fearless!!!!! Sundance!!! come on DW.

come on Honeybutter>HLH>Honeybutter!!

and as I said in another thread, any show that ends in L&tG>OE has heady written all over it.

<<<< just being cynical

i always thought that > ment no break between songs and >jam> ment an almost totally differant song was started and ended up flowing into the following song.... maybe it should be a time duration that defines what a long intro and a jam are.

davepeck · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2006, 11:14:26 am »

Quote from: Drew_Kingsley;121460

I move for a "jam > Sundance" in this setlist. It\'s a bit tricky because TPalms introduced the song as "Sundance", but then they jammed for a few minutes before they went into it. If not for the introduction, it would definitely be a "jam > Sundance" situation. Just sayin\', is all.

done. i didn\'t hear it, but i believe ya, drew..

Quote from: jking;121461

i always thought that > meant there was a jam and ->meant it went right into the next song.

.02

i\'ve always just used > as a universal segue notation, when one thing goes into another without a complete stop in the music. :shrug:

Igziabeher · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2006, 11:22:18 am »

I watched it all. there was a definite pause after future peak followed by jam> merge. jam> sundance too if you wanna be a stickler, but as far as i\'m concerned, the jams into sundance have become a part of the song over \'06.

Drew_Kingsley · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2006, 11:39:22 am »

Quote from: davepeck;121463

done. i didn\'t hear it, but i believe ya, drew..

Now that\'s what contributing member status will get ya!

(it was $20 three years ago, but still...)

News:

Author Topic: Setlist: 2006-10-02 - Shag; Omaha, NE (Read 11464 times)