The Endless Summer Tour 2015

[Lily 120]

I'm glad you had fun, but 13 songs is ridiculously short for a major headlining artist, and people have a right to complain -- it is in no way "a lot of songs."  Gaga, Katy, Miley, etc. all perform 20-25 songs when they headline -- and whatever you think of them as artists, they give the fans their money's worth.    I've never in my life seen another headliner only perform 13 songs.  It's pretty sad that someone who's barely been around like Lorde performs longer concerts than Lana does...

I understand that, but there's more to it than that. Let's not forget that Lana has openly talked about her struggles with severe anxiety and stage-fright, and she's only recently started to sound seriously amazing live. Some artists can handle stage-fright (like Madonna) and others can't.  It's possible she just can't do more than 13 or so songs without struggling.  I'd rather have a short, amazing concert than a long, crappy one. On that note, her voice might not be able to handle more, either. I used to perform classical and opera concerts locally, and the most I could ever do was 12 songs. Then my voice went to hell.  If Lana has a similar problem, she has every right to stop when she feels like it. Plus, it's common knowledge that her concerts run short. I knew that when I got my tickets, and it went longer than I expected, to be honest. I'm definitely not trying to argue or be a brat, but I just think there are a lot of elements to take into consideration. Whatever she chooses to do is her prerogative. No one is being forced to see her or pay money without checking into how long her concerts generally run. 

[graham4anything 2,859]

Keep the customer wanting more.

And for the relatively cheap price of the tickets (the GA tickets are some of the cheapest for a major star), one is more than getting their money worth.

 

Gordon Lightfoot never did encores and shows were always short.

 

And many of the songs are long, so basically 13 longer songs=25 songs if the songs were all three minutes.

The show is compact. Non stop. No encore, but no waste of 20 minutes waiting for someone to come back for the encore and the waste of time of changing clothes while

the backup singers and band perform.

 

Also, it is not stadiums or arena, where the majority of the names you listed are playing longer shows.

 

The Beatles played if lucky, about 30 minutes on their first couple of tours, and really, this is only Lana's 2nd US tour.

Most 1960s artists in their prime played short shows.

And Pet Clark and Nancy Sinatra didn't even do an hour at their solo shows.

And many also do medley's of five or six songs strung together.

[letsescapelizzy 672]

I'm a bit on the fence on an artists setlist and length of concert. For me (only speaking for myself), i would like to hear an artist

playing all the songs i like, it might be 10-15 songs, or could be 25-30 songs.. but again, usually you might know this information

before seeing the show, so no suprises really. But i understand what people mean, when you see a 'big' show, and expecting more.

Also, its fine to compare people to artists from the past, if thats your thing, but that was then and this is now. Things have changed.

Times have changed. What artists did in the past, has little to no bearing on what they would/could do today for the same effect.

[Litty 76]

Keep the customer wanting more.

And for the relatively cheap price of the tickets (the GA tickets are some of the cheapest for a major star), one is more than getting their money worth.

 

Gordon Lightfoot never did encores and shows were always short.

 

And many of the songs are long, so basically 13 longer songs=25 songs if the songs were all three minutes.

The show is compact. Non stop. No encore, but no waste of 20 minutes waiting for someone to come back for the encore and the waste of time of changing clothes while

the backup singers and band perform.

 

Also, it is not stadiums or arena, where the majority of the names you listed are playing longer shows.

 

The Beatles played if lucky, about 30 minutes on their first couple of tours, and really, this is only Lana's 2nd US tour.

Most 1960s artists in their prime played short shows.

And Pet Clark and Nancy Sinatra didn't even do an hour at their solo shows.

And many also do medley's of five or six songs strung together.

 

With all due respect,

 

1) it's not the 1960s anymore.

 

2) you complain about artists who stop the show to change outfits, what about artists who stop the show for 15 mins to take selfies with the front row?  Just as bad...

[Lad 8,801]

With all due respect,

 

1) it's not the 1960s anymore.

 

2) you complain about artists who stop the show to change outfits, what about artists who stop the show for 15 mins to take selfies with the front row? Just as bad...

She doesn't stop. The music is still playing, she's still there. The show keeps going on. Also she's taking selfies with people who waited hours outside. They deserve it. It's not as bad.

[a11111 528]

I'm glad you had fun, but 13 songs is ridiculously short for a major headlining artist, and people have a right to complain -- it is in no way "a lot of songs."  Gaga, Katy, Miley, etc. all perform 20-25 songs when they headline -- and whatever you think of them as artists, they give the fans their money's worth.    I've never in my life seen another headliner only perform 13 songs.  It's pretty sad that someone who's barely been around like Lorde performs longer concerts than Lana does...

Those artists that you mentioned have huge sponsors behind their shows and you pay just a fraction of the costs of the show. Lana doesn't have that. People like you always vent their dissatisfaction on ticketmasters commentary section, trashing her show while, for example, she froze to death (in Chicago) just to be with people like you. She's not like Miley or Gaga, she's not an entertainer in that sense, and you could inform yourself before spending your money on her show. It's not like you lost a fortune, if you're not satisfied with her show don't go again it's that simple.  

[letsescapelizzy 672]

People are funny..LOL..

 

I like to listen to so many different songs from so many different artists. I like them all. One is not better than the other.

they are all the same. apples and oranges. If I like an artist whom plays 10 songs set, and another that play 3 hours concerts

I still like them both for the songs I got to hear right?  .. easy right?  

[Litty 76]

Those artists that you mentioned have huge sponsors behind their shows and you pay just a fraction of the costs of the show. Lana doesn't have that. People like you always vent their dissatisfaction on ticketmasters commentary section, trashing her show while, for example, she froze to death (in Chicago) just to be with people like you. She's not like Miley or Gaga, she's not an entertainer in that sense, and you could inform yourself before spending your money on her show. It's not like you lost a fortune, if you're not satisfied with her show don't go again it's that simple.  

 

The cost of the show/sponsorship is completely irrelevant to whether or not Lana puts on an adequate show.  And this is a discussion board, where people, you know, discuss things, so "shut up and don't go if you don't like it" isn't a very constructive response.  Or would you prefer people only talk about Lana when they're worshiping her?

[Creyk 11,699]

  Or would you prefer people only talk about Lana when they're worshiping her?

 

yes  

[Lily 120]

yes

me too Lana can do no wrong in my very biased book! 

[Lily 120]

With all due respect,

 

1) it's not the 1960s anymore.

 

2) you complain about artists who stop the show to change outfits, what about artists who stop the show for 15 mins to take selfies with the front row?  Just as bad...

1. It's not the 60s anymore, but people still do short shows. I just saw Brandi Carlile for the second time, and her show was maybe 10 minutes longer than Lana's. Whenever I'm at a long concert, no matter how amazing, I want to go home. It's smart to keep people wanting more.

 

2. I can't speak for a single LDR show other than the one I just saw, but Lana definitely didn't spend much time in the crowd, and the music was going the entire time. She went to the crowd twice, and kept it to a couple of minutes altogether - if that - and the entire audience seemed thrilled. It's refreshing to see an artist engaging her fans that way, and rare. 

[letsescapelizzy 672]

There are lots of artists that engage their fans. Lana is one of them.

 

2 more weeks and tour is over hey? wow , time flys y'all..

I guess the endless summer tour stays in USA then? No Europe? South America? Japan?, etc..

what y'all think? maybe next year a world tour?

[Honeymooner 336]

@@letsescapelizzy Yeah, it's funny that they call it the "Endless Summer" tour, when it actually ends before summer even starts! LOL...

 

When I first saw the tour dates and locations, I saw that it was all-US.  I'm assuming it was planned that way.  Maybe she'll do an international tour later on, perhaps after Honeymoon comes out.  She was touring throughout Europe in the latter part of last year; she was also in Mexico right before the Hollywood Forever shows.  She has a HUGE fan base in Europe; I'm sure she'll head back there again, especially if it's in support of Honeymoon.

[a11111 528]

The cost of the show/sponsorship is completely irrelevant to whether or not Lana puts on an adequate show. And this is a discussion board, where people, you know, discuss things, so "shut up and don't go if you don't like it" isn't a very constructive response. Or would you prefer people only talk about Lana when they're worshiping her?

Sponsorship it's not irrelevant because the complexity and the length of the show it's about money among other factors. Artists like Gaga, Taylor and Perry can put up a huge shows with a lot of people involved and in the same time they can keep the ticket prices reasonable. Lana is loved by many but she's not sufficiently mainstream to attract those sponsors for her shows.

 

I criticized her for many things but the ES tour is good taking in account what I said before. But Lana has a different kind of artistry, her music isn't suited for dancers and costume changes, and if you are a fan you would understand that. If you are a casual concert goer I agree that you can be disappointed because of your unrealistic expectations from her show.

 

I didn't say to worship her or not to express your opinion here, I said only to not go to her shows if you don't like it because I doubt that Lana will change her shows significantly. That's her, if you like it take it, if not leave it.

[leaked_version 10,499]

@@letsescapelizzy Yeah, it's funny that they call it the "Endless Summer" tour, when it actually ends before summer even starts! LOL...

 

When I first saw the tour dates and locations, I saw that it was all-US.  I'm assuming it was planned that way.  Maybe she'll do an international tour later on, perhaps after Honeymoon comes out.  She was touring throughout Europe in the latter part of last year; she was also in Mexico right before the Hollywood Forever shows.  She has a HUGE fan base in Europe; I'm sure she'll head back there again, especially if it's in support of Honeymoon.

Well, to be honest with you, her fanbase in Europe ain't that big anymore. She played for 8,9 or 10k attendence when she was in Germany. After UV underperformed here, I doubt that she could play 4-5 shows here with the same number of people going.

 

But she needs to do things here, otherwise she will become a local act.

[Thunder Revenant 20,943]

I think you should know she will not do a 2hour set when you go to a Lana concert HOWEVER I think 13 songs are really not that much and they are not THAT long. They are longer than the average 3:40 songs but still ... I think at least 15 or 16 tracks would be appropriate, some people really paid alot for the show.

If she's sooo anxious she wouldn't cgo and entertain the first row with selfies, let these hysterical teens screen at her and listen to their crystories for like 15 minutes of the performance. Everyone payed to be there and if she has enough guts to do these things, she should definitly perform a few more songs.

People expecting her to put on the show of an entertainer are dumb, she's a singe rand her songs don'r require dancing choreos and costume changes. But still, a little bit more effort would be cool.

[a11111 528]

Well, to be honest with you, her fanbase in Europe ain't that big anymore. She played for 8,9 or 10k attendence when she was in Germany. After UV underperformed here, I doubt that she could play 4-5 shows here with the same number of people going.

 

But she needs to do things here, otherwise she will become a local act.

Lana is global but on a smaller scale. She has considerable fan-bases all over the globe. UV went platinum in Poland and Brazil for example.

 

But I don't think that she wants to push to be a huge global star, she's not that money oriented. She understands that she needs a solid fan-base that makes her viable commercially and tbh I think that she has it in the US and Canada right now and the ES tour is a prove for it.

 

I don't think that she was that much into Europe anyway, regardless what she said about it. In 2011 she was pressed to come to Europe because nobody gave a shit in the US about her music and in 2012 she was forced out of the US again because of the SNL show. But today she is as much hated as she is loved in the US and she seems to accept that. She wants to live there and you know that she didn't like changes.

 

A lot will depend on her next era (a more pop oriented sound would help her in Germany for sure). Unfortunately for us Europeans I don't think that she will come here soon and there is little reason to do it right now. Her only viable option to come back to Europe is if she becomes a huge american star or her next album sells much better than UV did. I don't think that she'll actively promote HM outside of the US and Canada tbh

[graham4anything 2,859]

Money.

People seem to forget, Lana does not need money. So she does not need to tour nor make money from merchandise and doesn't live the life of a celebrity (press 24/7/365).

Not needing money frees people who are creative to do as they wish and not be beholden to, money making ventures solely for the sake of money

 

The artists listed above for the most part, all need to make millions to sustain their celebrity life style where they waste millions of dollars in a cycle (Britney Spears, etc. And yet, with all the costume changes in her act, constantly there are reports she lip syncs the whole show, making it more like one of the tribute shows or circus shows using a stars music.

 

Lana doesn't need the money (and there is nothing wrong with her having money.) Stevie Nicks needs money so she sucks it up, reunites with Fleetwood Mac and they tour together, much

like the Eagles do, who hate each other but rake in 100s of millions to sustain their lifestyles (nothing wrong with that, it is how they need to bring in money and do so to do so)

 

I think for instance, let's use Kate Bush as an example- Kate disappeared for basically a decade or two, hasn't toured since 1979, barely ever toured to begin with, came to America I think only 3 times

(had the pleasure of meeting her each time she was here), hates to fly and it takes a long time on a boat.

 

She comes back (was it because people like Lana have claimed her territory?) or did she need money? Fame or money, there had to be a reason (most likely both, and most likely not only the money coming in for the shows, but Kate specifically did not allow cameras/selfies saying she wanted people to enjoy one on one the experience, but come on, obviously a life concert release will happen

(Perhaps a pay per view in the movie theatres (Fathom events in USA???) then PBS then all the other ways things are released all without leaving the UK

 

Yet no word on whether or not she will ever do any more concerts especially any outside of England. It seems doubtful.

 

Personally, I prefer seeing a singer singing and if I want to see a show, I go to Broadway and see one there. Seems Kate Bush did 1/2 the show in a performance piece with helicopters fish and water and drowning etc. But that is not concert. That is show. And she ignored every single song that got people to like her in the first place. (it would be equal to Lana not singing any single song from anything she has so far done, and will do the next five years). I do think that was a slap in the face by Kate Bush to those that spent thousands worldwide to attend the one and only place she was singing at. Most of which bought the tickets prior to having any idea what she was doing. (but she had costume changes and a stage show, oh boy!)(sarcasm)

 

Last time I really cared about costume changes was Elton John at the height of his popularity and seeing how outrageous his next one would be. (The entrance in 1976 MSG in NYC dressed as the Statue of Liberty has to be the greatest, no one can top that along with dressing as Donald Duck in his Central Park NYC show).

 

as for length, if Lana did 2 more songs, people would want 3 more. If she did 10 more songs, people would want 20 more.

How does the saying go? It's not how long it is...

 

as Rick Nelson wrote and sang "Seems you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"

[letsescapelizzy 672]

Money.

People seem to forget, Lana does not need money. So she does not need to tour nor make money from merchandise and doesn't live the life of a celebrity (press 24/7/365).

Not needing money frees people who are creative to do as they wish and not be beholden to, money making ventures solely for the sake of money

 

The artists listed above for the most part, all need to make millions to sustain their celebrity life style where they waste millions of dollars in a cycle (Britney Spears, etc. And yet, with all the costume changes in her act, constantly there are reports she lip syncs the whole show, making it more like one of the tribute shows or circus shows using a stars music.

 

Lana doesn't need the money (and there is nothing wrong with her having money.) Stevie Nicks needs money so she sucks it up, reunites with Fleetwood Mac and they tour together, much

like the Eagles do, who hate each other but rake in 100s of millions to sustain their lifestyles (nothing wrong with that, it is how they need to bring in money and do so to do so)

 

I think for instance, let's use Kate Bush as an example- Kate disappeared for basically a decade or two, hasn't toured since 1979, barely ever toured to begin with, came to America I think only 3 times

(had the pleasure of meeting her each time she was here), hates to fly and it takes a long time on a boat.

 

She comes back (was it because people like Lana have claimed her territory?) or did she need money? Fame or money, there had to be a reason (most likely both, and most likely not only the money coming in for the shows, but Kate specifically did not allow cameras/selfies saying she wanted people to enjoy one on one the experience, but come on, obviously a life concert release will happen

(Perhaps a pay per view in the movie theatres (Fathom events in USA???) then PBS then all the other ways things are released all without leaving the UK

 

Yet no word on whether or not she will ever do any more concerts especially any outside of England. It seems doubtful.

 

Personally, I prefer seeing a singer singing and if I want to see a show, I go to Broadway and see one there. Seems Kate Bush did 1/2 the show in a performance piece with helicopters fish and water and drowning etc. But that is not concert. That is show. And she ignored every single song that got people to like her in the first place. (it would be equal to Lana not singing any single song from anything she has so far done, and will do the next five years). I do think that was a slap in the face by Kate Bush to those that spent thousands worldwide to attend the one and only place she was singing at. Most of which bought the tickets prior to having any idea what she was doing. (but she had costume changes and a stage show, oh boy!)(sarcasm)

 

Last time I really cared about costume changes was Elton John at the height of his popularity and seeing how outrageous his next one would be. (The entrance in 1976 MSG in NYC dressed as the Statue of Liberty has to be the greatest, no one can top that along with dressing as Donald Duck in his Central Park NYC show).

 

as for length, if Lana did 2 more songs, people would want 3 more. If she did 10 more songs, people would want 20 more.

How does the saying go? It's not how long it is...

 

as Rick Nelson wrote and sang "Seems you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"

stevie nicks needs money? LOL dude she has more than Lana and Frans and a few more combined .. you kidding man? you need to get facts real.

[Creyk 11,699]

me too Lana can do no wrong in my very biased book! 

 

I love Lana so much It bothers me when I read something mean about her

For that reason I don't really read what others write about her outside of this forum. 

Lots of people don't get how great she is, and it's their hard loss