PJ Harvey pisses off fans...and dog drinks toilet water

So PJ Harvey played NYC's Terminal 5 back to back nights this past week.  I went to both and had a blast.  This was my 3rd and 4th times seeing her and every one so far has reaffirmed my thoughts on her being one of my all time greatest acts to have seen live.  She's such an amazing charismatic performer, very theatrical, and has such a commanding stage presence with that voice(s).  Nearly 90 minutes, about 20 songs, which included all the songs from what's so far my leading candidate for record of the year, Let England Shake.  So now I'm reading reviews and reactions of her show and have come across a small part of her fanbase that's complaining (amongst other things, the choice of venue, the cramped spaces at a sold out show of all things) about the setlist.  That she concentrated too much on the new record (like I said about 20 songs, 12 of which were new) and didn't play enough old songs, therefore slighting her beloved, devoted fans who are the reason she has the privilege of performing for them.  I for one think this is ridiculous and she can play what she wants.  What's your guys take on this when you see a band who puts out a new record and devotes more than half of it to new material?  Unfair? Appropriate? PJ Harvey sucks?  Why didn't she play DC?  She's still relevant? :)

Hmmm, not happy that there's a bigger PJ Harvey fan in this board…..(j/k)
I was at the first Terminal 5 show and had a blast as well. I expected to hear the whole album live based on the setlist from the European tour a month ago. I think the complaints are coming from casual fans or maybe from people who didn't actually go to the show(s)? I am assuming that you are referring to the comments from the brooklynvegan site. I think most of the commenters there are a bunch of trolls. Terminal 5 looks like a slightly bigger version of the 930 club but I think it's best experienced upfront. I got there around 6:15 pm and there were about 100 people in front of me but still managed to be in the second row in front of her (it helped that I knew which part of stage she was gonna be the whole time). I personally think that if you have a problem with the venue, don't go AT ALL (just ask azaghal). If you go to the yelp reviews of Terminal 5, you'll read people complaining that it's 'inconveniently located'….really? you can't walk 6-7 blocks? You're really that spoiled?

(Oh yeah, she's still relevant and it's a totally different experience with each tour…)

The people who comment on Brooklyn Vegan are even more complainy than some of the people here.  I love the new PJ Harvey album.  She has a new album, she's going to play mainly those songs.  If you haven't learned that by now, don't know what's wrong with you.

Personally, I would love to hear the new stuff.  And her stage presence is like none other.

nearly 90 minutes, eh

After  never hearing PJ before, I bought Let England Shake last month. What a fantastic abum. I started listening to her old stuff and I think the new album is much better so I completely disagree  with the complaints.

I'm still waiting for more details on the dog that drank the toilet water.

I'm sure this tour is to promote the new album so why wouldn't she perform the songs from it? Unfortunately there's no cure for stupid.

Same thing happened to a Joe Jackson show I went to years ago at Merriweather. Many in the audience were bitching because he sang the complete Blaze of Glory album, in exactly the same order as the songs are on the album too. Sure it would've been nice to hear his early stuff but if I remember correctly it was "THE BLAZE OF GLORY TOUR"  ???

I'll have check out her new album now….just as soon as I find an establishment that actually sells cd's!  >:(

James wrote:
I'm still waiting for more details on the dog that drank the toilet water.

perhaps listening to this pj harvey person is as gross as a dog drinking water out of a toilet.

did they want her to play songs exclusively from dry and rid like me?

hearing all twelve songs from an AOTY contender sounds great to me.

WHY DID SHE SKIP DC?

i wonder if some people bought tickets because she plays in the states so seldom and so few places

i also have not yet bought the album, even though i listened to it on npr and enjoyed it. great artist

the new album is $5 on amazon.com through the end of April….

Mistake #1 - reading BV commenters and actually thinking that theyre real comments by fans who went to the show.

Read the blog on a regular basis and youll figure that out quite quickly.

Vas wrote:
the new album is $5 on amazon.com through the end of April….

my man! downloading when i get home

sucks that she skipped DC…..Freefest maybe?

You can hear the SF show here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/21/135519051/let-san-francisco-shake-pj-harvey-in-concert?ps=cprs

she played warner last year.  it was a good show.  same night as dean and britta at bc.  caught both of them.

90 minutes sounds about right for her. There are very few (like less than I am able to count on one hand few) bands/artists that can hold my attention for longer than that at this point. And that is pushing it.

hutch wrote:
nearly 90 minutes, eh

azaghal1981 wrote:
90 minutes sounds about right for her. There are very few (like less than I am able to count on one hand few) bands/artists that can hold my attention for longer than that at this point. And that is pushing it.

hutch wrote:
nearly 90 minutes, eh

I see.. well maybe there is something wrong with your attention span?  ;) Or the artists you are seeing ain't all that and a bag of chips?

I think sets below 90 minutes are generally a ripoff…

I'm fine with an artist playing a short set.. but then they should charge less..

a rock show should be at least two hours… and there's nothing wrong with more…

I saw Chris Cornell last week at 6th and I.. he played 2 hrs 25…nobody moved.. great show.. makes you feel like its money well spent..

Now if its like the Wild Flag show where they charged $15 or whatever it was.. then an hour long set is fine..

A 30 minute set by the opening act and a 90 minute set by the headliner meets that criteria.  Or do opening acts not couint?  They are definitely included in the price of your ticket.

StoneTheCrow wrote:
A 30 minute set by the opening act and a 90 minute set by the headliner meets that criteria.  Or do opening acts not couint?  They are definitely included in the price of your ticket.

Obviously opening acts mostly do not count.. When I go see the Rolling Stones I'm not paying to see Antigone Rising or Soulive, am I? Usually there is one name printed on the ticket and thats what we are talking about.

I don't understand why you wouldn't demand more from artists? Set times have been going down and at this rate you'll soon be having 45 minute sets…

I mean if your attention span is the problem just leave.. there are plenty of people who want to see as much as they can.. Nothing keeps one from just saying "I've had enough.. I'm outta here"

I think Azaghal wants short sets so he can cram more shows in per night.. ;D