Behind the Set List: Green Day

[desertrose]

Bassist Mike Dirnt explained backstage at a recent 'Revolution Road' tour concert how the band determines the songs they perform

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/green-day-revolution-road-tour-behind-set-list-w512969

Green Day never have an easy time assembling their setlist. A two-and-a-half hour show somehow needs to touch on their massive catalog of hits, cuts from their new album, deep cuts the hardcore fans love to hear and unexpected covers. In May, we went backstage with Green Day at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C. to check in with their ongoing

Revolution Radio tour, which has a 28 song set that begins with a furious "Know Your Enemy" and wraps up at the end of the night with a solo acoustic "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life.)"

Before the show, bassist Mike Dirnt explained to Rolling Stone that no matter what they group plays, there will still be people complaining about their song selection. "I saw somebody say the other day, 'They played a couple of covers when they should have squeezed in some more of their old catalog, but I guess it's OK since they did 33 songs,'" Dirnt said. "Fuck you. Who plays 33 songs? Not to mention, some of those songs are seven and nine minutes long. Come on, man. Give me a break here." Right before they went on, the group handed us a setlist for the show. 

 

[pacejunkie punk]

Fine but I would point out their average setlist is typically 25-27 songs these days not 33. Also apart from songs like JOS and FN many of those songs are 8-10 minutes long because they stretch them out deliberately with water hoses, t-shirt cannons, hey-ohs, cover medleys, floor rants, etc. some of which could be cut down to allow for more songs.  But fair enough they work hard regardless.

[Todd]

50 minutes ago, desertrose said:

Mike Dirnt explained how the band determines the songs they perform

Um... not really  

[localinsomniac]

Oh, you GUESS it's okay because they played 33 songs? Fuck that, I'm with Mike. Few acts work as hard to entertain their fans as Green Day. I mean, yeah- there are deep cuts I've always wanted to see them play but I'm not gonna stand there and bitch about it because at the end of the day, I got my money's worth.

This is a band with not one but TWO greatest hits compilations. Those hit singles are going to dominate any set list. And they've earned the right to play whatever they want at this stage of their careers. We as fans have the choice of buying tickets or not. I suspect there won't be many opting out of a Green Day show just because it's more or less a guarantee they won't play No One Knows.

[St. Jonny]

yea seriously. wheres the explanation?

[greendepent]

What a scam

 

[BilIie Joe Armstrong]

Hahahahahaha 

[DeJennsitized]

I’m laughing at the video, it’s literally just stating the obvious, and when he said Good Riddance was “sort of a late 90s song” I snorted

Also Mike, catch yourself on. ALL of the songs are at least 7 minutes long because y’all drag it out so much  

[GDInsaniac]

I dont think people are complaining about the amount of songs, but we have seen the same show essentially since american idiot.  the structure of the setlist has been the same and nothing is surprising anymore because we all know what is coming.  thats the part that I dont like.

[Zebahar]

One change that I would really like to see is a change in their songs during the encores. I know that Good Riddance will pretty much always remain as the last show of the show, and I am completely okay with that, but I want them to change up the American Idiot/JOS encore. I would love American Idiot to be right in the middle of the setlist, and I am sure they could make a nice transition from one song to American Idiot in an epic way. Don't ask me which song, because I have no idea, but I think back to their HOF show where they had a pretty sweet transition between WICA and Basket Case, which I would like to see again.

Maybe they could move KYE down to the first song of the encore and then go into Holiday right after.

I know that making a setlist requires much more than the 5 minutes of thought that I gave it, but I think that just shifting songs around could make it feel like a whole new show, even if they keep a majority of the same songs in their future set lists.

[RougeRogue]

Ok hold up, I’m actually way annoyed because this isn’t new. He said this literal exact same sentence word for word to Rolling Stone during the first US leg of the first RevRad tour. So...you’re telling me Rolling Stone just dug up a year old interview and rehashed it out like it’s new content? Seriously?

[LaughingClock]

8 hours ago, pacejunkie punk said:

Fine but I would point out their average setlist is typically 25-27 songs these days not 33. Also apart from songs like JOS and FN many of those songs are 8-10 minutes long because they stretch them out deliberately with water hoses, t-shirt cannons, hey-ohs, cover medleys, floor rants, etc. some of which could be cut down to allow for more songs.  But fair enough they work hard regardless.

Who wants to hear the studio version live though PP? Ha. I said PP.

Behind the scenes to Green Day setlist this season:

Billie: yo guys, what do you think we should play tonight?

Mike: Whatever we played in England a month ago 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 but exactly the same especially the part where we look like we’re just riffin ok KFAD.

TRE: Leave me alone, I’m masturbating and trying to eat Chinese food simultaneously.

Billie: let’s just go out and rock the crowd.

 

on stage:

Billie: Hey Mike, lets give em a shot of Nimrod songs.

Mike: nahhh, too tired

Billie: Pussy

Tre: Can we fucking play Horseshoes already?

At the end of the show

All of them and the crowd: ok, we played the same exact fucking set but we rocked the mother fucking world.

Crowd: we agree.

Band: Get on the bus.

Rock the free world.

 

 

[Teenage Kicks!]

@LaughingClock

Seeing my boy Mike shoot down to dumb too die in person hurt me. </3

 

Edit: Annnd I fucked up my tos whatever. It hurt that much i confuse them now

[reneetaleena]

I really wonder why they stopped playing Too Dumb To Die after the show I went to, they all seemed like they enjoyed playing it. 

[DookieLukie]

Their lack of creativity in their setlists is bizarre to me. Everyone defends this by saying, "They've earned the right to play whatever they want. Leave them alone." Taking the view that this is "what they want," they sound very uninspired. I'm no famous musician, but when I do play, I love trying new songs and arrangements for my own enjoyment. I've yet to meet a passionate musician who mails in the same setlist and new changes things up. I find it bizarre that a band as passionate as Green Day never feels inspired to change things.

Well lets take another common defense of the setlist: "They need to appeal to the common fan." Assuming that this one setlist is the only way to appeal to a common fan and that changing even one song ruins the experience of the common fan, that must feel very restricted to Green Day. You'd think a band with so much wealth, power, and influence wouldn't be robbed of their artistic vision for the sake of adding to their abundant wealth. Maybe they didn't manage their money well? Plus, wouldn't declining attendance numbers on this tour show that this setlist isn't drawing in the common fan? Honestly, it could be driving out the common or hardcore fan because we've already seen this show a million times before. 

You can slice it multiple ways, but none of the explanations really make sense to me. You could say that they're lazy, but their shows are so good and high-energy, that doesn't fit. You could say they want to put more casual fans in the seats, but that clearly isn't working. You can say they earned the right to do whatever they want, but wouldn't a band so passionate want to do more than the minimum every night? Green Day treats their setlist like it's some choreographed routine or some standard product to be seen. When I go see the Lion King, I want to see the same thing every time. When I go see Roger Waters perform The Wall, I want to see The Wall in full. Green Day is putting on a ROCK SHOW, not a specialized product. The rants, the jokes, and the song hi-jinks are not fun or inspiring after they've been doing them for over 10 years. Billie gave the same Trump rant, word for word, at the two shows I went to that were multiple months apart. The King for a Day act has been happening for over 10 years. I've seen them do it 4 times and I'm beyond sick of it. How are they not sick of doing it after hundreds of shows? Mike's attitude in this interview is very off-putting. We're paying customers. Your attendance is embarrassingly low. Your product is stale. 

[DeJennsitized]

The funny thing is, you can argue that they have to play songs for the casual fan. But DO they? Because the hardcores, who go to several gigs with the same setlist, are still going despite the sameness. They still thought it was an amazing show. The setlist didn’t matter that much. So who’s to say it’ll matter that much to the casual viewer? You go for the atmosphere, to see them kicking ass, and they can do that with any song they play, no? I’m not denying that flexibility is a challenge for a band with so many hits, but spontaneity goes a long way, even if it’s a couple of songs mid set. 

[Thatsername]

13 hours ago, pacejunkie punk said:

Fine but I would point out their average setlist is typically 25-27 songs these days not 33. Also apart from songs like JOS and FN many of those songs are 8-10 minutes long because they stretch them out deliberately with water hoses, t-shirt cannons, hey-ohs, cover medleys, floor rants, etc. some of which could be cut down to allow for more songs.  But fair enough they work hard regardless.

But what would a GD show be without the hey-ohs, the water hoses, the t-shirt cannons and the floor rants? What is a GD show without them being silly? If I want to hear 2.5 hours of album-version-songs, I can make a playlist on my phone and listen to it at home. So yes, they could easily squeeze in 5 or 6 more songs if they get rid of all the other stuff, but what exactly is the fun in that? The entertainment is a big part of why I love GD shows so much. Also, the shows have such a high energy that the boys need a few brakes. Oh and considering the fact that JOS and FN are basically three songs each when you look at the length, their average setlists have easily more than 30 songs, so....

[pacejunkie punk]

4 hours ago, Thatsername said:

But what would a GD show be without the hey-ohs, the water hoses, the t-shirt cannons and the floor rants? What is a GD show without them being silly? If I want to hear 2.5 hours of album-version-songs, I can make a playlist on my phone and listen to it at home. So yes, they could easily squeeze in 5 or 6 more songs if they get rid of all the other stuff, but what exactly is the fun in that? The entertainment is a big part of why I love GD shows so much. Also, the shows have such a high energy that the boys need a few brakes. Oh and considering the fact that JOS and FN are basically three songs each when you look at the length, their average setlists have easily more than 30 songs, so....

I’m not suggesting they get rid of all of it but they could certainly cut it out of one or two songs and there would still be plenty of audience interaction. You could ahave enough here and there to add another song or two without losing what makes the show fun. There’s a fine line between the things that make the show fun and the things that start to drag.

[AlissaGoesRAWR]

13 hours ago, RougeRogue said:

Ok hold up, I’m actually way annoyed because this isn’t new. He said this literal exact same sentence word for word to Rolling Stone during the first US leg of the first RevRad tour. So...you’re telling me Rolling Stone just dug up a year old interview and rehashed it out like it’s new content? Seriously?

They’re not trying to hide that. It literally says “In May” in the third sentence. 

[RougeRogue]

6 hours ago, AlissaGoesRAWR said:

They’re not trying to hide that. It literally says “In May” in the third sentence. 

Hiding it, no, but they word their headlines and everything else as if it's relevant. And again, they themselves have released this quote and story before so why again? Are they really that desperate for content? Jeez...

[Hero_Of_The_Hour]

On ‎01‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:54 PM, St. Jonny said:

yea seriously. wheres the explanation?

Mike is hardly going to say they just have a hell of a lot of photocopies of one setlist they came up with back in 2013 (which the fans loved the first night so hey it must be good). This setlist comprised (mostly) their greatest hits to which they pencilled in a handful of Revrad tracks over the Trilogy tracks and boom. Job done for the next few years.

[MillenniumFan]

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:19 AM, DookieLukie said:

Their lack of creativity in their setlists is bizarre to me. Everyone defends this by saying, "They've earned the right to play whatever they want. Leave them alone." Taking the view that this is "what they want," they sound very uninspired. I'm no famous musician, but when I do play, I love trying new songs and arrangements for my own enjoyment. I've yet to meet a passionate musician who mails in the same setlist and new changes things up. I find it bizarre that a band as passionate as Green Day never feels inspired to change things.

Well lets take another common defense of the setlist: "They need to appeal to the common fan." Assuming that this one setlist is the only way to appeal to a common fan and that changing even one song ruins the experience of the common fan, that must feel very restricted to Green Day. You'd think a band with so much wealth, power, and influence wouldn't be robbed of their artistic vision for the sake of adding to their abundant wealth. Maybe they didn't manage their money well? Plus, wouldn't declining attendance numbers on this tour show that this setlist isn't drawing in the common fan? Honestly, it could be driving out the common or hardcore fan because we've already seen this show a million times before. 

You can slice it multiple ways, but none of the explanations really make sense to me. You could say that they're lazy, but their shows are so good and high-energy, that doesn't fit. You could say they want to put more casual fans in the seats, but that clearly isn't working. You can say they earned the right to do whatever they want, but wouldn't a band so passionate want to do more than the minimum every night? Green Day treats their setlist like it's some choreographed routine or some standard product to be seen. When I go see the Lion King, I want to see the same thing every time. When I go see Roger Waters perform The Wall, I want to see The Wall in full. Green Day is putting on a ROCK SHOW, not a specialized product. The rants, the jokes, and the song hi-jinks are not fun or inspiring after they've been doing them for over 10 years. Billie gave the same Trump rant, word for word, at the two shows I went to that were multiple months apart. The King for a Day act has been happening for over 10 years. I've seen them do it 4 times and I'm beyond sick of it. How are they not sick of doing it after hundreds of shows? Mike's attitude in this interview is very off-putting. We're paying customers. Your attendance is embarrassingly low. Your product is stale. 

I agree with a lot of this. However, I don't think they will ever be the kind of band that changes things up massively. People still go to see them and people still like it in the end. There's no denying it'll turn people away in the long run though. 

I think this'll actually be the most difficult challenge for the band, both when it comes to their studio work and live performances. Keep the status-quo to please some number of people with certainty, so another RevRad album, another unbalanced and static setlist  with little variety and choreographed performance etc.

Or...

Get out of their comfort zone and mix things up. Musically the trilogy was a risk (compared to 21CB or RevRad), but they still kept the same band image going; styling, outfit, name design, live shows (though toned down). So, they haven't really taken the band in a whole new direction since American Idiot.

So the question is, should they change things or not? Should they take the risk or not? I'll be interested to see how things go. 

[Hermione]

On 12/2/2017 at 9:47 AM, Thatsername said:

But what would a GD show be without the hey-ohs, the water hoses, the t-shirt cannons and the floor rants? What is a GD show without them being silly? If I want to hear 2.5 hours of album-version-songs, I can make a playlist on my phone and listen to it at home. So yes, they could easily squeeze in 5 or 6 more songs if they get rid of all the other stuff, but what exactly is the fun in that? The entertainment is a big part of why I love GD shows so much. Also, the shows have such a high energy that the boys need a few brakes. Oh and considering the fact that JOS and FN are basically three songs each when you look at the length, their average setlists have easily more than 30 songs, so....

Agreed! I don't know why the number of songs they play is seen as so important. When I'm at a show I'm not keeping count, as long as I'm being entertained I'm happy. Like some people talk like they literally want them to sacrifice everything that makes them who they are as performers and their shows unique and entertaining just to cram in a higher number of songs (when they already play a lot and for a long time) and it blows my mind.

The number of songs they play, and which songs they play, and whether they played the same songs at other shows you weren't even at or not is only one part of it. It isn't everything. It's far from everything. They're still playing successful tours, getting great reviews, and known as one of the best bands to see live, and that's no small feat. They put on an amazing show and seeing it is incredible. But because they didn't rush everything to cram in more songs at any cost or you read online that they've played the same set of songs at other shows as well that's cancelled out? I just don't get why it matters so much.

Mike's quote rules  

[greendepent]

I gonna tell you something. The amount of songs isn't the problem. The problem is the amount of hits and how the set is heavily based on American Idiot and Dookie. They are almost a 30 years old band, and there is a part that has almost 15 years running! (Knowledge, Basket Case, She, KFAD + covers, even they have swapped few times, but go back to the same pattern)

There are bands that play 30 songs and never becomes boring, because of how their setlist changes. I can't say that I was bored in my second show of this tour but it was a bummer that there was no different songs besides Revrad songs compared to their show in the same place 7 years ago. Even casual fans who attended the show noted how it was almost the same show. 

Fun? of course, nobody can deny that GD shows are fun. But where is the novelty?

[Joe.]

On 02/12/2017 at 8:19 AM, DookieLukie said:

Their lack of creativity in their setlists is bizarre to me. Everyone defends this by saying, "They've earned the right to play whatever they want. Leave them alone." Taking the view that this is "what they want," they sound very uninspired. I'm no famous musician, but when I do play, I love trying new songs and arrangements for my own enjoyment. I've yet to meet a passionate musician who mails in the same setlist and new changes things up. I find it bizarre that a band as passionate as Green Day never feels inspired to change things.

Well lets take another common defense of the setlist: "They need to appeal to the common fan." Assuming that this one setlist is the only way to appeal to a common fan and that changing even one song ruins the experience of the common fan, that must feel very restricted to Green Day. You'd think a band with so much wealth, power, and influence wouldn't be robbed of their artistic vision for the sake of adding to their abundant wealth. Maybe they didn't manage their money well? Plus, wouldn't declining attendance numbers on this tour show that this setlist isn't drawing in the common fan? Honestly, it could be driving out the common or hardcore fan because we've already seen this show a million times before. 

You can slice it multiple ways, but none of the explanations really make sense to me. You could say that they're lazy, but their shows are so good and high-energy, that doesn't fit. You could say they want to put more casual fans in the seats, but that clearly isn't working. You can say they earned the right to do whatever they want, but wouldn't a band so passionate want to do more than the minimum every night? Green Day treats their setlist like it's some choreographed routine or some standard product to be seen. When I go see the Lion King, I want to see the same thing every time. When I go see Roger Waters perform The Wall, I want to see The Wall in full. Green Day is putting on a ROCK SHOW, not a specialized product. The rants, the jokes, and the song hi-jinks are not fun or inspiring after they've been doing them for over 10 years. Billie gave the same Trump rant, word for word, at the two shows I went to that were multiple months apart. The King for a Day act has been happening for over 10 years. I've seen them do it 4 times and I'm beyond sick of it. How are they not sick of doing it after hundreds of shows? Mike's attitude in this interview is very off-putting. We're paying customers. Your attendance is embarrassingly low. Your product is stale. 

I've never got the "widespread appeal" argument - very few people research setlist before they buy tickets