The evolution of their live music: what worked? What didn't?

[Martin Medrano]

"if you really love her, and there's nothing I can do
don't try to spare my feelings, just tell her that we're through..."

"and if the way I hold you, can't compare to her caress
no words of consolation, will make me miss you less..."

emphasis on caress and consolation

Karen moaning those lyrics with that bedroom voice...

I just listened to it and it sent instant chills down my spine. One of her best.

 

[Murray]

Honestly, I think it was because they had SO MANY hits, if they did them all as complete songs, it wouldn't leave them much time for anything else. And, they were already being skewered by the critics for a "boring" show.

I went to a Neil Diamond concert in 1987... the concert lasted for three hours - no opening act, no intermission, and NO medleys - just hit, after hit, after hit (and a couple of new songs)! The audience just lapped it up, which may be why he kept performing that long. When the show ended, and the lights were turned up in the arena, the place was still packed to the rafters, indicating that hardly anyone had left early. Best show I ever attended. I got my money's worth, and then some.

Now, if Neil could put on a show like that, then why couldn't Carpenters? If I had driven 1000 miles round trip to see them (like I did for the Diamond show), I probably would have left disappointed, because between the oldies medley, the hits medley, the Grease medley, the Bacharach medley, the classical concerto, and the Spike Jones nonsense - there wasn't much time left for full-length hits. I can't speak for other fans, but I would want to hear my favorite songs in full. Why did they even need an opening act, and why, when they were huge stars, did they still play smaller venues, and often do two shows in a night? At their peak, they should have been playing arenas, not casinos.

As for being accused of putting on a "boring" show... how much of that was due to the Carpenters wooden stage presence, scripted banter, and insistence on performing the songs so precisely the same night after night, that there was no tolerance for even a note out of place - which was kind of unusual for a group with jazz roots. There was no room for spontaneity, for establishing a rapport with the audience, for speaking to them from the heart, and for doing something unexpected, like taking a couple of requests, or letting the show go longer if the audience was especially enthusiastic that night. While Karen and Richard were excellent musicians, they weren't natural showmen (although Karen, at least, seemed to become more comfortable on stage as the years passed). Richard did say that they were essentially "studio animals".

 

[GaryAlan]

Firing Neil Sedaka, certainly, did not work !
Did Skiles and Henderson work ?

Billboard, June 28, 1975:
"Neil Sedaka opens for the Carpenters on their summer theater tour as well as playing the Riviera and Harrah's Tahoe. "
Billboard September 9, 1975 (page 65):
"Neil Sedaka's Las Vegas opening -act gig for the Carpenters was "ended prematurely at the request of the Carpenters" Friday,
says the statement from Riviera Hotel spokesman Tony Zoppi. Insiders interpret this to mean Richard & Karen finally had enough
of Sedaka's dynamite performances stealing most of the rave reactions on their tour package which has played eight cities since July 21.
(See Billboard review of the show this week.) The axing comes after seven SRO days at the Riviera. The Carpenters play through Wednesday, supported by their long -time comedy openers Skates & Henderson. A lengthy written statement from Sedaka said. in part,
"Every performer must do what is best for them. I'm sure the Carpenters have done so by choosing to end the tour early.
I have the utmost respect for them and their decision."
Billboard, December 27, 1975 (page 50):
"One gets the feeling that people in the hotel's main showroom are rooting for Sedaka because they seem to be aware
that he's very hot, has music which they hear on the radio and he was given his walking papers by the Carpenters for reasons
which have not been officially explained by the sister -brother act who were headlining at the hotel and had picked Neil as
their opening act."...." Sedaka had 35 minutes as the opening act, he says. Then he returned at the end of the Carpenter's set
to work several tunes with them. They worked together one fleeting week before Sedaka's supporting role status was quashed.
On the road, Sedaka began to over -shadow the Carpenters. He says he felt very awkward about reaping the glowing reviews,
often seeming to be stronger than the Carpenters, the stars of the show."...
"Up until that point what did Sedaka think of the Carpenters' presentation ? In his short phraseology which he uses regularly,
he offers this recollection: "Very entertaining, very musical, great musicians, great singing, great harmonies, beautiful songs,
a very pleasant show."..."He admits the reviews were emphasizing his strength."

 

[Rumbahbah]

As a live band, given their natural abilities, they were a rather frustrating act I think.

Given how much they toured in the early years, I wonder if they just ended up almost performing on autopilot, hence the slightly 'wooden' impression they sometimes gave off. I don't know if they really looked at live performing (or were encouraged to look at it by those around them) as a separate opportunity to show off another side of their creativity.

They did sometimes come up with some gems live. The extended Bacharach medley is a case in point, but this was a leftover from when they did the Hello Dolly gig for Burt Bacharach in 1970 rather than being designed specifically for their live act. Performing live could have been a real showcase for their talents if they'd been pushed a bit to view at as such, but I don't get the impression they really sat down to look at the setlist for tours and think what they could do with it - it was almost like going through the motions.

Their insistence on 'perfection' and performing everything the same every night didn't do them any favours either. A good live act needs to be a bit flexibile, otherwise it just sounds like an ersatz copy of the album. The lack of any spontinaeity in their act is something many critics picked up on at the time. I don't know where this idea came from, but I don't think it served them well at all.

There was also always a slightly Vegas-y element to their performances, which seemed to put the emphasis on 'entertainment' over 'musicality'. This was particularly true of the gimmicky 1976 show (taping the audience sing-along to 'Sing', the Karen drum solo, the Warsaw Concerto, the Grease medley, the Spike Jones pastiche), but they'd also included 'wacky' songs like 'Cinderella Rockerfella' and 'I Fell in Love With You' in their early shows. Maybe these went down well with the audience at the time, but they sound pretty embarrassing now. Even the Oldies Medley when performed live seemed more weighted towards providing entertainment rather than showing off their craft. And when they did pick more substantial tracks like 'Sometimes' to perform in 1974, they rushed through it at such a pace that it spoiled the effect of the song.

Of course, that's not to say that they were never enjoyable live. The live sections on the 1971 BBC performance are good to watch - perhaps this captured them before they got jaded with all the touring. Conversely, in their later shows, their performances of 'I Need to Be in Love' and 'There's a Kind of Hush' managed to improve on the studio versions as they sounded more lively and direct shorn of the rather stifling studio production.

Perhaps they really were 'studio animals' - the studio is a better forum for 'creating' and 'perfecting' a sound than doing it live. But given how often they toured, I do feel this was a real missed opportunity for them.

 

[newvillefan]

If I had driven 1000 miles round trip to see them (like I did for the Diamond show), I probably would have left disappointed, because between the oldies medley, the hits medley, the Grease medley, the Bacharach medley, the classical concerto, and the Spike Jones nonsense - there wasn't much time left for full-length hits. I can't speak for other fans, but I would want to hear my favorite songs in full. Why did they even need an opening act, and why, when they were huge stars, did they still play smaller venues, and often do two shows in a night? At their peak, they should have been playing arenas, not casinos.

This ^^^, 1000%!

 

[CarpentersToYou]

Rumbahbah, you totally hit the nail on the head for every single thing!

 

[newvillefan]

why, when they were huge stars, did they still play smaller venues, and often do two shows in a night? At their peak, they should have been playing arenas, not casinos.

I’m currently reading Elton John’s autobiography “Me” (a riot; I really recommend it!) and in it he talks about his early touring days, where you started off with smaller venues and built up as your popularity and sales grew. That seems sensible but surely it can’t have applied to Carpenters in their heyday. They could have played much bigger venues than they did. The London Palladium was a joke of a choice for 1976. They could easily have sold out arenas for more than one night in a row. Even up in Scotland they were playing relatively small 3,000 seat venues like Edinburgh Playhouse.

ABBA also seemed to plump for relatively small venues during their career. For their 1979 world tour, they were playing some venues with a mere 5,000 capacity. That seems ludicrous to me for a band at the height of their game. However, what it doesn’t take into account is the very varied nature of record sales from town to town, city to city in the US. To quote a certain other singer, in some places they were number one, in other places they were ashtray material. So the cautious choice of some venues for the US leg of the tour probably made a lot of sense.

On the flip side of this coin, you also have ABBA’s 1977 tour: in the UK, where they were just huge in every respect, they bizarrely chose the Royal Albert Hall, prestigious maybe, but it only has a capacity of 5,272. When tickets went on sale, the venue received 3.5 MILLION ticket applications, meaning they could have played there sold out for two years. In a territory as safe as the UK, why did they play it so cautiously?

 

[Mark-T]

Karen and Richard were probably the most mismanaged superstars of the 70s. Seemed like they were worked to the bone and the label and management had no long term plan for them.

 

[Rumbahbah]

Karen and Richard were probably the most mismanaged superstars of the 70s. Seemed like they were worked to the bone and the label and management had no long term plan for them.

They seemed to be kind of left to their own devices by the record label and their early management. There were some upsides to this - it essentially gave them pretty much complete creative control over what they recorded and what was released. The downside was that they were young and fairly inexperienced. I think they could often have done with more guidance and input at times (even if this represented 'tough love'), both in terms of what they were recording and, as this thread has highlighted, other aspects of their career like their live shows, their image and where their career was headed.

As gifted as they were, they didn't have all the answers and it seems no one else tried to pitch in much on this front, so they rather muddled through outside of the recording studio in many ways.

 

[Mark-T]

I think post Horizon and the Sedaka incident, they really could have used some guidance. Agree on the creative freedom though. Plus and minuses for sure!

 

[Chris Mills]

The great thing about having a concert in a smaller venue is that it creates a you & me intimate atmosphere which was perfect for Karen and Richard with their style of pop music. Bringing a touch of Vegas to a cold and dreary London back in '76 was a very clever idea. Their live presentation was always professional and somewhat serious, but none the less really entertaining. You just can't recreate that live atmosphere on vinyl or video tape, it's a very special experience to see your music idols right in front of you.....just mind blowing!

 

[Geographer]

I went to a Neil Diamond concert in 1987... the concert lasted for three hours - no opening act, no intermission, and NO medleys - just hit, after hit, after hit (and a couple of new songs)! The audience just lapped it up, which may be why he kept performing that long. When the show ended, and the lights were turned up in the arena, the place was still packed to the rafters, indicating that hardly anyone had left early. Best show I ever attended. I got my money's worth, and then some.

Now, if Neil could put on a show like that, then why couldn't Carpenters? If I had driven 1000 miles round trip to see them (like I did for the Diamond show), I probably would have left disappointed, because between the oldies medley, the hits medley, the Grease medley, the Bacharach medley, the classical concerto, and the Spike Jones nonsense - there wasn't much time left for full-length hits. I can't speak for other fans, but I would want to hear my favorite songs in full. Why did they even need an opening act, and why, when they were huge stars, did they still play smaller venues, and often do two shows in a night? At their peak, they should have been playing arenas, not casinos.

As for being accused of putting on a "boring" show... how much of that was due to the Carpenters wooden stage presence, scripted banter, and insistence on performing the songs so precisely the same night after night, that there was no tolerance for even a note out of place - which was kind of unusual for a group with jazz roots. There was no room for spontaneity, for establishing a rapport with the audience, for speaking to them from the heart, and for doing something unexpected, like taking a couple of requests, or letting the show go longer if the audience was especially enthusiastic that night. While Karen and Richard were excellent musicians, they weren't natural showmen (although Karen, at least, seemed to become more comfortable on stage as the years passed). Richard did say that they were essentially "studio animals".

I, too, went to a Neil Diamond concert in Las Vegas back in the late '90's I believe, and experienced exactly what you did. But remember, back in the 70's, the casino's didn't want long shows. The entertainment was just a way to get people into the casino's. Long shows took folks away from the card tables and slots, which is the number one reason they (casinos) exist. Everything else (shows, buffets, etc.) are to get people in the doors, but it was time gambling that made the money. It was normal that a show go on for maybe an hour or an hour-fifteen at most and be done! And that included a short intermission! It's not that way today, thankfully.

Keep in mind, too, that a lot of that "nonsense" came AFTER they finally got professional direction on their concerts and was meant to establish them as a serious music group, for which their reputation sorely need AT THAT TIME. And, just for the record, I'm not disagreeing...I would live to have a three-hour long Carpenters concert where every hit and many album cuts are sung completely through. I was just trying to give some perspective as to why so many hits were put in to medley form. It's a "time" crunch thing.

I just watched a Gordon Lightfoot concert where he explained this exact same thing. He had a limited amount of time allocated to him, so he took some of his earlier and lesser-known hits and strung them into a medley. And before he launched into it, he specifically said he did this because it was the only way he could fit them in given his allotted time.

 

[newvillefan]

Karen and Richard were probably the most mismanaged superstars of the 70s. Seemed like they were worked to the bone and the label and management had no long term plan for them.

Aside from the Sedaka incident which brought things to a head, this is probably the main reason Sherwin Bash lost his job: no long term vision, strategy or plan for them.

 

[David A]

As a live band, given their natural abilities, they were a rather frustrating act I think.

Given how much they toured in the early years, I wonder if they just ended up almost performing on autopilot, hence the slightly 'wooden' impression they sometimes gave off. I don't know if they really looked at live performing (or were encouraged to look at it by those around them) as a separate opportunity to show off another side of their creativity.

They did sometimes come up with some gems live. The extended Bacharach medley is a case in point, but this was a leftover from when they did the Hello Dolly gig for Burt Bacharach in 1970 rather than being designed specifically for their live act. Performing live could have been a real showcase for their talents if they'd been pushed a bit to view at as such, but I don't get the impression they really sat down to look at the setlist for tours and think what they could do with it - it was almost like going through the motions.

Their insistence on 'perfection' and performing everything the same every night didn't do them any favours either. A good live act needs to be a bit flexibile, otherwise it just sounds like an ersatz copy of the album. The lack of any spontinaeity in their act is something many critics picked up on at the time. I don't know where this idea came from, but I don't think it served them well at all.

There was also always a slightly Vegas-y element to their performances, which seemed to put the emphasis on 'entertainment' over 'musicality'. This was particularly true of the gimmicky 1976 show (taping the audience sing-along to 'Sing', the Karen drum solo, the Warsaw Concerto, the Grease medley, the Spike Jones pastiche), but they'd also included 'wacky' songs like 'Cinderella Rockerfella' and 'I Fell in Love With You' in their early shows. Maybe these went down well with the audience at the time, but they sound pretty embarrassing now. Even the Oldies Medley when performed live seemed more weighted towards providing entertainment rather than showing off their craft. And when they did pick more substantial tracks like 'Sometimes' to perform in 1974, they rushed through it at such a pace that it spoiled the effect of the song.

Of course, that's not to say that they were never enjoyable live. The live sections on the 1971 BBC performance are good to watch - perhaps this captured them before they got jaded with all the touring. Conversely, in their later shows, their performances of 'I Need to Be in Love' and 'There's a Kind of Hush' managed to improve on the studio versions as they sounded more lively and direct shorn of the rather stifling studio production.

Perhaps they really were 'studio animals' - the studio is a better forum for 'creating' and 'perfecting' a sound than doing it live. But given how often they toured, I do feel this was a real missed opportunity for them.

And agreed, this is 100% dead on. I had responded a second time to this question of their truncated hits, but deleted it after reading your post. Perfectly stated.

 

[David A]

I went to a Neil Diamond concert in 1987... the concert lasted for three hours - no opening act, no intermission, and NO medleys - just hit, after hit, after hit (and a couple of new songs)! The audience just lapped it up, which may be why he kept performing that long. When the show ended, and the lights were turned up in the arena, the place was still packed to the rafters, indicating that hardly anyone had left early. Best show I ever attended. I got my money's worth, and then some.

Now, if Neil could put on a show like that, then why couldn't Carpenters? If I had driven 1000 miles round trip to see them (like I did for the Diamond show), I probably would have left disappointed, because between the oldies medley, the hits medley, the Grease medley, the Bacharach medley, the classical concerto, and the Spike Jones nonsense - there wasn't much time left for full-length hits. I can't speak for other fans, but I would want to hear my favorite songs in full. Why did they even need an opening act, and why, when they were huge stars, did they still play smaller venues, and often do two shows in a night? At their peak, they should have been playing arenas, not casinos.

As for being accused of putting on a "boring" show... how much of that was due to the Carpenters wooden stage presence, scripted banter, and insistence on performing the songs so precisely the same night after night, that there was no tolerance for even a note out of place - which was kind of unusual for a group with jazz roots. There was no room for spontaneity, for establishing a rapport with the audience, for speaking to them from the heart, and for doing something unexpected, like taking a couple of requests, or letting the show go longer if the audience was especially enthusiastic that night. While Karen and Richard were excellent musicians, they weren't natural showmen (although Karen, at least, seemed to become more comfortable on stage as the years passed). Richard did say that they were essentially "studio animals".

OOPS, this was the post I agreed on 100%. @Rumbahbah there was a lot of your post I agreed with, as well.

 

[GaryAlan]

Correct me if wrong, was not Sherwin Bash also Herb Alpert's manager ? How long had Sherwin been managing Herb
Alpert when he was signed on to represent the Carpenters ? All the Sherwin Bash-ing seems unwarranted.
Same with Neil Sedaka--long term planning would have meant retaining him on the docket, he would have
been far more productive for their long-term prospects than Richard firing him (Richard fired quite a number of employees).
Jerry Weintraub was hardly an improvement. Not only was he "Management Three" he was head of Concerts West.
He was one of the head/top concert promoters of the day ! He surely masterminded the 1981 promo tour.
So, my point is this: there is plenty of blame to go around.
Playing larger venues, well, I fail to see where that would have worked.



Rolling Stone, July 1974, Karen:
"It’s weird to think you could have a meaning like that for someone, to make someone go on living.
That’s a hell of a responsibility. Someone loving something that much, to keep them alive . . . It’s a very strange feeling, to think you could have that much . . . power . . . “

 

[David A]

[SNIP]
So, my point is this: there is plenty of blame to go around.[/SNIP]

Yes indeed. I think the Carpenters presented a difficult marketing challenge, as they were different than most everything else being played in the first half of the '70's, along with the very important distinction that they were a brother/sister act.

 

[newvillefan]

Playing larger venues, well, I fail to see where that would have worked.

It would have enabled them to break even a hell of a lot quicker than they did and may also have meant not playing so many dates year after year.

 

[GaryAlan]

^^That may--or, may not--be true. Obviously, true--fewer dates per year.
However, is there any evidence whatsoever that they would have "broken even" quicker ?
I am recalling the 1975 article/interview in Melody Maker (I own a copy)
where Richard speaks in glowing terms of the absurd amount of money they made touring.
As I have emphasized more than once--do not read their HISTORY backwards,
read it forwards. Documentary evidence AT THE TIME is different from LATER recollections.

 

[Carpe diem]

It would have enabled them to break even a hell of a lot quicker than they did and may also have meant not playing so many dates year after year.

Do you mean like Ricks College at Rexburg Idaho?

 

[David A]

It would seem to make sense that they would make more money setting up once for a huge crowd, than setting up 3 times for 3 smaller crowds. Not to mention, easier on them. But I am not an expert on such things.

 

[GaryAlan]

Of course, I am not an expert in these matters, either.
Here are some Concert statistics:
Twin Falls Idaho May 1971: 400 people.....Twin Falls Idaho (same venue) May 1973: 6000 people.
June 22, 1973: "Lake Charles, LA....they played before 74,000 people." (CFCN# 32, Nov 1973).
CFCN #35, March 1974: Holmdel NJ...."Feb 1974, they played before over 47,000 people..."
Champaign, IL..."Oct 26, 1974...they played for 11,000 people for Homecoming..."

More, later !

 

[A&M Retro]

Of course, I am not an expert in these matters, either.
Here are some Concert statistics:
Twin Falls Idaho May 1971: 400 people.....Twin Falls Idaho (same venue) May 1973: 6000 people.
June 22, 1973: "Lake Charles, LA....they played before 74,000 people." (CFCN# 32, Nov 1973).
CFCN #35, March 1974: Holmdel NJ...."Feb 1974, they played before over 47,000 people..."
Champaign, IL..."Oct 26, 1974...they played for 11,000 people for Homecoming..."

More, later !

They played to a sell-out crowd in K.C. at the Municipal Auditorium on 4/21/73. That venue holds 10,000.

 

[GaryAlan]

^^Thanks for that info ! I promised a bit more to my previous post:

August 1971 the duo with sold-out concerts at Hollywood Bowl (17,500) and Royal Albert Hall (5000).
Taping London Bridge Special, the duo gave an impromptu concert, with 3000 people in attendance.
1972 Greek Theater sold-out (5900) and 1972 Denver's Red Rocks Theater at 4000.
Quite a few concerts were CANCELED in March and April 1974.
Now, Neil Sedaka held a party specifically for the duo April 1974.
1975 Astor Tower, Chicago: 10,000 people.

Finally, in the one true instance of NEGATIVE news in the Fan Club Newsletters, from late 1975 we read this:
"the Summer 1975 tour was the most extensive and EXHAUSTING tour they ever had (April 3-Sept 3, 1975).

After 1975 there is mostly European venues and (for the USA) Las Vegas venues.

 

[Portlander]

Richard was asked about the largest crowd the Carpenters ever played in front of and I think he said it was 50,000 (multiple acts) at the Ohio State Fair in 1971. Never heard about the 74,000 in Lake Charles, LA which would include the entire city's population back in the seventies? I read they sold out the Hollywood Bowl and the Anaheim Convention Center which accommodates between 18,000 and 22,000. The Budokan in Osaka also had a capacity of around 14,000 during their Japan tour.

It appears from 1972-75 they performed at numerous arenas and outdoor amphitheaters with between 6,000-12,000 seats. Later in their career they seemed to focus more on the smaller venues with 3,000-5,000 seats (which included many Las Vegas dates) with improved acoustics and would end up doing two shows to make up the gap. Due to Richard's obsession with the sound, I he may have preferred quality over quantity and did not get caught on how many seats the venue held. Also remember hearing Sherwin Bash mention that the Carpenters never had a concert that was not sold out.