Yes i agree. Queen did those medleys intelligently back in the day. Examples are on Live At Rainbow and A Night At The Odeon.
This tour they just STOP playing In the middle of Seven Seas Of Rhye and STOP playing when the guitar solo of Play The Game starts.
Also, Queen with Freddie never did short versions of songs. They either played it decently or mixed it intelligently in a medley.
This type of abbreviation is just laziness. [/QUOTE]
And they know it.
They also know that for every one of you there are another thousand who don't notice or don't care.
That said - it's always kind of been a thing with them. They always cut down tunes like Killer Queen and The March Of The Black Queen, but unnecessarily stretched out songs like Liar and Brighton Rock.
Their technical prowess has never been their forte. That's the case with just about all the classic rock bands. Studio musicians can play circles around them, but they can't write the great songs - and that's all that really matters in the end.
Viper · Member since
The setlist is very good I think!
Viper · Member since
Especially the more recent ones!
Vocal harmony · Member since
^^^ yes it is and Mr Wizard has hit the nail on the head. My problem with the setlist is that, like in the late 70's, they seem to be sticking to a basic structure and adding or dropping songs but making no real effort to make things sound very different from last week, lad month or the lad tour.
I completly understand the play the hits approach, especially on these dates, but they've been playing a lot of these songs for a long time. There are a lot more hits they could include, and they have a singer who can do those songs
Oscar J · Member since
Wizard: I doubt they would have had any trouble performing Killer Queen in its entirety, they just chose to incorporate it in a medley. They did much trickier songs like Leroy Brown, Sweet Lady and The Prophets Song live without problems. The full version of March Of The Black Queen was probably excluded because it just wouldn't work well as a live number due to the large amount of overdubs etc. needed. Still a tricky number of course, but nothing they couldn't have sorted out on their respective instruments with enough rehearsal IMO. I think they just decided the rock part was the section that worked best live.
About the "unnecessarily" stretching of those songs - I think some of their best musical moments live might be in those extended instrumental sections of Liar for example.
For sure they were far from the most technical band live, but I'm not sure that explains cutting down songs, especially not numbers like Play The Game and Seven Seas Of Rhye.
Raf · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
Wizard: I doubt they would have had any trouble performing Killer Queen in its entirety, they just chose to incorporate it in a medley. They did much trickier songs like Leroy Brown, Sweet Lady and The Prophets Song live without problems. The full version of March Of The Black Queen was probably excluded because it just wouldn't work well as a live number due to the large amount of overdubs etc. needed. Still a tricky number of course, but nothing they couldn't have sorted out on their respective instruments with enough rehearsal IMO. I think they just decided the rock part was the section that worked best live.
About the "unnecessarily" stretching of those songs - I think some of their best musical moments live might be in those extended instrumental sections of Liar for example.
For sure they were far from the most technical band live, but I'm not sure that explains cutting down songs, especially not numbers like Play The Game and Seven Seas Of Rhye.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying March Of The Black Queen would've worked... But listen to The Fairy-Feller's Master Stroke and Leroy Brown live. They nailed both songs live, especially TFFMS.
After they released Rainbow, I couldn't help but wonder if they don't miss being so daring on stage. I know they've been playing safe since much before Freddie was even sick, but damn, Adam's brought some new life into the band, he's young, he's technically capable, they've got more musicians on stage nowadays than back in the day, and they've even done a few "experiments" both with Paul Rodgers and Adam, not to mention Brian's gifts to Queen fans on his concerts with Kerry Ellis. Just one or two unexpected songs or a different arrangement (even if as part of Brian's acoustic medley, as he did on Hammersmith recently) and we'd certainly be really happy and excited.
The Real Wizard · Member since
We can sit here hoping they'll get it together some day.
Or we can watch musicians who are actually doing it.
This is two members of Yes (Alan White and Tony Kaye) in a side project called Circa less than a decade ago performing a 40 minute chronological Yes medley - featuring at least one song from every album between 1969-99:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8xkonlAu8Y
Watching videos like this make me feel all the things (besides "damn, they still have their chops!") - pride that the members of Yes continue to forge new and interesting musical directions, and disappointment that our boys in Queen have long ago decided that this isn't really for them.
But it's their choice, and it's totally cool. They could've chosen the more artistic theatre and club route, but they went with the safe novelty act for the masses. You guys are just setting yourself up for disappointment if you're hoping they're going to do a bunch of songs that 98% of the people paying to fill a stadium aren't going to know. Yet they're still selling out most of their shows, so they're clearly doing something right.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
Wizard: I doubt they would have had any trouble performing Killer Queen in its entirety, they just chose to incorporate it in a medley.
[/QUOTE]
In the 70s, yes. But the transition into I'm In Love With My Car after they'd dropped Bicycle Race was pure laziness.
We can do an in-depth analysis if we want - but the bottom line is, after 1978 Queen's shows more or less stopped being musically innovative. Even just shortly after their creative peak, their show began to migrate to the visual at the expense of the music.
The best (worst?) example is their setlists in 1980-81, which were basically a scaled back version of the Jazz tour set plus some Game songs. But they were selling out stadiums, so it just didn't matter. This is when they learned the lesson that they could get away with anything with the majority of the public, especially when they were treading new ground around the world.
Even in the Mercury era (never mind now), nothing compares to the musical breadth of their show in 1976-77. But in later years they clearly discovered other joys that superseded it.
Vocal harmony · Member since
^^^ absolutely agree. I have the feeling that they didn't enjoy rehearsing so from 78 to 81 they used a basic template for the set list, so probably only spent time rehearsing the new songs which were added for each tour. Having played the rest so often they quite possibly spent little time runninr through them.
The 1982 tour in a way was a breath of fresh air because they constructed a setlist from scratch which changed, especially early on in the tour.
Of late they seem to have returned to the template idea, with little change. It would be nice if they got bored and felt they had to change either the setlist or the way they choose to perform the songs.
I completely understand the need to play the hits, especially at festival type gigs, but they still have a much wider pool, or deeper well then most bands to choose from but seem unwilling to put the work in.
The version of the set they played on the US tour was much better than what they're playing now. Time for a change.
Holly2003 · Member since
They haven't grown as musicians as they've got older, and certainly not after Fred died. Brian had an opportunity then to create a solo career but gave up on it when it became evident it wasn't going to be as successful as Queen. As a duo they could've created new music under a new name but it seems that was too much hard work. They're just hanging on to past musical glories. It's a bit sad really.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Brian had an opportunity then to create a solo career but gave up on it when it became evident it wasn't going to be as successful as Queen.[/QUOTE]
I'd say he and Roger both grew plenty as artists in the 90s - their solo albums were huge steps away from the Queen formula, and I'd say they were generally happy with the way things were going.
In the moment, I'm sure all three of them would've said that No-One But You was the end of Queen. So I'd bet my right arm that had Cozy Powell not died, whatever Queen is today would be a much different thing.
One has to wonder precisely where John Deacon leaving the band rests on that timeline, and what precipitated it. The things we'll never know.
After a few missteps in the early 2000s, they found Paul Rodgers and have more or less coasted from there.
Holly2003 · Member since
Good point about Cosy. Never thought about that. I'm also intrigued about Deaky's decision to retire. It would be interesting if he chose to spill the beans, but it probably never will come out.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Methinks he's the Don Felder of Queen.
But indeed, I don't think anyone's ever going to talk about this one.
cmsdrums · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
So I'd bet my right arm that had Cozy Powell not died, whatever Queen is today would be a much different thing.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely agree. I've posted in the past that Brian very much saw Cozy as his musical collaborator and sounding baord when he was starting to launch a 'proper' solo career, and that if Cozy hadn't died my hunch is that Brian may never have stepped back to Queen, other than to oversee the odd release from the archives.
They're a victim of their own success really - because they were/are(?) one of the biggest bands in the history of pop music they see that they have to live up to those standards with how they are perceived and how they tour. It would be lovely however if they did a mix, whereby they could do the 'hits' tour as per the current trek to the masses, but also then do some smaller shows delving into the catalogue for the long standing and true fans.
If only the 'VH1 Storytellers' show in New York that was planned for 2001 had come off (I think 9/11 put a stop to it at that point), as it seemed that coudl have seen different interpretations of songs, with them performing with various other artists and by themselves in a smaller theatre.
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/
They're a victim of their own success really - because they were/are(?) one of the biggest bands in the history of pop music they see that they have to live up to those standards with how they are perceived and how they tour. It would be lovely however if they did a mix, whereby they could do the 'hits' tour as per the current trek to the masses, but also then do some smaller shows delving into the catalogue for the long standing and true fans... . .
I see your point, but how would the old school fans be sure of getting tickets to the smaller gigs.
The Stones seem able to play a great mix of hits and older album tracks to huge audiences, if they can why can't others
