It was good while it lasted...

I have been a fan for over thirty years and I will always remain one. The original band was just perfect ... but I also liked what they did with Paul Rodgers, and Adam is even a better fit than Paul.
However, their setlists are far from adventurous. They always stick to playing it safe, and when they make some interesting choices they drop the songs after a few shows.
Where is their sense of adventure, Not every fan in the arena is a newbie. Of course when you come to a Queen show you want to hear Bohemian Rhapsody, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions etc.
But they have an enormous catalogue. Why don't they make a mix of the hits and some lesser known material. It will keep things interesting for the newbies, the longterm fans and themselves.
For his last tour in 2003-2004 Bowie and his band rehearsed over 50 songs. The setlist changed almost every night. It was the perfect combination of hits and obscure material and the place was on fire every night. It can be done !!!

Real Wizard, you forgot about the The Works Tour, they played a handful of songs from QI, QII.... but yes I agree with what you said. But it's a sad thing that without SYW and IL the whole "40th anniversary, folks!" is just pointless....

Just back from the Toronto show. Went into it disappointed they dropped saw and it's late, but I can see why they did. The pace of the show would have been adversely affected. Get down make love was wonderful, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but everyone around me sat down for that. And Two Fux for that matter.
Visually, this is the best Queen show ever. And even though it seems like it's the same songs as last time, it's really not. At least it's not the same as the last NA tour, maybe it's closer to the last European tour. Anyway, bottom line is I really enjoyed the show, the use of Frank was excellent and provided me with one genuine laugh out loud moment. We got to sing happy birthday to Brian which was unique. Deliberately terrible graphic on the video screens for that.

It's a good show, I won't remember it with the same fondness I have for the crazy tour shows I saw, or Brussels in 84 or Leeds in 82, but it's still a good show.

I will say Brian missed a few notes and I thought he was limping. Roger is in fine form and looks pretty good. Adam is a good frontman but i know not everyone here agrees so thats fine, we can disagree. Didnt notice songs being played slow apart from FBG which really crawled along at a snails pace. Maybe they dropped its late because at that speed it would be 12 minutes long.

Ears still ringing. Hotel bed looks comfy.

Agree the show was great. Brian and Roger were spectacular. Production fantastic - especially the opening sequence and during the guitar solo. Adam makes me cringe at some points but while he doesn't sound like Freddie he can hit the notes...at least I am still getting a show. I would still prefer they added a classic like Its Late or Spread Your Wings in...especially because of the 40th anniversary....perhaps it is also how much they can physically endure....if anything Show Must Go On would be a better fill in than IWTBF

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

I was at the Montreal show last night. I'm a bit disappointed that It's Late and Spread Your Wings have been dropped. I share and empathize with a lot of the feelings that I'm reading about here. But I'm going to attempt to bring some grander perspective into the discussion:


How many successful 1970s acts survived the 1980s, commercially speaking? I think we can we count them on one hand. The LP as a medium peaked in the early to mid 70s, but was in decline by the late 70s. To survive the 1980s, it became all about the single, to get played on the radio and on MTV. Peter Gabriel stuck to albums, and coincidentally by 1982 he was flat broke, to the point that Genesis had to reunite with him for a show at the Milton Keynes bowl to bail him out.

If Queen had broken up in 1979 and did a reunion tour in the 2000s, they'd probably be doing theatres and playing mostly album tracks. But for a moment in 1980, Queen were the biggest act in the US - not because of an album, but because of two hit songs. From then onward, with occasional exceptions, earlier material was axed in their setlists in favour of new songs, but the hits more or less remained the dominant part of their show.

Here's one of those exceptions - in 1982, they played Liar for a few weeks at the beginning of the tour. It sounded fresh and exciting. But listen to the tapes - their audience had changed. Most people didn't know the song. The band clued in, and they dropped it. The only difference between then and now is there was no internet. Bootleg tapes circulated, but it usually took months or even years for that to happen. So people just went to the shows and generally had a great time without expectations. It was only a small minority who'd say "they aren't playing the old songs anymore."

For the past 40 years or so, to most people Queen have been a hits band. How do we know that? Greatest Hits has sold better than all of their studio albums combined. Let that sink in.

And a slightly more anecdotal citing - in those "guitar heroes" type books, on every guitarist's page it names three albums that best encapsulate their work. For literally every other rock player there are three studio albums, but for Brian May it's usually Sheer Heart Attack, A Night At The Opera, and Greatest Hits.

But this is the path they've chosen.

Maybe "Two Fux" is more important than two classics.

Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that they have a fuck ton of hits to pick from, and that they've willingly chosen the flock over the few.

My vote is for the latter. But let's not pretend that this sensitivity for their audience is a sudden development. It's been in their consciousness since before plenty of us reading this post were born.

To people who post on forums like this, the first six Queen albums are cherished artistic statements. Connoisseurs of music see that 73-77 period as a big deal. But to Brian and Roger who have known each other for about 50 years, that's 10% of that time. As the artists who have invested themselves into this music for so many years and in so many different ways, we can't even begin to psychoanalyze them and their choices (nor should we).

It may well be that those album tracks just may not matter as much to them as many of us think they do. Maybe they're happy watching people enjoy themselves to the hits, because that's what most people identify with.

The arenas are full tour after tour, even if the setlist is barely different from the last time, but the production is completely different. Shows are about the events as much as the songs. Adam Lambert riding a bicycle will be far more memorable to most people than which 1977 song they played half way through the show. The fact that they're still filling arenas despite having not released an album in over 20 years probably means Brian and Roger understand the dynamics of performance art far more than many people here are giving them credit for.
[/QUOTE]

Very well said!

Also i have to blame the arena. We ended up starting at 8:40

Real Wizard: "we can't even begin to psychoanalyze them and their choices" - but you certainly gave it your best shot. Look, not trying to jump all over you, but every one of your opinions, although suppported in one way, can be simply disputed. "Singles band"? I remember a lot of statements from them saying the opposite: "album band". etc. Not going to sit there and pedantically counter all your arguments, though I'm tempted... the album "anecdote" is particularly malodorous. I see your points, though, I do. The show wasn't all bad. But you did more ""psychoanalyzing" than most, to be blunt, and I don't think that's possible from our vantage point.

Legitimately, I think we can observe what is done in the shows and what is not. We can be happy or not with the energy, accuracy, visuals, sound, etc. from the fan's perspective. We can try to express why certain performances resonated with us, or didn't. And when it comes to song selection, you can't please everyone, no argument. But certainly you get the irony in the band making press statements about certain album anniversary & tracks, screen captures of Lamberts phone playlist, and setting precendents in early shows, seemingly aimed to bring a certain fan base out to the shows. So we buy the tix, and then the carpet's pulled out. There's no psychoanalysis there, it's just abject disappointment for a lot of the diehards - the older fans who don't listen to the Greatest Hits album because we like the studio albums better. BTW, the Chicago show was NOT a sellout - there were blocks of main floor seats (within eyesight from my seat) that went unsold (released the week before the show, and yes I kept checking), and it's not that big an arena (12,400 seats?). My prognosis? A little less script and a little more "danger" (Brian's word again) might keep things lively, where the current formula delivers, but may not excite. Certainly, wondering whether Roger could handle the power and pace of It's Late (particularly the ending) would deliver the excitement for me.

[QUOTE] [b]ggo1 wrote:[/b]

Just back from the Toronto show. Went into it disappointed they dropped saw and it's late, but I can see why they did. The pace of the show would have been adversely affected. Get down make love was wonderful, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but everyone around me sat down for that. And Two Fux for that matter.
Visually, this is the best Queen show ever. And even though it seems like it's the same songs as last time, it's really not. At least it's not the same as the last NA tour, maybe it's closer to the last European tour. Anyway, bottom line is I really enjoyed the show, the use of Frank was excellent and provided me with one genuine laugh out loud moment. We got to sing happy birthday to Brian which was unique. Deliberately terrible graphic on the video screens for that.

It's a good show, I won't remember it with the same fondness I have for the crazy tour shows I saw, or Brussels in 84 or Leeds in 82, but it's still a good show.

I will say Brian missed a few notes and I thought he was limping. Roger is in fine form and looks pretty good. Adam is a good frontman but i know not everyone here agrees so thats fine, we can disagree. Didnt notice songs being played slow apart from FBG which really crawled along at a snails pace. Maybe they dropped its late because at that speed it would be 12 minutes long.

Ears still ringing. Hotel bed looks comfy.[/QUOTE]
One thing i didn't like is that we started 40 minutes late from the listed start time. It's kinda sad to see people next to you arrive at their seats 35 minutes after the show is supposed to start

[QUOTE] [b]GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote:[/b]

A little less script and a little more "danger" (Brian's word again) might keep things lively, where the current formula delivers, but may not excite.[/QUOTE]

Excite whom, though?

Your thoughts are completely correct and legitimate for you, the fan who knows every note of their music. But I suspect you represent less than 1% of the audience.

There are people who saw some of the earlier shows, on their way out of the venue, saying the band played too many deep cuts. Friends of mine heard it with their own ears.

Of course this is all anecdotal. But judging by the audience response throughout the shows I saw, I'd say people were pretty satisfied overall at what they heard. At both shows I saw, a ton of people were talking throughout Love Of My Life. If they don't know that song enough to shut up and listen and experience what it means, then they sure aren't going to know It's Late. This is why the next song after LOML is Somebody to Love - in case they lost anyone, they'll play a song that literally everyone knows. The flow of the show is paramount.

I know many hardcore Queen fans who saw them for the first time on this tour, and they walked away completely satisfied. One of them was a bit disappointed that they didn't play Tie Your Mother Down, but he was too busy being blown away by the production and simply hearing Brian May live to care.

Uber-hardcore fans who are hoping for obscure songs tend to miss the bigger picture. And it's their loss. Myself, I'm glad I saw the show twice - it really made me appreciate how good it is. A show is about so much more than the songs. It's the events. It's the builds to peaks. This has been their philosophy since the mid 70s, and applied to them now as a nostalgia act, they have perfected it. They have brought new life to these old songs.

The show is like a movie. There are scene changes and plot twists. It is so well engineered to create excitement in as many people as possible. Indeed, you can't please everyone - but to create something that 99% of your audience enjoys, that is an art.

And as much as I love the early albums - playing It's Late wouldn't have enhanced the experience for that 99%. And that's why they've dropped it. They had it in the setlist with good intentions, but it's gone for an equally good reason.

No clue what happened there... my essay disappeared.

I think a nice compromise and something to fit the 40th anniversary is if they did a rotating NOTW track...One gig gets It's Late, one gets SYW, one could even get Fight From The Inside...Surely one track wouldn't disrupt everything....

"Fight From The Inside" ...there is no measure in absurdity around this forum.

I like the rotating track in the moddle of the set idea. It's Late, Spread Your Wings, Sleeping on The Sidewalk, Who needs You, My Melancholy Blues, Sheer Heart Attack? - Probably not that one in the middle of the set.
TBH - Even if they don't like doing Its Late, and SYW was dropped because they want something everyone knows for the Encore, they could very easily put SYW where It's Late used to be without upsetting the flow.
And Off Topic... Adam was brilliant with Who Wants To Live Forever in Toronto. Best live version I've heard.

I'm sure the show will blow me and my wife away. I've only seen the odd photo here and there, zero video.
Still, I can't help but think that dropping both SYW and It's Late in favor of I want to break free is a safe & boring move.
If Brian was truly worried about pacing he wouldn't play a 10 min solo. More like pacing themselves -I think- by removing one truly challenging and physically demanding song with one they can play in their sleep. If stamina is the issue, that would explain It's late, I think, but not Spread Your Wings. I can imagine people getting bored with the full version of its late but SYW is very accessible and the chorus is pure magic.

Had they played the current setlist from the first night I wouldn't be complaining at all but they spoilt us showing us what a proper NOTW anniversary show could be... :S

I'm sure the minute I see the show's intro I'll forget about even having written this, hehe :)

[QUOTE] [b]ggo1 wrote:[/b]

No clue what happened there... my essay disappeared.

[/QUOTE]

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1408549/to-richard-re-posts-not-coming-through-at-all.aspx

^ see here.