Why Queen are boring live (in 2017)

The Real Wizard wrote:



Name one artist commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s by making albums instead of singles.


Hell, we can't even name five artists commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s at all.

I understand what you are saying but when you look like an artist like U2, it isn't true what you are saying. They are very much an album band and have been doing so during their entire career. They even have the guts to play a whole 30 year old album with many obscure tracks on the B side. It is a huge success.

And of course there are many artists that survived the 70's. Just a few who come to mind are Stevie Wonder, Aerosmith, ZZ Top, Rolling Stones, Paul Mc Cartney and probably more.

It has all to do about guts and not the easy way out.
If you do it, then do it well.

2017 is the year to celebrate News Of The World and it is just plain sad they don't have the guts to play SYW and IL.
Then they should make it more interesting for the audience with visuals, audience participation or new arrangements.

They had enough time to rehearse IL and SYW and performed it beautifully at 9 NA shows. Adam is a fast learner and was not the problem. They have enough new things for a wonderful show. Have to see them in person and not just on you tube! Stop complaining and enjoy!

The NA audiences LOVED SCC, FBG, and Bicycle Race.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Michael Allred wrote:

Queen, unlike virtually any other band of their ilk, stick with the misguided idea that people (certainly not fans) cannot handle anything not on a greatest hits album. The Stones, Springsteen, and so on play virtually everything from their catalog. Deep album cuts, b sides, covers, you name it. Queen are either scared of, embarrassed of, or not confident enough in their own tried and true catalog.

Queen, unlike virtually any other band of their ilk, have sold more greatest hits albums than all of their studio albums combined.

Who else is on this exclusive list? Abba? The Eagles? That's about it.

And that's why they play so few album tracks live - because they know most people don't know them. I'm sure they loved playing It's Late, but after a few weeks they probably saw a few too many blank faces, and had to let the tunes go. The hardcore fans who know the album tracks are in the minority.

Queen were an albums band for only a few years. They have been a hits band since 1980. They had to become a hits band if they were going to survive the 1980s. FM radio switched to playlists by the late 70s, and the album as a medium began to die.

Name one artist commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s by making albums instead of singles.

When you realize you can't do that, maybe then you'll realize why Queen's show in 2017 is what it is.

Hell, we can't even name five artists commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s at all.

I'm on your side - I wanted to hear these songs too, and so many others. But I also see the practicalities. They play it safe, because they assume that most people are seeing the show once, and they play what people know.

Brian May plays his guitar solo because it's an event, and people remember events at shows far more than which obscure songs they played. The same reason why there's a drum duel instead of playing yet another obscure song. Brian walking down the catwalk. Brian doing the selfie stick thing. The vaudeville intro to Somebody To Love, and Brian and Adam walking down the catwalk during the second verse to find Roger Taylor popping up on a smaller drum kit. Events - that's what makes for a memorable show. And Queen perfected this philosophy already in 1975. It wasn't nearly as spontaneous as we'd like to think. It was choreographed to the Nth degree - because it worked then, and it works now.

I think that answers the question perfectly, I agree 100%
Queen are a very different band to Springsteen and The Stones, they wre always a singles band, so they play them, I'd love to hear rare tracks but at every Queen gig I've been to I am surrounded by people that have never seen them before... so they want to hear the hits, I think theres a good chance It's Late and Spread your wings will be back for the UK leg, as this is a different market and they know that, but it will depend on why they dropped them? if it was audience reaction then I bet they will be back because they will get a massive cheer over here, if it was becuase Brian or Roger didn't like doing them then it's bye bye
And 100% agree in 75 the were super well rehearsed and nothing happened that wasnt pre-planned

Ask Brian if Queen are "a singles band"

Sunshine wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:



Name one artist commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s by making albums instead of singles.


Hell, we can't even name five artists commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s at all.

I understand what you are saying but when you look like an artist like U2, it isn't true what you are saying. They are very much an album band and have been doing so during their entire career. They even have the guts to play a whole 30 year old album with many obscure tracks on the B side. It is a huge success.

And of course there are many artists that survived the 70's. Just a few who come to mind are Stevie Wonder, Aerosmith, ZZ Top, Rolling Stones, Paul Mc Cartney and probably more.

It has all to do about guts and not the easy way out.
If you do it, then do it well.

2017 is the year to celebrate News Of The World and it is just plain sad they don't have the guts to play SYW and IL.
Then they should make it more interesting for the audience with visuals, audience participation or new arrangements.

IL and SYW were played well. I think they will be reinstated for the NOTW anniversary celebration.

SweetCaroline wrote:

They had enough time to rehearse IL and SYW and performed it beautifully at 9 NA shows. Adam is a fast learner and was not the problem. They have enough new things for a wonderful show. Have to see them in person and not just on you tube! Stop complaining and enjoy!

Nine days of rehearsals wasn't enough time, I feel. IMO, more thought was put into the production of the show than the music itself.
Queen has a massive back catalogue most of which I'm a fan of, and would like to hear.
Just give up already about having to see them in person and not just on YouTube, etc.

This link has both songs as performed in Vancouver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ha6dVKEw0&app=desktop

Sunshine wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

Name one artist commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s by making albums instead of singles.

Hell, we can't even name five artists commercially successful in 1975 who survived the 1980s at all.

I understand what you are saying but when you look like an artist like U2, it isn't true what you are saying. They are very much an album band and have been doing so during their entire career. They even have the guts to play a whole 30 year old album with many obscure tracks on the B side. It is a huge success.

And of course there are many artists that survived the 70's. Just a few who come to mind are Stevie Wonder, Aerosmith, ZZ Top, Rolling Stones, Paul Mc Cartney and probably more.

Yep, you're right. Although some of these are really stretching it - can the average person name a McCartney, Stones, or ZZ Top song from after 1984?

Togg wrote:

I think theres a good chance It's Late and Spread your wings will be back for the UK leg, as this is a different market and they know that, but it will depend on why they dropped them?

I'd say more people know Queen's early albums in the US than in the UK.

This likely can't be supported by evidence, but it's a hunch.

and by the way : Adams voice sucks ...

Tell it to Brian and Roger!

^^^

Brian and Roger are in legacy mode for last ten years. They would tour with Madonna of Lady Gaga if that helped them find an audience. AL brings new fans which appeals to them to keep their music alive. If this were 1972 and AL were auditioning for Queen as they were in then, he would be dismissed as he is a nice pop singer but has zero rock and roll gravitas, irrespective of the 79 links you will post "showing" otherwise.

I think Adele would be better than Madonna or Lady Gaga. LOLOL