i think the 70's/early 80's setlists were most surprising and fun, 82 and beyond they got repetitive. But that's because they had to choose out of loads of songs. Pretty hard i guess, they had a lot of freedom back in the 70's cause they could play lots more albumtracks cuz they didn't have that many hits as they did in 84/85/86
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Magic Tour was the only one which returned a profit, all the others they made a loss on.
The setlists may have been the same but the way the songs were performed was most certainly not.
[QUOTE I read somewhere that Magic Tour was the most successful period, in terms of live shows, of their career. Don't know if that's true in what sense...[/QUOTE]
The setlists may have been the same but the way the songs were performed was most certainly not.
[QUOTE I read somewhere that Magic Tour was the most successful period, in terms of live shows, of their career. Don't know if that's true in what sense...[/QUOTE]
i would think that playing different songs (or at least some) would keep touring interesting.
Agree with Richard...
This January I've seen Dream Theater in Hammersmith- it was their second gig of the European tour; they played three hours... Just before they were playing Manchester and half of the setlist has changed... That mean they had 4.5 hours of live material prepared... And than Guitar Hero posted tracklisting from Toronto and there were things they didn't play either in London nor Manchester... So we've got now 5- 5.5 hours of material, perfectly played, making it real fun to guess- what the hell are they gonna play now...?? And you never know... And it's ONE TOUR, promoting one album!!!!
I also, just like Pim, don't really like Works / Magic setlists... Of course they HAD TO play Rhapsody or AOBTD, but instead of "Tear It Up" or "Seven Seas" or pointless "Gimme All Your Lovin'" they could throw sth older like "Stone Cold Crazy", "White Queen" or "White Man"... Unfortunatelly they just prepared 1.5 hours of material, went on tour and didn't change a thing.... As a musician- it seems f**cking boring for a band!!! Even saying all the time the same lines (the one before WWTLF)... Definitelly, the older setlists were more exciting...
Well, the tours were succesful anyway, why bother than... That would mean more practicing- somehow I have a feeling that wasn't everyone's fav thing to do in later days...
This January I've seen Dream Theater in Hammersmith- it was their second gig of the European tour; they played three hours... Just before they were playing Manchester and half of the setlist has changed... That mean they had 4.5 hours of live material prepared... And than Guitar Hero posted tracklisting from Toronto and there were things they didn't play either in London nor Manchester... So we've got now 5- 5.5 hours of material, perfectly played, making it real fun to guess- what the hell are they gonna play now...?? And you never know... And it's ONE TOUR, promoting one album!!!!
I also, just like Pim, don't really like Works / Magic setlists... Of course they HAD TO play Rhapsody or AOBTD, but instead of "Tear It Up" or "Seven Seas" or pointless "Gimme All Your Lovin'" they could throw sth older like "Stone Cold Crazy", "White Queen" or "White Man"... Unfortunatelly they just prepared 1.5 hours of material, went on tour and didn't change a thing.... As a musician- it seems f**cking boring for a band!!! Even saying all the time the same lines (the one before WWTLF)... Definitelly, the older setlists were more exciting...
Well, the tours were succesful anyway, why bother than... That would mean more practicing- somehow I have a feeling that wasn't everyone's fav thing to do in later days...
"Still, I think that each tour for each album should be about the same"
When you're in a band, it's interesting to mix up the setlist from night to night. Or in Led Zeppelin's or the Grateful Dead's cases, improvising every night keeps it interesting for them.
"From that point of view it's nice to see Dream Theater (who didn't have had any hit singles) in concert. They have playlists of all their concerts, and when they come to a certain city the next time, they try to play a complete different list."
See, when you're a band with few singles like Dream Theater, your audience will be generally happy with anything you play. The obscure songs are usually the highlights. But when you're a pop-oriented band, you're expected to play the hits.
The Guess Who have been playing the almost exact same setlist every show since they reformed a few years ago, with the occasional rarity. But that rarity is a "boring song" to the average fan, because all they want to hear is the good old songs.
Could you imagine a post-77 Queen show without BoRhap/WWRY/WATC? No. But can I imagine a Dream Theater setlist with *anything* from their catalogue, and still be satisfied? Absolutely. I'm still not sure to this day which band I prefer overall. Queen has history, incredible songs, and one of the greatest frontmen of all time, but Dream Theater have superior musicianship which allows them to create music Queen (or just about any band) could barely dream of.
"i think the 70's/early 80's setlists were most surprising and fun"
Early 80s? Just about every show between 80-81 is the exact same setlist!
Starting at the News Of The World tour, Queen's setlist always included songs from the new album, and then less songs from older albums - and no new additions of older songs. This cycle would continue until the Hot Space tour, where their setlist would become all Hot Space and Game songs, plus a few old hits they had played for years. It wasn't until The Works tour that they revived older material.
When you're in a band, it's interesting to mix up the setlist from night to night. Or in Led Zeppelin's or the Grateful Dead's cases, improvising every night keeps it interesting for them.
"From that point of view it's nice to see Dream Theater (who didn't have had any hit singles) in concert. They have playlists of all their concerts, and when they come to a certain city the next time, they try to play a complete different list."
See, when you're a band with few singles like Dream Theater, your audience will be generally happy with anything you play. The obscure songs are usually the highlights. But when you're a pop-oriented band, you're expected to play the hits.
The Guess Who have been playing the almost exact same setlist every show since they reformed a few years ago, with the occasional rarity. But that rarity is a "boring song" to the average fan, because all they want to hear is the good old songs.
Could you imagine a post-77 Queen show without BoRhap/WWRY/WATC? No. But can I imagine a Dream Theater setlist with *anything* from their catalogue, and still be satisfied? Absolutely. I'm still not sure to this day which band I prefer overall. Queen has history, incredible songs, and one of the greatest frontmen of all time, but Dream Theater have superior musicianship which allows them to create music Queen (or just about any band) could barely dream of.
"i think the 70's/early 80's setlists were most surprising and fun"
Early 80s? Just about every show between 80-81 is the exact same setlist!
Starting at the News Of The World tour, Queen's setlist always included songs from the new album, and then less songs from older albums - and no new additions of older songs. This cycle would continue until the Hot Space tour, where their setlist would become all Hot Space and Game songs, plus a few old hits they had played for years. It wasn't until The Works tour that they revived older material.
"i just saw David Bowie three times and i was really happy that the set lists changed quite a bit from night to night."
Ooh! Lucky you! Bowie is pretty cool! :D
Ooh! Lucky you! Bowie is pretty cool! :D
seeing them as many times as i did
i often saw changes in set lists-not major mind you, but songs dropped, songs added, songs shortened and lenghtened, new openings etc.
did see a few where it there were no changes also-
then they gave up on america...... *sniff*
and i had to go see other people... like Bowie--who truly does change set lists a whole bunch more
i often saw changes in set lists-not major mind you, but songs dropped, songs added, songs shortened and lenghtened, new openings etc.
did see a few where it there were no changes also-
then they gave up on america...... *sniff*
and i had to go see other people... like Bowie--who truly does change set lists a whole bunch more
I think they did because they were too short and too samey. Dream Theater change their setlist on every night and usually play nearly three hours. The first set in Dusseldorf 2002 was as long as the wembley concert from Queen. After an intermission of 15 minutes they played the new album in its entirety which means 50 minutes. The second set was followed by an encore of 30 minutes. This is a concert to me!!!
I think they did because they were too short and too samey. Dream Theater change their setlist on every night and usually play nearly three hours. The first set in Dusseldorf 2002 was as long as the wembley concert from Queen. After an intermission of 15 minutes they played the new album in its entirety which means 50 minutes. The second set was followed by an encore of 30 minutes. This is a concert to me!!!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah.... :)
Who cares about diff. setlists? I saw Brian when I was 15 and it was so cool to see brian playin' his songs I didn't care that he didn't played starfleet, dreamer's ball, musthapha or whatever obscure song. and I think that's because most fans see their hero's once or twice in their lives and all that matters when you are at such a concert is: IT'S FUCKING GREAT TO SEE YOUR FAVOURITE BAND LIVE!!! I sung all the songs and i had a great evening. my advice when you go to see a show: ENJOY!
what a stupid topic.
Did Queen's setlist suck? Hmmm,
sold out earls court, hammersmith odeon, the rainbow, madison square gardens, maple leaf gardens, the reunion arena, wembley stadium, Nepstadion and on and on...
NO, Queen's setlists rocked people...tour after tour. That's why they were considered the biggest live act on the planet.
i hate bands that become too experimental and refuse to play their predictable hits live...like radiohead, what a waste of 80 bucks.
I dunno, maybe some people just totally lack the ability to recognize good entertainment. I definately would NOT like to see a queen show where they only played b-sides and stuff that the general audience wouldn't know.
I also hate overly technical bands...wont name names. Who the fuck wants to go and hear something played exactly the same as the record? BORING! If you can play 2 billion notes a second, fine good for you. But you'll never be able to write something as good as "imagine". and stuff like imagine is the stuff that will be remembered.
Did Queen's setlist suck? Hmmm,
sold out earls court, hammersmith odeon, the rainbow, madison square gardens, maple leaf gardens, the reunion arena, wembley stadium, Nepstadion and on and on...
NO, Queen's setlists rocked people...tour after tour. That's why they were considered the biggest live act on the planet.
i hate bands that become too experimental and refuse to play their predictable hits live...like radiohead, what a waste of 80 bucks.
I dunno, maybe some people just totally lack the ability to recognize good entertainment. I definately would NOT like to see a queen show where they only played b-sides and stuff that the general audience wouldn't know.
I also hate overly technical bands...wont name names. Who the fuck wants to go and hear something played exactly the same as the record? BORING! If you can play 2 billion notes a second, fine good for you. But you'll never be able to write something as good as "imagine". and stuff like imagine is the stuff that will be remembered.
"I dunno, maybe some people just totally lack the ability to recognize good entertainment."
I agree.
Of course, my definition of good entertainment seems to be different than yours, as I consider a changing set-list and rare songs live as good entertainment.
I agree.
Of course, my definition of good entertainment seems to be different than yours, as I consider a changing set-list and rare songs live as good entertainment.
yes- but not all rare songs. that's my point.
Who said about ALL RARE songs...?
It would be really, really nice to hear in Queen case suddenly sth like "White Man" in 1986- out of the blue sky, without any reason... Again- that would mean practice... That would be sth for old, loyal fans- not absolutely everything for the ones who just recently got "Greatest Hits"...
It would be really, really nice to hear in Queen case suddenly sth like "White Man" in 1986- out of the blue sky, without any reason... Again- that would mean practice... That would be sth for old, loyal fans- not absolutely everything for the ones who just recently got "Greatest Hits"...
I agree with you Mr Gumby.
In their last 2 tours, Queen's concerts just seemed SO commercialized. I don't know if I can explain it, but do you guys know what I mean?
In their last 2 tours, Queen's concerts just seemed SO commercialized. I don't know if I can explain it, but do you guys know what I mean?