Queen Set Lists: Do they suck?

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...

"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.

"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

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 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!!!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Stephan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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!!![/QUOTE]

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.

"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.

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"...

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?"

Yeah, I do... but people tend to whine about the later setlists because they only included hit songs. Okay, so let's pick out the non-top 20 songs (not including covers, of course) played on the Works and/or Magic tours:

Keep Yourself Alive
Liar
Stone Cold Crazy
Great King Gat
Brighton Rock
One Vision (?)
Tie Your Mother Down
In The Lap Of The Gods... Revisited
Seven Seas Of Rhye
Tear It Up
Now I'm Here
Love Of My Life (see below)
Is This The World We Created

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of these songs were big hits (except LOML in Japan). Wow, after compiling this list, I re-realized how many hits Queen had... jeez!

Of course a band is "required" to play their hit songs, if they have them. If a band becomes tired of the hit song, then it's up to them to spice it up to keep it interesting for themselves. But if they don't, and it's your first time seeing the band, then I don't think it will really matter to that person in the audience, will it?

But back to the original point of spicing up the hit songs... Take Zeppelin doing Whole Lotta Love - there aren't two identical versions out of 300 on bootleg.

I think this topic is mostly reserved for people who listen only to Queen bootlegs, and have become bored with the same setlists. If you are one of these people, then maybe it's time to listen to something else.

I think someone in the audience would be very dissappointed if they didn't play BoRhap, Crazy little thing, A Kind of Magic, Under Pressure, Radio Ga Ga, Breakfree, Somebody to Love.

It's only less interesting for the bootleg collectors who can hear the songs as much as they want

Which brings me to another question-- why wasn't "Somebody to Love" played during the Magic Tour?

I know they can't please EVERYONE, but this should have been included instead of "I Want to Break Free". I like the song but I don't like it live.