Thinking briefly about the tour in it's seperate runs, I notice an odd thing.
Okay, the 1st leg through Europe was a start, the band playing all their spanning hits throughout their career, long shows with lots and lots of Queen. Paul got some Free, a little Bad Company, and slowly worked his way into the band. The shows showed a seperation, Brian and Roger sharing the vocal work with Paul alot, great shows in all with a revolving track list.
The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material.
Okay, what is strange to me was the U.S. tour. It seemed to start off a little rough, some of the weaker shows being played(Philadelphia comes to mind). Despite the intense preparation, they seemed weaker, the list shorter, and only Dragon Attack was new for Queen stuff. Brian fucks up his back, Paul his tendon... in short, they can't change the set list because they are too banged up to rehearse and prepare new stuff.
So this is what surprises me... How did they manage to turn it all around halfway through the tour and play their best shows of the complete tour, their best by far in my opinion? It's hard to put a finger on what changed, but it seems like the 2nd half of the U.S. tour improved so much because of improvement, not so much by Brian, Paul and Roger, but by Jamie Moses, Spike Edney and Danny Miranda. They seemed to blend it all together as one complete band.
Could it be that a future album might include some minor input, if not studio work by those three? I always ignored them before but maybe their input might not be a bad idea.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I think they started to truely believe in what they were doing. It was a big step for Queen to return to America. Think about it:
1. Hadn't toured here in almost 25 odd years.
2. No Freddie.
3. New lead singer.
4. Mixed material.
5. No album to support.
6. Minor promotion.
I think when they first arrived, they realized the enormous task this tour was going to be. And that can be mentally draining.
All it took was a couple of successful shows and some sincere positive reviews not only from journalists, but fans, radio stations and fellow musicians. I think they realized to themselves that "Wait a minute, this is going well!".
Also, I think some of the venues and fans helped (Toronto, Worcester, Detroit) lift them to that 2nd level.
By then, they were warmed up and having a good time (despite the various minor set backs). By the time I saw them in Seattle, they were on fire. And when they hit Vancouver, they were awe-inspiring.
1. Hadn't toured here in almost 25 odd years.
2. No Freddie.
3. New lead singer.
4. Mixed material.
5. No album to support.
6. Minor promotion.
I think when they first arrived, they realized the enormous task this tour was going to be. And that can be mentally draining.
All it took was a couple of successful shows and some sincere positive reviews not only from journalists, but fans, radio stations and fellow musicians. I think they realized to themselves that "Wait a minute, this is going well!".
Also, I think some of the venues and fans helped (Toronto, Worcester, Detroit) lift them to that 2nd level.
By then, they were warmed up and having a good time (despite the various minor set backs). By the time I saw them in Seattle, they were on fire. And when they hit Vancouver, they were awe-inspiring.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AmeriQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thinking briefly about the tour in it's seperate runs, I notice an odd thing.
Okay, the 1st leg through Europe was a start, the band playing all their spanning hits throughout their career, long shows with lots and lots of Queen. Paul got some Free, a little Bad Company, and slowly worked his way into the band. The shows showed a seperation, Brian and Roger sharing the vocal work with Paul alot, great shows in all with a revolving track list.
The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material.
Okay, what is strange to me was the U.S. tour. It seemed to start off a little rough, some of the weaker shows being played(Philadelphia comes to mind). Despite the intense preparation, they seemed weaker, the list shorter, and only Dragon Attack was new for Queen stuff. Brian fucks up his back, Paul his tendon... in short, they can't change the set list because they are too banged up to rehearse and prepare new stuff.
So this is what surprises me... How did they manage to turn it all around halfway through the tour and play their best shows of the complete tour, their best by far in my opinion? It's hard to put a finger on what changed, but it seems like the 2nd half of the U.S. tour improved so much because of improvement, not so much by Brian, Paul and Roger, but by Jamie Moses, Spike Edney and Danny Miranda. They seemed to blend it all together as one complete band.
Could it be that a future album might include some minor input, if not studio work by those three? I always ignored them before but maybe their input might not be a bad idea. [/QUOTE]
I've wondered that too...it's just because their so amazing...lol and all of them together was/is amazing...
And I'd LOVE to see a new album...
Cheers
Okay, the 1st leg through Europe was a start, the band playing all their spanning hits throughout their career, long shows with lots and lots of Queen. Paul got some Free, a little Bad Company, and slowly worked his way into the band. The shows showed a seperation, Brian and Roger sharing the vocal work with Paul alot, great shows in all with a revolving track list.
The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material.
Okay, what is strange to me was the U.S. tour. It seemed to start off a little rough, some of the weaker shows being played(Philadelphia comes to mind). Despite the intense preparation, they seemed weaker, the list shorter, and only Dragon Attack was new for Queen stuff. Brian fucks up his back, Paul his tendon... in short, they can't change the set list because they are too banged up to rehearse and prepare new stuff.
So this is what surprises me... How did they manage to turn it all around halfway through the tour and play their best shows of the complete tour, their best by far in my opinion? It's hard to put a finger on what changed, but it seems like the 2nd half of the U.S. tour improved so much because of improvement, not so much by Brian, Paul and Roger, but by Jamie Moses, Spike Edney and Danny Miranda. They seemed to blend it all together as one complete band.
Could it be that a future album might include some minor input, if not studio work by those three? I always ignored them before but maybe their input might not be a bad idea. [/QUOTE]
I've wondered that too...it's just because their so amazing...lol and all of them together was/is amazing...
And I'd LOVE to see a new album...
Cheers
Just as a side note, when Brian first told the crowd at San Diego that Paul had injured himself the night before I was very surprised, couldn't tell at all throughout the whole show. Paul really is an amazing man.
Paul IS amazing...cheers to him!
Cheers
Heather
Cheers
Heather
Ameriqueen:
"The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material. "
I agree with the best setlist being Japan, but I have to disagree with "little improvement". They were FANTASTIC by that time. Super Live is much better than ROTC, IMHO.
Cheers,
Ogre-
"The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material. "
I agree with the best setlist being Japan, but I have to disagree with "little improvement". They were FANTASTIC by that time. Super Live is much better than ROTC, IMHO.
Cheers,
Ogre-
AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US shows
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stateside fan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US shows[/QUOTE]
You mean the show where Brian broke a string on TYMD, got lost on IILWMC, broke another string during his solo and where the band was overall kind of sloppy?(That's the problem with bootleg video documentation)
I though Toronto and Detroit were strong but it's kind of hard to compare to other shows on the tour since I wasn't there.
I can say that the band improved from recording ROTC to the Super Live in Japan DVD and the 2 shows I saw live were even better.
I hope we'll see one of the closing shows of the North American leg so we can properly measure how they stack up.
You mean the show where Brian broke a string on TYMD, got lost on IILWMC, broke another string during his solo and where the band was overall kind of sloppy?(That's the problem with bootleg video documentation)
I though Toronto and Detroit were strong but it's kind of hard to compare to other shows on the tour since I wasn't there.
I can say that the band improved from recording ROTC to the Super Live in Japan DVD and the 2 shows I saw live were even better.
I hope we'll see one of the closing shows of the North American leg so we can properly measure how they stack up.
San Diego was a million times better than Super Live in Japan and a billion times better than ROTC. The performance was perfect. I don't remember any lyric goof by Mr. Rodgers, not even on Dragon Attack. The show had a great energy and the crowd rocked.
Does anyone that attended San Diego and some other shows think that it was not the better show of the ones he or she attended?? I would be almost shocked to realize it got even better than this, hehe :). Well, maybe if you had nosebleed seats in SD and were by the catwalk in some other show... :S
Wiley
Does anyone that attended San Diego and some other shows think that it was not the better show of the ones he or she attended?? I would be almost shocked to realize it got even better than this, hehe :). Well, maybe if you had nosebleed seats in SD and were by the catwalk in some other show... :S
Wiley
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]teleman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I though Toronto and Detroit were strong but it's kind of hard to compare to other shows on the tour since I wasn't there.[/QUOTE]
I saw six shows and Detroit was simply in another league. The energy from the band and the audience were amazing.
I though Toronto and Detroit were strong but it's kind of hard to compare to other shows on the tour since I wasn't there.[/QUOTE]
I saw six shows and Detroit was simply in another league. The energy from the band and the audience were amazing.
That's how I felt about the San Diego show.
May 2005: Good- I saw seven shows
October 2005: Better- saw the US shows
Mar/April: Best by far--would have like the Japan set list--the tour gained momentum at the Chicago show...Detroit--Wow-- St.Paul--a little less intense...Milwaukee-- WOW the best show...Vancouver!!! Top of their game!! Prior to chicago (with the exception of Worcester and Toronto) still working thing out but it was still better than the UK for the most part with the exception of London which really smelled and Cardiff and Belfast which I think were better than Buff and Cleveland.
October 2005: Better- saw the US shows
Mar/April: Best by far--would have like the Japan set list--the tour gained momentum at the Chicago show...Detroit--Wow-- St.Paul--a little less intense...Milwaukee-- WOW the best show...Vancouver!!! Top of their game!! Prior to chicago (with the exception of Worcester and Toronto) still working thing out but it was still better than the UK for the most part with the exception of London which really smelled and Cardiff and Belfast which I think were better than Buff and Cleveland.
actually Teleman the crowd energy in Philly was awesome,full building and the sounded great.Yes Brian broke a string and they started a verse over on IILWMC..big F'ing deal!!The place was hysterical,the band seemed happy.nuff said
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stateside fan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]actually Teleman the crowd energy in Philly was awesome,full building and the sounded great.Yes Brian broke a string and they started a verse over on IILWMC..big F'ing deal!!The place was hysterical,the band seemed happy.nuff said[/QUOTE]
May have been a great show if you were there.
I've only seen the vid from it and they didn't seem IMHO at their best.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stateside fan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US shows[/QUOTE]
How many shows did you see to make that assessment?
I did see them in Toronto and Detroit and am possibly biased from being there.
I'm glad you enjoyed Philly but in my opinion it was flawed. That's live music.
May have been a great show if you were there.
I've only seen the vid from it and they didn't seem IMHO at their best.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stateside fan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US shows[/QUOTE]
How many shows did you see to make that assessment?
I did see them in Toronto and Detroit and am possibly biased from being there.
I'm glad you enjoyed Philly but in my opinion it was flawed. That's live music.