Why Queen are boring live (in 2017)

I posted this on another thread, but I would have made the setlist like this. I was aiming for something that seems within the realms of possibility. The lack of NOTW material was odd. Also odd is the use of animation from AKOM during the encore break....that and the fact that there is now an animated AKOM style Adam Lambert.

We Will Rock You (slow tease)
We Will Rock You (fast)
Stone Cold Crazy
Fat Bottomed Girls
Killer Queen
Don't Stop Me Now
Bicycle Race (full song)
Fight From the Inside
Get Down Make Love (full song)
I Want It All
Love Of My Life
Sleeping on the Sidewalk
Somebody to Love
Crazy Little Thing Called Love
Under Pressure
Ghost Town (I'm trying to be nice and leave Adam a song - Two Fux is just horrible)
Who Wants to Live Forever
Days of Our Lives
Guitar Solo
It's Late
Tie Your Mother Down
Bohemian Rhapsody
---
Spread Your Wings
WWRY
WATC

Some great posts here.
I guess for my 2 penneth I am amazed that some tracks are still getting played at all.
Here's a few of the less controversial ones that never get removed or are just lame
That old favourite(?) Fat Bottomed Girls .

Quite frankly unpleasant
Yet we continue to have it wheeled out.
Is it 'one for the lads' Brian?
Well it aint for this fucking lad. Get practicing some better Queen material than that pile

Get Down Make Love. Jesus what next Body Language>> Its too close to the guitar solo in the set as well
Hammer to Fall - mediocre mid tempo 80's rock bore fest. You have 50 'rock tracks in your canon better that this
Get rid and get WWRY fast or KYA back in

Killer Queen
Now I love KQ and if you don't you don't love Queen. End of.
My issue is its shit live. Always was. I know I saw em every tour from 79 onward. Time to go and drop in Lily of the Valley or Nevermore

Bicycle Race. Deary me. Don't even go there

Its Late has to be played. Bring back TYMD drop IWIA. Been in too long now and isn't great other than the middle eight.

Now where's Headlong? Played live before by Dr May - good 'connecting ' song and also on GH2 for all the folks that apparently in 40 years cant find their way to a record store to buy anything else.

IWTBF - Horrible. live and studio.
Shove in You Don't fool me instead. OR DOOL

Now there is nothing there that's too alarming but makes for a damn site better set list

AND FINALLY FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Most , yes most , people at these gigs in Europe I will bet , like me, have seen them before at least once on previous tours or on this tour.
Just might be that they would like to hear something different for their hard earned money .
Rant over..

My two cents, for what it's worth, is that the entire show is meticulously planned and rehearsed to a fine detail.
This, of course, is a wonderful thing that they have that dedication to the full show that they can do this. By all this, I mean that at most moments of the show, if you see them on the same tour more than once, you'll notice that they start songs at certain places on the stage, finish at certain places, and are in certain places at key moments during songs. This is for certain lighting effects or video screen effects or lasers, ect, to be most effective and emotive, so I totally get that.

Thing is, it can be seen as a kind of choreography, which is also kind of the antithesis of old school rock and more in the realm of modern day pop (where 'singers' perform dance routines for 2hrs with 20 other dancers, and the singing is lip-synched).

Before I finish my point, I have to say that I freakin' LOVE seeing Queen live, and have seen them 11 times in 4 countries (England, Australia, Thailand, and Canada) between London 2012 and Edmonton 2017 (with a further 8 more gigs booked for the Australian tour in early 2018). I wouldn't spend nearly everything I've saved and put my mortgage situation on shaky ground on a few occasions if I didn't truly love seeing them perform live. Thusly what I'm saying here isn't a complaint on their shows or the meticulous precision in which they deliver them.

That said, my favourite ever gigs of theirs that I have been to were the two Hammersmith (London) gigs in 2012. They were pretty much all about the music and little to do with effects or visuals. Yes, they did have the odd flame-thrower, jet blast, firework, and Brian did have the GoPro on the end of his guitar for one song, but the rest of the show was more raw and free for them to do what they wanted. Of course the set list was decided before the show, but the guys weren't tied down to being in certain places at certain points of the show ... and in hindsight, having seen them another 9 times since (and in much more choreographed gigs!), it was much more enjoyable.

To get this into a little perspective perhaps we ought to give a little thought to the question... can you honestly say that any band who you saw perform in the 80's/90's that are still performing today still be considered as exciting ?

I have seen among other possibly lesser known artists that are also still performing, The Rolling Stones, Yes, Alice Cooper, The Who, Genesis, The Police, AC/DC in the 80's/90's and again more recently and all lacked that little something, would i say they are boring ...far from it, but i had to learn to accept them all in a different type of format with a different level of expectation based on a number of various changes, i.e age, line up, lack of new material ect ect.

Nothing will ever compete with these bands at their height and power live, i am just thankful that i have the choice to still witness some of these bands in a live format if i so desire.

[JLP]

To get this into a little perspective perhaps we ought to give a little thought to the question... can you honestly say that any band who you saw perform in the 80's/90's that are still performing today still be considered as exciting ?

I have seen among other possibly lesser known artists that are also still performing, The Rolling Stones, Yes, Alice Cooper, The Who, Genesis, The Police, AC/DC in the 80's/90's and again more recently and all lacked that little something, would i say they are boring ...far from it, but i had to learn to accept them all in a different type of format with a different level of expectation based on a number of various changes, i.e age, line up, lack of new material ect ect.

Nothing will ever compete with these bands at their height and power live, i am just thankful that i have the choice to still witness some of these bands in a live format if i so desire.

I said elsewhere that once a band becomes a brand they end up playing to the masses rather than the fans. That is what the likes of the Stones, U2, Queen and so on end up doing.

Status Quo did that and then, in 2012-13, the original line up reformed and played all the great early stuff. I saw that show at Wembley and it was great. Of course Queen cannot do that but other bands mix it up. I think you mentioned Thunder recently. I have seen them around 15 times and there are only two songs more or less certain to be played so you never know what you are getting. When they tour I never look at set lists before I go to a going because I want to be surprised and usually are. That is what I part with my cash for and why, amongst other reasons, I would not go see QAL.

Exactly and i agree with you. I think people have to understand and accept what they are getting now with these 'branded' bands and decide if its worth parting with their hard earned money. This time round i have decided against attending any of these shows for a number of reasons. Not that i am against them or the whole Queen + thing in anyway and hope everyone enjoys themselves.
All the bands i mentioned above are slowing down or are very much same set list orientated and are perhaps a greatest hits show.

I have seen Thunder live a few times and they are fantastic very much value for money

My two cents, for what it's worth, is that the entire show is meticulously planned and rehearsed to a fine detail.
This, of course, is a wonderful thing that they have that dedication to the full show that they can do this. By all this, I mean that at most moments of the show, if you see them on the same tour more than once, you'll notice that they start songs at certain places on the stage, finish at certain places, and are in certain places at key moments during songs. This is for certain lighting effects or video screen effects or lasers, ect, to be most effective and emotive, so I totally get that.

Thing is, it can be seen as a kind of choreography, which is also kind of the antithesis of old school rock and more in the realm of modern day pop (where 'singers' perform dance routines for 2hrs with 20 other dancers, and the singing is lip-synched).

Before I finish my point, I have to say that I freakin' LOVE seeing Queen live, and have seen them 11 times in 4 countries (England, Australia, Thailand, and Canada) between London 2012 and Edmonton 2017 (with a further 8 more gigs booked for the Australian tour in early 2018). I wouldn't spend nearly everything I've saved and put my mortgage situation on shaky ground on a few occasions if I didn't truly love seeing them perform live. Thusly what I'm saying here isn't a complaint on their shows or the meticulous precision in which they deliver them.

That said, my favourite ever gigs of theirs that I have been to were the two Hammersmith (London) gigs in 2012. They were pretty much all about the music and little to do with effects or visuals. Yes, they did have the odd flame-thrower, jet blast, firework, and Brian did have the GoPro on the end of his guitar for one song, but the rest of the show was more raw and free for them to do what they wanted. Of course the set list was decided before the show, but the guys weren't tied down to being in certain places at certain points of the show ... and in hindsight, having seen them another 9 times since (and in much more choreographed gigs!), it was much more enjoyable.

You could take any Queen show going right the way back to the Rainbow74 and even before that. The show was always very rehearsed and planned, that is what gave Queen the edge of some of their contemporaries. In fact if you listen to old live gig recordings Freddie would say almost exactly the same thing at the same point from gig to gig. This is also evident on the Magic tour. . .

The fact is you can't play to big audiences on big stages with big productions and not be rehearsed and have the show mapped out, it's not just the band but, sound, lighting, video SFX guys and the bands personal crew members all have to know what's coming next.

Van Halen and The Stones were masters at making things look, feel and sound like they were on the hoof. Rush were a band who were rehearsed to the limit but how many people would level the criticism that they were too rehearsed?

If you look at other acts who play arenas or stadiums they all play heavily planned shows. Muse, Foo Fighters, AC/DC, Guns N'Roses, The Stones, Lady GaGa, the list goes on and Queen are no different, they are working in an industry in which there are standard ways of working and achieving things, yes we all like to think we are at the cutting edge but as an industry the cutting edge became the excepted way of working long ago. Yes there are bands who still play new music, and who present visually exciting shows but whether you are Nine Inch Nails or Beyoncé the machinery that makes the shows work is the same. Live music on this scale is an industry, the days of Hendrix standing on a small stage in front of 200 thousand people and deciding what key the ensuing jam is going to be in are over.

Your view of the Hammersmith 2012 shows is interesting, saying it was more about the music,if you step back from the excitement of seeing them in a relatively small venue where there is no great distance from the stage to the back row. They had a huge mobile Lighting rig made up of six blocks of Martin Macs that could change focus and colour, width wise it was as big as you could use in that venue, a large video, mofay (crowd blinders under all the risers) smoke, and pyro. To say the show wasn't about effect and more about raw music, I think, is wide of the mark. In true Queen tradition they took the biggest (Queen like) show they could into that venue at the time.

My two cents, for what it's worth, is that the entire show is meticulously planned and rehearsed to a fine detail.
This, of course, is a wonderful thing that they have that dedication to the full show that they can do this. By all this, I mean that at most moments of the show, if you see them on the same tour more than once, you'll notice that they start songs at certain places on the stage, finish at certain places, and are in certain places at key moments during songs. This is for certain lighting effects or video screen effects or lasers, ect, to be most effective and emotive, so I totally get that.

Thing is, it can be seen as a kind of choreography, which is also kind of the antithesis of old school rock and more in the realm of modern day pop (where 'singers' perform dance routines for 2hrs with 20 other dancers, and the singing is lip-synched).

Before I finish my point, I have to say that I freakin' LOVE seeing Queen live, and have seen them 11 times in 4 countries (England, Australia, Thailand, and Canada) between London 2012 and Edmonton 2017 (with a further 8 more gigs booked for the Australian tour in early 2018). I wouldn't spend nearly everything I've saved and put my mortgage situation on shaky ground on a few occasions if I didn't truly love seeing them perform live. Thusly what I'm saying here isn't a complaint on their shows or the meticulous precision in which they deliver them.

That said, my favourite ever gigs of theirs that I have been to were the two Hammersmith (London) gigs in 2012. They were pretty much all about the music and little to do with effects or visuals. Yes, they did have the odd flame-thrower, jet blast, firework, and Brian did have the GoPro on the end of his guitar for one song, but the rest of the show was more raw and free for them to do what they wanted. Of course the set list was decided before the show, but the guys weren't tied down to being in certain places at certain points of the show ... and in hindsight, having seen them another 9 times since (and in much more choreographed gigs!), it was much more enjoyable.

You could take any Queen show going right the way back to the Rainbow74 and even before that. The show was always very rehearsed and planned, that is what gave Queen the edge of some of their contemporaries. In fact if you listen to old live gig recordings Freddie would say almost exactly the same thing at the same point from gig to gig. This is also evident on the Magic tour. . .

The fact is you can't play to big audiences on big stages with big productions and not be rehearsed and have the show mapped out, it's not just the band but, sound, lighting, video SFX guys and the bands personal crew members all have to know what's coming next.

Van Halen and The Stones were masters at making things look, feel and sound like they were on the hoof. Rush were a band who were rehearsed to the limit but how many people would level the criticism that they were too rehearsed?

If you look at other acts who play arenas or stadiums they all play heavily planned shows. Muse, Foo Fighters, AC/DC, Guns N'Roses, The Stones, Lady GaGa, the list goes on and Queen are no different, they are working in an industry in which there are standard ways of working and achieving things, yes we all like to think we are at the cutting edge but as an industry the cutting edge became the excepted way of working long ago. Yes there are bands who still play new music, and who present visually exciting shows but whether you are Nine Inch Nails or Beyoncé the machinery that makes the shows work is the same. Live music on this scale is an industry, the days of Hendrix standing on a small stage in front of 200 thousand people and deciding what key the ensuing jam is going to be in are over.

Your view of the Hammersmith 2012 shows is interesting, saying it was more about the music,if you step back from the excitement of seeing them in a relatively small venue where there is no great distance from the stage to the back row. They had a huge mobile Lighting rig made up of six blocks of Martin Macs that could change focus and colour, width wise it was as big as you could use in that venue, a large video, mofay (crowd blinders under all the risers) smoke, and pyro. To say the show wasn't about effect and more about raw music, I think, is wide of the mark. In true Queen tradition they took the biggest (Queen like) show they could into that venue at the time.

And I may add that it was the first time you saw them with Lambert. There is a distillation of what you enjoy that occurs over time.
Most people enjoyed the first QPR tour more than the second.(I know I was) This is in part due to revelling in Queen in some form being back on stage. I think it will be the same for a lot of people with QAL. The appeal wanes because it isn't the original band- either from the outset or during the relationship. Obviously over exposure of the spectacle nowadays doesn't help anyone but I will wager that a third tour would struggle to be justified at this kind of capacity.
That is in part why there is a craving for different tracks to be played. We are just not as enthused by the whole thing as we might think.
I absolutely agree with the well honed set argument and it is key to some extent. I think however that some the set changes rather than new additions have been for the worse not the better.

[JLP]

It could be worse. They could do a Vegas residency.

Oh! Jesus take the wheel.I never thought of that! Thanks for giving me nightmares

It could be worse. They could do a Vegas residency.

I think that very well could happen!

I would be surprised if a Las Vegas residency or other kind of show would happen. I don't think Queen is big in that market. Attendance at the last show was somewhat weak, Q. Ex. a few years ago was not too strong, and the well received Q+AL show at the I-Heart music festival the night when Queen was the closer saw about 20-30% of the audience get up and leave after Katy Perry finished and before Queen played the first note.

Sad, because I live near Vegas. It is not the right demographic.

I know we're fans and I understand that we love them (well, sometimes), but shouldn't we get some perspective here? Queen were a 70's band and they are of little importance nowadays. I expect most people go out of pure nostalgia and for a night out, not because of any real love for the band. They sure as hell don't analyse setlists and the like! They probably only go because the wife said 'oh look, it's that camp bloke who came 2nd on Idol, shall we go?'

Vegas? Never! Well, Lambert belongs there, but the WWRY show was a disaster in Vegas.

I know we're fans and I understand that we love them (well, sometimes), but shouldn't we get some perspective here? Queen were a 70's band and they are of little importance nowadays. I expect most people go out of pure nostalgia and for a night out, not because of any real love for the band. They sure as hell don't analyse setlists and the like! They probably only go because the wife said 'oh look, it's that camp bloke who came 2nd on Idol, shall we go?'

Vegas? Never! Well, Lambert belongs there, but the WWRY show was a disaster in Vegas.

I think you are one of the only people I know who think that Queen were just 'a 70's band and they are of little importance nowadays'; Queen, in many music fans eyes, are nearly up there with The Beatles (in fact, ask most youngsters today about both band's music and you will find that Queen are far more well known) in the sense that they are a legendary, timeless, pioneering band whose music is still loved and adored - and played - around the globe.

I think the sight of Lambert sitting on Frank's head has made you go a bit funny, fd.

I think you are one of the only people I know who think that Queen were just 'a 70's band and they are of little importance nowadays'; Queen, in many music fans eyes, are nearly up there with The Beatles (in fact, ask most youngsters today about both band's music and you will find that Queen are far more well known) in the sense that they are a legendary, timeless, pioneering band whose music is still loved and adored - and played - around the globe.

I think the sight of Lambert sitting on Frank's head has made you go a bit funny, fd.

KIller Queen, Bo Rhap, STL, WWRY, WATC, CLTCL...all 70's, the very songs that most people associate with 'Queen'. No one ever talks about Play the Game, Save Me, Scandal and the like, do they? That's not to say that they didn't have influence in the 80's and even 90's, but their heyday was clearly the 70's. I class myself as quite a Queen fan, even now after all of these years of nonsense on QOL, but there is no way that they are in the same category as The Beatles. Can anyone imagine Paul and Ringo going on tour with Adam fucking Lambert? No, they are far too special for that.