hotspace1966 wrote: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.
Growing old disgracefully
agkelly wrote: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.
Echoplex wrote:agkelly wrote: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.
Growing old disgracefully
JLP wrote:It could be worse. They could do a Vegas residency.
And the wounded skies above say it's much too late
fairydandy wrote: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.
Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe
musicalprostitute wrote:
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.
Return to Queen + Adam Lambert
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests