Sebastian 02.04.2015 11:35 |
For these stats I’m not counting mimed performances, events where they only played one or two songs, but I am counting the Wembley after-party (it was a private concert, but a concert nonetheless), festivals (Rock in Rio, Live Aid, Sunbury). Queen played a total of 707 concerts in 30 different countries. I’m counting Croatia and Slovenia as one country as in those days they were both part of Yugoslavia. I’m counting the home nations separately, as they’re different countries (remember Roger’s lyrics, ‘the kingdom’s not united, just a complicated mess’). Though technically not a ‘country’, I’m also counting Mann separately, as it’s technically part of neither England nor Scotland nor Wales. Anyway, the band played: 247 concerts in the States (over 1/3 of their tally). 181 concerts in England (a fourth of their tally). 54 in West Germany. 50 in Japan. 24 in Canada. 17 in Australia and Scotland. 15 in France. 13 in Belgium and Netherlands. 9 in Bophuthatswana. 8 in Sweden, Spain and Switzerland (three S’s). 7 in Austria. 5 in Wales and Argentina. 4 in Brazil and the Republic of Ireland. 3 in Mexico and Venezuela (which are in different continents, by the way). 2 in Denmark, Italy and Yugoslavia. 1 in Finland, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Luxembourg and the Isle of Man. Now, continent-wise: 344 in Europe (over half of which were in England). 274 in North America (90% in the US, 8.76% in Canada, 1.09% in Mexico). 50 in Asia (all of them in Japan). 18 in Oceania (94.44% in Australia). 12 in South America. 9 in Africa (all of them in Bophuthatswana). Their concert years by number of gigs played in descending order: 88 gigs in 1977. 73 gigs in 1975. 71 gigs in 1974. 69 gigs in 1982. 64 gigs in 1979. 61 gigs in 1980. 56 gigs in 1976. 55 gigs in 1978. 38 gigs in 1973. 32 gigs in 1984. 27 gigs in 1986. 20 gigs in both 1971 and 1981. 17 gigs in 1985. 13 gigs in 1970. 5 gigs in 1972. Interestingly, the amount of concerts they played in 1973 was exactly the same as from 1970 to 1972. Now, some milestones: Concert No 100 was also their first gig in the States (16th April 1974 in Denver). Concert No 200 on 19th November 1975 in Cardiff. Concert No 300 on 20th February 1977 in Lakeland, Florida. Concert No 400 on 23rd November 1978 (Thanksgiving) in St Louis, Missouri. Concert No 500 on 14th August 1980 in Greensboro, NC. Concert No 600 on 2nd August 1982 in Toronto. Concert No 700 on 21st July 1986 in Vienna. |
cmsdrums 02.04.2015 14:24 |
'Shamefully, I didn't realise Mexico and Venezuela were on separate continents - as they say, you learn something new every day!! Nice stats Seb, and presented in an easy to read and grasp format. Interesting to see that the U.S. was their most prolific touring country, ehixh shows the hard graft put in there. |
Ivo-1976 02.04.2015 15:55 |
9 in Bophuthatswana. Wut? |
Nitroboy 02.04.2015 16:15 |
Ivo-1976 wrote: 9 in Bophuthatswana. Wut? Sun City |
BETA215 02.04.2015 16:30 |
América is a continent. South America, North America and Central America are parts of América. |
musicland munich 02.04.2015 19:42 |
Hi Sebastian, out of sheer curiosity...did you count the gig on 7 December 1974 ? I was wondering because of the different indications on various pages, some label that gig as a "SIEGEN" gig, some as a "SINGEN" gig and some didn't even mention it. |
*goodco* 02.04.2015 21:33 |
BETA215 wrote: América is a continent. South America, North America and Central America are parts of América.It all depends on where you were taught geography (which I didn't know until your post). I never gave a thought as to totals for countries, so thanks for breaking it all down. The amount of shows in the States jump out, just for the fact that their last gig here was at The LA Forum in '82. |
BradF 02.04.2015 22:10 |
|
BradF 02.04.2015 22:11 |
North America is a continent, which includes Canada, the United States, and Central America (where Mexico resides). Then there is South America. |
Sebastian 02.04.2015 22:33 |
Actually, Central America does not include Mexico, but North America does. North America and South America are different continents. |
Sebastian 02.04.2015 22:35 |
musicland munich wrote: Hi Sebastian, out of sheer curiosity...did you count the gig on 7 December 1974 ? I was wondering because of the different indications on various pages, some label that gig as a "SIEGEN" gig, some as a "SINGEN" gig and some didn't even mention it.I had no idea about that. Care to elaborate? |
Rami 03.04.2015 04:46 |
Very interesting, thanks a lot! |
thomasquinn 32989 03.04.2015 05:12 |
BETA215 wrote: América is a continent. South America, North America and Central America are parts of América. Until 1881, you were unquestionably right. However, between 1881 and 1914, the Panama Canal was constructed, and since then, America has consisted of two separate continents, North America and South America. |
The King Of Rhye 03.04.2015 09:02 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:But then what about referring to Europe and Asia as separate continents, as is done??? According to that reasoning, there'd be less justification to calling them seperate continents than there'd be for calling NA and SA as such.....and I guess Africa wasn't a separate continent until 1869 either!!BETA215 wrote: América is a continent. South America, North America and Central America are parts of América.Until 1881, you were unquestionably right. However, between 1881 and 1914, the Panama Canal was constructed, and since then, America has consisted of two separate continents, North America and South America. (I now see it is sometimes called "Afro-Eurasia", and some people say there are 4 continents.....I say phooey to all that, I was always taught there's 7, dangit! lol.....but then again, I was always taught there were 9 planets in the solar system!!!! :P) |
Sebastian 03.04.2015 09:56 |
There are obviously many ways to look at it. That's why I made the disclaimer in the beginning about why I separated England, Wales and Scotland but not Croatia and Slovenia or, say, why I didn't consider Catalonia a separate nation. When it comes to continents, the definition is somewhat vague and what we've ended up with is mostly due to conventions and prescription/description more than a strict logical one-dimensional concept. Going to a strictly geographical perspective, even by separating the earth in seven continents (some of which also include plenty of nearby islands), there are quite a few whose mainland still covers more than one (besides Turkey and Russia). A very small part of Panama is technically in South America (i.e., to the south of the canal), but because of the political situation the country's usually considered to be entirely in North America. Similar quibbles could be made about Kazakhstan, Spain and Egypt. It's still not an 'everything counts' situation. Under no definition is Portugal in the Indian subcontinent, just like under no definition is Qatar in the middle of the Iberian peninsula, and under no definition is Mexico in South America. |
thomasquinn 32989 03.04.2015 10:44 |
The King Of Rhye wrote:thomasquinn 32989 wrote:But then what about referring to Europe and Asia as separate continents, as is done??? According to that reasoning, there'd be less justification to calling them seperate continents than there'd be for calling NA and SA as such.....and I guess Africa wasn't a separate continent until 1869 either!! (I now see it is sometimes called "Afro-Eurasia", and some people say there are 4 continents.....I say phooey to all that, I was always taught there's 7, dangit! lol.....but then again, I was always taught there were 9 planets in the solar system!!!! :P)BETA215 wrote: América is a continent. South America, North America and Central America are parts of América.Until 1881, you were unquestionably right. However, between 1881 and 1914, the Panama Canal was constructed, and since then, America has consisted of two separate continents, North America and South America. You are correct, Europe is not technically a continent either - it is a SUBcontinent of the Eurasian continent. The continued teaching of Europe as a continent is little more than a psychological exercise to spare the bruised egos of the European imperialists of the late 19th century and 20th centuries. And indeed, until 1869 Europe, Asia and Africa were also connected by land and thus did not form wholly independent continents. However, the term and the concept of "continent" only came into use in the 16th century, and that is when the Europeans *really* started exploring the world beyond our little subcontinent. It is derived from the latin "terra continens", meaning "continuous/uninterrupted land". The exact boundaries of the continents didn't become completely sure until the arrival of space-based photography of the earth, so the uncertainties geographers had to deal with in the past are, in my opinion, a fair justification of the confusion on the number of continents. The division into seven continents is also fairly arbitrary. I take it you refer to the list of - Africa, America, Antarctica, America, Australia, Europe, Oceania Just a few questions one could ask about that list: why isn't Greenland a separate continent when Australia is? Granted, Australia is bigger, but surely, that is simply a gradual rather than an absolute difference (Greenland is about 30% of the size of Australia)? Or would Australia cease to be a continent when a certain amount of square kilometers of the land have eroded away? Also, why is Oceania one continent? And why isn't Indonesia a continent, or the Philippines? If Europe is a continent, why isn't Arabia? It's a difficult matter, as sadly there are only conventions, not strict formal criteria, but there is an accepted definition, and I would propose to stick strictly to this accepted definition of continents, namely "large, continuous, discrete masses of land". That would present us with the following continents: Eurasia, Africa (Suez Canal), North America, South America (Panama canal), Antarctica, Australia. The 'smaller' landmasses would then be regarded as islands of the major bodies, but that is admittedly still arbitrary. They would include Greenland (N. America), Indonesia/Philippines/Japan (Asia) and Madagascar (Africa). |
musicland munich 03.04.2015 12:43 |
Sebastian wrote:Actually i'am quite interested. But have a look yourself, I did a thread about that subject on QZ. And there was also an discussion on the german Fan board.musicland munich wrote: Hi Sebastian, out of sheer curiosity...did you count the gig on 7 December 1974 ? I was wondering because of the different indications on various pages, some label that gig as a "SIEGEN" gig, some as a "SINGEN" gig and some didn't even mention it.I had no idea about that. Care to elaborate? link |
master marathon runner 03.04.2015 13:43 |
Thank Christ for google. |
The King Of Rhye 03.04.2015 14:56 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: It's a difficult matter, as sadly there are only conventions, not strict formal criteria, but there is an accepted definition, and I would propose to stick strictly to this accepted definition of continents, namely "large, continuous, discrete masses of land". That would present us with the following continents: Eurasia, Africa (Suez Canal), North America, South America (Panama canal), Antarctica, Australia. The 'smaller' landmasses would then be regarded as islands of the major bodies, but that is admittedly still arbitrary. They would include Greenland (N. America), Indonesia/Philippines/Japan (Asia) and Madagascar (Africa).I dunno........does a relatively small canal make a difference, really? Then I could easily say most of the US east of the Mississippi, has been a continent, or at least an island, since 1848! |
queenfanbg 03.04.2015 15:11 |
btw,Queen never played Yugoslavia |
kosimodo 03.04.2015 15:16 |
And read somewhere queen toured latin america.... |
Sebastian 03.04.2015 16:03 |
queenfanbg wrote: btw,Queen never played YugoslaviaOf course they did, twice. |
Nitroboy 03.04.2015 16:14 |
queenfanbg wrote: btw,Queen never played Yugoslavia Twice in 1979 |
The Real Wizard 03.04.2015 16:48 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The division into seven continents is also fairly arbitrary. I take it you refer to the list of - Africa, America, Antarctica, America, Australia, Europe, OceaniaUmmm, you wrote America twice ! At LAST, after so many years of posting nothing but accuracy here (both cherished and reviled), you have finally made a mistake !!!! |
BETA215 03.04.2015 17:30 |
The Real Wizard wrote:He must be talking about N. America and S. America.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The division into seven continents is also fairly arbitrary. I take it you refer to the list of - Africa, America, Antarctica, America, Australia, Europe, OceaniaUmmm, you wrote America twice ! At LAST, after so many years of posting nothing but accuracy here (both cherished and reviled), you have finally made a mistake !!!! |
Nitroboy 03.04.2015 18:30 |
Australia is part of Oceania? Don't forget Asia ;) |
thomasquinn 32989 04.04.2015 09:05 |
The Real Wizard wrote:thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The division into seven continents is also fairly arbitrary. I take it you refer to the list of - Africa, America, Antarctica, America, Australia, Europe, OceaniaUmmm, you wrote America twice ! At LAST, after so many years of posting nothing but accuracy here (both cherished and reviled), you have finally made a mistake !!!! Yes, you're right, I made a silly mistake. The second America is meant to say Asia. I didn't have them in alphabetical order at first, and I messed up while moving them into order. Sorry. I have been wrong before, though. Not often, but I have ;-P |
Queenman!! 04.04.2015 13:03 |
You forgot Urk 1983. ;-) |
Annette 04.04.2015 16:18 |
Sebastian , thanks a lot for the stats. I knew Germany was one of the biggest markets for Queen, but I never realised they were this popular. How many gigs would have been in Germany if it was possible in the eastern parts? The poor guys who lived there weren't even allowed to buy the records. |
musicland munich 04.04.2015 16:49 |
Annette wrote: Sebastian , thanks a lot for the stats. I knew Germany was one of the biggest markets for Queen, but I never realised they were this popular. How many gigs would have been in Germany if it was possible in the eastern parts? The poor guys who lived there weren't even allowed to buy the records.Actually that's not true...well with a bit of variations...there were albums on a GDR label called "AMIGA". Queen also allowed to have articles in a east german youth magazines. |
BETA215 04.04.2015 18:48 |
You forgot Uruguay 1983! |
Sebastian 04.04.2015 19:22 |
BETA215 wrote: You forgot Uruguay 1983!That concert never took place, that's why I'm not counting it, and plenty others. |
Planetgurl 05.04.2015 05:23 |
Sebastian, didn't know if this includes the Shaftesbury Hall, London gig from December 7th 1973 - this didn't happen as no London venue called this ever existed. I did a lot of research a few years ago - there was a Shaftesbury Hall in Cheltenham, part of a college, long ago sold off for redevelopment. The Cheltenham gig was the night before (6th December), so this was the Shaftesbury Hall gig at St. Georges Place, Cheltenham. All research sent to GT and GB and much correspondence about this at the time of the SIS exhibition. The result is that there was probably not a gig on the night of 7th December. |
Sebastian 05.04.2015 08:06 |
This suggests it did take place: link Maybe the 6th of December one is the one that never existed? Of course, there's also the chance that the concert was scheduled but didn't take place (as Uruguay). The plot thickens. |
Annette 05.04.2015 08:25 |
Thanks, musicland ("bit of variation" is charming, :-)). I didn't know about the AMIGA-label. I thought, Queen was as unwelcome to the authorities in GDR as lots of other rock bands from the western hemisphere too. |
Sebastian 05.04.2015 09:21 |
Annette wrote: In East-Germany and the rest of east Europe wasn't even one concert (except Hungary).Not really... they played in Yugoslavia twice, so Budapest was actually their third concert in the Iron Curtain. Queen also played six concerts in West Berlin, which was politically part of Western Europe, but not geographically. Plans to play in the USSR were eventually shelved, which is a shame but then again, hindsight is 20/20. Maybe they thought they'd have another chance but never did. It's also quite illustrating that, at the time, territories included in Asian and South American legs were the obvious ones: Japan, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. The latter one might seem surprising in retrospect but back in those days it did make a lot of sense considering they had a bit of a boost in their financial situation during the time the Middle-Eastern nations blocked transactions with the States. It eventually backfired and sent Venezuela into an even bigger crisis than before but, while they could enjoy it, they had quite a few major acts before Queen: The Police, Jackson Five, Peter Frampton, Donna Summer, Barry White... For a comparison, 1D's current tour includes six Asian countries Queen never played in (I mean Queen, not Queen + Bieber or whoever), and they're also coming to Wales (a country Queen all but forgot about after 1976). They're also performing (as a quartet, mind) in Belfast, four times. Their previous tour ('Where We Are') included four South American countries Queen never went to as well as a Western European one (Portugal). Of course, nowadays it's easier because of globalisation and whatever, and it could be argued that without several acts breaking new grounds in the 60's, 70's and 80's none of this would be happening at the moment. Queen were part of that movement, but not by any means the only ones. Elton John, for instance, had played in Budapest before Queen. He'd also visited (in 1984) other countries in Eastern Europe, namely Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, two of which Queen never played in... and he also went to China and Northern Ireland, two other nations where Queen never played. He also went to Sun City before Queen. The Police went in 1980 to a few places Queen hadn't visited, and some of which they would never tour. Police went to Asia (India), North America (Mexico), Oceania (New Zealand), Europe (Portugal) and South America (Argentina). In 1982 they went to Chile, then in 1983 to Poland, and they went to Italy before Queen did. U2 went to New Zealand before Queen did, and they went to Czechoslovakia in 1984 and 1985. |
thomasquinn 32989 06.04.2015 06:18 |
Technically, Yugoslavia wasn't "behind the Iron Curtain". It sailed a hard-fought independent course and maintained fairly good relations with both east and west. In fact, as far as I am aware it was the only part of Europe that saw tourists from both east and west. |
Sebastian 06.04.2015 08:08 |
That certainly explains why so many acts went there. |
Planetgurl 07.04.2015 07:26 |
Sebastian wrote: This suggests it did take place: link Maybe the 6th of December one is the one that never existed? Of course, there's also the chance that the concert was scheduled but didn't take place (as Uruguay). The plot thickens.Yes the one in Cheltenham did - at Shaftesbury Hall - so that was on the 7th then. London date would be then at an unknown venue or perhaps never took place. |
Sebastian 08.04.2015 10:11 |
Countries Queen played concerts in, by year, not counting mimed performances: 1970 - 1972: Only England. Not Britain, Albion, GB or the UK, just England. 1973: England, West Germany, Luxembourg, Scotland and Wales. 1974: Australia, England, Scotland, Mann, Wales, America, Sweden, Finland, West Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. 1975: America, Canada, Japan, England, Wales, Scotland. 1976: America, Japan, Australia, Wales, Scotland, England. 1977: America, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, West Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Scotland, England. 1978: Sweden, Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Austria, England, America, Canada. 1979: West Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Spain, France, Japan, Ireland, England, Scotland. 1980: Canada, America, Switzerland, France, West Germany, England, Belgium, Netherlands. 1981: Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada. 1982: Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, West Germany, Austria, Scotland, England, Canada, America, Japan. 1984: Belgium, Ireland, England, West Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Bophuthatswana. 1985: Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, England (Live Aid). 1986: Sweden, Netherlands, France, Belgium, West Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, England, Austria, Hungary, Spain. That translates to these figures: 1982: 13. 1974: 12. 1978, 1979, 1986: 11. 1977, 1984: 9. 1980: 8. 1975, 1976, 1981: 6. 1973, 1985: 5. 1970, 1971, 1972: 1. New (to Queen) countries first visited each year: 1970: England (duh!). 1973: West Germany, Luxembourg, Scotland, Wales. 1974: Australia, Mann, America, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. 1975: Canada, Japan. 1977: Denmark, Switzerland. 1978: France, Austria. 1979: Yugoslavia, Ireland. 1981: Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico. 1982: Norway. 1984: Italy, Bophuthatswana. 1985: New Zealand. 1986: Hungary. |
Sebastian 08.04.2015 10:16 |
All their touring years (1970-1982 and 1984-1986) included at least one performance in England, except for 1981. Since they became international (1973), they always visited: * America, except in 1973, 1979, 1981, 1984-1986. * West Germany, except in 1975-1976, 1981, 1985. * Netherlands, except in 1973, 1975-1976, 1981, 1985. * Canada, except in 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1984-1986. |
Rick 09.04.2015 11:23 |
Sebastian wrote: All their touring years (1970-1982 and 1984-1986) included at least one performance in England, except for 1981. Since they became international (1973), they always visited: * America, except in 1973, 1979, 1981, 1984-1986. * West Germany, except in 1975-1976, 1981, 1985. * Netherlands, except in 1973, 1975-1977, 1981, 1985. * Canada, except in 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1984-1986.They played in Rotterdam, the Netherlands in 1977. |
Sebastian 09.04.2015 12:19 |
You're right. Lists have been corrected accordingly. |
hobbit in Rhye 09.04.2015 12:48 |
Thank you very much for the helpful stats, Sebastian! I previously heard somewhere that Queen played around 600 gigs and that number already amazed me. Now they turn out to be over 700, very interesting. Luckily I'm not a collector, there's no way I could collect all these gigs at the final days of my life. The number of gigs they played in USA is huge, it's such a pity that they were not very popular in USA. I wonder did the 247 gigs went into thin air?? |
Sebastian 09.04.2015 14:52 |
I think they were very popular in America. They had two number one singles, a number one album, quite a few top ten hits and did a lot of sold out concerts including some memorable gigs at places like MSG and The Forum. That's already far, far, far more than what 99.99% of aspiring musicians ever achieve. Of course Led Zeppelin, Beatles and some others were more famous/successful/popular than them, but the amount of musicians who were *less* popular than Queen in America is far, far, far, far, far, far, far larger than the amount of musicians who were *more*. |
MackMantilla 09.04.2015 15:32 |
Sebastian wrote: I think they were very popular in America. They had two number one singles, a number one album, quite a few top ten hits and did a lot of sold out concerts including some memorable gigs at places like MSG and The Forum. That's already far, far, far more than what 99.99% of aspiring musicians ever achieve. Of course Led Zeppelin, Beatles and some others were more famous/successful/popular than them, but the amount of musicians who were *less* popular than Queen in America is far, far, far, far, far, far, far larger than the amount of musicians who were *more*.That's right! |
hobbit in Rhye 11.04.2015 13:35 |
Yes but those hit singles and studio albums are from 70s, they have no hits in USA after 1980. Nowadays Queen is not that popular in USA. Every now and then I see some fan popped up and said " I'm not exposed to Queen's music in the States." Sales aside, when I talk with States people, they seem not familiar with the band's name either. Queen had some kind of success there, but I think they would set Led Zeppelin and Beatles' level as their aim. |
Nitroboy 11.04.2015 14:09 |
I wouldn't call them international in 73. I think they really became international in late-75/early-76 |
Sebastian 11.04.2015 16:26 |
Nitroboy wrote: I wouldn't call them international in 73. I think they really became international in late-75/early-76They played concerts outside the UK in 1973, and they headlined a tour which include quite a few European territories in 1974 and then America and Japan in early 1975. That's being international, and that's before late 1975. |
Sebastian 12.04.2015 06:33 |
West Berlin is an interesting case indeed. It was technically not part of West Germany, but an independent city-state in its own right. Should it, then count as a separate territory (as Mann) or should it be thrown in with West Germany? In the 1974 World Cup, three first-round matches were played in West Berlin, and the tournament is still known as having been hosted by West Germany. In fact, West Berlin wasn't a member of the FIFA and it hadn't got its own football team, as far as I know. Anyway, if we regard it as a separate nation (city-state would be the appropriate term), then Japan beats West Germany as Queen's third most toured country, and some of the stats change (e.g., they played in 12 nations in 1978, not 11, and so on). |
Sebastian 12.04.2015 07:32 |
For the sake of argument, if we count West Berlin separately then the countries/dependencies/free-cities they played per year would be: 1982: 14. 1974, 1978, 1979, 1986: 12. 1984: 10 1977, 1980: 9. 1975, 1976, 1981: 6. 1973, 1985: 5. 1970, 1971, 1972: 1. New (to Queen) countries/dependencies/city-states first visited each year: 1970: England (duh!). 1973: West Germany, Luxembourg, Scotland, Wales. 1974: Australia, Mann, America, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. 1975: Canada, Japan. 1977: Denmark, Switzerland. 1978: France, Austria, West Berlin. 1979: Yugoslavia, Ireland. 1981: Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico. 1982: Norway. 1984: Italy, Bophuthatswana. 1985: New Zealand. 1986: Hungary. |
musicland munich 12.04.2015 09:54 |
Correct, if we think in legal terms West-Berlin wasn't a part of West-Germany. Of course at some point it turned into a "Theater of the Absurd" to please the communists behind the iron curtain. Germany itself always claimed Berlin as german territory (Constitution) |
Sebastian 21.11.2016 08:10 |
Bumped. Good times. |
cmsdrums 21.11.2016 10:12 |
hobbit in Rhye wrote: Thank you very much for the helpful stats, Sebastian! I previously heard somewhere that Queen played around 600 gigs and that number already amazed me. Now they turn out to be over 700, very interesting. Luckily I'm not a collector, there's no way I could collect all these gigs at the final days of my life. The number of gigs they played in USA is huge, it's such a pity that they were not very popular in USA. I wonder did the 247 gigs went into thin air??Whilst Queen did play some fairly length tours, they were no means prolific in the number of dates they did - I always thought 600 or so was not a huge amount for a band of their status. I'm sure there may be other bands that beat it, but Bon Jovi that played something like 476 dates just in the 3 and a half years between between July 86 and Feb 90!!! (and around 2,800 or so to date across their career). |
The Real Wizard 21.11.2016 10:54 |
cmsdrums wrote: Whilst Queen did play some fairly length tours, they were no means prolific in the number of dates they did - I always thought 600 or so was not a huge amount for a band of their status. I'm sure there may be other bands that beat it, but Bon Jovi that played something like 476 dates just in the 3 and a half years between between July 86 and Feb 90!!! (and around 2,800 or so to date across their career).Yup - and that's why Jon Bon Jovi lost his voice after 1996. He just can't sing anymore. There's something to be said for moderation. |
cmsdrums 21.11.2016 11:17 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Absolutely (although he he was at his best around 90-93 from Blaze of Glory to Keep the Faith) - he has sounded dreadful for several years now!cmsdrums wrote: Whilst Queen did play some fairly length tours, they were no means prolific in the number of dates they did - I always thought 600 or so was not a huge amount for a band of their status. I'm sure there may be other bands that beat it, but Bon Jovi that played something like 476 dates just in the 3 and a half years between between July 86 and Feb 90!!! (and around 2,800 or so to date across their career).Yup - and that's why Jon Bon Jovi lost his voice after 1996. He just can't sing anymore. There's something to be said for moderation. |
The Real Wizard 21.11.2016 14:52 |
cmsdrums wrote:Spot on.The Real Wizard wrote:Absolutely (although he he was at his best around 90-93 from Blaze of Glory to Keep the Faith) - he has sounded dreadful for several years now!cmsdrums wrote: Whilst Queen did play some fairly length tours, they were no means prolific in the number of dates they did - I always thought 600 or so was not a huge amount for a band of their status. I'm sure there may be other bands that beat it, but Bon Jovi that played something like 476 dates just in the 3 and a half years between between July 86 and Feb 90!!! (and around 2,800 or so to date across their career).Yup - and that's why Jon Bon Jovi lost his voice after 1996. He just can't sing anymore. There's something to be said for moderation. He's excellent on the Yokohama 96 video too. Well worth checking out on YouTube. |