It's pretty shit that they don't give other bands the chances they were afforded by Mott, Rush, Sabbath etc. OK so the stage is technical but there are ways round that.
Also the weird pseudo techno jazz crap that's played as a build up is boring. Why not get us going with some Stones, GNR, Nirvana, Killers etc?
Rush stopped touring with a support in the late 80's early 90's but even before that they did some tours that without. Pink Floyd from the early 70's on never had a support. Up until 77 Queen did, but for both NOTW and Jazz/Crazy tour they didn't. Production design didn't allow it. Led Zeppelin, ELO, ELP and Fleetwood Mac often toured/tour with no support, Roger Waters tours with out too.
In all these cases it leaves for a longer show time. Also it's much easier on the crew if there isn't a mad rush to clear the stage of other artists gear and in some cases re set the headliners equipment and run line checks.
It also allows for an atmosphere to be created specific to the artist. As for your question about the build up, why play what almost everyone else plays. The "pseudo techno jazz crap" works quite well it's different. In the 70's they used classical music.
Queen only played support to Bands who played theatre sized venues and in fact gave several bands the chance to play before much bigger venues then they themselves played on their way up. The Game, Hot Space, The Works and Magic tour all had support bands some very well known, others new to the business
Vocal harmony wrote:
Rush stopped touring with a support in the late 80's early 90's but even before that they did some tours that without. Pink Floyd from the early 70's on never had a support. Up until 77 Queen did, but for both NOTW and Jazz/Crazy tour they didn't. Production design didn't allow it. Led Zeppelin, ELO, ELP and Fleetwood Mac often toured/tour with no support, Roger Waters tours with out too.
In all these cases it leaves for a longer show time. Also it's much easier on the crew if there isn't a mad rush to clear the stage of other artists gear and in some cases re set the headliners equipment and run line checks.
It also allows for an atmosphere to be created specific to the artist. As for your question about the build up, why play what almost everyone else plays. The "pseudo techno jazz crap" works quite well it's different. In the 70's they used classical music.
Queen only played support to Bands who played theatre sized venues and in fact gave several bands the chance to play before much bigger venues then they themselves played on their way up. The Game, Hot Space, The Works and Magic tour all had support bands some very well known, others new to the business
Clearly I don't agree about the build up music, it's mediocre and doesn't create an atmosphere.
LOTV wrote:
I suspect you think Queen can do no wrong and Bri's totally unfounded view on drinking Milk is also gospel?
Not sure of your assessment of someone you don't know's thinking or belief.
I have been critical of a number of things Queen have done and have never claimed they can do no wrong.
I am also aware of different points of view on any subject. However it would seem that you are incapable of a rational judgment and assign something you don't like as rubbish or failing.
Your post about Queen's lack,of a support band and the use of an atmos piece as a live build up failed to take a broad view point. Are there thousands of people leaving shows than posting that the intro/ build up is rubbish? No
Have Queen had a number of support bands on past tours? Yes. Are they the only band to present a show with no support? No