| Fone Bone 07.03.2006 08:56 |
IMHO the reason why we don't get a rolling setlist even when Bri and Rog promise one is Paul, quite simply. He already had to learn quite a few songs for the regular set,and he is doing a wonderful job by every standard. Yet, he has a history of having trouble remembering the songs and getting them right (WWRY in Fancourt, Bo Rhap rock part, AOBTD), so there's no way Bri and Rog can go "Hey Paul, wanna sing Flick Of The Wrist tonight ?" with him. To do that they would have had to rehearse for weeks and have 40 songs ready, which for some reason they didn't. So spontaneous additions to the show can only come from Bri & Rog alone (much like Long Away,Under Pressure or IWBTLY). But too many songs without Paul would jeopardize the set's balance. The solution is to get Paul interested in older Queen songs and to rehearse them during off days and soundchecks. But is Paul up for it ? I think this tour is a delicate thing as far as egos are concerned, and I don't think Paul wants to appear as Bri and Rog's b****. So maybe we should enjoy this tour as it is (a solid greatest hits set with a very capable singer) and maybe we'll get more fan favorites in future solo tours (if there are any) ? That said,there's no excuse for dropping IWIA ;-P |
| Jjeroen 07.03.2006 09:12 |
Of course it's impossible to just decide to play a random song that night because Paul does not know them. But he can not be 'blamed' for the non-rolling setlist. Besides - Paul does not need to be involved! Some realistic examples: Under Pressure wasn't sung by Paul (though he did sing along in Birmingham) Sleeping on the Sidewalk NEEDS to be sung by Brian. I Want It All, btw, has also been sung by Brian and Roger numbers of times on the EU leg... We are all dying to hear Roger do a song like Tenement Funster which needs no involvement from Paul either... And there are loads of songs more that could easily be sung by Brian and/or Roger and still we get NOT EVEN ONE... One song a night would make a huge difference to the disappointment of the fans in the setlist. I mean, the band can keep the setlist rolling WITHOUT having to depend on Paul and without losing balance. |
| goodco 07.03.2006 09:18 |
I don't understand dropping IWIA at all, either. Trying to be fair, Freddie had his share of missed lyrics, as have Brian and Roger. So I won't be too hard on him in that regard. As to 'new or different' on this tour, Paul doesn't have to be too involved for a little medley of 'Liar', 'Tear It Up' etc, where the boys just jam for a few minutes. A few extra bones tossed our way would be appreciated. As to Paul/Bad Co stuff: why not add 'Movin On'? A big hit, easy lyrics, easy to play, recognizable, and would sound killer with this outfit. Down the road, one can always hope.... |
| Daz85 07.03.2006 09:28 |
Paul didn't sing Under Pressure at all at Birmingham. Brian introduced him back after it for All Right Now. |
| fredhartman 07.03.2006 09:48 |
There are plenty of songs I'd like to hear too. But honestly, I just feel fortunate that they are touring at all. I'm thankful to hear any of the songs and I'm not going to bitch about one or two songs I missed, or Paul's ability to sing or not sing some of the songs. In my eyes, I give Paul huge credit for stepping in and singing the songs with class. He's constantly compared to Freddie everywhere they go. He's not trying to replace or even fill his shoes, but just give the best perfomance on each song that he can, as he knows how. |
| Jjeroen 07.03.2006 09:49 |
Darren Robins wrote: Paul didn't sing Under Pressure at all at Birmingham. Brian introduced him back after it for All Right Now.Paul has joined in in singing UP on one UK date - when UP was played early in the set. I thought it was Birmingham, but if you are sure it was not, I must have confused it with Newcastle... |
| Togg 07.03.2006 09:53 |
Don't forget they also have to rehearse lighting cues etc, a show runs the risk of falling apart if two many things get changed night after night, if you look back Queen stuck mainly to the smae set list during each tour with only small additions here and there. There are certain songs they HAVE to play and that doesn't leave too many holes to be filled, personally I didn't think they would be able to change much from the Euro leg as they have to do the core of the set, people expect it. I think Paul is doing an amazing job, and as someone else pointed out even Fred forgot songs pretty often. |
| Champipple 07.03.2006 10:19 |
Queen has never been a "jam" band. Even the improvisation segment was scheduled on the setlist. With the internet now, people know what a band has played within minutes of the show ending (sometimes even before - u2.com was publishing the complete setlist for shows while the show was still on). This creates an expectation that the band will do something new and unique each night. Like they "owe" it to the people logging in to check the setlist. I trust that Queen+ has rehearsed and developed a setlist to maximize the time they want to play and will only change it to make it better, not for the sake of change. |
| zaiga 07.03.2006 10:22 |
I don't think Paul is really to blame for the non-rolling setlist. Of course, they would really have to rehearse the song, if Paul is to sing it, but I think Paul would be willing to do that. He has said on various occasions that he would like to put more Queen songs into the set (Bri and Rog constantly wanting to play the BC & Free songs). Sure, Paul not being familiar with the songs will limit them somewhat in having a rolling setlist, but surely if they really wanted, they could do that. I think Roger is really up for playing new songs, he is the one who mentioned they would be doing "Now I'm Here" on the outdoor Europe leg, and that they would do a rolling setlist (they sorta did in Japan). Personally, I suspect that it is mostly Brian who is afraid of experimenting too much with the setlist. He called the current US setlist "new and exciting". Two new songs! I mean, come on. Also recall his apologies in Sheffield before performing UP, and how the crowd in Brixton had to persuade him to play '39. |
| radio_what's_new 07.03.2006 10:23 |
If Brian is promissing huge changes in the setlist...then he needs to do this or don't promiss it... |
| Fone Bone 07.03.2006 10:23 |
Agreed : Queen's setlists did vary very little and yes, sometimes Freddie forgot the words. The thing is, I don't wanna sound too dramatic, but this tour might be the last opportunity to bring all these great songs to life on stage, so MAYBE a little more variety and MAYBE a little more work rehearsing might be rewarding for both the band and the audience (then again, nobody asked for a 25 obscure song set, we're talking 2 or 3, we're all glad to hear the cornerstone hits) And as I said before, we can't ask Paul to be a karaoke machine, maybe just involve him more, like : "OK, Paul, we're gonna give Sheer Heart Attack a listen or two : would there be a song on it you'd like to take a crack at ?" Also, I'm mortified that Under Pressure was played so scarcely and that no soundboard recording exists. I only heard the Manchester audience version. Is there a better one out there ? |
| Jjeroen 07.03.2006 10:35 |
Fone Bone wrote: Also, I'm mortified that Under Pressure was played so scarcely and that no soundboard recording exists. I only heard the Manchester audience version. Is there a better one out there ?Of course a soundboard recording does excist! Even an soundboard, professionally shot video excists! They decided by forehand that they would not release it, but they certainly did not turn off the recorders at Sheffield! ;-) |
| Fone Bone 07.03.2006 11:36 |
to exist... to be available... Hmmmm, there is a nuance indeed. But you know what I mean, UP is one of Queen's finest songs ever and I thought the 2005 version was quite good, at least a QOL download would have been nice |
| iron eagle 07.03.2006 13:26 |
dont recall Queen themseleves having much of a rolling setlist before.... but i only saw them 23 times-- could someone that saw them more then me either confirm or tell me off for being wrong??? |
| The Stealer 07.03.2006 14:52 |
fredhartman wrote: There are plenty of songs I'd like to hear too. But honestly, I just feel fortunate that they are touring at all. I'm thankful to hear any of the songs and I'm not going to bitch about one or two songs I missed, or Paul's ability to sing or not sing some of the songs. In my eyes, I give Paul huge credit for stepping in and singing the songs with class. He's constantly compared to Freddie everywhere they go. He's not trying to replace or even fill his shoes, but just give the best perfomance on each song that he can, as he knows how.AMEN! Thank you Paul Rodgers!! |
| The Stealer 07.03.2006 14:54 |
zaiga wrote: I Personally, I suspect that it is mostly Brian who is afraid of experimenting too much with the setlist. He called the current US setlist "new and exciting". Two new songs! I mean, come on. Also recall his apologies in Sheffield before performing UP, and how the crowd in Brixton had to persuade him to play '39.I would agree here-in Manchester when they first played it in the UK Brian was really apologetic and all...he is a perfectionist. |
| The Stealer 07.03.2006 14:56 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: For fuck's sake, there've only been TWO SHOWS on this tour. Far too early to say ANYTHING about the setlist.I concur on this one too. Sit back and enjoy the ride!! ;-) |
| Sherwood Forest 07.03.2006 15:50 |
i think we can blame anything that goes wrong on paul |
| Lord Blackadder 07.03.2006 17:11 |
Yeah. But, they had ages. Plently of time to learn 2 or three new songs. Still, beggars can't be choosers. At least there doing something. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 07.03.2006 17:29 |
Shut up, you whining Prats. |
| stateside fan 07.03.2006 19:16 |
Paul has been reading lyrics off the monitor since this whole thing started.he looks like a newescaster sometimes. |
| goinback 07.03.2006 20:03 |
Just wondering what was meant by the crowd persuading him to play '39...like it wasn't rehearsed and he just played it spontaneously? |
| jordanjo 07.03.2006 23:37 |
yes Paul is to blame he ruined everything!!!!! |
| Jjeroen 08.03.2006 05:14 |
Haystacks Calhoun wrote: Shut up, you whining Prats.Don't mistake whining with a critical analysis! :-) I'm not paying my money to take a trip to the USA, after already seeing them 8 times in Europe, because I don't like what they are doing! |
| stateside fan 08.03.2006 08:47 |
2 of my stocks fell yesterday...Fucking Paul Rodgers!! |
| Haystacks Calhoun 08.03.2006 09:18 |
Thats it... Blame George Bush AND Paul Rodgers.... Fantastic. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 08.03.2006 09:48 |
Its a well-known fact that Paul Rodgers cancelled the original Star Trek in 1969. Damn him. |