| AmeriQueen 09.05.2006 00:52 |
|
| AmeriQueen 09.05.2006 01:05 |
Thinking briefly about the tour in it's seperate runs, I notice an odd thing. Okay, the 1st leg through Europe was a start, the band playing all their spanning hits throughout their career, long shows with lots and lots of Queen. Paul got some Free, a little Bad Company, and slowly worked his way into the band. The shows showed a seperation, Brian and Roger sharing the vocal work with Paul alot, great shows in all with a revolving track list. The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material. Okay, what is strange to me was the U.S. tour. It seemed to start off a little rough, some of the weaker shows being played(Philadelphia comes to mind). Despite the intense preparation, they seemed weaker, the list shorter, and only Dragon Attack was new for Queen stuff. Brian fucks up his back, Paul his tendon... in short, they can't change the set list because they are too banged up to rehearse and prepare new stuff. So this is what surprises me... How did they manage to turn it all around halfway through the tour and play their best shows of the complete tour, their best by far in my opinion? It's hard to put a finger on what changed, but it seems like the 2nd half of the U.S. tour improved so much because of improvement, not so much by Brian, Paul and Roger, but by Jamie Moses, Spike Edney and Danny Miranda. They seemed to blend it all together as one complete band. Could it be that a future album might include some minor input, if not studio work by those three? I always ignored them before but maybe their input might not be a bad idea. |
| TruePar 09.05.2006 02:04 |
I think they started to truely believe in what they were doing. It was a big step for Queen to return to America. Think about it: 1. Hadn't toured here in almost 25 odd years. 2. No Freddie. 3. New lead singer. 4. Mixed material. 5. No album to support. 6. Minor promotion. I think when they first arrived, they realized the enormous task this tour was going to be. And that can be mentally draining. All it took was a couple of successful shows and some sincere positive reviews not only from journalists, but fans, radio stations and fellow musicians. I think they realized to themselves that "Wait a minute, this is going well!". Also, I think some of the venues and fans helped (Toronto, Worcester, Detroit) lift them to that 2nd level. By then, they were warmed up and having a good time (despite the various minor set backs). By the time I saw them in Seattle, they were on fire. And when they hit Vancouver, they were awe-inspiring. |
| All I Hear Is Radio Gaga 09.05.2006 02:14 |
AmeriQueen wrote: Thinking briefly about the tour in it's seperate runs, I notice an odd thing. Okay, the 1st leg through Europe was a start, the band playing all their spanning hits throughout their career, long shows with lots and lots of Queen. Paul got some Free, a little Bad Company, and slowly worked his way into the band. The shows showed a seperation, Brian and Roger sharing the vocal work with Paul alot, great shows in all with a revolving track list. The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material. Okay, what is strange to me was the U.S. tour. It seemed to start off a little rough, some of the weaker shows being played(Philadelphia comes to mind). Despite the intense preparation, they seemed weaker, the list shorter, and only Dragon Attack was new for Queen stuff. Brian fucks up his back, Paul his tendon... in short, they can't change the set list because they are too banged up to rehearse and prepare new stuff. So this is what surprises me... How did they manage to turn it all around halfway through the tour and play their best shows of the complete tour, their best by far in my opinion? It's hard to put a finger on what changed, but it seems like the 2nd half of the U.S. tour improved so much because of improvement, not so much by Brian, Paul and Roger, but by Jamie Moses, Spike Edney and Danny Miranda. They seemed to blend it all together as one complete band. Could it be that a future album might include some minor input, if not studio work by those three? I always ignored them before but maybe their input might not be a bad idea.I've wondered that too...it's just because their so amazing...lol and all of them together was/is amazing... And I'd LOVE to see a new album... Cheers |
| safkjgs 09.05.2006 19:10 |
Just as a side note, when Brian first told the crowd at San Diego that Paul had injured himself the night before I was very surprised, couldn't tell at all throughout the whole show. Paul really is an amazing man. |
| All I Hear Is Radio Gaga 09.05.2006 19:13 |
Paul IS amazing...cheers to him! Cheers Heather |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 10.05.2006 07:37 |
Ameriqueen: "The 2nd leg was more spread out, playing outdoor shows, testing the U.S., and offering Japan what I thought was the most interesting set lists of the tour. I saw little improvement really outside of Paul who really showed a new comfort with the Queen material. " I agree with the best setlist being Japan, but I have to disagree with "little improvement". They were FANTASTIC by that time. Super Live is much better than ROTC, IMHO. Cheers, Ogre- |
| stateside fan 11.05.2006 00:40 |
AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US shows |
| teleman 11.05.2006 01:46 |
stateside fan wrote: AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US showsYou mean the show where Brian broke a string on TYMD, got lost on IILWMC, broke another string during his solo and where the band was overall kind of sloppy?(That's the problem with bootleg video documentation) I though Toronto and Detroit were strong but it's kind of hard to compare to other shows on the tour since I wasn't there. I can say that the band improved from recording ROTC to the Super Live in Japan DVD and the 2 shows I saw live were even better. I hope we'll see one of the closing shows of the North American leg so we can properly measure how they stack up. |
| Wiley 11.05.2006 11:54 |
San Diego was a million times better than Super Live in Japan and a billion times better than ROTC. The performance was perfect. I don't remember any lyric goof by Mr. Rodgers, not even on Dragon Attack. The show had a great energy and the crowd rocked. Does anyone that attended San Diego and some other shows think that it was not the better show of the ones he or she attended?? I would be almost shocked to realize it got even better than this, hehe :). Well, maybe if you had nosebleed seats in SD and were by the catwalk in some other show... :S Wiley |
| PieterMC 11.05.2006 12:34 |
teleman wrote: I though Toronto and Detroit were strong but it's kind of hard to compare to other shows on the tour since I wasn't there.I saw six shows and Detroit was simply in another league. The energy from the band and the audience were amazing. |
| AmeriQueen 31.05.2006 22:57 |
That's how I felt about the San Diego show. |
| The Stealer 31.05.2006 23:59 |
May 2005: Good- I saw seven shows October 2005: Better- saw the US shows Mar/April: Best by far--would have like the Japan set list--the tour gained momentum at the Chicago show...Detroit--Wow-- St.Paul--a little less intense...Milwaukee-- WOW the best show...Vancouver!!! Top of their game!! Prior to chicago (with the exception of Worcester and Toronto) still working thing out but it was still better than the UK for the most part with the exception of London which really smelled and Cardiff and Belfast which I think were better than Buff and Cleveland. |
| stateside fan 01.06.2006 12:53 |
actually Teleman the crowd energy in Philly was awesome,full building and the sounded great.Yes Brian broke a string and they started a verse over on IILWMC..big F'ing deal!!The place was hysterical,the band seemed happy.nuff said |
| teleman 01.06.2006 18:35 |
stateside fan wrote: actually Teleman the crowd energy in Philly was awesome,full building and the sounded great.Yes Brian broke a string and they started a verse over on IILWMC..big F'ing deal!!The place was hysterical,the band seemed happy.nuff saidMay have been a great show if you were there. I've only seen the vid from it and they didn't seem IMHO at their best. stateside fan wrote: AQ-philly was actually one of the stronger US showsHow many shows did you see to make that assessment? I did see them in Toronto and Detroit and am possibly biased from being there. I'm glad you enjoyed Philly but in my opinion it was flawed. That's live music. |
| Atomic Dog 02.06.2006 19:10 |
Wiley, you are on the money. Got to see QPR at Scheffield - ROTC SHOW Birmingham Cardiff Anahaim Las Vages and San Diego was by far the best. With all due respect it seems like the Detroit show was on the same page. The crowd and the band gave back and forth all night, and it showed. CHEERS TO SAN DIEGO |
| Wiley 02.06.2006 19:36 |
Yeap, that's what I thought. I find it hard to believe that the gigs could have been better than San Diego but I want to be proven the opposite, hehe :). I'm also a bit sad that there was not enough buzz made about that gig, no recording has surfaced (that I know of) and not many people have commented on it. So far, I think every person that has posted about SD thought that it was the best gig of the ones they attended. It would be interesting to see if someone attended San Diego, Detroit and/or Vancouver to see which one was best. I can imagine Vancouver being better, since it was the last night of the tour, they played a "new" song, etc. I really hope they tour Mexico soon and maybe Texas later, since it's not that far from Monterrey and I could go. I don't think I could afford another trip to see Queen which would require taking a plane, hehe :). Wiley |
| stateside fan 03.06.2006 02:29 |
i have seen 4 shows.Nj(first leg) washington,Philly and NY.whatever review we give on shows is just our own individual accounts.Some of the Best Queen shows i have been to-Freddie flubbed the odd lyric or Brian went out of tune.I enjoy audience/band energy and use that as my barometer.who cares that Bri broke a string IMHO. |
| Wiley 03.06.2006 12:01 |
I agree it's all about the energy of the show, regarding the band and the audience. I think the performance is also important, of course. I remember my first Queen+PR gig: Vienna 2005. The band looked very excited, having a really good time, as was the audience but they made LOTS of mistakes. I have very fond memories of this concert (Brian played the Blue Danube in his solo) but I enjoyed San Diego a lot more. They were ON FIRE, they really OWNED the place that night. When I came out of the other gigs I thought those were great experiences for the band and the fans, something intimate, something only the fans would trully appreciate. San Diego was in a different league for me. You didn't have to be a Queen freak to tell that concert kicked major butt! I went with a cousin of mine and two friends who like the band a lot but are not hardcore fans. They were expecting a bunch of old guys remembering their better days, a nostalgic act, but were positively surprised. In the end, you are right, it's all about personal perception but we can still choose the best gig from the ones we attended. For me, it was San Diego. :) Wiley |
| likecats 04.06.2006 16:34 |
I enjoyed the Oct. '05 Hollywood Bowl show very much, but I thought the Apr. '06 San Diego show was a superior performance. I was disappointed that the setlist hadn't changed much ("We're looking again at our 70's material" meant just that; looking at it and putting it back in the drawer. What a shame!) but the band was on fire in San Diego. |