Rob Zombie tells it like it is...

[spag]

I love the trend of playing older albums in full. To me, that is special. I'm going to the Megadeth RiP tour next week and can't wait to hear Rust in Piece in full. I wish more bands would do it.

This. I like hearing a classic played live. Especially if I wasn't into a particular band when I could have seen them performing the album first hand.

As far as new albums. Depends. What I don't want is to go to a show, and every year, just hear the band play the same collection of their greatest hits. I've actually stopped going to some bands because of this.

If a band has some cool concept album, I have no problem if they say, do the album for the first of the show, and then hits for the second.

 

[modernwizardry]

I think a band should play whatever songs they want at their show.

 

[Jasonic]

It depends on the band and what type of fan you are of that band.

For me personally, I had NO issue with Maiden's AMOLAD tour.
I have seen Maiden perform the same songs SO many times that it was a nice change.
As someone else mentioned, it also made me appreciate the album more.

Though on the flipside, I can see how it would be a MAJOR turnoff for someone seeing the band for the first time.

I am a VERY casual Scorpions fan. I went to see them last minute on their UNBREAKABLE tour.
It was one of the best arena performances ever.
For me, the setlist was perfect, as it was 90% hits.
Had they played UNBREAKABLE in its entirety, I would have left pretty disappointed.

Motorhead are a top 10 all-time fav band of mine.
I skipped them live last year in Chicago for the first time in about 10 years, primarily because their setlists have gotten VERY stale.
They pull out maybe one or two rarities a tour.
I think they still put out great records though.
Enough so, where if I were to hear they were playing the new album in its entirety, it would actually pull me back to checking them out live.

Kudos to Maiden though...
When Bruce came back, they made very bold statements about how they were going to be a recording band and not just some nostalgia act.
They have definitely put their money where there mouth is on that, regardless of what you may think of their post-Blaze albums.

 

[General Zod]

by "first" i assume you mean their third album, La Sexorcisto: Devil Music v1.

Indeed. I was completely unaware of the two discs that preceded La Sexorcisto: Devil Music v1.

 

[General Zod]

For me personally, I had NO issue with Maiden's AMOLAD tour.

I went to the AMOLAD. And to be blunt, I thought it sucked. I look at it this way; if there isn't a single song from AMOLAD strong enough to return on future tour set lists, than how can the whole disc possibly warrant being played live in its entirety? If Maiden wanted to do this, I would have had more respect for them had they performed AMOLAD, had an intermission, than done an hour of classics. In essence, there were two ways to approach playing AMOLAD in its entirety:

1. Playing the entire disc, then performing for an additional hour, thereby putting in more effort
2. Doing the bidding of their egos, disappointing the majority of their fans, and only performing the obligatory 90 minutes

That said, it seems I lose a bit more respect for Maiden each year. The endless line of live discs, rarities, re-packagings, etc. is bordering on Kiss-like. In addition, I feel as though bands like Maiden should be passing the torch. They don't need Bullet for my Valentine to sell out arenas, yet they still grant them their opening slot, instead of an Iced Earth, Nevermore, etc.

 

[Jasonic]

They don't need Bullet for my Valentine to sell out arenas, yet they still grant them their opening slot, instead of an Iced Earth, Nevermore, etc.

Very simple.
BFMV's label could better afford the buy on than Century Media, SPV, etc.

As I said before, it certainly depends on what type of Maiden fan you are.
I am a bit tired of hearing the same classics over and over.
It was refreshing to see them with the majority of the setlist being new.

It wasn't for everyone and it pissed off a lot of young fans who were seeing them for the first time.

Bruce said they do not want to be a nostalgia act.
I think they were simply trying to make a bold statement.

I think they certainly made it up to their fans with the SOMEWHERE BACK IN TIME tour though, no? Steve Harris even said that they knew going into the AMOLAD tour that it was going to be met with mixed reviews, so the SBIT tour was a payback of sorts I suppose.

Maiden will pack arenas either way.

Don't ask me. I am probably one of 5 people in the world who is hoping Priest DOES do Nostradamus in its entirety one of these days.

 

[Diabolik]

I went to the AMOLAD. And to be blunt, I thought it sucked. I look at it this way; if there isn't a single song from AMOLAD strong enough to return on future tour set lists, than how can the whole disc possibly warrant being played live in its entirety? If Maiden wanted to do this, I would have had more respect for them had they performed AMOLAD, had an intermission, than done an hour of classics. In essence, there were two ways to approach playing AMOLAD in its entirety:

1. Playing the entire disc, then performing for an additional hour, thereby putting in more effort
2. Doing the bidding of their egos, disappointing the majority of their fans, and only performing the obligatory 90 minutes

That said, it seems I lose a bit more respect for Maiden each year. The endless line of live discs, rarities, re-packagings, etc. is bordering on Kiss-like. In addition, I feel as though bands like Maiden should be passing the torch. They don't need Bullet for my Valentine to sell out arenas, yet they still grant them their opening slot, instead of an Iced Earth, Nevermore, etc.

Zod, you hit it on the head. If a band chooses to play the new full album live....I wouldnt mind if they did what you said. Plat the the entire disc and then take a breakand come out and play another hour of classics. In this situation you dont need an opening act. At least you are getting the best of both worlds. The band gets to play the new stuff and you get to hear songs that pretty much wont get played again....then you get to hear the hits / classics afterwards leaving you pumped and not bored.

 

[Jasonic]

Maiden did play 6 songs after the full length performance.

Yea, I certainly agree though.
It would have been cool with no opener, and the full length performance being more of the opening act, and then have a classics set, even if only an hour, as the headliner.

 

[Diabolik]

Maiden did play 6 songs after the full length performance.

Yea, I certainly agree though.
It would have been cool with no opener, and the full length performance being more of the opening act, and then have a classics set, even if only an hour, as the headliner.

WOW!!!!!! 6 songs. It would take more than that to wake me up after hearing an hour of thier last one. Are you sure it was six? I rad a bunch of set list and it seemed less than that.

 

[Jasonic]

WOW!!!!!! 6 songs. It would take more than that to wake me up after hearing an hour of thier last one. Are you sure it was six? I rad a bunch of set list and it seemed less than that.

Ok, just checked, it was the following 5:
Fear of the Dark
Iron Maiden
2 Minutes to Midnight
The Evil That Men Do
Hallowed Be Thy Name

 

[nomisofsiman]

Don't ask me. I am probably one of 5 people in the world who is hoping Priest DOES do Nostradamus in its entirety one of these days.

I'm another one. That was my favorite album of that year. I just think people were expecting something Painkiller-like, which was a silly assumption. Unfortunately, it's seeming more and more unlikely for them to do it as time passes, and I would say if they do it, they'll probably do a handful of shows throughout the world at special venues.

 

[Jasonic]

I'm another one. That was my favorite album of that year. I just think people were expecting something Painkiller-like, which was a silly assumption. Unfortunately, it's seeming more and more unlikely for them to do it as time passes, and I would say if they do it, they'll probably do a handful of shows throughout the world at special venues.

Oh agreed. A full N American tour for this album would be a complete failure 2 years after initial release.

You are right, there may be select European shows if this happens, esp after N America got the British Steel tour.

 

[OrbWeaver]

I would like to see Nostradamus performed in it's entirety. So I'm one of those 5, Jason.

 

[General Zod]

Very simple. BFMV's label could better afford the buy on than Century Media, SPV, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I understand their rationale, I just don't have any respect for it.

Bruce said they do not want to be a nostalgia act. I think they were simply trying to make a bold statement.

It's a great statement to make. However, there's a cavernous gap between Bruce's wishes and reality. If this band relied heavily on new material, no one would go to their shows. And if they had to sell albums based on the strength of their new music, without the nostalgia inherent in their brand, they'd be broke. Bruce can say they don't want to be a nostalgia band, but the checks he cashes are funded purely by nostalgia.

I think they certainly made it up to their fans with the SOMEWHERE BACK IN TIME tour though, no?

Not really. They took the fans $45 for both shows, and delivered only one show worth seeing. Obviously, there are fans like you who appreciated the first show, but the reality is, most didn't.

 

[Saladbar]

I went to the AMOLAD. And to be blunt, I thought it sucked. I look at it this way; if there isn't a single song from AMOLAD strong enough to return on future tour set lists, than how can the whole disc possibly warrant being played live in its entirety?

Future setlists? The only tours that Maiden has done after the AMOLAD has been the Somewhere Back In Time tour. You won't find any song Maiden has written in the last 20 yrs on that set list.
The real test will be on an upcoming regular tour, then we will see just how many songs from AMOLAD actually make it to the setlist.

If Maiden wanted to do this, I would have had more respect for them had they performed AMOLAD, had an intermission, than done an hour of classics. In essence, there were two ways to approach playing AMOLAD in its entirety:

1. Playing the entire disc, then performing for an additional hour, thereby putting in more effort

With the physical demands that a Maiden show requires I think it is physically impossible for them to do this. The guys are in their early 50s and Nicko is almost 60 so I think the standard 90 minute set is all we'll ever get from now on.

That said, it seems I lose a bit more respect for Maiden each year. The endless line of live discs, rarities, re-packagings, etc. is bordering on Kiss-like.

This is what kills me the most about being a Maiden fan.
- If they release a new album and play it in its entirity to prove that they are not a nostalgia act living of their past......people complain.

- If they do a tour of classic material so that people who were not able to see them in the 80s (like myself) can get a chance to hear those songs live, then the Kiss comparisons start and....people complain.

Where does it stop? When is everybody happy?

In addition, I feel as though bands like Maiden should be passing the torch. They don't need Bullet for my Valentine to sell out arenas, yet they still grant them their opening slot, instead of an Iced Earth, Nevermore, etc.

In the U.S. they did. Worldwide they had a plethora of new bands open for them. I wonder if Iced Earth or Nevermore and their label can afford a tour on a huge scale like Maiden's.

Kinda hard to follow Ed Force One around the country on a bus.

Although we can all agree that having Lauren Harris open every freaking show on the last tour was a bit unnecessary. Actually it was VERY unnecessary. lol

 

[nomisofsiman]

In the U.S. they did. Worldwide they had a plethora of new bands open for them. I wonder if Iced Earth or Nevermore and their label can afford a tour on a huge scale like Maiden's.

In the case of Iced Earth, Schaeffer's been very outspoken in eluding to the fact that if they get that one big tour as support to a band like Maiden they wold be huge. Who knows? Maybe that's hurt them, though I would think them being on the Heaven and Hell would have been that tour.

 

[General Zod]

The real test will be on an upcoming regular tour, then we will see just how many songs from AMOLAD actually make it to the setlist.

I agree that is the real test. However, do you honestly expect there to be more than one AMOLAD song on future set lists?

With the physical demands that a Maiden show requires I think it is physically impossible for them to do this. The guys are in their early 50s and Nicko is almost 60 so I think the standard 90 minute set is all we'll ever get from now on.

That's fair. But if they're unable to deliver the latter, don't do the former. Let's be honest, AMOLAD was not a great album. It did not warrant being played from beginning to end. They could have merely done five tracks from it, if they really wanted to showcase the new material.

- If they release a new album and play it in its entirity to prove that they are not a nostalgia act living of their past......people complain.

Playing an entire new CD has nothing to do with being a nostalgia act. It's not as if current acts regularly play their entire new album while on tour. Given the quality of AMOLAD, this was completely self-indulgent.

- If they do a tour of classic material so that people who were not able to see them in the 80s (like myself) can get a chance to hear those songs live, then the Kiss comparisons start and....people complain.

The Kiss comparisons have nothing to do with their live set. The Kiss comparisons come in when they release one greatest hits collection after another, trying to milk their fans for the same songs, with new artwork.

Where does it stop? When is everybody happy?

You'll never make everyone happy. However, consistency is key, if you don't want to come across as a hypocrite. You can't claim you're not a nostalgia act in one breath, and release a dozen greatest hits collection in the next.

In the U.S. they did. Worldwide they had a plethora of new bands open for them. I wonder if Iced Earth or Nevermore and their label can afford a tour on a huge scale like Maiden's.

They don't need to have a band follow them, if it's logistically impossible to do so (though apparently it wasn't impossible for BFMV). They could have Nevermore open on the West Coast, Symphony X on the East Coast and Iced Earth in the heartland. If they were genuinely interested in passing the torch, it could be done. Instead their interested in extracting every last cent from their brand, buy having bands like BFMV pay on. Granted, it's their right to do so. It's my right not to respect it.

Although we can all agree that having Lauren Harris open every freaking show on the last tour was a bit unnecessary. Actually it was VERY unnecessary. lol

And very self-indulgent.

Zod

 

[Jasonic]

Zod - I know the point you are making about opening bands.
Though - take your average Iron Maiden concert goer.
So, this is the 95% of the crowd OUTSIDE of underground metal fans.

How many of these folks even pay attention to who is opening, let alone pay enough attention to possibly care enough to purchase a CD and check them out? Half the damn crowd is still in the parking lot or lobby or in line for beer during the openers set.

I think underground fans need to realize there is very little commercial appeal for the bands that most of us here like. Maybe Nevermore, since they do incorporate enough of what I call the "Never-Chug" to appeal to a younger crowd.

Older Maiden fans who still go to one or two concerts a year are not the target audience for trying to sell Iced Earth or Symphony X tickets or CDs.

The underground labels know this. It's the reason why Century Media pulled the plug on providing the buy on for Nevermore to be on Warped Tour a while ago. It was probably a smart move. The Warped crowd, to be perfectly honest, would probably laugh at Nevermore, at least visually.

 

[Jasonic]

Actually it was VERY unnecessary. lol

ORLY?????

 

[Saladbar]

However, do you honestly expect there to be more than one AMOLAD song on future set lists?..........

Let's be honest, AMOLAD was not a great album.........

It did not warrant being played from beginning to end.........

Given the quality of AMOLAD, this was completely self-indulgent.......

I see, the problem is that you didn't like AMOLAD. Gotcha.

One of the main reasons they decided to do the entire album in the U.S. was that it was the first album in Iron Maiden's 30 year career to enter Billboard charts in the top 10.

I agree that is the real test. However, do you honestly expect there to be more than one AMOLAD song on future set lists?

I do and I hope they do.

I think it's really about how much you like the band. It doesn't seem like you like them too much anymore Zod, nothing wrong with that.