Setlists or Stage?

What would you prefer?

  • Setlist changes every night, but stage design is bland with no backdrops or screens

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Expensive stage design, backdrops, screens but same setlist every night

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • Total voters
    14
I'd love they would change setlist every night with just Marshalls behind them like Fear of the Dark tour or No Prayer for the Dying or even they don't change set list. Just Marshalls behind no shitty cheap backdrops-curtains…

The music only matters to me, but if you're get out there with the same kind of circus stage design since 1995.
I'm sure they can do it much better.
 
I'm totally a music oriented concertgoer. They could play only school gyms with a moldy blue curtain as their backdrop if their setlists had more variation. Obviously, this isn't a good time for setlist complaints since the current tour is a dream come true for me, but generally this is my view.
 
For Iron Maiden: option B. They simply aren't the kind of band that can swap setlists whenever they feel like it and still perform expertly.

For other bands, I'd go with option A.
 
At this point, I would take rotating setlists. LOTB was peak stage show and I wonder if they're going to start transitioning away from that as members of the band (Bruce primarily) need to focus less on theatrics and more on performing at a high level. IMO if Nicko steps down and they decide to continue, they should take advantage of the opportunity that presents and start doing things like switching up the setlists.

They also don't have to play a completely different setlist every night. Take LOTB as a template. Instead of playing FTGGOG,every night, have it on rotation with 2 or 3 other epics like When the Wild Wind Blows and Paschendale. Instead of Icarus every night, have it swapped with Stranger in a Strange Land. Go back and forth between Sun and Steel and Only the Good Die Young.

I agree with Knick that it's not really the Maiden way, but I do think they are capable of it and a much younger person in the band could push them more in that direction (it has happened with other bands in similar situations).
 
As much as I want to hear more different songs on each tour (basically more deep cuts), and Maiden's rich discography deserves that, I like the show aspect a lot and it adds something special to the whole experience. Also, there is something nice about each tour to have its own core of songs, as strange as it sounds. The downside is that Maiden have so many great songs, BUT the show aspect was always important and a trademark for the band.
 
Last edited:
I agree with @Kalata. When I am going to see a LIVE SHOW, I want to see a breathtaking spectacle. Intricate lights, pyros, blazing fires, enormous/haunting pyramids props and running monsters. All this combined with music creates EXPERIENCE, A SPECTACLE. For me, theatrics is a huge plus.
 
For extremely selfish purposes I voted for "same setlist". Even when I know that they play the same setlist every night I'm always tempted to see them several times on tour. If I knew they changed the setlist on the same your? Yeah, it wouldn't end well for me.
 
Stage, pyro and everything is nice, but it's not what I'm coming to see and it's not what I fell in love with. It's just a gimmick.
Despite this being a "bane of the casuals", I actually love the idea of rotating setlists and switching it up so that the band plays live the entirety of their rich discography. I'd say the feeling when the band digs up some obscure stuff right in front of you and you realise it's actually really great live must be a singular experience.
Also, it would lessen the "spoiler! spoiler!" hysterics some people succumb to when discussing a new tour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top