Sweden says NO to no classics! Ullevi still not even close to sold out

Yax said:
People bitch and moan every single time they don't just play older material instead of being grateful for them playing anything at all.
Click to expand...

People bitch and moan every time, with every setlist. Here's some of the comments I heard about the setlists from 2000 onward:

Brave New World: Too much new stuff, this is supposed to be a reunion tour (no it's not, Ed Huntour was the reunion tour)/How dare they not play Run to the Hills/how dare they play it at Rock in Rio when they say they just do what they want to do so?
Gimme Ed: They lost it, they are obviously living off their past glory, not taking any chances anymore.
Dance of Death: Come on, SIX new tracks, that's way too much!/All of the older tracks they played have been played in recent times.
Early Days: They're only playing old stuff now, they have become a cabaret act.
A Matter of Life and Death: How dare they play their new album in its entirety, PLAY CLASSICS!
Somewhere Back in Time: Bad selection of songs, there were only a few songs that haven't been played in recent times, and Maiden is a cabaret now, not taking any chances.
The Final Frontier: They're only playing new stuff now that nobody wants to hear, PLAY CLASSICS!

The bottom line: Maiden can't win. Where was the member Play Classics! when they did just that during the Somewhere Back in Time Tour? I suppose he was one of the lot that either got pissed off because they played Fear of the Dark and Run to the Hills, or one of those who got pissed off because they played Moonchild and Powerslave, because they have never been live staples and hence, he doesn't know them (well).

Whenever Maiden tour and a new setlist is revealed, people bitch. Here's my advice for the notorious setlist bitches: Don't go to a Maiden gig. You won't get any enjoyment of it, because for every song they play, they could have played something else. Nobody gets all his favourite songs played. Live with it, or don't go. Standing in the back with folded arms or showing your middle finger to the stage (both things I have witnessed) or pissing off other people on online forums will not make the band follow your wishes. There's plenty of Maiden tribute bands that will only play the 80's staples, so just go see them.
 
Maiden could make people in all of those camps much happier if they were willing to play
more than an hour and thirty minutes per
show. It's difficult to satisfy anyone with
only 16
songs. If you're not going to mix up the setlist from show to show (we all know they will not do that), then play a little longer, break the show into 2 sets, don't have an opener, etc. And don't start with, they're old, they're songs are too long and complex. My rebuttal to that is Rush. Sometimes I wonder if Maiden is just stubborn.
 
Habberdasher said:
My rebuttal to that is Rush. Sometimes I wonder if Maiden is just stubborn.
Click to expand...

Rush is a poor rebuttal, because their gigs are not as physically straining as Maiden gigs. If you want to see Maiden, particularly Bruce, just standing there and playing, fine. I don't. I want Bruce to run and jump around like crazy, I want Jan to prance like a loon, and I want Steve to put the energy of a nuclear power plant into his bass playing. It wouldn't be a Maiden gig without that. Rush aren't doing that, and that's why they can manage to play three hours, but Maiden are powered out after one and a half hours. And yes, that is because they are getting older. Why don't you do a direct comparison between Rush live and Iron Maiden live? Are you going to tell me that both bands are behaving the same way on stage? And are you going to tell me the crowds are behaving the same way?
 
You lot should notice my name is Play Classics!      Not Play Only Classics!

In my opinion there is a handful of songs that should be played at every Maiden concert - they just need to be there, and if they're not, some people will be unhappy.  Also, those songs have become live classics for a reason, being that they're damn good live songs.

These are  Iron Maiden, The Number of the Beast, Run To The Hills, Hallowed Be Thy Name, The Trooper, 2 Minutes To Midnight, 1 song of Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (changing between Can I Play With Madness, The Clairvoyant and The Evil That Men Do) and Fear Of The Dark.  A gig with those songs on the set can't really go wrong, no matter which other songs they play.

Now, that's 8 songs. Seeing as most Maiden shows today have 15-16 songs, that leaves space for a lot of new stuff too, as well as some surprises from the older albums.  

With this in mind, most tours have been OK.

The only disasters were the AMOLAD tour, and the set they went out with earlier this year.  And that's what I said in my original post, that the weak ticket sales may be a reaction to that, not saying all new Maiden material is bad, on the contrary I like many new songs. But some tours tend to negelct the classics way too much, that's all.
 
The problem is that there are a lot of "new" classics that deserve just as much attention. And when you play a tour of only classics, well. That should buy you some space. Given that this is an album tour, Maiden is still going to play 4-5 absolute classics, 4-5 new songs, and 3-4 interesting choices (like Lord of the Flies on the DOD tour). I expect those interesting choices will be from newer albums in general, but if The Trooper doesn't come back, I'll be shocked.

Can you blame them for wanting to take a rest of some of those older tunes? I can't. I'd get bored playing RTTH a thousand times.
 
Play Classics! said:
You lot should notice my name is Play Classics!      Not Play Only Classics!

In my opinion there is a handful of songs that should be played at every Maiden concert - they just need to be there, and if they're not, some people will be unhappy.  Also, those songs have become live classics for a reason, being that they're damn good live songs.

These are  Iron Maiden, The Number of the Beast, Run To The Hills, Hallowed Be Thy Name, The Trooper, 2 Minutes To Midnight, 1 song of Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (changing between Can I Play With Madness, The Clairvoyant and The Evil That Men Do) and Fear Of The Dark.  A gig with those songs on the set can't really go wrong, no matter which other songs they play.

Now, that's 8 songs. Seeing as most Maiden shows today have 15-16 songs, that leaves space for a lot of new stuff too, as well as some surprises from the older albums. 

With this in mind, most tours have been OK.

The only disasters were the AMOLAD tour, and the set they went out with earlier this year.  And that's what I said in my original post, that the weak ticket sales may be a reaction to that, not saying all new Maiden material is bad, on the contrary I like many new songs. But some tours tend to negelct the classics way too much, that's all.
Click to expand...

You said it, most tours have been OK with your particular "demands". So why the fuck are you ranting? Those songs you listed have been played on vast majority of their tours, and they tour a lot.

Excuse me, but those 15.000 people across arenas knew they were going to play AMOLAD full. A lot of them wanted to hear those songs. So, cut the bullshit, be a sport and realize that there are a lot of people wanting them to play something else than "classics" or old staples. I think it's our turn now.
 
Play Classics! said:
The only disasters were the AMOLAD tour,
Click to expand...

The only songs missing from your list during that tour were The Trooper, Number of the Beast and Run to the Hills. So give it a rest already. It's not like they didn't play any classics at all like people accuse them of, and it's far from a disaster. As I said, if you don't like the setlist, don't go.
 
Play Classics! said:
You lot should notice my name is Play Classics!      Not Play Only Classics!

In my opinion there is a handful of songs that should be played at every Maiden concert - they just need to be there, and if they're not, some people will be unhappy.  Also, those songs have become live classics for a reason, being that they're damn good live songs.

These are  Iron Maiden, The Number of the Beast, Run To The Hills, Hallowed Be Thy Name, The Trooper, 2 Minutes To Midnight, 1 song of Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (changing between Can I Play With Madness, The Clairvoyant and The Evil That Men Do) and Fear Of The Dark.  A gig with those songs on the set can't really go wrong, no matter which other songs they play.

Now, that's 8 songs. Seeing as most Maiden shows today have 15-16 songs, that leaves space for a lot of new stuff too, as well as some surprises from the older albums.  

With this in mind, most tours have been OK.

The only disasters were the AMOLAD tour, and the set they went out with earlier this year.  And that's what I said in my original post, that the weak ticket sales may be a reaction to that, not saying all new Maiden material is bad, on the contrary I like many new songs. But some tours tend to negelct the classics way too much, that's all.
Click to expand...

PC, do you know how many tickets have been sold already? Also how many does it take to fill the stadium?
 
snake plissken said:
PC, do you know how many tickets have been sold already? Also how many does it take to fill the stadium?
Click to expand...
The capacity is 57 000.
 
Perun said:
Rush is a poor rebuttal, because their gigs are not as physically straining as Maiden gigs. If you want to see Maiden, particularly Bruce, just standing there and playing, fine. I don't. I want Bruce to run and jump around like crazy, I want Jan to prance like a loon, and I want Steve to put the energy of a nuclear power plant into his bass playing. It wouldn't be a Maiden gig without that. Rush aren't doing that, and that's why they can manage to play three hours, but Maiden are powered out after one and a half hours. And yes, that is because they are getting older. Why don't you do a direct comparison between Rush live and Iron Maiden live? Are you going to tell me that both bands are behaving the same way on stage? And are you going to tell me the crowds are behaving the same way?
Click to expand...

My point of comparison to Rush was more in the varied setlists (i.e., they pull all sorts of classics and old nuggets out) and the length of the show (2.5 hours). If only Jan would act like Lifeson on stage! I get that energy is a big part of Maiden's show, but if Bruce needs to chillax for a few minutes, break the set into 2 sets, or just not run around for a song or two or four. If a "mellow" Bruce means an extra hour or more of Maiden, I am all for it. As for the crowd, I don't really care what they do, I'm not there for them.
 
Yax said:
The capacity is 57 000.
Click to expand...

Thanks, wonder how many have sold. I'd imagine Maiden fever will hit people early next year and they will sell a hell of a lot of tickets closer to the gig.
 
Habberdasher said:
My point of comparison to Rush was more in the varied setlists (i.e., they pull all sorts of classics and old nuggets out) and the length of the show (2.5 hours). If only Jan would act like Lifeson on stage! I get that energy is a big part of Maiden's show, but if Bruce needs to chillax for a few minutes, break the set into 2 sets, or just not run around for a song or two or four. If a "mellow" Bruce means an extra hour or more of Maiden, I am all for it. As for the crowd, I don't really care what they do, I'm not there for them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many would agree with you, though I can see your point.  But I go to live shows for the energy, and the crowd is a big part of that.  If Bruce was "mellow", the crowd would also be "mellow", and I might as well watch Rock in Rio from my home sofa for free.  In any case, I'm not sure Bruce chilling for a few minutes would give him an hour's worth of extra energy.

And, what's this about 1.5 hour sets?  All three of the Maiden gigs I've witnessed have lasted at least 1 hour 45 minutes.
 
Invader said:
And, what's this about 1.5 hour sets?  All three of the Maiden gigs I've witnessed have lasted at least 1 hour 45 minutes.
Click to expand...

You're seriously going to nitpick 15min?
 
I think 1.5 hours sounds considerably less than almost two hours (which, if memory serves me correct, the last gig was).  In 15 minutes, they could play Alexander the Great and Paschendale.  In 15 minutes, they could have played RTTH, The Trooper, TETMD, and CIPWM, making Play Classics and others with the same opinion happy.  I wouldn't say 15 minutes is "nitpicking" when it comes to a Maiden gig.  The tendency to round down 1 hour 45 min to 1.5 hours just shows the attitude that Perun talked about: no matter what Maiden do, someone will complain.  The glass is always half empty.
 
Yax said:
No, but stirring up trouble while ignoring people's counter arguments like that of LC's and generally behave the way you do could very well point to it. You sure as hell don't come off as resonable, regardless of what songs you may like or dislike.

So to sum it all up: A lot of people like Maiden's old songs. I do too. A lot.

A lot of people like Maiden's newer songs. I do too. A lot.

A lot of people bought The Final Frontier. I did too.

A lot of people go to Maiden's shows when they play classics. I do.

A lot of people go to Maiden's shows when they don't play a lot of classics. I do.

People bitch and moan every single time they don't just play older material instead of being grateful for them playing anything at all. You do and I don't. You can't always please the fans who only likes the old songs. For fuck's sake dude, we've had Ed Huntour, Early Days, Powerslave tour revisited and give me Ed tour - In the last 10 years, focusing on classics. And then there was of course 10 years in the 80's where they only played that material (because they didn't have anything else). Seriously, there's no reason to whine. Let us other fans have our share of the cake too, without moaning.
Click to expand...

Responding to a troll only makes them come back for more. We all know how and why he's wrong, including him. Just ignore him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top