THE BOOK OF SOULS: LIVE CHAPTER - New Live Album! - November 17th

naikon said:
Anyone else a bit annoyed by how ridiculously high they edited the choirs in TRATB at 11:50? Listen here

I love the sound of it but it should definatly be more in the background, I can barely hear the guitars
Click to expand...

Yup, they eat the whole band when they start. Heck, they are even louder than the snare (which is usually the loudest in the mix).
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the digital video is just quietly forgotten about and all we get is the YouTube version. I don't think there's exactly much of a demand for a low-budget concert video like this one, and definitely not if the whole thing's on YouTube already.
 
Ruflux said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the digital video is just quietly forgotten about and all we get is the YouTube version. I don't think there's exactly much of a demand for a low-budget concert video like this one, and definitely not if the whole thing's on YouTube already.
Click to expand...

I’m sure they’ll be enough of a demand to release it on to iTunes or something. It’s not like they have to worry about printing up sleeves and pressing dvd or blu ray discs so don’t see why they wouldn’t chuck it there for anyone interested. I was hoping the version for sale might have a documentary on it as I always enjoy those on the dvd releases.

Plus, I’d rather have a video version of the release than just the audio. Of course I’ll buy the cd on Friday but I never really get the point of these live releases where each song is recorded separately. The whole point of a live release to me is to hear the power and passion from a full live concert.
 
Wayne Bond said:
I’d rather have a video version of the release than just the audio.
Click to expand...
I've got almost no live Maiden albums but a full set of the DVDs - I just think that if you're going to get a recording of a live performance you might as well see it as well as hear it.
 
Bruce sounded MUCH better on first 2~3 months of the tour. I wish they would have released actually the best version of the songs, rather than doing what they did, but yeah, I understand. Children of the Damned in São Paulo was 100x better than this one, for example.

Having said that, I must say I've been listening to the whole concert over and over again since saturday. What a brilliant tour it was.
 
Unfortunately I think in a roundabout way even including Tears could've been seen as an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. Now this'll sound a bit like a proper conspiracy theory, but bear with me here.

Because both songs are excluded, they can freely say the reason Hallowed isn't on there is because they wanted to use the 2017 setlist, where they just didn't happen to play it. Obviously from a legal standpoint it would've been stupid as hell to have it there, so they had to drop it, but in a way giving that excuse implies they're not dropping it solely due to the lawsuit.

If Tears was on there, it'd be easy to make the argument Maiden knew they fucked up legally with Hallowed and the only reason it wasn't included was because of that. But, if neither Hallowed nor Tears are included, and they loudly proclaim "yeah this is the 2017 setlist we're using" then the exclusion of Hallowed cannot really be understood as a statement one way or the other.

It sounds really stupid, I know. It's just a crackpot theory, but I think they're simply playing it incredibly safe to avoid giving the opposition anything to latch on to. If they pretend the song just doesn't exist and make no comment one way or another, they're in a relatively safe position. They're not actively making anything worse, at least. And excluding Tears along with Hallowed is probably the safest move.

(Now watch Tears be an unannounced bonus track to entice people to buy the damn thing instead of just watching it on YouTube)
 
Ruflux said:
Unfortunately I think in a roundabout way even including Tears could've been seen as an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. Now this'll sound a bit like a proper conspiracy theory, but bear with me here.

Because both songs are excluded, they can freely say the reason Hallowed isn't on there is because they wanted to use the 2017 setlist, where they just didn't happen to play it. Obviously from a legal standpoint it would've been stupid as hell to have it there, so they had to drop it, but in a way giving that excuse implies they're not dropping it solely due to the lawsuit.

If Tears was on there, it'd be easy to make the argument Maiden knew they fucked up legally with Hallowed and the only reason it wasn't included was because of that. But, if neither Hallowed nor Tears are included, and they loudly proclaim "yeah this is the 2017 setlist we're using" then the exclusion of Hallowed cannot really be understood as a statement one way or the other.

It sounds really stupid, I know. It's just a crackpot theory, but I think they're simply playing it incredibly safe to avoid giving the opposition anything to latch on to. If they pretend the song just doesn't exist and make no comment one way or another, they're in a relatively safe position. They're not actively making anything worse, at least. And excluding Tears along with Hallowed is probably the safest move.

(Now watch Tears be an unannounced bonus track to entice people to buy the damn thing instead of just watching it on YouTube)
Click to expand...
That is exactly the reason I believe.

I also believe that TOAC will pop up on YouTube sometime, maybe as a "Christmas Present" to the fans this year or (more likely) in the middle of the LOTB tour videos, so the people are diverted.
 
Can anyone explain what happened to Tears Of A Clown? Please forgive me if its been addressed already... My favorite song possibly on the album!
 
I don't think it's been definitively answered. Something was said about wanting to change a couple of songs, and Adrian said something about wanting to try 1-2 other TBOS tracks live. There's also speculation that Tears became a bit defunct as the song implied that Robin Williams took his own life because of depression, when we now know he also had a form of dementia.
 
Wasn't the primary theory simply that TGU was always meant to be played live, but they did Tears at Nicko's insistence instead? Considering Adrian talked about playing it live in 2015 and all. Then they just swapped them out in 2017 since they had the chance.
 
Brigantium said:
I don't think it's been definitively answered. Something was said about wanting to change a couple of songs, and Adrian said something about wanting to try 1-2 other TBOS tracks live. There's also speculation that Tears became a bit defunct as the song implied that Robin Williams took his own life because of depression, when we now know he also had a form of dementia.
Click to expand...

Very interesting!
 
Ruflux said:
Wasn't the primary theory simply that TGU was always meant to be played live, but they did Tears at Nicko's insistence instead? Considering Adrian talked about playing it live in 2015 and all. Then they just swapped them out in 2017 since they had the chance.
Click to expand...
This is what I think.
 
Ruflux said:
Unfortunately I think in a roundabout way even including Tears could've been seen as an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. Now this'll sound a bit like a proper conspiracy theory, but bear with me here.

Because both songs are excluded, they can freely say the reason Hallowed isn't on there is because they wanted to use the 2017 setlist, where they just didn't happen to play it. Obviously from a legal standpoint it would've been stupid as hell to have it there, so they had to drop it, but in a way giving that excuse implies they're not dropping it solely due to the lawsuit.

If Tears was on there, it'd be easy to make the argument Maiden knew they fucked up legally with Hallowed and the only reason it wasn't included was because of that. But, if neither Hallowed nor Tears are included, and they loudly proclaim "yeah this is the 2017 setlist we're using" then the exclusion of Hallowed cannot really be understood as a statement one way or the other.

It sounds really stupid, I know. It's just a crackpot theory, but I think they're simply playing it incredibly safe to avoid giving the opposition anything to latch on to. If they pretend the song just doesn't exist and make no comment one way or another, they're in a relatively safe position. They're not actively making anything worse, at least. And excluding Tears along with Hallowed is probably the safest move.

(Now watch Tears be an unannounced bonus track to entice people to buy the damn thing instead of just watching it on YouTube)
Click to expand...

This would make some sense if the album didn't have any recordings from the 2016 leg.
 
Just listened to it a bit... Best they've sounded on a live album in a while? We're talking Rock in Rio-Death on the Road levels of greatness here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top