The Official Book of Souls Tour 2017 Thread (Warning: Spoilers Within)

.. and to add, I wonder if knowing a band will (or will not) bring new stuff to the live show ... which is really the bread and butter of most bands anymore ... effects the quality of the album

"Cool .. we get to play this live" versus "... none of this will ever hit a stage"
 
bearfan said:
.. and to add, I wonder if knowing a band will (or will not) bring new stuff to the live show ... which is really the bread and butter of most bands anymore ... effects the quality of the album

"Cool .. we get to play this live" versus "... none of this will ever hit a stage"
Click to expand...

Quality, I don't know. But complexity, sure. You can hear this in bands like Symphony X, who have started writing more consistently energetic, sing-a-long, heavy music on their newer albums because they know it will work better live.

Bands like Iron Maiden can do whatever they want because they know that usually only half the album will make it to a live setting. So they can kind of split the difference as they're writing and recording. For instance, "Oh, sure we can do Empire of the Clouds on the album but it will never hit the stage. That's what we've got the other 10 songs for!"
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
Quality, I don't know. But complexity, sure. You can hear this in bands like Symphony X, who have started writing more consistently energetic, sing-a-long, heavy music on their newer albums because they know it will work better live.

Bands like Iron Maiden can do whatever they want because they know that usually only half the album will make it to a live setting. So they can kind of split the difference as they're writing and recording. For instance, "Oh, sure we can do Empire of the Clouds on the album but it will never hit the stage. That's what we've got the other 10 songs for!"
Click to expand...

Sure .. there are (almost) always some songs that are just album songs ... does not make them bad, just means they will not work well live for whatever reason .... I was referring more to the mindset of doing an album in general
 
Gotcha. Yeah, I think a lot of prog/technical metal projects start out as just these insane studio things with no plans on touring and then if they get popular enough it's a situation of, "Shit, we gotta play these live...but how?!"
 
LooseCannon said:
Judas Priest played 3 songs from Redeemer of Souls, Black Sabbath played 2 from 13.
Click to expand...

To be fair on Sabbath, over the whole 13 tour, they played a total of 5 songs from 13 - End of the Beginning, God is Dead, Loner, Age of Reason and Methademic (The latter only being played in Australia).

When I saw them in 2013, they played 3 songs from 13.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
Gotcha. Yeah, I think a lot of prog/technical metal projects start out as just these insane studio things with no plans on touring and then if they get popular enough it's a situation of, "Shit, we gotta play these live...but how?!"
Click to expand...
Just out of interest: what do you think of Maiden, a band who already had albums and extensive touring behind them, were thinking when they recorded SiT then? e.g. did they give any thought to the fact that they had never toured with guitar synths when Adrian was using them during recording?
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Just out of interest: what do you think of Maiden, a band who already had albums and extensive touring behind them, were thinking when they recorded SiT then? e.g. did they give any thought to the fact that they had never toured with guitar synths when Adrian was using them during recording?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine Steve wasn't thinking about it. My guess is he either figured they could do it without the synth layers when played live or this was around the time he asked Michael Kenney to hide offstage and play.
 
I honestly think Steve and co. just got a bit too excited about the possibilities in the studio. That's why the album was recorded in two studios, mixed in another and had a bunch of guitar synth stuff and layers of effects on. Then reality hit them that Steve would need to be wired to use a bass synth and in general it'd just be very awkward so they just settled with Adrian doing a few bits on a couple of songs and moving to keyboards entirely on the next album.
 
Also wouldn't be surprised if they weren't even considering the tour at that point. They were probably still exhausted and didn't want to worry about how certain songs would come off live.

I will say that Sea of Madness would sound great with the current lineup and Bruce's voice where it is now. SIASL could also be played more.
 
Mosh said:
I will say that Sea of Madness would sound great with the current lineup and Bruce's voice where it is now. SIASL could also be played more.
Click to expand...
I would be very interested in seeing both of these songs live. I doubt Sea of Madness ever comes back, but SIASL is always an outside chance if they want to really go outside of the box.
 
I doubt they had much choice but to tour contractually ... that was kind of the deal ... record an album .. tour to sell it ...
 
And where exactly are the bass synth parts on the album? I can think of one, and that's the opening note. Maybe some synths in Sea of Madness or Loneliness are triggered by bass, but that's note-for-note too, and hence Steve wouldn't have to be 'wired', he'd just have a MIDI equipped bass and flick a switch. Just like Smith does on Stranger in a strange land. When he strums that bare chord leading into the verse, he just flicks a switch akin to a pickup selector and gets that synth guitar layer. I wouldn't call that exactly complicated.
 
I don't know if it was that reliable though, was it? I've never read anything to suggest it wasn't, but can't help wondering if Adrian was that happy with just that one guitar (modified Jackson with G-707 electronics) for that whole tour. Plus, in the studio I'd guess he laid down some of the basic background synth sounds on their own (using the G-707 controller, not his modified Jackson). They didn't do that live at all. Or was Michael Kenney doing keys in 1986/87? I also don't understand what Dave's set-up was, as I think he was still playing his Kossoff strat. It wasn't modifed I don't think.
 
Dave had his usual equipment live. You could be right about portable equipment being at early stages of development, if Steve had to use another guitar live he'd ditch the idea completely. I'm just saying that these synth parts are note-for-note and that's not the problem with SiT played live. The problem lies in production, I have Gallien Krueger RL250 here and it's not an amplifier that you'd describe as heavy bottomed. It has a nice chorus and really spiky mids but JCM heads have way more low end. Using different recording rooms and studios to achieve that cohesiveness that album has coudn't be brought back live, there was a whole gap in sound between bass and guitars live, at least what I heard from bootlegs.
 
As far as the guitar synths on SIT album go, I always thought it was the exact same reason Priest used them on Turbo. Prior to '86 "toys" like guitar synths were only in srudios in bands or producers requested them. By '86 most studios had them in the studio. Curious guitar players like H, Davey, KK, and Glenn started to "play" with them and liked what they heard. Funny how SIT is universaly praised by Maiden fans but Turbo by Priest is considered a throw away by Priest fans. I enjoy both albums and I'm glad Turbo got a special edition release last year. I kind of wish Maiden would do that and include a full live show from each album.
 
Demigod_Tyek said:
In Nashville, Bruce was very hard to hear during some of the songs. I was about ten feet from the stage, so I don't know if that has anything to do with it. But Nicko and all of the guitars sounded good, but it was hard to understand Bruce at certain points (like, if i hadn't already known the lyrics by heart, I would have had no idea what he was singing). Also, of the three guitarists, I'd say Dave's mix was the lowest. It was especially noticeable during his Powerslave solos, much to my disappointment as it's one of my favorite songs. But his solos just seemed to be drowned out by the overall volume. It was like his volume was at a +3 while everyone else's is at a +5.

Not sure if this means it's the mix, microphones, speaker, or volume.... my expertise in how that stuff is set up is rather low. Could also vary from venue to venue.

EDIT: And yes, in general, everything was super loud. Was deaf the rest of the night after the show. Ears didn't stop ringing until two days after the concert. Again, may be because I was right there at the stage. But I'm sure that contributes as to why some of the sound seemed indistinguishable from each other.
Click to expand...

I was in section 213 a couple rows up so we had a very good view, directly in front of the stage. We were just further away. It was loud there too. I agree with all of this and to be fair, I couldn't talk for 2 days either from the yelling I did. I still had a blast.
 
Hey guys, had a question or two about the San Bernardino show on July 1.

So, first off why does the start time say it's at 3:30 when every other show on this tour is at 6 or 7? Is Maiden going to be going on at like 5 in the afternoon? I also heard a rumor that it is like a mini festival and a few more bands are playing before Maiden, is that true and Maiden will go on later on at night?

What time do you guys think Maiden will go on? Just seems odd for a shows start time to be 3:30 in the afternoon. Anyone have any insight on that?

Thanks guys! Appreciate any helpful answer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top