PDA

View Full Version : Lynyrd Skynyrd -- Glasgow, Scotland -- May 27th, 2009


busterfridge
05-27-2009, 05:44 PM
Set List for the Scottish leg of the tour
the set list is as follows: -

1. Workin for MCA:rocker::rocker::rocker:

2. I ain't the one

3. Saturday night special

4. Whats your name

5. Simple man

6. That Smell

7. Whisky rock-a-roller

8. Compilation of songs -
Down south Jukin,
needle and the spoon,
Double trouble and
Tuesdays Gone.:light::light:

9. Gimme three steps:party::party::party:

10. Call me the breeze

11 Sweet home alabama

12 Freebird



Was highly surprised, nothing post 1977 especially with a new album in the can

mankvill
05-27-2009, 05:55 PM
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them.

They're gonna be here on July 4th :usa:

opening for Kid Rock :barf:

JRA
05-27-2009, 05:57 PM
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them.

They're gonna be here on July 4th :usa:

opening for Kid Rock :barf:

Opening? :eek:


That's fucking blasphemy.

The_jman
05-27-2009, 07:52 PM
There's a sad day indeed, when Lynyrd Skynyrd Opens for kid rock.
stil a great set, for afan of the original skynyrd, a very good set.

I can't even believe that, opening for him... I can't stand kid rock, but yeah done with my bitching.

300%_Density
05-27-2009, 10:37 PM
Skynyrd is always alot of fun. I wonder if there is as much white trash people that see them over Europe as there is here in the states. It's absolutely embarassing making them open up for Kid Rock. There won't be a case of Natural Light in the state of Kansas by the time they play together in KC. On the 4th of July of all dates. Seen them 3 times already and always a blast.

Looks like they even changed up their setlist since the last time I saw them a few years ago.

MetalIsArt
05-29-2009, 04:59 AM
Blasphemy!

toolfansat
05-29-2009, 12:01 PM
I love Skynyrd, and have seen them a few times, but this brings up one of my "pet peeves". How many "original" members should be in a band in order to still be considered to be the same band. Let's face it, Skynyrd is down to 1 original (Rossington), so at what point are they a glorified tribute band?

Sanitarium78
05-30-2009, 07:15 PM
I love Skynyrd, and have seen them a few times, but this brings up one of my "pet peeves". How many "original" members should be in a band in order to still be considered to be the same band. Let's face it, Skynyrd is down to 1 original (Rossington), so at what point are they a glorified tribute band?

I understand what you're saying about them being a tribute band but unlike a lot of bands it's not there fault that all the original members aren't around anymore. Plus there's younger people like myself who've grown up with this version of Skynyrd and have no idea who's who in the band

300%_Density
05-30-2009, 07:52 PM
I've always wondered where the line was drawn at as well. Like seeing Prong a few years ago. Its not like I was really that bothered that it was just Tommy Victor. Or seeing Helmet & Page is the only guy from the original days. Not trying to be a dick about it or anything but really how many bands could you say that about. I think its one of those deals that the band is bigger than it's members. Atleast for the Van Zants it was just the brother taking over instead of hiring some surfer blonde guy from California and saying "hey this is the new Skynyrd". Definitley a funny thought.

Maiden33
05-30-2009, 08:10 PM
I think it all has to do with how things transpired throughout a band's career to get to the point of having one, or even no (which has happened) original members. I think if a band had gone through a shitload of changes before releasing it's "essential" material, no one really cares about the lineup changes before that, just what happens after. Take a band like Maiden, who went through countless changes through their pre-debut years and even the first 3 albums. But Maiden released it's "essential" material with a stable and consistent line up. To most people, that's Maiden.
If a band has been around 20+ years, it's common that they can wind up with just one original member without it being weird at all. If people just come and go casually every now and then, it just seems normal as it happens through the years.
Also, for a lot of people, as long as a band retains it's most popular singer, or if there is a primary writer, that's what defines the band for fans, and as long as the stay, people don't get that upset with the changes. For example, Iced Earth. It's been Schaffer's show from Day 1, and people know that. People are biased towards singers (usually Barlow vs. Ripper), but there isn't anyone out there who think the current lineup is blasphemous because of the other new faces.

The_jman
05-31-2009, 09:27 AM
I think it all has to do with how things transpired throughout a band's career to get to the point of having one, or even no (which has happened) original members. I think if a band had gone through a shitload of changes before releasing it's "essential" material, no one really cares about the lineup changes before that, just what happens after. Take a band like Maiden, who went through countless changes through their pre-debut years and even the first 3 albums. But Maiden released it's "essential" material with a stable and consistent line up. To most people, that's Maiden.
If a band has been around 20+ years, it's common that they can wind up with just one original member without it being weird at all. If people just come and go casually every now and then, it just seems normal as it happens through the years.
Also, for a lot of people, as long as a band retains it's most popular singer, or if there is a primary writer, that's what defines the band for fans, and as long as the stay, people don't get that upset with the changes. For example, Iced Earth. It's been Schaffer's show from Day 1, and people know that. People are biased towards singers (usually Barlow vs. Ripper), but there isn't anyone out there who think the current lineup is blasphemous because of the other new faces.
I agree, I personally don't like Jonny VanZant I thought that skynyrd died, or the heart of it died with ronny, however I will give Jonny the fact that he's a much better singer when singing his brother's music than when he sings his own original.
I think a big part of it for me is I can accept the new skynyrd because they still play the songs the same way I'm used to hearing them. I think that's one of the reason I really never liked Ronnie James Dio for Sabbath, and I know I'm probably opening up a whole other debate here, but to me although Dio was a better singer, when he tried to sing the songs ozzy wrote he sang them like he would sing them and it sounded nothing like Ozzy, and to me they should sound the way Ozzy sang them.
but that's my two cents take them or leave them.

Sanitarium78
05-31-2009, 02:07 PM
I agree, I personally don't like Jonny VanZant I thought that skynyrd died, or the heart of it died with ronny, however I will give Jonny the fact that he's a much better singer when singing his brother's music than when he sings his own original.
I think a big part of it for me is I can accept the new skynyrd because they still play the songs the same way I'm used to hearing them. I think that's one of the reason I really never liked Ronnie James Dio for Sabbath, and I know I'm probably opening up a whole other debate here, but to me although Dio was a better singer, when he tried to sing the songs ozzy wrote he sang them like he would sing them and it sounded nothing like Ozzy, and to me they should sound the way Ozzy sang them.
but that's my two cents take them or leave them.

The problem with that is Dio and Ozzy are comepletly different vocalists. The stuff Sabbath did was written for Ozzy's voice and so the songs would have to be rearranged to fit Dio's voice. That's one of the reasons why they're going under the Heaven & Hell name now doing only the Dio era stuff. That way all the songs sound right live. Also Ozzy never really wrote anything with Sabbath it was mainly Tony and Geezer. Geezer wrote all the lyrics all Ozzy did was come up with was how to sing the song