PDA

View Full Version : Queensryche -- Hollywood, CA -- November 24th, 2012


Onioner
11-25-2012, 05:52 AM
Outstanding show. Todd LaTorre pretty much just made Queensryche awesome again, Michael Wilton was really energetic and Scott Rockenfield is a fucking beast. Todd's singing was just incredible, he nailed pretty much every high note. Also finally ran into turtle again, good seeing you as always!


Queen of the Reich
Speak
Walk in the Shadows
The Whisper
En Force
Child of Fire
Warning
The Needle Lies
Prophecy
Roads to Madness
I Don't Believe in Love
My Empty Room
Eyes of a Stranger
Encore:
Take Hold of the Flame
Jet City Woman
Silent Lucidity
Empire

rjturtle9
11-25-2012, 07:06 AM
This show was too badass! Sucks I never got to see them with Tate, but oh we'll, Todd rips!

bennythedog
11-25-2012, 07:38 AM
Awesome! I was hoping the reviews for this would be this excellent! I can't wait for the Chicago show now!!

Queensrychian
11-25-2012, 07:45 AM
Set is way to short!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love them but epic fail. Bands really need to look at bands like RUsh and play like 60 year old men!

ijwthstd
11-25-2012, 08:44 AM
I was thinking of going and seeing if I could score a cheap ticket but ended up staying home. Were there people selling outside?

PlaysWithKnives
11-25-2012, 09:25 AM
Great set. Latorre can sing his ass off. They seem to have new life without Tate holding them back.

Travis The Dragon
11-25-2012, 05:02 PM
Set is way to short!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love them but epic fail. Bands really need to look at bands like RUsh and play like 60 year old men!

Rush doesn't put on a super energetic performance like bands like QR, Maiden and so on. Also, Geddy doesn't sing super powerful and energetic like other bands and if other bands did longer shows along with the energy and singing, it could be very hard on them.

Super amazing setlist for sure! This needs to come here!

rjturtle9
11-25-2012, 05:27 PM
Rush doesn't put on a super energetic performance like bands like QR, Maiden and so on.

Um... From my experience, Geddy Lee moved on stage a little more then Queensryche did, while playing bass. The old age thing isn't really an excuse for short setlists. I do agree that not all bands can put on evening with shows like Rush, but there is no excuse for a headline set to not be at least an hour and a half.

Queensryche set didn't really feel that short last night though. It was a pretty good set.

tenchimyo
11-25-2012, 06:32 PM
my only complaint is that they have not toured around DC yet!!

Fe Maiden
11-26-2012, 06:59 AM
Rush doesn't put on a super energetic performanceYeah........wait......huh?:eek: Are you serious? Have you really watched a RUSH show? Alex is all over the place, Neil....well you can't say he is not energetic....enough said there.....and Geddy is pretty damn energetic in my book!

rjturtle9
11-26-2012, 07:38 AM
Yeah........wait......huh?:eek: Are you serious? Have you really watched a RUSH show? Alex is all over the place, Neil....well you can't say he is not energetic....enough said there.....and Geddy is pretty damn energetic in my book!

Exactly!!!!!

Onioner
11-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Comparing Queensryche to Rush is like comparing In n Out to Benihana. They're both yum, but one is in a whole other league of godliness.

EvilCheeseWedge
11-27-2012, 09:46 AM
Hey, Queensryche just linked this review on Facebook. Nice :)

Play a longer set dudes :D

bennythedog
11-27-2012, 10:45 AM
I see some are complaining about the set length but a number of those songs are quite long. I put them all in a playlist and it was 1:20:51, which isn't all that bad you know.

That said, a longer set would be awesomer and would include Before The Storm, Deliverance, Neue Regel and Screaming In Digital. :-)

Maiden33
11-27-2012, 01:04 PM
Is it too short? Yeah, a little, as in like 3-4 songs. That would be more than enough. I honestly don't WANT to see a "METAL" show lasting over 2 hours, I can't sustain the energy and excitement for that long (onstage or off), especially given shows being GA with support bands. Anything under an hour and a half is probably too short for an accomplished band with a lot of music under their belt because you just can't hit all the material you should, but yeah, I don't bitch if bands play 90-110 minutes - to me that's ideal.

rjturtle9
11-27-2012, 01:14 PM
Yup. The set wasn't sort at all. Maybe on paper it is, but in reality it's a decent size length.

Onioner
11-27-2012, 01:50 PM
The set was 90 minutes flat. There was almost no downtime at all, so the set felt like a good length.

Travis The Dragon
11-27-2012, 04:06 PM
Yeah........wait......huh?:eek: Are you serious? Have you really watched a RUSH show? Alex is all over the place, Neil....well you can't say he is not energetic....enough said there.....and Geddy is pretty damn energetic in my book!
Not compared to Iron Maiden.

EvilCheeseWedge
11-27-2012, 04:29 PM
My angle is, I'm not gonna pay $50+ for only 90 minutes. The tickets for the nearest QR show for me right now are $56 (partially because they're playing with a bunch of 80's hair like Skid Row & Vince Neil :hecho: ) but still, 90 minutes is a bit short. They could easily add another 10-15 minutes of their "less than metal" numbers and maybe acknowledge that, for better or worst, (and fuck it, if we're talking Promised Land, easily for the better) they did continue writing material past 1990...

EvilCheeseWedge
11-27-2012, 04:31 PM
Not compared to Iron Maiden.

Iron Maiden outnumbers Rush two to one :lol: And Bruce isn't burdened by a bass guitar. I think those two things figure prominently in any "energy discrepancy" between the two bands.

Travis The Dragon
11-27-2012, 04:34 PM
Iron Maiden outnumbers Rush two to one :lol: And Bruce isn't burdened by a bass guitar. I think those two things figure prominently in any "energy discrepancy" between the two bands.
That's very true. Also, have a look here (http://www.anybodylistening.net/breakdownroom/index.php?topic=3395.0) for some good opinions on Queensryche's set length.

EvilCheeseWedge
11-27-2012, 04:37 PM
That's very true. Also, have a look here (http://www.anybodylistening.net/breakdownroom/index.php?topic=3395.0) for some good opinions on Queensryche's set length.

Indeed! Good call. My two cents is over there too :2cents:

I agree with what the Sterniac dude over there posted about the length.

Maiden33
11-27-2012, 07:22 PM
My angle is, I'm not gonna pay $50+ for only 90 minutes. The tickets for the nearest QR show for me right now are $56 (partially because they're playing with a bunch of 80's hair like Skid Row & Vince Neil :hecho: ) but still, 90 minutes is a bit short. They could easily add another 10-15 minutes of their "less than metal" numbers and maybe acknowledge that, for better or worst, (and fuck it, if we're talking Promised Land, easily for the better) they did continue writing material past 1990...

I have a feeling they will eventually acknowledge some post-Empire material again, but they are DEFINITELY on a retro trip right now, and I can't blame them. It's been 20 years since they had someone who could sing The Warning's stuff properly, and the band seems to really be thriving on the energy Todd has brought them lately. Hell, in the beginning they weren't even playing any Empire songs aside from the title track. I love some of those songs (Real World, Someone Else?), but for now I don't really care. I've seen them play them, but I've never seen them play Roads to Madness, Queen of the Reich (full song), Prophecy, or Child of Fire... Nor have I seen them do some of these other songs the justice they are currently doing. I'd rather pay the same price and see 20-30 minutes less material performed 20-30x better and more excitingly than the other way around.

That being said, if you refuse to pay $56 for 90 minutes, how do you justify Iron Maiden tickets? Yes, most tours are closer to 110 minutes, but they have done a few tours where the set is a mere 90-100 minutes and the tickets are always more expensive than that.

That also being said, I lucked out considering the show nearest me is an all-GA show in a VERY nice place for a mere $30. :party:

SomewhereInTime72
11-27-2012, 09:00 PM
Roads To Madness :drool:

Fe Maiden
11-28-2012, 07:36 AM
Not compared to Iron Maiden.Yes, compared to Iron Maiden when you factor in the set length and all I would put them on a pretty even level of energy expenditure per show:cool:

EvilCheeseWedge
11-28-2012, 07:46 AM
That being said, if you refuse to pay $56 for 90 minutes, how do you justify Iron Maiden tickets?

That's easy... I don't. ;)

I haven't seen Iron Maiden since Ozzfest 2005. And while my ticket was expensive ($100+) it was for my two favorite bands of the time (Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath.) I haven't since, nor probably ever will, pay that much for a ticket again. I've wanted to see Iron Maiden since then, but a combination of costs, timing, and their set list has prevented it. (Really wanted to see IM for the Somewhere Back on Tour year though.)

The last time I saw Queenseryche, which was in 2009 (where I met es156! :rocker:), it was like $39-45 for the ticket and they played for two hours. And I didn't have to deal with hair metal openers :bliss: