Originally Posted by Maiden33
I hate when people compare two bands' setlists like this. Apples and Oranges. Maiden plays an hour and 50 minutes, Rush plays 3 hours. If Maiden played an extra hour and thus 10-11 or so more songs, they could please a helluva lot more people.
Also, this current tour's setlist = one of the best Maiden have ever done. I will keep fighting that fight. If you don't like the new stuff that much, that's fine - but don't try to say it's NOT a good setlist for what it is, because it definitely is.
It's not apples and oranges, Rush consistently uses songs from their entire catalog and play a few of their "hits" every time. Closer to the Heart and Working Man weren't played on the last tour, but they brought them back this time. They pull songs out of the bag on every tour.
And what the fuck makes Maiden's current set good regardless of whether you like the new material or not? Playing over 2/3 of the set from less than a third of the catalog just sounds wrong, let alone the third that didn't create the fan base that it did. I loved the SBIT and Ozzfest shows, but does that make the sets good? No.
Originally Posted by JRA
Workin Them Angels sucks. I'd wish they'd drop that turd.
At least La Villa Strangiato and Working Man are back.
That was one of the few songs I liked on the album.