Queensryche -- Hollywood, CA -- November 24th, 2012

[fonzbear2000]

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

Iron Maiden outnumbers Rush two to one 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 for some good opinions on Queensryche's set length.

[EvilCheeseWedge]

Originally Posted by fonzbear2000

That's very true. Also, have a look here for some good opinions on Queensryche's set length.

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

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

[Maiden33]

Originally Posted by EvilCheeseWedge

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 ) 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.

[SomewhereInTime72]

Roads To Madness

[Fe Maiden]

Originally Posted by fonzbear2000

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

[EvilCheeseWedge]

Originally Posted by Maiden33

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! ), 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