|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 5, 2016 15:57:53 GMT
I think there was a lot of sloppiness during the FF reunions as well (overlooked by fans with nostalgia glasses, obviously), but that's well beyond what I said; I was referring to concerts like Just Doin' It and Pictures Live, which are overall good showcases of tight, energetic live versions of Status Quo songs seamlessly blended together to a modern, non-nostalgic, in-the-moment, heads-down rock concert. I'm referring to the fact that Rhino and Andy have adapted the songs to their playing style, so when I hear the 2006 live version of "Down Down" it's not inferior to the original version, it's simply different - it kicks major ass in both instances. It is however miles better than what I see on either FF reunion DVD, and I'm simply being an objective critic there, they couldn't do that particular song justice anymore. The problem as I see it is that people seem to fool themselves into thinking that the FF reunion was as good as the band once was in the 70s, and it simply wasn't, end of discussion. As long as songs are being developed, changed, updated, whatever, it's not nostalgia. When you go and listen to an old live recording and limit yourself to a certain time period despite all four band members having written and recorded loads of songs after that point, it is nostalgia, because it is trying to recreate something that happened years ago. Simply playing songs the way you are playing them by nature isn't. I don't know how you got the idea that my post was somehow defending Francis' lazy guitar playing. I mean, listen to how he sang GoGoGo on the Bula Quo tour. It's a new song and he couldn't or wouldn't do better than that. So where's the nostalgia connection? ...and that is just the way it should have been expected. If you want a perfect gig go see the likes of Justin Bieber, sounds just like the studio recordings because that's what it is. I dare you to compare me with a Justin Bieber fan!!!!!!!!!!!!! When did I say I want a perfect gig that sounds like the studio versions? I simply pointed out that sloppiness isn't usable as an anti-CQ argument because it was there FF as well. Really this post shows what is wrong with the entire debate. When CQ are playing sloppily it's embarrassing and lazy. When FF are playing sloppily it's a part of the experience. Hypocritical much?
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 5, 2016 16:08:21 GMT
The 1973 live version of "Railroad" destroys the 2013 version so much it's not even funny. I often see people being hyper-critical about CQ but generously overlooking any aspect of the FF reunions that wasn't so pretty. Neither of the two come close to FF in their prime. Your comparisons of versions of songs 40 yrs apart as reflections of age and playing restrictions collectively (taking into account Alans health and John getting back to fitness) is what misses the point.
My own 'hyper criticism' of CQ is that they copy FF songs far too much and do not utilise 30 years of their own material. Frankly its irrelevant comparing versions of songs over 40 yrs. The results are bound to obvious comparing most rock artists. What matters is actually seeing heroes from your past daring to play songs that even they did not feature 40 yrs back - and regardless of the restrictions that might handicap them.
CQ might not have such limitations in terms of overall health and fitness, but then that gives them so much less excuse for not following the example of the FF, despite the reunion handicaps, and instead sticking with copying and playing the 'same old'
Rather have a band with playing restrictions and maybe a few rougher edges but who are still willing to take risks on stage and give long standing sections of fans what they long to hear for, than one that an interminably samey stretching set, ill-represented of their own songs, executed precisely note for note, stage move by stage move, and geared towards those who love hearing RAOTW.
There is nothing nostalgic, let alone enjoyable about the latter choice in my opinion
Catlady, perhaps time to read my post again and the post to which it was in response. I'll save you the trouble. The post I quoted had the statement: " The reunion gigs sounded as good if not better than the 70's" and THAT is why I compared the two versions of a song that once had a relentless groove and then just sounded stilted and flat and boring. And as my earlier comparison of the 1975 studio version and the 2006 live version of "Down Down", likewise dismissed by you, shows clearly - it has nothing to do with age on the side of Francis and Rick. It has to do with togetherness. When I hear the FF reunions I hear Rick playing ahead of John. Chances are that this might have gone away if they had reunited full time and spent a couple of months on the road. But we will never know about that. My point is that nostalgia allows us to ignore these things. They had gone a little bit rusty. So what. It's not that I would mind, but it is when these flaws are being ignored whereas the same people jump on anything CQ do. The setlist situation has been a pain in the arse since 2004. But why is it relevant to this thread? Playing the same songs over and over is stagnancy, not nostalgia. What's nostalgic about "The Oriental" or "Creepin' Up on You"? Nostalgia would be if they locked themselves into a certain era, went back to the arrangements of those days and structured the setlist along those lines. Something else people have said over at CnC is that if the FF had reunited full-time the setlist situation would have become tiresome quite easily. There were precious few changes between 2013 and 2014. If they couldn't get "Don't Think It Matters" and "Slow Train" into the 2014 set, there is barely and hope those songs would have gotten an outing any later. The setlist attitude has basically been continuous from the mid-70s on and only gotten worse over the years, but it has nothing to do with lineups.
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 5, 2016 16:11:48 GMT
I can understand your point of view. I would like them to play more recent stuff. It's just that when I listen to the Bula Quo Live World Tour double CD I don't hear a band doing nostalgia, and when I listen to the CDs from the Frantic Four reunion I do hear nostalgia. It's not about the songs themselves, it's about how you play them. When the FF reunited they listened (!!!!!) to the 77 Live album before playing. That's nostalgia. Whereas CQ have adapted the FF songs, at least the ones they've been playing over the years, to their own playing style, hence they are not being nostalgic. It doesn't sound like it used to in the 70s. I think it's great that you hear the newer cd's with no sense of nostalgia, just goes to show we're all different. For me, it's not just the way the songs are played or by whom, but how they are received and certain characteristics are more important to some than others e.g. a slick show or a loose gig. IMO in the limited time left, there is room for both current Quo and some reunion line up gigs. I disagree with your comments that the 13/14 reunion tours were just an inferior attempt to copy the Live album. Yes it was based on it but they adapted some songs ie MOTT, they introduced New old songs ie ASS&W and they didn't sound exactly the same as the 70's, so using your own argument, they were not being nostalgic at all!!! But in answer to the OP, actually yes I think their Live shows are based on nostalgia but does it matter? No I don't think it matters at all! Now that's one I would love to hear Al sing! Making little changes to the set (and simply playing inferior versions of MOTT and RHB) isn't enough to make it less nostalgic IMO. Paradoxically, if the FF had taken up the 2012 CQ set, it would have been not nostalgic, despite the set being old. The only thing that was not nostalgic about the FF reunion was the awful sound of Rossi's guitar...
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 5, 2016 16:17:02 GMT
Regarding DTG, it should have been a single. It would have made people sit up and take notice. But in one way I'm glad it wasn't released. Just imagine how much of an abomination the promo video would have been... As sick and disgusting as ITAN 2010. John Keeling strikes again. Quo got it right with AIBN. It showed another side to the band. People were raving about it on Twitter. Aquostic wouldn't have done as well had one of the strum along numbers on the album been released instead. The same principle applies to CGYM, IDMI, TWIG, JSD, TPAOY, RNRNY. They all hampered sales of the subsequent studio album due to being overly generic. This could be the first post of yours that I agree with... most of those singles are not representative of the albums in any way. Jam Side Down? Rock 'n' Roll 'n' You? Please!
|
|
|
Post by Whoppa Choppa on Feb 5, 2016 16:54:03 GMT
The 2013 Hammy was way better than any of the post 86 live experience, and as a whole much more satisfying for an old fan. Not as good as the 70's but, would one really expect that? And Down Down has never been nailed, IMO... Never. Thing is, songs played like they should be played, to my taste, is not nostalgia, it is taste. And as the famous norwegian used to say, it's all about taste. And taste is personal. Did I mention taste??
|
|
|
Post by Detroit on Feb 5, 2016 17:07:01 GMT
...and that is just the way it should have been expected. If you want a perfect gig go see the likes of Justin Bieber, sounds just like the studio recordings because that's what it is. I dare you to compare me with a Justin Bieber fan!!!!!!!!!!!!! When did I say I want a perfect gig that sounds like the studio versions? I simply pointed out that sloppiness isn't usable as an anti-CQ argument because it was there FF as well. Really this post shows what is wrong with the entire debate. When CQ are playing sloppily it's embarrassing and lazy. When FF are playing sloppily it's a part of the experience. Hypocritical much? Point 1: Hit a soft spot? I only used him as an example. Point 2: I didn't
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 19:35:01 GMT
When I hear the FF reunions I hear Rick playing ahead of John. Chances are that this might have gone away if they had reunited full time and spent a couple of months on the road. But we will never know about that. My point is that nostalgia allows us to ignore these things. They had gone a little bit rusty. So what. It's not that I would mind, but it is when these flaws are being ignored whereas the same people jump on anything CQ do. Maybe because Francis bums up CQ something rotten. A well-oiled machine... Really?!! On autopilot, bored out of their minds more like, sloppy all over the place - particularly Francis. The crowd never get going until ITAN or until Rhino gets them to clap. CQ deserve criticism whatever they do because they're sell-outs. They don't have the balls to sack a manager who does nothing good for them.
|
|
|
Post by vivfromcov on Feb 5, 2016 21:29:15 GMT
I think it's great that you hear the newer cd's with no sense of nostalgia, just goes to show we're all different. For me, it's not just the way the songs are played or by whom, but how they are received and certain characteristics are more important to some than others e.g. a slick show or a loose gig. IMO in the limited time left, there is room for both current Quo and some reunion line up gigs. I disagree with your comments that the 13/14 reunion tours were just an inferior attempt to copy the Live album. Yes it was based on it but they adapted some songs ie MOTT, they introduced New old songs ie ASS&W and they didn't sound exactly the same as the 70's, so using your own argument, they were not being nostalgic at all!!! But in answer to the OP, actually yes I think their Live shows are based on nostalgia but does it matter? No I don't think it matters at all! Now that's one I would love to hear Al sing! Making little changes to the set (and simply playing inferior versions of MOTT and RHB) isn't enough to make it less nostalgic IMO. Paradoxically, if the FF had taken up the 2012 CQ set, it would have been not nostalgic, despite the set being old. The only thing that was not nostalgic about the FF reunion was the awful sound of Rossi's guitar... What do you think was inferior about MOTT and RB? I personally loved the new arrangement of MOTT with the quieter, slowed down ending and loved RB as well. I did want the jig at the time but having now heard those reunion gigs over and over again, I think I now prefer it without. In retrospect maybe it was just a little bit too panto when they did it like that back in the 70's!
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 5, 2016 21:32:41 GMT
I dare you to compare me with a Justin Bieber fan!!!!!!!!!!!!! When did I say I want a perfect gig that sounds like the studio versions? I simply pointed out that sloppiness isn't usable as an anti-CQ argument because it was there FF as well. Really this post shows what is wrong with the entire debate. When CQ are playing sloppily it's embarrassing and lazy. When FF are playing sloppily it's a part of the experience. Hypocritical much? Point 1: Hit a soft spot? I only used him as an example. Point 2: I didn't Trust me, I don't know a single Justin Bieber song! I've managed to avoid him. But anyway, the example was an extreme one and uncalled for in a rock discussion.
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 5, 2016 21:35:11 GMT
Making little changes to the set (and simply playing inferior versions of MOTT and RHB) isn't enough to make it less nostalgic IMO. Paradoxically, if the FF had taken up the 2012 CQ set, it would have been not nostalgic, despite the set being old. The only thing that was not nostalgic about the FF reunion was the awful sound of Rossi's guitar... What do you think was inferior about MOTT and RB? I personally loved the new arrangement of MOTT with the quieter, slowed down ending and loved RB as well. I did want the jig at the time but having now heard those reunion gigs over and over again, I think I now prefer it without. In retrospect maybe it was just a little bit too panto when they did it like that back in the 70's! Well, it's all preferences but just like koeeaddi has written in his reviews, I prefer the elongated version of RHB, and I felt MOTT was somehow anticlimactic the way they did it. Those were different arrangements, certainly - but I find them less exciting.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit on Feb 5, 2016 22:40:17 GMT
Point 1: Hit a soft spot? I only used him as an example. Point 2: I didn't Trust me, I don't know a single Justin Bieber song! I've managed to avoid him. But anyway, the example was an extreme one and uncalled for in a rock discussion. I don't care if you know a song by him or not. You are much to sensitive. oh, extreme? Anything goes around here. You should know that.
|
|
|
Post by colmfoley on Feb 6, 2016 1:26:12 GMT
The penny must be dropping a small bit, earlier the reunion gigs were been compared to CQ ''live'' 06. I was comparing because some people were claiming that the 2013 or 2014 gigs were as good as the 70s gigs. Well they weren't and the fact that people say this shows how much nostalgia colors the experience. Quod erat demonstrandum (now that would be a good album title eh?) Hey let the penny drop, although I love the way you've tried to twist the argument into FF 70's v FF 13/14..So at least CQ is a non runner in the debate, yeah perhaps the penny has finally dropped
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 6, 2016 10:31:45 GMT
Trust me, I don't know a single Justin Bieber song! I've managed to avoid him. But anyway, the example was an extreme one and uncalled for in a rock discussion. I don't care if you know a song by him or not. You are much to sensitive. oh, extreme? Anything goes around here. You should know that. Thanks for telling me what I am and what I should be. By the way, it's "too" and not "to".
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Feb 6, 2016 10:32:29 GMT
I was comparing because some people were claiming that the 2013 or 2014 gigs were as good as the 70s gigs. Well they weren't and the fact that people say this shows how much nostalgia colors the experience. Quod erat demonstrandum (now that would be a good album title eh?) Hey let the penny drop, although I love the way you've tried to twist the argument into FF 70's v FF 13/14..So at least CQ is a non runner in the debate, yeah perhaps the penny has finally dropped I've not tried to twist any arguments, I was using two separate comparisons to make my standpoint clear. It's you who fail to see the bigger picture
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 11:07:18 GMT
Your comparisons of versions of songs 40 yrs apart as reflections of age and playing restrictions collectively (taking into account Alans health and John getting back to fitness) is what misses the point.
My own 'hyper criticism' of CQ is that they copy FF songs far too much and do not utilise 30 years of their own material. Frankly its irrelevant comparing versions of songs over 40 yrs. The results are bound to obvious comparing most rock artists. What matters is actually seeing heroes from your past daring to play songs that even they did not feature 40 yrs back - and regardless of the restrictions that might handicap them.
CQ might not have such limitations in terms of overall health and fitness, but then that gives them so much less excuse for not following the example of the FF, despite the reunion handicaps, and instead sticking with copying and playing the 'same old'
Rather have a band with playing restrictions and maybe a few rougher edges but who are still willing to take risks on stage and give long standing sections of fans what they long to hear for, than one that an interminably samey stretching set, ill-represented of their own songs, executed precisely note for note, stage move by stage move, and geared towards those who love hearing RAOTW.
There is nothing nostalgic, let alone enjoyable about the latter choice in my opinion
Catlady, perhaps time to read my post again and the post to which it was in response. I'll save you the trouble. The post I quoted had the statement: " The reunion gigs sounded as good if not better than the 70's" and THAT is why I compared the two versions of a song that once had a relentless groove and then just sounded stilted and flat and boring. And as my earlier comparison of the 1975 studio version and the 2006 live version of "Down Down", likewise dismissed by you, shows clearly - it has nothing to do with age on the side of Francis and Rick. It has to do with togetherness. When I hear the FF reunions I hear Rick playing ahead of John. Chances are that this might have gone away if they had reunited full time and spent a couple of months on the road. But we will never know about that. My point is that nostalgia allows us to ignore these things. They had gone a little bit rusty. So what. It's not that I would mind, but it is when these flaws are being ignored whereas the same people jump on anything CQ do. The setlist situation has been a pain in the arse since 2004. But why is it relevant to this thread? Playing the same songs over and over is stagnancy, not nostalgia. What's nostalgic about "The Oriental" or "Creepin' Up on You"? Nostalgia would be if they locked themselves into a certain era, went back to the arrangements of those days and structured the setlist along those lines. Something else people have said over at CnC is that if the FF had reunited full-time the setlist situation would have become tiresome quite easily. There were precious few changes between 2013 and 2014. If they couldn't get "Don't Think It Matters" and "Slow Train" into the 2014 set, there is barely and hope those songs would have gotten an outing any later. The setlist attitude has basically been continuous from the mid-70s on and only gotten worse over the years, but it has nothing to do with lineups. In the context of the FF coming together after 30 yrs of having not played together, minimal rehearsal, dealing with the awkwardness of healing personal rifts, faced with health and fitness handicaps and yet managing to play a set that even featured a few songs they have never played before live then I think the overall attitude, let alone the set list attitude is far superior and risk taking than CQ.
CQ being a band who have been together for 30 yrs, over rehearse a samey set for yrs on end, are not prepared to play 95% of songs of their own not featured before and insist instead on playing a set which features a large proportion of hits from their predecessors.
On that basis I think it has everything to do with line-ups. I'm not sure it is easy to feel nostalgic in the face of over familiarity and over manufactured entertainment.
Much easier I think to forgive mistakes and some rustiness based on spontaneous understanding that doesn't require precise rehearsal to determine when a nod, wink or grin occurs on stage between band members or is exchanged with the audience but instead relies on raw instinct to play unpretentious rock boogie - minus superficial gimmicks in the guise of being 'entertaining'.
Clear enough I think on that basis why CQ get 'jumped on' in this respect and why the FF on the other hand appear to be easily forgiven and overlooked in terms of any apparent flaws in their approach and actual performance. Quite well justified in my opinion
|
|