Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 9:02:37 GMT
According to Status Quo set lists here are the top 15 most played songs on tour (in most played order): Caroline Roll Over Lay Down Rockin ‘All Over The World Whatever You Want Down Down Rain Don’t Waste My Time Big Fat Mamma In The Army Now Hold You Back Rock and Roll Music/Bye Bye Johnny Forty-Five Hundred Times Mystery Song/Railroad/Most of The Time/ Wild Side of Life/Rollin Home/Again and Again/Slow Train Something ‘bout You Baby I like Juniors Wailing With a couple of exceptions I wouldn't mind listening to this . That list emphatically illustrates the point I have made over and over again.
Just ONE of those top played songs belongs to CQ. Namely ITAN. Although, heavens above, we must of course not forget the snippet of Rollin Home in the Mystery Song medley....
The question is asked yet again... Why have CQ bothered at all with a recording career over 30 yrs when only one song of theirs in approx a dozen (!) studio albums (excluding the covers albums) has been represented in the top played order? If CQ had no intention of representing their back catalogue, as part of a rolling forward second part of the career of 'Status Quo', then why bother recording them in the first place?
Furthermore, what does it tell you about the stock of faith that the post 86 band hold in their own material?
Essentially the list proves that whichever way one slices it, CQ have existed as a tribute band to the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on May 11, 2016 9:43:12 GMT
According to Status Quo set lists here are the top 15 most played songs on tour (in most played order): Caroline Roll Over Lay Down Rockin ‘All Over The World Whatever You Want Down Down Rain Don’t Waste My Time Big Fat Mamma In The Army Now Hold You Back Rock and Roll Music/Bye Bye Johnny Forty-Five Hundred Times Mystery Song/Railroad/Most of The Time/ Wild Side of Life/Rollin Home/Again and Again/Slow Train Something ‘bout You Baby I like Juniors Wailing With a couple of exceptions I wouldn't mind listening to this . That list emphatically illustrates the point I have made over and over again.
Just ONE of those top played songs belongs to CQ. Namely ITAN. Although, heavens above, we must of course not forget the snippet of Rollin Home in the Mystery Song medley....
The question is asked yet again... Why have CQ bothered at all with a recording career over 30 yrs when only one song of theirs in approx a dozen (!) studio albums (excluding the covers albums) has been represented in the top played order? If CQ had no intention of representing their back catalogue, as part of a rolling forward second part of the career of 'Status Quo', then why bother recording them in the first place?
Furthermore, what does it tell you about the stock of faith that the post 86 band hold in their own material?
Essentially the list proves that whichever way one slices it, CQ have existed as a tribute band to the original.
Nope. First of all the list is cumulative for everything the band have done since first using the name (1967?). Therefore it isn't completely fair to see this as representative of CQ only, though I suppose the result will look similar (with CUOY, BOTE and TO higher up the list, most likely). But getting more into the matter, it's a question of continuity. How many songs from 1982 and BTB did the lineup with Pete play? Exactly. And when CQ first appeared, they knew well that they couldn't fill an entire set with new material and they therefore opted for keeping as much as possible from the pre-CQ/post-FF set lists. When should they have made a cut and said, "OK from this point on we'll drop all the FF classics from the set"? Now, they did play a lot of new songs in the 90s and up to Heavy Traffic, but I'm not sure how well all of this was received. If you think about it, they haven't revived many songs at all, and if, it's usually songs that have already worked live. Tracks like "For You" are an exception to the rule. So one could say that they have been limiting themselves to a certain pool of songs, and most of them were recorded during the band's heyday - but turning the argument around, I think Francis and Rick (and Andy) don't get why they shouldn't be playing these songs, which they have played on. Contrary to what swisscheese keeps saying, I would bet that Rhino probably has more of an interest in playing songs that he has actually recorded with the band (and preferably those from UTI onward). But it's only us fans that talk of different bands; the guys don't think in FF/CQ categories. One of my favourite bands, Manfred Mann's Earth Band, are much more frustrating. They have had many lineup (and sound) changes but the setlist has remained pretty much the same since the 90s! The current setlist has evolved over the years. I'm not saying it's good, but a tribute band would mean that CQ get up and play Live! which they don't do. Arguably the only thing the current set has in common with later FF days is that it starts with Caroline and ends with Bye Bye Johnny (or at least a part of it) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 10:18:04 GMT
'Nope' maybe is just a short to the point reflection of your opinion though  Clearly the set isn't cumulative of everything the band have done since 1967. It has mostly comprises 70's hits and odds and sods from before and afterwards. That is, the likes of POMM and IITS at the early end of the spectrum floating in and out occasionally, and the token, yet still semi permanence of CUOY, TO and BOTE at the other end of the spectrum. Hardly cumulative identified representation really. The part that is clearly missing (aside from the exception songs identified) is between 86 to-date. Yes, a token single or maybe odd album track has been played very fleetingly with each album along the way - but none (other than the likes of ITAN, CUOY,TO and BOTE) have stayed the course as continuant residents of the set. Using this set of data (instead of the most played song list used above) still leaves us with only four songs that are well versed with a CQ audience in 30 years and fully supports the conclusions as stated in the previous post. As said, whichever way you slice this, and try to create a different impression or perspective, it comes back to the same conclusion On the basis as described, the set list clearly has not evolved (in a proper meaningful representation of the word) in 30 yrs. The bedrock of it throughout that time has been 70's hits and album songs from the 70's - with just fleeting micro representation from the CQ catalogue. |
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on May 11, 2016 10:38:52 GMT
'Nope' maybe is just a short to the point reflection of your opinion though Clearly the set isn't cumulative of everything the band have done since 1967. It has mostly comprises 70's hits and odds and sods from before and afterwards. That is, the likes of POMM and IITS at the early end of the spectrum floating in and out occasionally, and the token, yet still semi permanence of CUOY, TO and BOTE at the other end of the spectrum. Hardly cumulative identified representation really. The part that is clearly missing (aside from the exception songs identified) is between 86 to-date. Yes, a token single or maybe odd album track has been played very fleetingly with each album along the way - but none (other than the likes of ITAN, CUOY,TO and BOTE) have stayed the course as continuant residents of the set. Using this set of data (instead of the most played song list used above) still leaves us with only four songs that are well versed with a CQ audience in 30 years and fully supports the conclusions as stated in the previous post. As said, whichever way you slice this, and try to create a different impression or perspective, it comes back to the same conclusion On the basis as described, the set list clearly has not evolved (in a proper meaningful representation of the word) in 30 yrs. The bedrock of it throughout that time has been 70's hits and album songs from the 70's - with just fleeting micro representation from the CQ catalogue. I might not have worded my post well. I meant that the statistics are calculated over every concert played since 1967 (cumulative), which means that all the pre-CQ shows also factor into this. Calculating the statistics over shows from only 1986 and beyond would likely yield slightly different results Compare the current set with the JDI setlist - major differences there, so yes, the setlist has 'evolved' - not using any connotation, positive or negative. The tendency to not represent current material well goes back a long way. How many Hello songs were played on the Hello tour? Three. How many Quo songs were played on the Quo tour? Three. How many Quid Pro Quo songs were played on the Quid Pro Quo tour? Three. The difference is that back then, the band didn't have many established 'classics' so it was easier to take something like "Railroad" or "Someone's Learning" or "Is It Really Me/Gotta Go Home" out and replacing it with something new. Nowadays I suppose they're too attached to their old songs to really give new tracks a chance, and therefore only a couple of songs have survived beyond their respective tours. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 10:46:39 GMT
As for when should the band have made a cut into their own catalogue after 86?
Hindsight and revisionism makes it too easy to pick any timeline one subjectively wishes. However one logical answer to that is if CQ were intent on keeping to the cumulative theme spoken of in the post addressed, they could have started replacing old material with new as an evolving gradual process as each album was released after 1986. In that way, the audiences would have evolved accordingly to the replacements as they were made. Much harder to suddenly dump new material in as years and years go by, and much easier to stick with the tried and trusted and make no bedrock change. Result? Stale, samey set.
Keeping the Status Quo name alive has meant keeping playing the songs that were most popular with the peak period of the 70's, largely - as a way of securing safe attendance and keeping money coming in. That has resulted in the recordings of the post 86 line-up playing a very second fiddle to the priority of keeping the name alive and forever dining out on its former successes
Again, its all hindsight, but there was a choice available back in 1986 for the new band to adopt a different name and start to forge a path to success in its own right, instead of priority to copyright.
Who knows how history may have been re-written if post 86 Quo had assumed a separate band name identity. One can obviously never know and only speculate. But it is also arguable to state that the original band may have re-formed a lot sooner than they did as a result of separate new band identity, and the hits (plus a lot lot more than this) from the 70's could have carried on with the original Status Quo name re-instated.
Given no other alternatives available, I'd still rather that the FF had carried on, even, as a tribute band to themselves (and not recorded new material) than the current band replicate those songs for 30 further years without meaningfully representing their own material. But back in the 80's and even 90's one was not to know that the set would stay largely the same bedrock right through to its eventual ending in retirement |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 11:44:08 GMT
There is a world of difference (and implications to take from it) between the FF playing three 'Hello' songs back in the 70's as their own songs and CQ still exclusively copying them decades later as a relatively large percentage of their own static set material.
The three songs from QPQ that were chosen for their set have not stood the test of time beyond about 1/2 tour(s), despite the management raving about what a return to 'old form' the album was (even better than HT apparently) One of those three songs was even a parody in itself of the former band with its obvious RAOTW borrowings and corny karaoke inspiring lyrics!
Irrespective of comparisons that cannot match the glory days of the FF, and also the fact that, actually, CQ do have quite a lot of untapped very good material in its own right, I think this all clearly illustrates that even in band and management reference terms, the 'classics' as they see them (before considering any fan opinion) remain very much back in the 70's and reinforces the point kept being made that CQ, when it comes to being a live act, are essentially a tribute copyright band of their former selves.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on May 11, 2016 13:07:41 GMT
As for when should the band have made a cut into their own catalogue after 86?
Hindsight and revisionism makes it too easy to pick any timeline one subjectively wishes. However one logical answer to that is if CQ were intent on keeping to the cumulative theme spoken of in the post addressed, they could have started replacing old material with new as an evolving gradual process as each album was released after 1986. In that way, the audiences would have evolved accordingly to the replacements as they were made. Much harder to suddenly dump new material in as years and years go by, and much easier to stick with the tried and trusted and make no bedrock change. Result? Stale, samey set.
Keeping the Status Quo name alive has meant keeping playing the songs that were most popular with the peak period of the 70's, largely - as a way of securing safe attendance and keeping money coming in. That has resulted in the recordings of the post 86 line-up playing a very second fiddle to the priority of keeping the name alive and forever dining out on its former successes
But it was really the only way, wasn't it? They had no money. With albums like AC, PR or TW, which are no favourites with Rick or Rhino (and weren't very successful), one can't really blame them for not hanging on to those songs very long. Particularly in the 90s, when the band's singles weren't played on the radio, it would have equalled commercial suicide to leave out the songs that everybody thinks of in connection with the name 'Status Quo'. You can survive a period of dryness - Marillion did so, with spectacular results (even at the risk of annoying casual concertgoers who want to hear "Kayleigh") but my point remains the same - as annoying as it is (and it sure is!), this isn't Quo-(or even CQ-)specific, other bands and musicians have also become more and more narrow-minded with a view towards their own back catalogue as they got older. See also: forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/seemingly-random-album-tracks-that-bands-play-regularly-live.502170/ At least the FF reunion brought forth songs such as "(April) Spring Summer & Wednesdays", "O Baby" and "Blue-Eyed Lady", but compared to their back catalogue, surely that was just as much a missed opportunity with all those songs from Quo, OTL and BFY not played? |
|
|
|
Post by Whoppa Choppa on May 11, 2016 15:55:47 GMT
At least the FF reunion brought forth songs such as "(April) Spring Summer & Wednesdays", "O Baby" and "Blue-Eyed Lady", but compared to their back catalogue, surely that was just as much a missed opportunity with all those songs from Quo, OTL and BFY not played? With the limited amount of rehearsal time, no... And the concept was "Live!", so focus layed on the songs featured on that album. They nailed ASS&W, and the others really well, given the short time... imo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 16:27:43 GMT
Mr Frozen  Your reply to swisscheese before this exchange of posts appeared to support much of the same argument that I (and others) have been putting forward, as to there being no excuse why the set shouldn't have changed.
However you have appeared to have made rather a u-turn and decided for some reason of your own to want to adopt a counter approach towards my own posts - and start giving supporting reasons to the swisscheese argument as to why they haven't changed the set.
Which is it?
The 'new' band chose in 1986 to keep the SQ name, but continue down a pop route that resembled a very watered down version of the original band, and that also put a fresh stamp on a new identity with its new members.
It was a dogs breakfast. A twilight world for several years that was neither fully embracing the past, or the present. The albums of ITAN, AC and PR were part of that twilight world
Gradually, and very erratically, the 'new' band found its own identity with a grittier form of rock boogie (RTYD in 91 and then UTI in 99) but still refused to properly embrace any of this for the next nearly two decades that have followed even since 99 - alongside the former grittier music that was more generally familiar throughout the golden age with the FF.
HT appeared to be a turning point with the live show where maybe they would start identifying themselves in their own right, but history has shown that they simply adopted a few songs from thia album as a bolt on mainstay to the 70's tribute fest - but stopped there and didn't apply the same principle to any of their other recorded music. Whether that be before HT or after it.
Its completely subjective to personal opinion as to the suitability of any of the songs they could have chosen from 86 onwards to feature in their live show - whether that is pop or rock. However, the same principle still applies, regardless of the material, that was more than sufficient of it to systematically evolve the live show and as a result of this, also evolve their own independent identity.
Notwithstanding the first years of needing to get established, there was still more than enough time, 30 whole yrs (!) as it has turned out, to systematically leave at least some of the past behind, and embrace the future with their own music.
They chose instead to stay betwixt and between two stools with a recording career of their own music that, erratically, paid a resemblance to the past, and a live performance that also stuck rigidly close to the past. But one that at no time, over 30 years, has properly embraced their own product - clearly because there was no faith in their own product.
However this is sliced up, and whatever excuses are made, I see no getting away from this fact
I don't think like for like comparisons with other bands can be made that simply.
There may be other bands who stick to favourite hits from their own back catalogue but very few of them come from the same unique history (and longevity of history) as a band like Quo.
I suspect a circular discussion of different opinions could and probably would continue or, or perhaps perpetuate more devils advocate. Take your pick
But, for what it is worth, my own views on this have been made to conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor on May 11, 2016 19:10:48 GMT
For a band of which particularly one member has said some very weird and negative things about the old songs from the seventies they sure still reap the benefits of it and seemingly not caring about the ones that made it possible where they are today..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 19:18:09 GMT
For a band of which particularly one member has said some very weird and negative things about the old songs from the seventies they sure still reap the benefits of it and seemingly not caring about the ones that made it possible where they are today.. Insecure little show-off comes to mind... I think they do know and they do care about their fans. "Where would we be without them?" They sometimes have a strange way of showing their gratitude...  |
|
|
|
Post by Victor on May 11, 2016 19:22:12 GMT
For a band of which particularly one member has said some very weird and negative things about the old songs from the seventies they sure still reap the benefits of it and seemingly not caring about the ones that made it possible where they are today.. Insecure little show-off comes to mind... I think they do know and they do care about their fans. "Where would we be without them?" They sometimes have a strange way of showing their gratitude... Sorry, but I don' t think they care much for the fans that brought them where they are today at all. They care about the current crowd and those who are just about blindly loyal to them no matter what they do. But I respect you have a differnt opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Whoppa Choppa on May 11, 2016 19:29:33 GMT
For a band of which particularly one member has said some very weird and negative things about the old songs from the seventies they sure still reap the benefits of it and seemingly not caring about the ones that made it possible where they are today.. nail on the head here, sadly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 19:38:18 GMT
Sorry, but I don' t think they care much for the fans that brought them where they are today at all. They care about the current crowd and those who are just about blindly loyal to them no matter what they do. But I respect you have a differnt opinion
Little did they know in 2005 that after 2013, a lot of their loyal soldiers would desert the Army... Let's agree to disagree. It's OK. No worries here, Victor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 20:09:09 GMT
David Cameron has said 'We are all in it together' Equally genuine and sincere I'm sure |
|
Your reply to swisscheese before this exchange of posts appeared to support much of the same argument that I (and others) have been putting forward, as to there being no excuse why the set shouldn't have changed. 
