Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 13:03:56 GMT
If CQ had become a band in their own right in terms of reflecting the music they record as the same music they play at their gigs, then many of these interesting options discussed on here would be quite possible.
Instead, by over focussing on keeping the old SQ name alive through playing (mostly) 70's hits and two or three CQ staples (as supposedly representative of that post 86 30 yr recorded work), they immediately swallow up all the possibilities of being able to adapt the set list to a format that would suit most occasions
If expectations are set up on such an insular focus, and followed up over such a long period of time on that same insular focus, then an audience is also created that is set in its ways as a reflection of that insular focus. The longer that time goes on, the harder it becomes to make acceptable departures from what a certain "groomed" audience comes to gigs to listen to.
Of course, grooming a specific audience that way, will also alienate large numbers along the way as well. This is exactly what has happened and why such cynicism now exists.
This is reasoned "negativity". Its not an attitude created to deliberately spoil attempts at being "positive". It simply reflects an honest opinion of how things have evolved.
I agree with you. They may be an efficient live act but even for casual fans I know they are no longer as attractive as they don't go saying, 'it's not like I haven't seen it before'. They are a very predictable turn and sadly not as good as they were. They started to dip around Fourh Chord. Another sad point is, they don't even play that many if their greatest songs any more. With Rick out of action, this must be the worst set in years. My own criticisms have always been focussed over CQ gigs, and especially attitudes towards them, a lot more than their back catalogue itself. I like a lot of it, not all of it of course, but plenty that would certainly have motivated me towards wanting to go to their gigs if they had played a lot more of the best of it.
That is why I think the FF reunions offered a potential double win. The biggest being the return of the FF themselves of course, but in effectively re-claiming the music they had written, it also offered the follow-on band some inspiration and opportunity to give an outing to the best of their own repertoire.
Instead they (CQ) did exactly the opposite and invited the inevitable negative comparisons by not only continuing with largely 70's hits karaoke, but also taking two classic FF songs from the reunion tours, not previously featured even in a hey-day FF set, and re-constituting them into the bargain!
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Sept 7, 2016 17:28:40 GMT
I don't listen to thrash metal, though I can tolerate some Metallica stuff. The "heaviest" stuff in my collection (besides Quo & ZZ Top, of course) is Rush and 80s Gary Moore. So whether GT sounds like thrash metal or not is outside of my depth. To me it sounds more like a cross between a classic Quo sound (shuffle rhythm) and that punk energy that we know Rhino is a fan of. The difference to most of ISOTFC (which is a Francis-dominated album for the most part anyway) is that its riff-based rather than vocal melody based and that it circles around one chord for most of the time, however it does introduce some surprise chord changes at select points.
As I wasn't there and haven't found any proper-sounding recording on the web, I cannot comment on how well the song worked live. It's fast and has no quiet parts at all, so maybe it was just too demanding. However there must have been a reason why this one was chosen over Alright (Quo by numbers), Pennsylvania Blues Tonight (great!), Electric Arena (too slow for Quo?), Figure of Eight, Saddling Up etc.. Either Rhino and/or Rick have vetoed all the songs they didn't write (?!) or Francis didn't believe in his songs (?!?). Both Gravy Train and Bad News made me perk up my ears when I first heard the album and they were among the first that motivated me to pick up the guitar and jam along. If the entire album was in that style I probably couldn't stand it (particularly since the compressed CD mastering makes them sound more noisy than they should be), but coupled with the more melodic or atmospheric songs it works and makes the album more diverse. These days I think Bad News is the better track and should've been tried out live.
By the way, I agree that the band should have introduced large changes to the set after the FF reunions, if not even earlier. But I guess they wanted to placate those fans who were foaming at the mouth that they weren't getting any more FF shows, by trying to fit some of those songs [they enjoyed playing live] into the set. I don't think there is theoretically anything wrong with that; as long as Francis or Rick have co-written the songs, they are *their* songs to a large degree. The problem here is, of course, that CQ have adapted the FF standards to their style of playing over a long course of time. With these songs, and indeed with quite a few of the newer songs, they simply didn't seem to have the patience to let the songs unfold themselves - play them until they make sense, and instead went back to stuff that has already worked before, thereby reducing the pool of songs they're chosing from more and more.
Exchanging "FF" songs for "CQ" songs just for the sake of having "CQ" songs in the set makes no sense. That's actionism. Apart from the fact that the band doesn't tend to look at their history as different bands, it's also a black-and-white type of division that ruins the discussion more than it clarifies things. Late FF didn't sound like early FF (Bernie Frost =/= Bob Young, just to name one reason), early CQ didn't sound like mid-period or late CQ. The lack of change is a more fundamental issue, and the fact that early CQ were MUCH more flexible with regards to their setlist than the FF EVER were (both in their heyday and during the reunion) highlights this.
I'm even beginning to think that the current situation is partially their fault inasmuch as it was rather foolish to think they could simply go on and play with the same amount of energy forever. They did talk about adapting their performance to their age in 2012 but the trick they've missed is that you don't put the cart before the horse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 13:31:02 GMT
I don't listen to thrash metal, though I can tolerate some Metallica stuff. The "heaviest" stuff in my collection (besides Quo & ZZ Top, of course) is Rush and 80s Gary Moore. So whether GT sounds like thrash metal or not is outside of my depth. To me it sounds more like a cross between a classic Quo sound (shuffle rhythm) and that punk energy that we know Rhino is a fan of. The difference to most of ISOTFC (which is a Francis-dominated album for the most part anyway) is that its riff-based rather than vocal melody based and that it circles around one chord for most of the time, however it does introduce some surprise chord changes at select points. As I wasn't there and haven't found any proper-sounding recording on the web, I cannot comment on how well the song worked live. It's fast and has no quiet parts at all, so maybe it was just too demanding. However there must have been a reason why this one was chosen over Alright (Quo by numbers), Pennsylvania Blues Tonight (great!), Electric Arena (too slow for Quo?), Figure of Eight, Saddling Up etc.. Either Rhino and/or Rick have vetoed all the songs they didn't write (?!) or Francis didn't believe in his songs (?!?). Both Gravy Train and Bad News made me perk up my ears when I first heard the album and they were among the first that motivated me to pick up the guitar and jam along. If the entire album was in that style I probably couldn't stand it (particularly since the compressed CD mastering makes them sound more noisy than they should be), but coupled with the more melodic or atmospheric songs it works and makes the album more diverse. These days I think Bad News is the better track and should've been tried out live. By the way, I agree that the band should have introduced large changes to the set after the FF reunions, if not even earlier. But I guess they wanted to placate those fans who were foaming at the mouth that they weren't getting any more FF shows, by trying to fit some of those songs [they enjoyed playing live] into the set. I don't think there is theoretically anything wrong with that; as long as Francis or Rick have co-written the songs, they are *their* songs to a large degree. The problem here is, of course, that CQ have adapted the FF standards to their style of playing over a long course of time. With these songs, and indeed with quite a few of the newer songs, they simply didn't seem to have the patience to let the songs unfold themselves - play them until they make sense, and instead went back to stuff that has already worked before, thereby reducing the pool of songs they're chosing from more and more. Exchanging "FF" songs for "CQ" songs just for the sake of having "CQ" songs in the set makes no sense. That's actionism. Apart from the fact that the band doesn't tend to look at their history as different bands, it's also a black-and-white type of division that ruins the discussion more than it clarifies things. Late FF didn't sound like early FF (Bernie Frost =/= Bob Young, just to name one reason), early CQ didn't sound like mid-period or late CQ. The lack of change is a more fundamental issue, and the fact that early CQ were MUCH more flexible with regards to their setlist than the FF EVER were (both in their heyday and during the reunion) highlights this. I'm even beginning to think that the current situation is partially their fault inasmuch as it was rather foolish to think they could simply go on and play with the same amount of energy forever. They did talk about adapting their performance to their age in 2012 but the trick they've missed is that you don't put the cart before the horse. You are probably more accurate than me with your description of GT as the mix you describe it as. It also likely explains why I don't like the music that Rhino's band plays. At least the clips I have heard of it. He is a great guy and a talented player in his own right, but I'm afraid I don't like his singing!
Back in the day, I liked some of the energy factor of the punk era - even though I was highly selective of what I did like! Probably because some punk/new wave bands achieved a high level of melody to combine with the high energy levels within their music. It contrasted a lot with those bands of the time that sounded like a complete racket. I think some of those more melodic high energy punk bands were influenced at least partly by Quo.
Its interesting that the two songs which turned your attention to ISOTFC are the two that I skip on what is otherwise an excellent album. To my own ears ISOTFC succeeds where QPQ tails off after a great start in terms of being a modern day Quo rock album.
Its true that early CQ were more flexible Live than they are now - but I don't agree they were more flexible than the FF ever were. I think it also unearths very unequal anomalies comparing a classic original FF era to a much weaker post 86 era in terms of such flexibility
The FF adlibbed their songs much more and each tour seemed to progress this more and more through the heart of the 70's. Although CQ attempted this live to some degree post 86 - the trend died pretty quickly through the 90's. Besides, with both Alan and John missing they could never adlib with the same automatic natural instinct the songs that the FF created. Also the music was played at a pace that was a long way from the swagger and groove of the FF days
CQ have gained better control over the music as the years have gone by - but precision still is no substitute for soul and instinct. This is yet another reason why they would have done better to play their own catalogue a lot more. Rick and Francis cannot compensate as half the sum of the total parts in this respect. Rhino has done his best, but would have showcased his playing abilities more naturally by CQ sticking with more of the music he helped create along with the rest of the post 86 band.
As long as it excluded GT
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Sept 20, 2016 20:43:26 GMT
I don't listen to thrash metal, though I can tolerate some Metallica stuff. The "heaviest" stuff in my collection (besides Quo & ZZ Top, of course) is Rush and 80s Gary Moore. So whether GT sounds like thrash metal or not is outside of my depth. To me it sounds more like a cross between a classic Quo sound (shuffle rhythm) and that punk energy that we know Rhino is a fan of. The difference to most of ISOTFC (which is a Francis-dominated album for the most part anyway) is that its riff-based rather than vocal melody based and that it circles around one chord for most of the time, however it does introduce some surprise chord changes at select points. As I wasn't there and haven't found any proper-sounding recording on the web, I cannot comment on how well the song worked live. It's fast and has no quiet parts at all, so maybe it was just too demanding. However there must have been a reason why this one was chosen over Alright (Quo by numbers), Pennsylvania Blues Tonight (great!), Electric Arena (too slow for Quo?), Figure of Eight, Saddling Up etc.. Either Rhino and/or Rick have vetoed all the songs they didn't write (?!) or Francis didn't believe in his songs (?!?). Both Gravy Train and Bad News made me perk up my ears when I first heard the album and they were among the first that motivated me to pick up the guitar and jam along. If the entire album was in that style I probably couldn't stand it (particularly since the compressed CD mastering makes them sound more noisy than they should be), but coupled with the more melodic or atmospheric songs it works and makes the album more diverse. These days I think Bad News is the better track and should've been tried out live. By the way, I agree that the band should have introduced large changes to the set after the FF reunions, if not even earlier. But I guess they wanted to placate those fans who were foaming at the mouth that they weren't getting any more FF shows, by trying to fit some of those songs [they enjoyed playing live] into the set. I don't think there is theoretically anything wrong with that; as long as Francis or Rick have co-written the songs, they are *their* songs to a large degree. The problem here is, of course, that CQ have adapted the FF standards to their style of playing over a long course of time. With these songs, and indeed with quite a few of the newer songs, they simply didn't seem to have the patience to let the songs unfold themselves - play them until they make sense, and instead went back to stuff that has already worked before, thereby reducing the pool of songs they're chosing from more and more. Exchanging "FF" songs for "CQ" songs just for the sake of having "CQ" songs in the set makes no sense. That's actionism. Apart from the fact that the band doesn't tend to look at their history as different bands, it's also a black-and-white type of division that ruins the discussion more than it clarifies things. Late FF didn't sound like early FF (Bernie Frost =/= Bob Young, just to name one reason), early CQ didn't sound like mid-period or late CQ. The lack of change is a more fundamental issue, and the fact that early CQ were MUCH more flexible with regards to their setlist than the FF EVER were (both in their heyday and during the reunion) highlights this. I'm even beginning to think that the current situation is partially their fault inasmuch as it was rather foolish to think they could simply go on and play with the same amount of energy forever. They did talk about adapting their performance to their age in 2012 but the trick they've missed is that you don't put the cart before the horse. You are probably more accurate than me with your description of GT as the mix you describe it as. It also likely explains why I don't like the music that Rhino's band plays. At least the clips I have heard of it. He is a great guy and a talented player in his own right, but I'm afraid I don't like his singing!
Back in the day, I liked some of the energy factor of the punk era - even though I was highly selective of what I did like! Probably because some punk/new wave bands achieved a high level of melody to combine with the high energy levels within their music. It contrasted a lot with those bands of the time that sounded like a complete racket. I think some of those more melodic high energy punk bands were influenced at least partly by Quo.
Its interesting that the two songs which turned your attention to ISOTFC are the two that I skip on what is otherwise an excellent album. To my own ears ISOTFC succeeds where QPQ tails off after a great start in terms of being a modern day Quo rock album.
Its true that early CQ were more flexible Live than they are now - but I don't agree they were more flexible than the FF ever were. I think it also unearths very unequal anomalies comparing a classic original FF era to a much weaker post 86 era in terms of such flexibility
The FF adlibbed their songs much more and each tour seemed to progress this more and more through the heart of the 70's. Although CQ attempted this live to some degree post 86 - the trend died pretty quickly through the 90's. Besides, with both Alan and John missing they could never adlib with the same automatic natural instinct the songs that the FF created. Also the music was played at a pace that was a long way from the swagger and groove of the FF days
CQ have gained better control over the music as the years have gone by - but precision still is no substitute for soul and instinct. This is yet another reason why they would have done better to play their own catalogue a lot more. Rick and Francis cannot compensate as half the sum of the total parts in this respect. Rhino has done his best, but would have showcased his playing abilities more naturally by CQ sticking with more of the music he helped create along with the rest of the post 86 band.
As long as it excluded GT
Obviously there was a lot more improv going on during the FF era. But from purely looking at the setlists, or from comparing Australia '74 to Paris 1975, they weren't a lot more flexible than recent CQ. They swapped out two tracks going from the Hello to the Quo tour, I think. Imagine that - a band whose live repertoire consists of four albums releases a new album with eight songs and then plays exactly two of them live! It's not a knock on the band since, as I said, they had a lot more spontaneity when it came to playing longer songs like Roadhouse Blues or 4500 Times. But the pattern of sticking with a setlist for an entire tour, and not changing much for the next one, didn't come out of nowhere, even though latter-day CQ took it to an extreme. At least on paper (!), pretty much all FF tours starting around 1973 and everything that followed until the last shows with Alan look like this. Of course you're right about the quality of the playing, but that's another topic entirely. My point is just that flexibility has never been a strong point of Quo. At least not like the Stones who told Scorsese "We don't know what we'll be playing tonight". That is what I think of when I use the word flexibility - being capable of playing a completely different set if needed. Source: Quo bootlegs
As for ISOTFC, it's not that I think the remainder of the album is boring. I love BOTE, PBT, EA, HM, SU and a couple more I'm forgetting now, but the sheer vehemence of those two songs took me by surprise and I like playing both songs myself. I tried doing Bad News at the piano, I probably didn't quite succeed but it was fun! I also like QPQ but it's less surprising going from one song to another, and it has nothing that can compete with BN or GT in terms of heaviness. I'm not a huge punk fan myself. I know Rhino likes punk (he once said Never Mind the Bollocks is one of his favourite albums) but Gravy Train works for me because it's got interesting things going on musically like the organ playing a counterpoint. You wouldn't hear an organ on a punk record! (Excluding The Stranglers, but they weren't really accepted by the punk audience anyway.)
|
|