QUEENSRYCHE

Eyesore wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

So I just saw that a few weeks ago it was officially announced that Casey Grillo quit Kamelot. He's been drumming for Queensryche for the past year or so. I'm assuming that means Scott Rockenfield isn't coming back. =(

It was my understanding that Scott was taking time off to be with his newborn son. It didn't appear to be permanent but maybe things changed.

They posted a picture of him and his son recently, but they won't even answer questions about whether or not he's coming back. It's weird. It seems odd that they would go through so much with all the Tate drama for him to up and quit. They've been on a pretty big high since Tate was ousted.

They're playing all the same places, playing all the same songs. But because they throw in "Queen Of The Reich", people are all drooling over it. Ha! They don't play anything from either of their records...or barely anything, from what I hear.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

So I just saw that a few weeks ago it was officially announced that Casey Grillo quit Kamelot. He's been drumming for Queensryche for the past year or so. I'm assuming that means Scott Rockenfield isn't coming back. =(

It was my understanding that Scott was taking time off to be with his newborn son. It didn't appear to be permanent but maybe things changed.

They posted a picture of him and his son recently, but they won't even answer questions about whether or not he's coming back. It's weird. It seems odd that they would go through so much with all the Tate drama for him to up and quit. They've been on a pretty big high since Tate was ousted.

They're playing all the same places, playing all the same songs. But because they throw in "Queen Of The Reich", people are all drooling over it. Ha! They don't play anything from either of their records...or barely anything, from what I hear.

Well, obviously their set is always going to consist of mostly the older, more classic tunes. That's the name of the game. They do, however, include new tracks in the setlist.

Either way, that's not relevant to my point. I wasn't suggesting they were blowing up the charts, only that they're not miserable anymore.

And I'd bet money they're also making a lot more money as well. Both of their most recently albums have been widely praised, whereas the complete opposite can be said about the last few albums they did with Tate. Or even every album since Promised Land.

At what point do they become a tribute band?

I don't think these new albums have really resonated with the fans. Yes, it's a big step up from what they have done post-Promised Land but that's not really saying anything. I'm not sure they are really on a "big high", but yeah, it's definitely a step-up from actively making your fans hate you. It's like saying "Hardwired" is a great comeback after "Lulu". Well ... yeah, of course it is. Anything would be.

I looked at their recent set lists and they are playing a whopping ONE song from all those albums since PL, including the La Torre albums. Very telling. There's basically no demand for them. It's almost like DeGarmo and Tate were the heart and soul of the band, like it or not.

If DeGarmo and Tate ever formed a new band (will never happen), they would unquestionably be the real Queensryche.

LaTorre wanted to be a tribute band singer and now he is.

Eyesore wrote:

And I'd bet money they're also making a lot more money as well. Both of their most recently albums have been widely praised, whereas the complete opposite can be said about the last few albums they did with Tate. Or even every album since Promised Land.

No way the band is making MORE money without Tate. The fee may be the same while the 3 originals take a higher cut than the 2 replacements...but there's no way they're fees are higher.

Temple of Blood wrote:

It's almost like DeGarmo and Tate were the heart and soul of the band, like it or not.

They totally were. Wilton co-wrote some good stuff back in the day, but without Tate & DeGarmo together, these guys are just players. Their writing may be more in the style that older fans want, but it's nowhere near as good as anything pre-DeGarmo departure. There's zero magic with this line-up.

And I still say Tate is a better singer than LaTorre...because singing isn't all about high notes.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

And I still say Tate is a better singer than LaTorre...because singing isn't all about high notes.

Especially when it comes to writing new songs!

I also think Tate's live singing these days is better than he has been given credit for. I've heard some good post-breakup performances. People's distaste for him personally colors their perception.

Tate on his own can't write good songs either though. Never has been able to.

Now that Queensryche has won back some of their fans, they should take a page from Iron Maiden and just start playing newer tunes and save the older tunes for the encore. Make an effort to make the Todd-era songs relevant.

Otherwise, yea, they might as well be a tribute band.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Now that Queensryche has won back some of their fans, they should take a page from Iron Maiden and just start playing newer tunes and save the older tunes for the encore. Make an effort to make the Todd-era songs relevant.

Ha, no one wants to hear those songs. And they are nowhere near the financial standing that Iron Maiden has to deny the will of their fanbase.

Temple of Blood wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Now that Queensryche has won back some of their fans, they should take a page from Iron Maiden and just start playing newer tunes and save the older tunes for the encore. Make an effort to make the Todd-era songs relevant.

Ha, no one wants to hear those songs.  And they are nowhere near the financial standing that Iron Maiden has to deny the will of their fanbase.

Noone wants to hear the new Maiden stuff either, but they play it anyway.

I'm not saying the new stuff will instantly become "classic", but if they want to avoid the tag of a QR tribute band, they need to play the new stuff more and gradually work their way away from the old material.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Noone wants to hear the new Maiden stuff either, but they play it anyway.

Exactly. But Maiden are rich and don't care. Queensryche are scraping by.

If these are accurate, QR definitely needs to mix things up a bit...
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/queensryche-3d691e3.html

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

And I still say Tate is a better singer than LaTorre...because singing isn't all about high notes.

Especially when it comes to writing new songs!  

I also think Tate's live singing these days is better than he has been given credit for.  I've heard some good post-breakup performances.  People's distaste for him personally colors their perception.

Tate on his own can't write good songs either though.  Never has been able to.

But Tate can elevate mediocre songs with his performance...Todd cannot.

There are songs on 'FU' that are better and sound more like Queensryche than anything Todd-Ryche has done.

Temple of Blood wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Noone wants to hear the new Maiden stuff either, but they play it anyway.

Exactly.  But Maiden are rich and don't care.  Queensryche are scraping by.  

Forget that I said Maiden. I was just using them as an example. My point was that Queensryche doesn't even seem to be making an effort to play newer stuff. If they're content to be a tribute band, so be it.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

If these are accurate, QR definitely needs to mix things up a bit...
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/queensryche-3d691e3.html

Looks like they pretty much only play "Guardian", though if you go back far enough you find "Hellfire".

MetalGuy71 wrote:

My point was that Queensryche doesn't even seem to be making an effort to play newer stuff. If they're content to be a tribute band, so be it.

It's what the fans want, from pretty much any established rock band. Fans only wanna pay to hear the old stuff, and they want it to sound just like it was back in the day.

I'd love to hear the new songs but honestly, their audience is probably the over 40 crowd still trying to live in the past.

Temple of Blood wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

If these are accurate, QR definitely needs to mix things up a bit...
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/queensryche-3d691e3.html

Looks like they pretty much only play "Guardian", though if you go back far enough you find "Hellfire".

One new song, all the same classics, and QOTR...they're treading water...they're just happier doing it, I guess. Ha!

Temple of Blood wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

My point was that Queensryche doesn't even seem to be making an effort to play newer stuff. If they're content to be a tribute band, so be it.

It's what the fans want, from pretty much any established rock band.  Fans only wanna pay to hear the old stuff, and they want it to sound just like it was back in the day.

Accept seems to mix things up nicely between the old and new...
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/accept-7bd69eb8.html

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

My point was that Queensryche doesn't even seem to be making an effort to play newer stuff. If they're content to be a tribute band, so be it.

It's what the fans want, from pretty much any established rock band.  Fans only wanna pay to hear the old stuff, and they want it to sound just like it was back in the day.

Accept seems to mix things up nicely between the old and new...
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/accept-7bd69eb8.html

They also mostly play in Europe...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Accept seems to mix things up nicely between the old and new...
https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/accept-7bd69eb8.html

They also mostly play in Europe...

Good point. A lot more acceptance there.

Judas Priest during the Ripper years played a good mix of old and new, but I think the longer set lists (rarely an opening band) helped accommodate that.

Which makes me wonder when the new Queensryche live album will be and how many Toddryche songs will be included.

You guys are still missing my point.

ToB asked at what point does the new Queensryche become a tribute band and the answer is right now. Their setlists compromise of old material and almost nothing new. If they want to escape that rut (and who knows, maybe they don't), then they need to introduce the new material. If the guys in QR want to shake off the ghosts of the past, then they need to move on with their setlists.

Sure, I get that the fans nowadays just want the classics, but at what point does the band become accountable? Is it just an easy way out for the band to just play the same old stuff? Other bands have proven that it can be done, but you have to stay consistent and work at it. Whose to say some newer material might become "classic" if it's played enough in live settings? We could probably name a few classics from other bands that really aren't that great, but through pure repetition have become concert staples.

If you're going through the cost and time to record new music, why let it die on the vine and never play it live? That doesn't make sense to me.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

You guys are still missing my point.

ToB asked at what point does the new Queensryche become a tribute band and the answer is right now. Their setlists compromise of old material and almost nothing new. If they want to escape that rut (and who knows, maybe they don't), then they need to introduce the new material. If the guys in QR want to shake off the ghosts of the past, then they need to move on with their setlists.

Sure, I get that the fans nowadays just want the classics, but at what point does the band become accountable? Is it just an easy way out for the band to just play the same old stuff? Other bands have proven that it can be done, but you have to stay consistent and work at it. Whose to say some newer material might become "classic" if it's played enough in live settings? We could probably name a few classics from other bands that really aren't that great, but through pure repetition have become concert staples.

If you're going through the cost and time to record new music, why let it die on the vine and never play it live? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not missing your point...I'm just not arguing with you. I agree. This so-called Queensryche has zero magic and zero purpose other than generating needed income for the band members. There's nothing wrong with making a living. But I'll let others buy the tickets...I'll stay home.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

You guys are still missing my point.

ToB asked at what point does the new Queensryche become a tribute band and the answer is right now. Their setlists compromise of old material and almost nothing new. If they want to escape that rut (and who knows, maybe they don't), then they need to introduce the new material.

That wasn't my point, and not what I was trying to imply.

They are apparently replacing yet another original band member.  Just look at who they're left with.  It's a tribute band at this point, and if their new albums were great I'd probably overlook that but they're just not.  One good song per album IMHO.  Tons and tons of filler.

Quote :

Whose to say some newer material might become "classic" if it's played enough in live settings? We could probably name a few classics from other bands that really aren't that great, but through pure repetition have become concert staples.

I think there is zero chance of most of these new songs becoming classics.  I think one song per new album would make sense.  But I don't think repetition will turn a C minus song into a B plus.

Quote :

If you're going through the cost and time to record new music, why let it die on the vine and never play it live? That doesn't make sense to me.

Going through the motions of pretending they are not a nostalgia act / tribute band.

At least BOC doesn't pretend about what they are.

They probably still owe Geoff money for the name.

I mean, it's an awesome thing to have songs that fans want to continue to hear 30 years later...I would LOVE to be in a position like that. But, at this point, NONE of the writers of their biggest, most classic songs are even in the band anymore...much like Kansas...on that point, I agree with the tribute band tag. Same w/ Warrant, IMO. Jani Lane wrote all the songs and the guitarists did not even play (or barely played) on their 2 biggest albums...