#02:2012.10.06, Regina, SK - Brandt Centre, Canada,# SPOILER AHEAD #

[dmg]

Half capacity (look at the article) means booring songs. This is the fact.

When Mark started, it was a dessert down there.

Yes, that was a bit concerning to hear that.  Let's just hope it was a one off because it can't be good to play to half full venues.

Perhaps these double-bill shows don't appeal quite so much and people would rather hear their own man for a full gig than a shorter set.  I think that's pretty obvious for us here but most people going to be attracted to these concerts are those wanting to see two musical legends in one show and not necessarily fans of either artist.  That's it.  The rest made up of hard-core fans of both.

If the former don't think the ticket is worth the money, then they will be playing to empty halls...

[superval99]

From Richard's "Notes from the road":

  It was a fully sold-out arena and we sailed through our set, a slightly different one from the night before, with great playing and much joy.

[Mossguitar]

According to the ER-forum, Bob plays a full set (90 mins).

[JF]

Just a remark :
The tour that almost all fans call the best tour ever is the one with NO setlist changes :
The LOG tour : apart one song dropped, it was the same songs, in the same order with exactly same solos each night, and I think that most Will agree if I say that it was Mark at his best, don't you think ?

However, I would love if he'd go away from the routine these days

We can't never get satisfied, can't we ?  

[herlock]

Just a remark :
The tour that almost all fans call the best tour ever is the one with NO setlist changes :
The LOG tour : apart one song dropped, it was the same songs, in the same order with exactly same solos each night, and I think that most Will agree if I say that it was Mark at his best, don't you think ?

However, I would love if he'd go away from the routine these days

We can't never get satisfied, can't we ?  

I tend to agree with you that the LOG tour was the best. It really depends on my mood, though, because the great thing with DS/MK is that no tour sounds like the previous one, so you can really pick the one for your mood of the day. It really does not mean that one is better than another (I don't think there ever was a weak tour); it does not mean that the newer, the better. Sometimes old (and therefore small) is beautiful; sometimes recent does not mean overblown and can be very enjoyable too (indeed the OES tour had a lot of qualities despite the well known criticsim of a dead group).  If I want raw, rough, guitar sound a fewer extras, I go for the LoG tour. If I want cheesy 80's sax, overused synth sounds, overdriven-to-death battery sound, and soft overdriven guitar, I go for the BIA tour. I love it too actually Both tours are great but different... And if I want really raw rock sound on old songs, I go for the underrated fabulous On Location (some says "Making Movies") tour. Lions & News, Dormund 80 anyone ?

But you are wrong to say that most fans here would, like me and you, rate the LoG tour as "Mark at his best". When I did a poll on the subject, the BIA tour was the clear winner (dmg, are you listening ? ). As strange at it may seem, those cheesy 80s sounds have stood the test of time. And it is true that TOL'85 is (a bit) better than TOL'83 (which is fantastic still). But since the more casual and less knowledgeable fans only know about Alchemy, they usually say "Alchemy was MK at his best". Which is not false anyway, I think even dmg can admit that the Alchemy concert is fantastic and that MK was one fire. Especially on Blu Ray !

[dmg]

Oh yes, Mark was on fire that night - no doubt about that.  I would suggest however that by the time the BIA tour came around he had improved as a musician and the energy was still there too.

[herlock]

Oh yes, Mark was on fire that night - no doubt about that.  I would suggest however that by the time the BIA tour came round he had improved as a musician and the energy was still there too.

Actually I have serious doubt that he improved as a musician in only 2 years - I would rather say that he had a deliberate change in style to accomodate the overcomercialized mood of 1985. The changes were more in the arrangements (longer breaks, more overdrive, more digressions on solos, synth sounds...) than musicianship itself. In other words, I'm pretty sure that Mark would have been perfectly capable of doing in '83 what he was doing in '85 - just that he was not in the mood to do that.

And the irony is, I'm pretty sure that if you could ask Mark and get an asnwer, he would probably tell you that he went out of his mind in 85 with this gruelling world tour, that he is ashamed of all these childish breaks and cheesy sounds, and that Alchemy is (a bit) closer to what he feels his music should be now Whether he is right or wrong is of course open for debate

[dmg]

I'm not so sure.  I think he practised a lot in-between and wanted to make sure he played well during the BIA tour due to the sheer success the band was having at that time and the pressure they were under to perform at a high level.  He also had the chance to play with Chet in-between these tours too and maybe a little rubbed off?

[herlock]

I'm not so sure.  I think he practised a lot in-between and wanted to make sure he played well during the BIA tour due to the sheer success the band was having at that time and the pressure they were under to perform at a high level.  He also had the chance to play with Chet in-between these tours too and maybe a little rubbed off?

Maybe...
Anyway, I enjoy both tours. Two styles, two eras, but Mark's excellence in both cases. I am gald to have Alchemy on BR; I still hope to get Wembley'85 someday as an ideal complement...

[dmg]

I'm not so sure.  I think he practised a lot in-between and wanted to make sure he played well during the BIA tour due to the sheer success the band was having at that time and the pressure they were under to perform at a high level.  He also had the chance to play with Chet in-between these tours too and maybe a little rubbed off?

Maybe...
Anyway, I enjoy both tours. Two styles, two eras, but Mark's excellence in both cases. I am gald to have Alchemy on BR; I still hope to get Wembley'85 someday as an ideal complement...

Can't argue with that.

[tunnel85]

Just a remark :
The tour that almost all fans call the best tour ever is the one with NO setlist changes :
The LOG tour : apart one song dropped, it was the same songs, in the same order with exactly same solos each night, and I think that most Will agree if I say that it was Mark at his best, don't you think ?

However, I would love if he'd go away from the routine these days

We can't never get satisfied, can't we ?  

Only one song was dropped but the greatest one. Huge loss !
I'm affraid it may be the same story for YTC. 

[herlock]

I'm not so sure.  I think he practised a lot in-between and wanted to make sure he played well during the BIA tour due to the sheer success the band was having at that time and the pressure they were under to perform at a high level.  He also had the chance to play with Chet in-between these tours too and maybe a little rubbed off?

On second thoughts: I am not sure if we should believe him, but Mark stated several times that he never anticipated the huge success of the BIA album. If you watch/listen to Mark & Ed interview on Sydney'86, you'll notice that Ed states about the tour that "... it just grew", and that it was not intended to be a huge tour from scratch. It seems that this success caught them by storm and that the pressure only came during the tour... what do you think ?

[JF]

well I just wanted to say that the gig we ALMOST all say that it's the "best" (me the first   ) is a gig which was played in the same way during all the tour : no changes in the setlist, no changes in solos, no changes in arrangements, so the "change setlists" things is not always a quality factor

BTW, I love BIA and MM tours too 

[dmg]

I'm not so sure.  I think he practised a lot in-between and wanted to make sure he played well during the BIA tour due to the sheer success the band was having at that time and the pressure they were under to perform at a high level.  He also had the chance to play with Chet in-between these tours too and maybe a little rubbed off?

On second thoughts: I am not sure if we should believe him, but Mark stated several times that he never anticipated the huge success of the BIA album. If you watch/listen to Mark & Ed interview on Sydney'86, you'll notice that Ed states about the tour that "... it just grew", and that it was not intended to be a huge tour from scratch. It seems that this success caught them by storm and that the pressure only came during the tour... what do you think ?

I think although lot of dates were added (UK december dates e.g.), the tour was always going to be a big one;  the band had been growing and growing since day one.  Even the LOG tour was big but you can tell by the venues chosen even early on in the tour e.g. Wembley Arena in '85 instead of Hammersmith Odeon in '83 that this one was going to be a biggie.

[Darling Pretty]

Well I think it is the worst set list ever by MK.
I hope he changes a lot next Year

1. What It Is - too often heard
2. Cleaning My Gun - okay
3. Sailing to Philadelphia - too often, bad exchange with Yon two crows
4. Privateering - already heard in Europe
5. Redbud Tree - not my fave
6. I Used to Could - there are better blues tracks on the album
7. Song for Sonny Liston - okay, but...
8. Done with Bonaparte - oh no with all the same jokes??? 
9. I