Michael Allred 17.10.2007 09:25 |
"It’s one of only three concerts of Queen captured on FILM rather than crappy non-hi-res digital – they are: Live at the Rainbow in 1976, this concert, and Budapest in 1986 – which will be a future project – and will be sensational." from Brian's soapbox, the above is taken from his little speech regarding the upcoming Montreal DVD. To be fair, Brian does not say Budapest will not be the next DVD release but looking at the history of Queen Productions, I would not be surprised if it was. |
Jeroen 17.10.2007 09:51 |
Live at the Rainbow 1976... tsss... Would be sensational indeed! |
steven 35638 17.10.2007 10:25 |
Both concerts would be sensational indeed! |
Tero 17.10.2007 10:58 |
Brian May wrote: "It’s one of only three concerts of Queen captured on FILM rather than crappy non-hi-res digital – they are: Live at the Rainbow in 1976, this concert, and Budapest in 1986 – which will be a future project – and will be sensational."...And the same translated to English reads: "There are now only two Queen concert which I don't hate, and could possibly even think of releasing... Up next (after the forthcoming QPR "Champs still rock" album, tour, and live video) will be Budapest 1986, available Christmas 2009 in stores near you." |
pittrek 17.10.2007 11:25 |
Finally something interesting. But I'm pretty sure they'll fuck it up like all DVDs except Wembley and Bowl |
Benn 17.10.2007 11:51 |
Absolutely - Montreal is just going to be a clearer picture, better sounding fuck up of the original. Interesting how he manages to hide behind the mistakes of Saul Swimmer's crew whilst forgetting to acknowledge that Queen signed up for it; I don't buy the excuse that they didn;t know what they were getting themselves in to. They were wise enough by then. Perhaps, with Freddie being openly rude to Swimmer, Swimmer decided to get his own back and fuck the editing up for him....... You reap what you sew. |
k-m 17.10.2007 15:03 |
Budapest is a legendary concert indeed but it will be very similar to Wembley. Why don't they release something from the seventies? |
pittrek 17.10.2007 15:30 |
Money money money ... What do you think a "causual fan" will buy ? A concert with "Radio Ga Ga, I Want To Break Free, We WIll Rock You, We Are The Champions ..." or a concert with "White Man, Stone Cold Crazy, Keep Yourself Alive, Liar" ... They're (unfortunatelly) releasing nothing for the "die-hard fans" and collectors (how many years are we waiting till now for the promissed box set ? ) |
Queenman!! 17.10.2007 16:46 |
pittrek wrote: Money money money ... What do you think a "causual fan" will buy ? A concert with "Radio Ga Ga, I Want To Break Free, We WIll Rock You, We Are The Champions ..." or a concert with "White Man, Stone Cold Crazy, Keep Yourself Alive, Liar" ... They're (unfortunatelly) releasing nothing for the "die-hard fans" and collectors (how many years are we waiting till now for the promissed box set ? )I agree with you but not for 100%. Greatest hits 1 was a big seller in the eightees. So I see no point why QP could not release a concert like Hammy 1979. Crazy Little Thing is there, We are the Champions, We Will Rock You, Now I'm Here, Bohemian Rhapsody, Tie Your Mother Down and Love Of My Life. These were also played on the Magic Tour. Songs like Don't Stop Me Now, Killer Queen, Somebody to Love, Save Me and You're My Best Friend were also big hits and... on the Greatest Hits album. |
Penetration_Guru 17.10.2007 16:57 |
How did they ever get so popular? They kept releasing things noone had heard before, yet people STILL bought them. Things like "A Night At The Opera" - that had ONE hit on it when it came out! |
victor fleitas 17.10.2007 20:02 |
Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something? |
Lester Burnham 17.10.2007 20:22 |
victor fleitas wrote: Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something?A couple years, evidently... |
PieterMC 17.10.2007 21:22 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: How did they ever get so popular? They kept releasing things noone had heard before, yet people STILL bought them. Things like "A Night At The Opera" - that had ONE hit on it when it came out!It makes you wonder. |
kenny8 17.10.2007 22:21 |
"...rather than crappy non-hi-res digital" Huh? Was any Queen concert captured in digital (apart from ROTC)? I suppose he means videotape...like The Bowl DVD was captured in. |
pittrek 18.10.2007 01:49 |
victor fleitas wrote: Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something?Brian has problems with his memory for a long time. No wonders when you consider his age and the amount of alcohol and drugs and whatever ... |
thunderbolt 31742 18.10.2007 04:07 |
pittrek wrote:Actually, Brian and John were the tame ones. As I understand it, Brian shied away from narcotics, and only occasionally drank. Freddie and Roger were the wild ones.victor fleitas wrote: Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something?Brian has problems with his memory for a long time. No wonders when you consider his age and the amount of alcohol and drugs and whatever ... But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. |
Daveboy35 18.10.2007 04:26 |
victor fleitas wrote: Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something?I think what brian meant and queen fans with great knowledge of the band should know this but i think he's referring to the rainbow gig in 1974, and then the RELEASED date of 1976 where it was played as a support feature to a burt reynolds film. I believe that's what he was thinking of. cheers. |
Jeroen 18.10.2007 06:01 |
DAVIDBRENDAM wrote:Rainbow show went to cinema to support Led Zeppelin's film The Song Remains the same, not some burt reynolds film.victor fleitas wrote: Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something?I think what brian meant and queen fans with great knowledge of the band should know this but i think he's referring to the rainbow gig in 1974, and then the RELEASED date of 1976 where it was played as a support feature to a burt reynolds film. I believe that's what he was thinking of. cheers. The year 1976 is correct though. (It premiered in Oktober) |
QueenNewcastle 18.10.2007 07:22 |
I would love to see a full version of Budapest. I know we already had a "magic tour dvd", but i really like this concert, and would love to see it with the shitty interluds (i.e freddie lookin at pictures) |
kdj2hot 18.10.2007 07:33 |
pittrek wrote: Money money money ... What do you think a "causual fan" will buy ? A concert with "Radio Ga Ga, I Want To Break Free, We WIll Rock You, We Are The Champions ..." or a concert with "White Man, Stone Cold Crazy, Keep Yourself Alive, Liar" ... They're (unfortunatelly) releasing nothing for the "die-hard fans" and collectors (how many years are we waiting till now for the promissed box set ? )"casual fa" dude you're obviously one of those yourself if you think White Man was played at the rainbow....sheeeeesh |
kdj2hot 18.10.2007 07:34 |
Lets hope live at the rainbow is next, it's overdue. Maybe itys different from the inside and they're convinced they were a much better band in the 80's and had more hits behind them but its time for something difference. They cant keep hoarding up the 70's shows. I mean for what? It's ridiculous just release them, now its even more difficult for the likes of houston and other video shows with hi def taking over completely in 2009 and the hi def disc players becomming more popular I predict it will be ten times harder to release a concert in lower res (which will look horrible on true hi def tv's) than it was a few yrs ago which was when at one of those concerts (houston, earl's court, etc) shou;d've been released. Way to go Queen Productions, brilliant move. |
Daveboy35 18.10.2007 07:58 |
Jeroen wrote:Jeroen i think it was Hustle by burt reynolds in april of 1976 and not october the led zeppelin film was in october of 1976 but i don't know for definite, but who cares eh!!!.DAVIDBRENDAM wrote:Rainbow show went to cinema to support Led Zeppelin's film The Song Remains the same, not some burt reynolds film. The year 1976 is correct though. (It premiered in Oktober)victor fleitas wrote: Live at the Rainbow 1976?? or 1974? i'm loosing something?I think what brian meant and queen fans with great knowledge of the band should know this but i think he's referring to the rainbow gig in 1974, and then the RELEASED date of 1976 where it was played as a support feature to a burt reynolds film. I believe that's what he was thinking of. cheers. |
Micrówave 18.10.2007 13:05 |
Thunderbolt wrote: As I understand it, Brian shied away from narcotics, and only occasionally drank. Freddie and Roger were the wild ones.Yes, long haired guitarists from the 70s didn't like to party. Can I have you look at Brian's eyes in the Queen I album collage? Are there ANY pictures of Brian and John where they aren't completely stoned? Have you listened to the words in '39? Have you ever seen a picture of Anita Dobson? Brian was and is still currently probably blasted out of his mind. That would explain the DVD releases, Rainbow '76, and finishing his thesis after 35 years. Far out, man. |
pittrek 18.10.2007 14:44 |
This was brutal :-) |
pittrek 18.10.2007 14:46 |
kdj2hot wrote:I was actually talking about a random 80s concert compared to a random 70s concert, but OK :)pittrek wrote: Money money money ... What do you think a "causual fan" will buy ? A concert with "Radio Ga Ga, I Want To Break Free, We WIll Rock You, We Are The Champions ..." or a concert with "White Man, Stone Cold Crazy, Keep Yourself Alive, Liar" ... They're (unfortunatelly) releasing nothing for the "die-hard fans" and collectors (how many years are we waiting till now for the promissed box set ? )"casual fa" dude you're obviously one of those yourself if you think White Man was played at the rainbow....sheeeeesh |
Daniel Nester 20.10.2007 10:44 |
I would love to get the Rainbow concert on a proper DVD--and still don't understand why they don't do it. Doesn't the online bootleg sales sort of support this? |
Raf 20.10.2007 11:28 |
I really doubt they have any excuse NOT to release Houston'77 or Hammersmith'79. It would amuse the "casual fans', as they're pretty full of hits, and it would amuse the "die-hard" fans, as they're both awesome performances, from one of their best live eras... |
Daniel Nester 20.10.2007 13:25 |
On Fire at the Bowl, with its non-hit songs from Hot Space, seems to undermine the argument that these 80s concerts are the moneymakers. Although they do sell a lot. |
Daz85 21.10.2007 16:00 |
Budapest restored from the original film, uncut and with the correct speed would be AWESOME. I would really welcome this. |
Mkls 21.10.2007 17:29 |
- |
Bobby_brown 22.10.2007 13:18 |
Miklos wrote:More good news to the Queen world :-((Darren Robins wrote: Budapest restored from the original film, uncut and with the correct speed would be AWESOME. I would really welcome this.Since the uncut parts and the unused negatives had not been found until this day, the chance of a different version to the original VHS release is ZERO. I DO know this , as i was the person who unearthed the location of the final negative of the film for QP a few years ago - havent heard from that project ever since... This is really sad to hear. I just don´t understand why directors don´t keep the full videotapes after edition. It happened with Montreal, and now this. At least i hope they have the complete Rainbow 74. In this case, if they kept recording the concert with the Doro cameras (like in Knebworth), maybe they can do some good editing, since they´ve used the same kind of cameras, but things like this should never happened with a band like Queen. By the way, they don´t find the tapes because they were erased/lost or because they were stolen for private collections? Take care |
ermin 22.10.2007 21:10 |
They probably didn't foresee that a new medium (DVD) will allow them to milk their fans for years to come. All of a sudden, they realized they could earn money so they started making excuses: you need to see this new copy, it's fabulous (read: buy the bloody DVD and contribute to maintaining our lifestyles). |
Raf 23.10.2007 04:14 |
I don't understand either. I think new video formats wasn't the most difficult thing to foresee back then. VHS and Betamax were relatively new, there hadn't been lots of time since the "33" vinyl had been released... And even if they were too dumb to expect a new video format - what's the point in getting rid of the raw material? I doubt it would take too much room. Not to mention the stuff could be used to release compilations in the future, some crap like Rare Live, or some documentary like the Magic Years. Wembley and Bowl had been edited previously (Wembley for VHS and TV broadcast, Bowl for TV broadcast), and they still had the raw material to use on the recent CD/DVD releases. They even "fixed" Tutti Frutti on the Wembley re-release on CD... *rolls eyes* |
pittrek 23.10.2007 04:27 |
Miklos wrote:Shit ! And what about trying to locate the source for the 16 camera bootleg ? Or are they even lazy to do this ?Darren Robins wrote: Budapest restored from the original film, uncut and with the correct speed would be AWESOME. I would really welcome this.Since the uncut parts and the unused negatives had not been found until this day, the chance of a different version to the original VHS release is ZERO. I DO know this , as i was the person who unearthed the location of the final negative of the film for QP a few years ago - havent heard from that project ever since... |
Jeroen 23.10.2007 04:56 |
pittrek wrote:The source of the multi-cam Budapest video was discarted by Doro, but luckily saved by someone from the trashbin!Miklos wrote:Shit ! And what about trying to locate the source for the 16 camera bootleg ? Or are they even lazy to do this ?Darren Robins wrote: Budapest restored from the original film, uncut and with the correct speed would be AWESOME. I would really welcome this.Since the uncut parts and the unused negatives had not been found until this day, the chance of a different version to the original VHS release is ZERO. I DO know this , as i was the person who unearthed the location of the final negative of the film for QP a few years ago - havent heard from that project ever since... Realy guys, it is 100% common that companies discart the raw material they don't use. I see it in journalism every day: people film loads of stuff (hours and hours of material)- turn it into a short item (of only minutes) and then discart everything that was not used. Same with tv companies that film parts of concerts. They are allowed to film (most of the time) the first three songs - they then make an item out of those, showing interveiws and only short snippets of songs or just one song and that's it. That's all everyone will ever see because raw material gets discarted. That's is the common practice. UNLESS the people in question (directors/journalist/camerman...) save them PERSONALLY by making a copy of the raw material. See, it's their job (also professional video-editors like DoRo and directors of live video's) to deliver a PRODUCT - the end result (let's say a fully edited film) is the ONLY thing that counts. THAT's their JOB! They are no being paid to archive stuff for a band! That's also why it is so hard (for Greg Brooks for excample) to find certain video's. People keep pointing him to tv-stations when he's looking for something particular that was filmed by a tv station, but unless he is only searching for the images that were actually broadcast (whcih in most cases will be in the archives), that's NOT the right place! He will need the original crew (in hope they saved a copy for personal archive) or people that got copy's of the raw material before it was discarted. |
Bobby_brown 23.10.2007 17:53 |
edit |
Mkls 24.10.2007 05:00 |
I look forward to see this release ;) |
Bobby_brown 24.10.2007 10:24 |
Miklos wrote:Multicamera: All i can tell is that QP was not interested in obtaining VHS masters of this one, even though at the moment its the only way to include AOBTD and the RocnkRoll medley (could have been used as a "making of" extra..., like the Wembley rehearals). I talk about a digitally remastered first VHS master, not a shitty x generation copy of course... Something i don´t understand is: This multicam is the one with 17 little screens fit into one, isn´t it? In case it is, why would they consider using this kind of footage in a DVD? I´m kinda lost here! But, as you said, i don´t understand why they show no interest in persuing this kind of missing tapes. It´s almost like they are allways waiting for things to fall from the skies. And they can´t blame the fans, because Queen fans sometimes do the job of real detectives to trace down rare things. i supose that this is another great topic to mail Brian about, but in the end they are so closed minded that i wonder why bother at all. They should be more receptive to outside knolwedge. The Knebworth missing tapes: First they couldn´t released the DVD because they only had the Screen tapes. Then, they don´t have nothing at all, not even the screen tapes, because no one had inserted a tape to record it. Then Greg posted this, when asked about Knebworth: link "diesel_79c ONLY the sound. No footage exists. Only footage of the big screens exists which is utterly boring, and some shots of the audience as I recall. " Assuming that he´s not talking about the audience shooting bootleg around, this contrasts with what Brian told us earlier. It´s all very confusing information, and coming from Queen i think the fans deserved a better comunication from them- or no comunication at all! Take care |
Mkls 24.10.2007 14:25 |
- |
Bobby_brown 24.10.2007 17:00 |
Miklos wrote:I never saw this footage, only pictures of it, and it´s description. And since you already have a good version of this and think it would fit the DVD as bonus, then i have to agree that it would be interesting.Bobby_brown wrote: In case it is, why would they consider using this kind of footage in a DVD? I´m kinda lost here!I believe for the same reason they used a vhs of the 86 rehearsals on the wembley dvd. Its rare , its interesting and makes a good extra. This is the only way you can show footage of the 2 missing tracks, i dont see any reason why not to use this with the proper audio, and maybe some commentary from the director about the filming etc etc etc... this would be only a 10 minute long extra anyway... but the big issue would be finding the unused reels somewhere.. Tell me something abut this footage: If the camera filming the 17 cam footage is still, how much zoom can we put on each of the rectangles in the board without loosing much quallity? I´m asking this because in a Manowar DVD the screen was divided in 4 rectangles (for each member) and we would zoom a rectangle to full screen with great quality. I assume that this can´t be donne with small rectangles, but still at least some zoom wouldn´t hurt. Do you think it´s possible? Take care |
Adam Baboolal 24.10.2007 17:08 |
Bobby_brown wrote: "ONLY the sound. No footage exists. Only footage of the big screens exists which is utterly boring, and some shots of the audience as I recall. " Assuming that he´s not talking about the audience shooting bootleg around, this contrasts with what Brian told us earlier.See, there's the problem. You assumed he didn't mean the audience shots of the screen. What if that's exactly what he meant? And if that's the other way of looking at it, then, it doesn't contrast with what Brian said at all. There seems to be a strange quest to find something, anything, of this gig - And not to believe what anyone from QP says about it. There was a thread about this before not long ago and it was bizarre the way some just wouldn't believe anyone who said it didn't exist. Official word or a QZ'ers word. Adam. |
Adam Baboolal 24.10.2007 17:15 |
Bobby_brown wrote: If the camera filming the 17 cam footage is still, how much zoom can we put on each of the rectangles in the board without loosing much quallity? ...Do you think it´s possible? Take careNo, is the easy way of putting it. VHS is already a low resolution format and with 16-17 squares, it's going to look ridiculously small. No matter what kind of zoom you use, it will always look bad. There's only so much detail there to be seen. Don't know why you compared your manowar DVD which is a 1/4 of the screen size compared with this VHS 1/16th the size of the screen! Adam. |
Mkls 24.10.2007 17:24 |
"Bobby_brown wrote: Tell me something abut this footage: If the camera filming the 17 cam footage is still, how much zoom can we put on each of the rectangles in the board without loosing much quallity? Do you think it´s possible? Take care" no its not - that would look crap |
Bobby_brown 25.10.2007 10:25 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:That´s not my point. My point is that the information is confusing.Bobby_brown wrote: "ONLY the sound. No footage exists. Only footage of the big screens exists which is utterly boring, and some shots of the audience as I recall. " Assuming that he´s not talking about the audience shooting bootleg around, this contrasts with what Brian told us earlier.See, there's the problem. You assumed he didn't mean the audience shots of the screen. What if that's exactly what he meant? And if that's the other way of looking at it, then, it doesn't contrast with what Brian said at all. There seems to be a strange quest to find something, anything, of this gig - And not to believe what anyone from QP says about it. There was a thread about this before not long ago and it was bizarre the way some just wouldn't believe anyone who said it didn't exist. Official word or a QZ'ers word. Adam. And you´re right, i´ve assumed! And why did i and others assumed that?- Because Greg didn´t say about what he was talking about. He could add something like - "audience recording" and we all knew what he was talking about. If you read that topic can you really say that he was talking about the bootleg version? But this is not about Knebwoth anymore, this was just another example about the sharing of information between both parties. On the first page of that topic you can read something like this: " I’m talking here only about PROPER formats, not amateur stuff – poor recording we all have copies of, and have had for years. " So i assume this unless stated otherwise. Take care |
Bobby_brown 25.10.2007 10:30 |
edit |
Bobby_brown 25.10.2007 10:32 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:I didn´t compare the two because as i said before i don´t have the tape. I just asked if it could be zoomed. The Manowar was just an example for Miklos to know what i was talking about.Bobby_brown wrote: If the camera filming the 17 cam footage is still, how much zoom can we put on each of the rectangles in the board without loosing much quallity? ...Do you think it´s possible? Take careNo, is the easy way of putting it. VHS is already a low resolution format and with 16-17 squares, it's going to look ridiculously small. No matter what kind of zoom you use, it will always look bad. There's only so much detail there to be seen. Don't know why you compared your manowar DVD which is a 1/4 of the screen size compared with this VHS 1/16th the size of the screen! Adam. Take care |
Bobby_brown 25.10.2007 10:33 |
Miklos wrote: "no its not - that would look crap. But in its entirety (original form) it looks good, as a "making of - work in progress" - definitely better than still pictures (a la Calling All Girls - Japan 82 extra disc)". Thanks for the answer. Take care |
Adam Baboolal 26.10.2007 15:38 |
Well, if that's what you want to believe, then ok. Myself, I prefer never to assume anything. I hate assumptions and have often found it leads to bad things. Adam. |
Bobby_brown 26.10.2007 17:59 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Well, if that's what you want to believe, then ok. Myself, I prefer never to assume anything. I hate assumptions and have often found it leads to bad things. Adam.Look, this is not a question of assuming! I hate assumptions, BUT for important things, not this. This is a hobby! Of course i don´t believe that he was talking about the big screen feed, and it wasn´t my point. My point was that after all replys Queen productions had by the fans, they could at least have offer a more acurate information in that list. And this is not Greg´s fault, because he works for them and only share what he can. This was just an example- after Miklos comentary- about how close QueenProductions are. And this is not an assumption, it´s just what i see from them. Take care |
Reading Princess 04.11.2007 15:13 |
Going back to the earlier debate about what film "Queen At The Rainbow" supported, I saw it in the cinema in 1976 when it was supporting "Logan's Run" (Michael York and Jenny Agattur. |
Freddie May 05.11.2007 04:25 |
If it was shown in cinemas, is it possible that a "film" version exists ? |
KevoM 06.11.2007 18:12 |
Freddie May wrote: If it was shown in cinemas, is it possible that a "film" version exists ?Not necessarily. I've seen videos shown in theatres before. I remember The Works EP being shown at a Southport convention in the late 80s. Just to clarify that Rainbow 74 was shot by a VIDEO production company called Trillion Video (part of EMI Trident) and directed by Bruce Gowers. The same vido company & Director that did the Bo Rhap promo a year later. |
Freddie May 07.11.2007 05:16 |
If someone can find Bruce Gowers'email adress and ask him I guess we could know for sure ! Isn't he the director of American Idol now ? |
Jeroen 07.11.2007 05:55 |
Freddie May wrote: If someone can find Bruce Gowers'email adress and ask him I guess we could know for sure ! Isn't he the director of American Idol now ?Yes, he is. |
pittrek 07.11.2007 08:22 |
Bobby_brown wrote:You don't have the 16 camera bootleg yet ? OK, you WILL have it in a few weeks :-)Adam Baboolal wrote:I didn´t compare the two because as i said before i don´t have the tape. I just asked if it could be zoomed. The Manowar was just an example for Miklos to know what i was talking about. Take careBobby_brown wrote: If the camera filming the 17 cam footage is still, how much zoom can we put on each of the rectangles in the board without loosing much quallity? ...Do you think it´s possible? Take careNo, is the easy way of putting it. VHS is already a low resolution format and with 16-17 squares, it's going to look ridiculously small. No matter what kind of zoom you use, it will always look bad. There's only so much detail there to be seen. Don't know why you compared your manowar DVD which is a 1/4 of the screen size compared with this VHS 1/16th the size of the screen! Adam. BTW I tried exactly the same, to take one tiny square and resize it to 720x576, but the result was worse than I expected. I plan to use at least 4 squares at the same time, I'll see if it looks better. |
Bobby_brown 07.11.2007 17:11 |
pittrek wrote: [/QUOTENAMEYou don't have the 16 camera bootleg yet ? OK, you WILL have it in a few weeks :-) BTW I tried exactly the same, to take one tiny square and resize it to 720x576, but the result was worse than I expected. I plan to use at least 4 squares at the same time, I'll see if it looks better.Oh, great news Pittrek :-) Take care |