| Major Tom 13.06.2008 09:54 |
First off sorry for all the misspellings and grammar errors. Ok, this might sound a little stupid but it has come to my attention listening to bootlegs and official recordings that the quality of the preformance is very different. Now, listening to the bootlegs from the 2005 tour and the live from Sheffield cd/dvd is like night and day. They sound like two different groups and i'm not talking about the sound quality but their lack of enthusiasm in the bootlegs. Is it so, that artists spare themselfes for the recording or just try to preform two times better when the tape is rolling? |
| steven 35638 13.06.2008 13:21 |
I have never been to a Queen + Paul Rodger concert; however, common sense tells me that the band will automatically have more energy on the night of a recorded gig. This is simply because they know for a fact that more than just the audience will watch the concert -- and that, more importantly, the people who watch it will be watching for years upon years, decades upon decades, and so forth. Clearly, they are probably a bit nervous on those recorded nights -- they want to get it just right, so that they don't have to do it again. This is not to say, however, that the band saves their energy throughout most a tour for the sake of one or two recorded gigs. I think Queen and Paul Rodgers have always been known for delivering at every performance. I have never noticed a concert in which Q+PR lack excitement and interest. They simply become more focused and aware on those particular nights. |
| Major Tom 13.06.2008 15:40 |
Yeah, I see your point. However, I went to a gig in 05 and later got the bootleg from it, here on QZ of course. When I was there I had still to see the DVD from Sheffield not to mention the feeling of actually BE THERE. But now, some three years later, I still think of it as a great concert in all aspects. BUT. There was something missing. Whether it was one of the last concerts in the european leg or they just went at it as a "job" that HAD to be done, I'm not qualified to say. I'm not just talking about Queen and Q+PR but many many other artists and groups that I've noticed this about. I'd like to know more about how the artist think about this...or think they know about it, 'cause it might be a subconcious thing. |
| Major Tom 13.06.2008 15:45 |
Examples from this concert I went to/the Sheffield concert. Taylors lack of humour, precence and feeling before, during and after SINT. Brian only sings one verse of '39, in Sheffield I belive he sings the whole song. Two verses at least. |
| Tero 13.06.2008 15:59 |
henke1980 wrote: Ok, this might sound a little stupid but it has come to my attention listening to bootlegs and official recordings that the quality of the preformance is very different.It's not stupid at all. In fact it's something you should expect with modern "live" releases which are fine-tuned, tweaked, edited, remixed and re-recorded in the studio before their release. By the time the official recordings come out, the only part that is genuinely live is the audience... If we're lucky and it hasn't been faded out in the process! |
| Major Tom 14.06.2008 05:35 |
You're were thinking Rock Montreal? Yes, I find it sad that you can't hear Brian miss a note, Roger miss a beat. I didn't know that they alter and tweak THAT much so I posted a topic about it here sometime ago. Obviously I wasn't the first to hear this. Sad, is one word that comes in mind. |
| YourValentine 14.06.2008 08:29 |
Nothing beats attending a concert yourself imo. Live is live and not perfect, we don't expect it to be perfect. The moment when Brian left the stage in frustration after totally messing up the BoRhap solo in Frankfurt 2005 the audience felt for him, it was part of what can happen in a live concert. If the concert had been filmed they might have edited it out. Compared to the concerts I attended (Brixton, Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne) the ROTC DVD does not reflect what I saw, heard and felt. It's a "product" - more an event than a concert, more about show than about music, more about image than about content. It's more showbizz than Rock'N Roll. In fact I don't like it. It shows a faultless group bathed in glaring light and stupid masses blinded by the light. It does not show the excitement being part of the show, it does not show the joy, the noise, the smells, the aching feet and the fatigue when you come out of it. I am sorry that you did not enjoy the concert you attended, henke1980, but a DVD can never surpass the real experience for me. |
| Major Tom 14.06.2008 09:31 |
But I did enjoy the concert. In fact, I loved it! It was my only chance to see the "next best" Queen since I'm only 28(!) years old, 11 years old when freddie past away. It only frustrates me that they seem to have more geist in the DVD than they had when I went to see them. That the Sheffield gig was more important than "my" gig. |
| Cwazy little thing 16.06.2008 08:51 |
henke1980 wrote: But I did enjoy the concert. In fact, I loved it! It was my only chance to see the "next best" Queen since I'm only 28(!) years old, 11 years old when freddie past away. It only frustrates me that they seem to have more geist in the DVD than they had when I went to see them. That the Sheffield gig was more important than "my" gig.I dont think thats the case. I saw them in Manchester the show before (I think) Sheffield, and for me this was exactly the same band and the same energy levels as the Shef show. In fact, I thought Manchester was a superior show to Sheffield, albeit with Paul singing a little less, due to the vocal problems he was recovering from - Bri and Rog were on awesome form though if you ask me. Live recordings - especially when you're talking about a DVD can be edited to give an impression of even more energy that you'd normally expect - its all in how you shoot the show and the lights, and who you concentrate on at any particular moment. With an audio recording its all in the mix - getting the levels right on certain things can make the sound as a whole more energetic and exciting, and this may differ from the levels on the day in the arena or whatever! I think some people over play how much editing actually goes on with bands like Queen - yes, there is some fixing done to repair obvious mistakes, and this annoys me, cos Id rather hear a warts and all show, but the fact is with our lads there are relatively few mistakes because once they hit form on a tour they're usually shit hot - so usually there are at most two or three little fixes in a whole show. The one that springs to mind is the fix in FBG in "On Fire" There are always exceptions though - and Im sure someone will point out a show thats been released with a high number of edits in it! (excluding the bastardised Live Killers of course) This is not a band like Kiss who rerecord the whole show in the studio. |
| Major Tom 16.06.2008 09:21 |
Yes, I understand that it has been "edited". But somehow...no, I can't really put my finger on it so just let this be. I can't express myself in a proper way in english. BLAHAA! Damn it! :) |
| Wiley 16.06.2008 23:13 |
I guess it all depends on the particular experience you had in the show. Like YV said, a DVD is a totally different experience. Particularly ROTC's editing is very exciting to see on a screen and you can clearly see that it attempts to "tell a story": awesome, energic band Rocking the masses with sheer power and musicianship, lots of lights, lots of wide shots. That is the director's view of certain aspects of the show. I went to 5 shows in the 2005-2006 tour. For me, Munich was not as exciting as Vienna or Prague because I had seating tickets. People standing in front of the stage may think otherwise. San Diego was 100x better than the other shows. Awesome tight performance, better setlist (except no IWIA or '39), surprisingly good crowd for the US and I was like 3 feet from the stage. Sheffield may "look" or "sound" better than a bootleg of Vienna, Manchester, Detroit or Vancouver but it doesn't mean necessarily that it was a better show, IMO. |