Forgive me if i'm wrong, but by my reckonings, Queen didn't perform at such events as Glastonbury, T in the Park etc etc. Was it just that Queen didn't like sharing the limelight, not enough time for the songs they wanted to play......I am aware they played Live Aid. Any thoughts?
Depending on the dates, they may have been on tour. I know they "played" at Montreux as well.
If you know the date of a particular festival, cross-reference it at Queen Concertography.com and see if they were available. Between Rio and Live Aid, it's not likely they were against sharing the limelight. Or perhaps one or more band member was busy doing something else, so they couldn't perform as a four-piece.
Or they weren't asked to play.
Or they were asked and just didn't want to.
Or their fee was too high.
Or maybe it was their day off.
Or maybe The Empire Strikes Back came out that day.
I've often though the same thing - either Donington, Reading, or similar festivals were around at the time that Queen were still an active touring outfit in the 70s and 80s, so surprising really that they didn't.
I'm sure that, were Freddie stil around, they would be sought after to top the bill at many of the shows nowadays (as with their peers and contemporaries such as Led Zep, the Stones, The Who, Dylan, Steveie Wonder, McCartney, U2, Aerosmith etc..)
They played Live Aid more than likely because Freddie would be able to perform for the whole world to see. There's usually one crew rushing around to do the sound and lights for all the bands at these types of events, which often results in bands not sounding good (especially 25 years ago!). Queen always wanted to bring their crew whom they believed were the best (recall Australia '74 and how well that went, which perhaps deterred them from doing future festivals?). There's my theory.
When I was in the fanclub back in the 80's and 90's I wrote to ask Jacky Smith (fan club organiser) why Queen had never been asked to play Mosnsyters of Rock at Donington as the likes of Staus Quo and Bon Jovi had headlined and they are as 'heavy' as Queen. She said that they had never been asked. They were asked to perform at the Ivor Norvello show at Knebworth in 89 or 90 but declined probaaly due to Fred. If they were still going they could easily headlined Download. in the 80's and 90's there were no so many festic=vals and big names such as Queen could make more headlining their own outdoor stadium shows.
Looking back, I think that in the 80's, festivals were less than the impressive events they are these days, and it must be said that Queen werem't really 'cool' enough to be invited (see 'Echo and the Bunnymen)
It's only comparatively recently that major bands have been involved, prior to that it was (to my mind at least) up and coming bands that took to the stage at Glastonbury (maybe I'm wrong)
Having watched the TV coverage of Glastonbury at the weekend, the same question came to my mind and I'm sure that Queen would have 'stole the show' to coin a phrase
Vintage/classic artists do seem to headline and a Scissor Sisters/Muse/Queen line up...oh dont get me started!
Pure snobbery, simple as that.
Queennever played the festivals when Fred was alive as they thought they were 'too good' and it was beneath them.
Same raeson why they rarely did TOTP and other TV studio shows once they became world famous.
I guess that 'snobbery' is still there to this day.
I think it would be good if one year Brian Roger and Paul did a Queen medley at glastonbury, i think they could pull it off quite well, especially if they pick the right songs or even go back on tour again
Here's another vote for the "snobbery" comment, which I don't think It's necessarily a bad thing.
The Beatles never did it, and they had Woodstock.
For a huge/legendary band it's a very risky situation and can go either way.
Just look at Queen and Led Zeppelin playing Live Aid.
Gee, how'd we get to "Queen are snobs" because didn't play some festivals? A lot of bands are either not asked or are not interested. That doesn't make them snobs.
If you show me an article where even one band member says anything along the lines of "we're too big to play these things," then I might buy it, but otherwise, come on. If we start knocking them for everything they DIDN'T do publicly, we'll be here all day.
There are thousands of causes the band could have supported beyond Live Aid and denouncing Appartied, but they didn't. That doesn't mean they didn't care, it just means that, like everyone on the planet who isn't Bono, they have their own lives to live and their own careers to think about.
If anyone wants an answer as to why Queen didn't play these festivals ask the organizers of these things. I'm willing to bet most, if not all, never asked Queen to play.
Queen did Live Aid, Rock In Rio, Montreux, the Kampuchea series, played in South Africa against everyone's advice, did a few 46664 concerts and singles, and the Party At The Palace. They would have done Band-Aid, but I believe were on tour at the time. What else do you want from these guys?
They also did Sunbury very early, and Saarbrücken '79 was also a festival, featuring a strangely mixed line-up with Rory Gallagher and Earth, Wind and Fire.
So with Kampuchea, Rio and Live Aid they did 5 Festivals in 12 years. (not counting the playback performances in San Remo an Montreux). 2 of these Festivals are among the biggest events in the history of music, I think thats quite impressive.
Regor wrote:
2 of these Festivals are among the biggest events in the history of music, I think thats quite impressive. ----------------------------------
Quality over quantity, I guess.
Even if invited, I don't see Freddie-era Queen interested in playing to a mixed audience, unless it's going to be the biggest damn thing ever.
Not counting their Crazy Tour, in which they went back to playing smaller venues, they always aimed for getting bigger and better. Not biting the bullet and playing smaller arenas in the U.S. after '82 somewhat supports this claim.
What I meant in a previous is that they were HUGE perfectionists, but not necessarily "snobs" in the strictest sense (eventhough I did use that word).
Queen was focussing a lot on the visual experience for the audience.
In 'their' time, music festivals was a back to basics thing. All bands were playing on the same stage because it didnt get too complicated. That siad, probably various amount of reasons:
- Queen was too expensive to book
- Queen was too commercial for festivals like Roskilde and Glastonbury
- Queen was 'too soft' for Donington
- Queen was big enough to get a Wembley or Knebworth sold out themselves, they didn't need to play festivals in order to get a experience in playing for big audiences.
In fact, they could only lose with the festivals, so I understand why they did so less...