The original line of Queen (Brian,Roger,Freddie & John) hate film their concerts. Brian said they didn't enjoy rainbow gigs for the cameras, in Hemmersmith 75 he said ''Ok, the cameras off, now we are in our own'' or something similar. In Montreal 81 is Freddie who said ''If you forgot the cameras...'' But in general This can be demonstrated for the few gigs that they recorded. And mi question is: Why?
maybe they felt more confortable with the cameras off because if they made any mistakes it'd become joked at by jurnalists if it was recorded, i dont know, just my opinion :/
It was probably seen as "uncool" by many bands in those days. Led Zeppelin did not want to be filmed, they refused to perform on tv, other bands also avoided their shows being filmed. Also the results were usually disappointing.
Led Zeppelin refused their first filmed concert to be released for ages. Today they are happy that it exists and it's amazing...it's the only document showing the excitement of that band.
Anyway...to film a concert is rarely satisfying, it's like taking a picture of the Alps. You have to be there for real to get the picture. No camera can do that.
Also I can understand, that a band does not want any cameramen on stage. Or they don't want their lightshow being spoiled by extra lights for the cameras.
And yet there are much more Queen shows on film than you find with most other bigger acts of those times.
Is true, we a have a lots of concerts, but i think they can film more, especially after a night at the opera and news of the world, when the money isn't a problem. They only film three concerts (rainbow, montreal and budapest) with a proper 35mm film, maybe five or four (Hyde Park?, Japan 85? I don't know). But, yeah, considering what other bands do, i'm happy Queen film a lot of concerts, but with less quality than they deserve. I think in wembley, rock in rio, hammersmith, sao paulo...
Well, thanks for awnser!
I think it's a lot deeper than that.
Today, we live in an age where if it's not being filmed, somebody's going to upload it to youtube from their cell phone. Which, loosely translated, means if we don't try to market all aspects of a performance, someone else will.
Didn't have to worry about that in the 70s-90s.
Plus, wouldn't you all agree with me that because of what's available today, I don't go to as many concerts anymore. Yet I make more money than I did 20 years ago, party more than I did 20 years ago, don't need to ask for Mom's permission, etc. Because I can see a live performance of My Chemical Romance on TV or the internet, I'm gonna shell my $80-$100 concert money a lot thinner.
I may like My Chemical Romance more than say Britney Spears, but I've seen Britney live. Not because I was a fan, but just because it was THE ticket that year. Yeah, the music sucked, but the delivery was well worth the money. But My Chemical Romance probably made about the same amount of money from me buying their CD, Pay-Per-View Concert, and I-tunes downloads than Britney did on my concert ticket purchase.
So My Chemical Romance has had to market themselves differently, than say a Lady Gaga.
Again, they didn't have to worry about that stuff back in the good ol' days.
Also, I think the general line of thinking back then was if we make our performances available on TV and video, less people will come to the concerts, which was obviously a closed-minded approach. These bands were not thinking about making money ten years after they've disbanded.
No concert video has ever kept me away from going to the real thing. What kept me away are the high ticket prices. I used to pay 26 DM for a Queen ticket in 1982, an album cost around 20 DM.
An act like that would demand 100 Euros these days while the album costs 15 Euros.....
Also concerts of that size in those days were new ground. Whenever Queen or Pink Floyd went on tour, they had new lightning systems with them, they did things that no one ever did before. Those days are over, we live in an age of repetition now.
Concert videos are neither fish or flesh. They create a video reality, that does not exist. No concert viewer ever flew above the crowd or was suddenly standing behind the drummer and the next second under the piano.....
Videos like Budapest are entertaining, but it's an artform of it's own.
I recently had a gig of mine filmed for a dvd release next year for my band. We've been together for 25 years and we wanted the show filmed to chronicle the evening, our history etc. From personal experience, it was the most frustrating thing because you're aware of the cameras that are around you, you're aware of the fact that you have to be "on" and you can't make mistakes. Of course nothing goes as planned and mistakes were made, mishaps occured and shit happens. When you know you're being filmed you're so much more liable to want to play your best but then things go wrong and you are then seen looking pissed off, guitars go out of tune, vocals go flat or sharp etc. In Queen's case in Montreal, Freddie HATED the idea of cameras onstage. Yeah, they tend to get in the way and like a poster said above, any extra lighting from a film crew can deter from the lighting of the band onstage. I remember an e-mail from Gary Taylor who saw Queen at Milton Keynes and he told me that the light show there wasn't as spectacular as other shows he'd seen on that tour because of the lens flares that the rig may have caused for the cameras