link
I believe it's the master copy as the recording is similar but the quality is much clearer and Freddie's vocal is much more prominent and it's worth taking a listen to it. Just compare it with the old version. If the old one gets C+, this one gets C++.
I honestly believe this to be the best performance of the song, and now that we have slightly better quality, it just further proves my point. This is way better than Newcastle's version 3 nights later. But sadly, here he doesn't hit the C5 and now it's much more obvious he doesn't with this quality.
Thanks to gregsynthbootlegs for somehow getting this. Visit his youtube channel!
The fact that it's a slight upgrade doesn't suddenly mean it's the master copy. There is absolutely no way to predict such a thing. The only way to know if it's the master copy is if the taper was directly involved.
Sir GH wrote: The fact that it's a slight upgrade doesn't suddenly mean it's the master copy. There is absolutely no way to predict such a thing. The only way to know if it's the master copy is if the taper was directly involved.
My mistake. Didn't know quite what to call it. Nonetheless, it still sounds better than the other source.
To answer questions: That is the "original" source of this concert--the other source (the one that circulates) is a FLAC version (with different edits). I wouldn't have been able to listen to this version if it wasn't for Bob (thanks for letting me hear it).
That version of Bo Rhap is honestly the weakest version on the whole tour--I mean sure, Freddie nails most of the song (note-wise), but that's off-set by choppy phrasing, note dropping, and bad/off-key notes throughout. Not to mention that Brian and Freddie mess up parts on their respective instruments. The first Newcastle is actually way better---because despite Freddie being conservative, his phrasing is extremely smooth and is great to listen too (plus the band is way tighter). I would take 1st Newcastle, some NOTW versions, and even your "favorite" WATC 1977 version over Glasgow any day.
Although not flawless, the "famous" Newcastle version (12/4), is still the best version on the tour (and debatable for the best version of all-time), due to the "edge" the band have throughout the concert (they play most songs slightly faster, and the faster numbers are more energetic than usual). The second Newcastle's Bo Rhap has a much tighter band playing, and Freddie being in better voice (he doesn't sing as easily at Glasgow--I've heard both concerts and compared them side-by-side). Freddie doesn't hit nearly as many of the notes at 12/4 as he does on 12/1, but the phrasing is much better (and smoother--though I think the 1st Newcastle has the smoothest vocals).
Like what Bob said, it's not just about Freddie's vocals--it's the 4 men on stage--and the four men on stage perform better during the Newcastle concerts.
Sir GH wrote: The fact that it's a slight upgrade doesn't suddenly mean it's the master copy. There is absolutely no way to predict such a thing. The only way to know if it's the master copy is if the taper was directly involved.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I feel the same! =)
I'll share the Glasgow source (I'm too nice).
Since the "lost" source is only available as MP3, I'm including it as a "bonus" when I re-post Glasgow's Lossless source.
mooghead wrote:
Was about to say the same thing.. why is this the 'master copy'? Is it the direct tape from the mixing desk? Soundboard recording?
========================
Well, it's an audience recording. No matter how good or bad the tape recorder, mics, location or acoustics were at the show, there is still a master tape.
Sir GH wrote:
Well, it's an audience recording. No matter how good or bad the tape recorder, mics, location or acoustics were at the show, there is still a master tape.
====
So it's a real master tape? Is there any chance to find the rest of this recording and might it have the missing parts which are on the old recording?
Let be clear, it might be or it might be not the mastertape. As we have no clue about it, we still label it as coming from an unknown generation tape. What Bob wanted to say is that for each recording, a master tape exists or has existed but we need to have a confirmation by a source close to the taper.
link - enjoy !
I won't do a formal share since this is lossy. The ide tags of the tracks are wrongly labeled as November 30 instead of December 1. And I still wouldn't call this an upgrade, since it's from a bad CDR, probably over 10 years old. There are digi-clicks everywhere, which makes for a difficult listen.