| Toon_86 18.04.2014 17:02 |
Just caught live in Montreal again on Sky, who have a bit of Queen night on channel 129, but I've had this since the original WWRY VHS, and still do not understand why record this gig. Yeah the guys give it all, although I do think Freddie gives up at one point, but why record that gig? I mean it was not the hotspot of Queen fandom, and they are not really known for rocking out. A bizarre choice. Loads a more venues on that tour would've been great, but the audience is a joke. To think that was first vid of Queen live was such a shame |
| matt z 18.04.2014 20:24 |
Ask Brian on his soapbox for the real reason. . But I can only speculate it had something to do with the NIGHT of the Tour as per the schedule (earlier concerts) Feasibility in getting permissions for stage adjustments Securing the SAME venue for coverage on both nights International business connections And most importantly TAXATION. Being that it would be Canada. I'm assuming filling clearances and taxes due would have been less than at a more famous arena or theater like MSG I'm guessing another fan hit the nail on the head when he guessed the upcoming tour will be filmed in las Vegas due to a couple reasons above Maybe there's more information on the newer Commentary with Brian and Roger? |
| The Real Wizard 18.04.2014 21:40 |
The audience isn't a joke. As has been explained many times - the reason why the audience isn't loud on the older We Will Rock You versions is because it was MIXED that way. Separate mics are placed on the audience for most live albums, and their level can be turned up or down just like a guitar or vocal. The band had no control over the releases. The company, Mobilevision, wanted to create a concert video to be showed in theatres without the sound of an audience in the mix, because audiences would be seeing the video. Listen to the show as taped from the crowd. They were digging the show like any other.. link And on the Queen Rock Montreal release, they are heard just as well. They were able to make a good mix after securing the rights to the show after the film's director died. |
| matt z 18.04.2014 22:00 |
When did you become the real Wanker? I recall the Real Wizard had similar post count |
| Sheer Brass Neck 18.04.2014 22:28 |
Nope. Without looking at the tour from The Game and pre-Hot Space, I think they booked two nights as a stand alone at the Montreal Forum, and Montreal comes to mind for a few reasons. IIRC, Saul Swimmer and MobileVision wanted to strike while Queen were the biggest band in North America, and in the fall/winter, lots of arenas in North America were booked for hockey or basketball. He was probably able to get two dark nights at the Forum on not a ton of notice, and the rest is history. The reason I remember is that I was going to go to Montreal and was surprised they were there as they weren't on tour at the time. |
| musicland munich 18.04.2014 23:56 |
^this Montreal was picked for a reason. They wanted to film there. I have read a more complete story about why they choose Montreal. But as far as I can remember the above story is true. |
| musicland munich 19.04.2014 00:25 |
the original scanned VHS Cover...sigh I just can't put things like that in the garbage... it also runs in german cinemas. |
| Holly2003 19.04.2014 02:41 |
I think this is the original cover. link |
| The Real Wizard 19.04.2014 03:20 |
matt z wrote: When did you become the real Wanker? I recall the Real Wizard had similar post countExplanation here: link Don't worry, it's temporary ;) |
| pestgrid 19.04.2014 03:51 |
I believe the reason that concert exists was because of circumstance,Queen always wanted a film print of a concert as early as the seventies,and they tried many times on magnetic tape,but never was happy with the result. So after a really great touring experience from the 1979 tours,they decieded now was the time to get that magic on film. Shows were recorded in 1979 on film but never in full,so after getting all the equipment,all the necassary paperwork done,all the personell in place, the location was picked to be at the end of the tour to maximize their performance of that tour. It would be a well rehearsed and excited show. Two nights were given and the best would be combined to create the final release in the cinema. Then to follow would be the video release. It just so happened to be that show. So no special reason why it was chosen,just everything fell into place at that time..........link |
| MadTheSwine73 19.04.2014 07:03 |
Maybe it's because Montreal is awesome? That could be it, I think. |
| matt z 19.04.2014 08:13 |
The Real Wanker wrote:Wow. That felt embarrassing to read. Was the other dude drunk or something? Confrontational about hypothetical stuff again?matt z wrote: When did you become the real Wanker? I recall the Real Wizard had similar post countExplanation here: link Don't worry, it's temporary ;) Absurd. I'll take your word for it. I ran out of patience reading the first THREE rambles. Why waste my lifetime? Anyways thanks for the link. Maybe I'll get despondent some day and this will influence me. (If THIS arsehole has the capacity to go on, why shouldn't I??) ;) something like that. Carry on with your needless argument |
| Chief Mouse 19.04.2014 08:15 |
http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssboct07b.html MONTREAL Our incredible and exceptional Manager, Jim Beach, normally is a very good judge of character, but he had struck up a friendship with someone who even he would admit was a little risky – a character called Saul Swimmer (now deceased, RIP, so I won’t slag him off too much!) Saul Swimmer had the idea that he could film a Queen concert, in a very high quality 35 mm double anamorphic way, and project the resulting film onto a huge screen three stories high, in an arena, and charge people to come and see it, like a concert. So a Queen show would be able to be seen in all sorts of places we could not get to in person. It seemed like a nice idea, but we were no longer on tour. So two special one-off concerts were booked in Montreal Forum, a well-known great audience for Queen, on the 24th and 25th of November 1981. This was, and IS, prime Queen territory, so we were guaranteed a great audience, but the scheme was fraught from the beginning. For a start, we were not on tour, so all the sound and lights and production and CREW had to be reassembled just for this occasion, and we had to rehearse ourselves up to speed. Plus, we didn’t get on with Mr Saul Swimmer at all. Freddie in particular took an instant dislike to the man, and this turned to something like hatred, when we discovered on the first night that Swimmer had put up his own lights on the audience, changed the colours in our lights, and had cameras all over the stage … obviously we were not going to be able to treat it like a normal gig. It got worse on the second night, when Saul Swimmer demanded that Freddie wear the same clothes as the first night … and make the same moves … this guy had no idea that the show wasn’t choreographed … we basically did what we liked … So tempers flared … and it shows. THE GOOD AND THE BAD What you will see in this film is a very edgy, angry band, carving out a performance in a rather uncomfortable situation. But it does mean it’s very high energy, real, and raw. In addition, although the actual quality of the film was great, you will see camera work from camera men who did not remotely know the show, directed by a director who didn’t know the show either. The subsequent editing was consequently chaotic. They cobbled together bits of both shows visually, choosing the bits where the cameras had found the right person at the right time. They then matched up the sound as best they could, but there were many bits where you were hearing sound from one night, but watching the visuals from the other. Still, the film went out, and WAS seen by a lot of people in a 'Live' situation. ON TO A BAD VIDEO But then the thing went further wrong … somehow no-one had realised that Saul Swimmer would assume the rights to put the thing out as a Video. So, against our will, the VHS version, confusingly called We Will Rock You, was put out around 1984. Of course the concert had not been shot with this in mind. And the sound had been mixed dry, with no audience, so it would work in a ‘live’ situation … so it was really unsuitable for a video, as well as being a bad mix in the first place. To cap it all, it was transferred at the wrong speed on to video, so the whole thing ran at the wrong pitch. We made lots of complaints, and so did many of the people who had bought it, but this did not stop the Swimmer commercial thrust … the video was a thorn in our side for 25 years … out there with our name on – but something we had no control over. They even went to DVD around 2001. FINALLY WE BUY Finally, we bought the whole thing off Swimmer last year with the kind help of Eagle Rock. Finally it could be sorted. The work that has gone into rescuing it is immense … I can’t even get into all the details, but Justin Shirley-Smith, and Kris Fredriksson have put nine months of loving care into rebirthing this baby … It involved finding the master 24-track tapes, figuring out how they had been chopped up, digitally copying them, and rebuilding them into complete performances, and then after much cleaning up, making a splendid new mix in 5.1 surround. The visuals were in a sense harder. The surviving negative went to be doctored in the USA – by a process using using algorithms invented by John D Lowry of NASA for rescuing the film from the Apollo Moon missions. (Astrophysics gets everywhere!) You know how quick computers are these days … ? Well, to give you an idea of the huge number-crunching involved, it took 700 Apple Mac G5’s one MONTH to process this film. The computation compares a frame with the ones before it and the ones after, and uses the comparison to remove dirt, scratches and some of the defects of the original filming. In the case of the feature film Singing in the Rain … it apparently removed the RAIN! So adjustments had to be made! In our case it worked well, as you will see – the quality is magnificent – particularly noticeable in the incredible close-ups of Freddie in "Bohemian Rhapsody". Having said this, the close up of Freddie is just about all you will see in "Bo Rap". Saul Swimmer’s editors made their selection of shots to use, and the footage they left on the cutting room floor has never been seen again. So no proper re-edit of the visuals was possible. It’s kinda sad, because in addition to all the cut-aways we might have liked to use, bits of songs are missing, and the whole of "Flash" and "The Hero" will never be seen because the visuals don’t exist. These tracks ARE however on the CD version of Queen Rock Montreal – and sound great! And in view of what happened later, no-one is upset now that this is a document which concentrates on Freddie. END PRODUCT So our boys, stuck with very few options, were still able to restore all the songs to their full length, and, with modern digital artistry, make lots of improvements. But to end up with a version that is much much more true to what actually happened at any given moment, Justin and Kris mostly had to match up all the sound bites to picture. It’s a great piece of work. Well, Maybe I’ve spoiled it for you by telling you all this, but I wanted you to appreciate the work that’s gone into it, and how worthwhile the project has been, made possible by Eagle Rock. And I do find that once I’m five minutes into the film, I’m caught up in it as a real live show. |
| musicland munich 19.04.2014 10:03 |
Holly2003 wrote: I think this is the original cover. linkThanks ! Is someone in knowledge when the artwork was changed? btw. Thanks chief mouse ! |
| The Real Wizard 19.04.2014 10:30 |
And - Montreal was an easy choice for them because the audiences at their 78 and 80 shows were amongst the best audiences they had ever played for. Anyone who has heard the classic 1978 audience recording knows what I mean ! |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2014 13:08 |
The Real Wanker wrote:ROTFLMAO! Too bad 'gerry' lacks the mental faculties to appreciate the subtle way in which he got his ass handed to him...matt z wrote: When did you become the real Wanker? I recall the Real Wizard had similar post countExplanation here: link Don't worry, it's temporary ;) |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.04.2014 13:10 |
The Real Wanker wrote: And - Montreal was an easy choice for them because the audiences at their 78 and 80 shows were amongst the best audiences they had ever played for. Anyone who has heard the classic 1978 audience recording knows what I mean !It does make you wonder, though...why not Hammersmith '79? I guess it's a matter of all kinds of minor details cumulatively stacking the deck in favor of Montreal '78 - it was not the best option based on any single criterion, but when taking all factors as a whole, it emerged on top. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 19.04.2014 13:15 |
They filmed Montreal because of a financial reason. First thought was to film it in the USA (MSG NY) but then they found out how expensive filmjng in the US was. So they searched for a alternate venue in a other country. At this time there was no really VHS market ( a emerging market but music/ concert video's were a very premature concept).The cinema profit was a big gamble it could sell well, it could be a commercially disaster! |
| AlexRocks 19.04.2014 14:27 |
Was this actually shown in the theaters?! So that makes TWO Queen movies, eh?! The first being "Live At The Rainbow" that was shown before Led Zeppelin's "The Song Remains The Same" in England when that was released in 1976, eh? |
| Iron Butterfly 19.04.2014 15:15 |
Chief Mouse wrote: http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssboct07b.html MONTREAL Our incredible and exceptional Manager, Jim Beach, normally is a very good judge of character, but he had struck up a friendship with someone who even he would admit was a little risky – a character called Saul Swimmer (now deceased, RIP, so I won’t slag him off too much!) Saul Swimmer had the idea that he could film a Queen concert, in a very high quality 35 mm double anamorphic way, and project the resulting film onto a huge screen three stories high, in an arena, and charge people to come and see it, like a concert. So a Queen show would be able to be seen in all sorts of places we could not get to in person. It seemed like a nice idea, but we were no longer on tour. So two special one-off concerts were booked in Montreal Forum, a well-known great audience for Queen, on the 24th and 25th of November 1981. This was, and IS, prime Queen territory, so we were guaranteed a great audience, but the scheme was fraught from the beginning. For a start, we were not on tour, so all the sound and lights and production and CREW had to be reassembled just for this occasion, and we had to rehearse ourselves up to speed. Plus, we didn’t get on with Mr Saul Swimmer at all. Freddie in particular took an instant dislike to the man, and this turned to something like hatred, when we discovered on the first night that Swimmer had put up his own lights on the audience, changed the colours in our lights, and had cameras all over the stage … obviously we were not going to be able to treat it like a normal gig. It got worse on the second night, when Saul Swimmer demanded that Freddie wear the same clothes as the first night … and make the same moves … this guy had no idea that the show wasn’t choreographed … we basically did what we liked … So tempers flared … and it shows. THE GOOD AND THE BAD What you will see in this film is a very edgy, angry band, carving out a performance in a rather uncomfortable situation. But it does mean it’s very high energy, real, and raw. In addition, although the actual quality of the film was great, you will see camera work from camera men who did not remotely know the show, directed by a director who didn’t know the show either. The subsequent editing was consequently chaotic. They cobbled together bits of both shows visually, choosing the bits where the cameras had found the right person at the right time. They then matched up the sound as best they could, but there were many bits where you were hearing sound from one night, but watching the visuals from the other. Still, the film went out, and WAS seen by a lot of people in a 'Live' situation. ON TO A BAD VIDEO But then the thing went further wrong … somehow no-one had realised that Saul Swimmer would assume the rights to put the thing out as a Video. So, against our will, the VHS version, confusingly called We Will Rock You, was put out around 1984. Of course the concert had not been shot with this in mind. And the sound had been mixed dry, with no audience, so it would work in a ‘live’ situation … so it was really unsuitable for a video, as well as being a bad mix in the first place. To cap it all, it was transferred at the wrong speed on to video, so the whole thing ran at the wrong pitch. We made lots of complaints, and so did many of the people who had bought it, but this did not stop the Swimmer commercial thrust … the video was a thorn in our side for 25 years … out there with our name on – but something we had no control over. They even went to DVD around 2001. FINALLY WE BUY Finally, we bought the whole thing off Swimmer last year with the kind help of Eagle Rock. Finally it could be sorted. The work that has gone into rescuing it is immense … I can’t even get into all the details, but Justin Shirley-Smith, and Kris Fredriksson have put nine months of loving care into rebirthing this baby … It involved finding the master 24-track tapes, figuring out how they had been chopped up, digitally copying them, and rebuilding them into complete performances, and then after much cleaning up, making a splendid new mix in 5.1 surround. The visuals were in a sense harder. The surviving negative went to be doctored in the USA – by a process using using algorithms invented by John D Lowry of NASA for rescuing the film from the Apollo Moon missions. (Astrophysics gets everywhere!) You know how quick computers are these days … ? Well, to give you an idea of the huge number-crunching involved, it took 700 Apple Mac G5’s one MONTH to process this film. The computation compares a frame with the ones before it and the ones after, and uses the comparison to remove dirt, scratches and some of the defects of the original filming. In the case of the feature film Singing in the Rain … it apparently removed the RAIN! So adjustments had to be made! In our case it worked well, as you will see – the quality is magnificent – particularly noticeable in the incredible close-ups of Freddie in "Bohemian Rhapsody". Having said this, the close up of Freddie is just about all you will see in "Bo Rap". Saul Swimmer’s editors made their selection of shots to use, and the footage they left on the cutting room floor has never been seen again. So no proper re-edit of the visuals was possible. It’s kinda sad, because in addition to all the cut-aways we might have liked to use, bits of songs are missing, and the whole of "Flash" and "The Hero" will never be seen because the visuals don’t exist. These tracks ARE however on the CD version of Queen Rock Montreal – and sound great! And in view of what happened later, no-one is upset now that this is a document which concentrates on Freddie. END PRODUCT So our boys, stuck with very few options, were still able to restore all the songs to their full length, and, with modern digital artistry, make lots of improvements. But to end up with a version that is much much more true to what actually happened at any given moment, Justin and Kris mostly had to match up all the sound bites to picture. It’s a great piece of work. Well, Maybe I’ve spoiled it for you by telling you all this, but I wanted you to appreciate the work that’s gone into it, and how worthwhile the project has been, made possible by Eagle Rock. And I do find that once I’m five minutes into the film, I’m caught up in it as a real live show.I had no idea about most of that, an insightful read. |
| cmsdrums 19.04.2014 16:28 |
I wonder how Mack reacted when finding Brian describe his original mix as "bad"?!!? |
| Mkls 19.04.2014 16:38 |
ok so name ONE concert that QPL actually paid for and recorded by their own crew. its so obvious Queen never wanted to spend any money on film recordings, just using Trident money - later BBC crews and money - then various cheap intra venue video equipment (EC, H77) , local TVs (south america), Channel 4 (milton keynes) , then probably it was again saul swimmer and not QPL who risked his own money (why complaining then Brian?) ; Budapest was purely financed by the hungarian state film company in exchange of lower ticket prices and the band coming to Hungary. Why complain then later if there was never any financial commitment or investment??? The truth is , throughout their active live carrer, apart from Wembley 86 (which is again probably a channel 4 coproduction), they never ever ever invested their money or were interested to record ONE gig properly. Shame! they even decided to save money on renting a mobile recording video studio for knebworth... |
| The Real Wizard 19.04.2014 17:04 |
AlexRocks wrote: Was this actually shown in the theaters?! So that makes TWO Queen movies, eh?! The first being "Live At The Rainbow" that was shown before Led Zeppelin's "The Song Remains The Same" in England when that was released in 1976, eh?Add "Hungarian Rhapsody" to the list. That was shown in 2012. |
| The Real Wizard 19.04.2014 17:20 |
P-Tr extinction event wrote: ok so name ONE concert that QPL actually paid for and recorded by their own crew. its so obvious Queen never wanted to spend any money on film recordings, just using Trident money - later BBC crews and money - then various cheap intra venue video equipment (EC, H77) , local TVs (south america), Channel 4 (milton keynes) , then probably it was again saul swimmer and not QPL who risked his own money (why complaining then Brian?) ; Budapest was purely financed by the hungarian state film company in exchange of lower ticket prices and the band coming to Hungary. Why complain then later if there was never any financial commitment or investment??? The truth is , throughout their active live carrer, apart from Wembley 86 (which is again probably a channel 4 coproduction), they never ever ever invested their money or were interested to record ONE gig properly. Shame! they even decided to save money on renting a mobile recording video studio for knebworth...Queen is far from unique in that sense. Many of the big bands have little footage of them at their peak - Pink Floyd, The Eagles and Yes to name a few. There is ZERO pro footage of Pink Floyd in their golden era of 1973-77 ! A lot of bands just didn't care to film their shows. Nobody back then could have possibly known what a golden era of music they were in. Business just went on as usual. Queen invested their money into the show itself. They often had the most expensive lighting rigs of the time, and their crew was bigger than most. The gear and the payroll ensured they rarely made money on the road. In fact, the only time they turned in a profit was the Magic tour. So there's no need to vilify Queen for their choices. Most bands just didn't even see it as an option. Unless there was a very good promotional reason at the time to film a show, most bands back then just focused their money and energy on the show itself in the moment. |
| matt z 19.04.2014 22:50 |
The Real Wanker wrote:ALSO (state side) I saw Q+PR at the cinema for the Ukraine gig.AlexRocks wrote: Was this actually shown in the theaters?! So that makes TWO Queen movies, eh?! The first being "Live At The Rainbow" that was shown before Led Zeppelin's "The Song Remains The Same" in England when that was released in 1976, eh?Add "Hungarian Rhapsody" to the list. That was shown in 2012. Limited release. I think it only showed for two days. To make matters worse it was poorly attended |
| Holly2003 20.04.2014 03:06 |
I would take most of Brian's comments about Montreal/Swimmer with a pinch of salt. For example, it stretches credibility that Queen and their management wouldn't know Swimmer had the rights to a VHS release. Granted, VHS was relatively new at this time, but even so it's just not believable. Also, Brian says they "finally" bought the rights -- why finally? Why not earlier? The reality: they sold all the rights for a healthy profit but years later when they started releasing some concerts on DVD they had to rubbish the earlier VHS in order to promote the DVD release. Brian could have done this based solely on the benefits of digital over VHS but in that really shitty way he has, he chose to insult someone he had legally and willingly sold the rights to. (He has form on this -- moaning about Smile songs being online when in over 40 years he has made no effort whatsoever to rerelease them.) As for quality control, Rare Live? Live in Rio? Really Brian? He can be a very petty, vindictive man sometimes. I would also treat with a lot of suspicion the idea that Queen never made money touring. The source for this is the band themselves so it could just be a part of their "legend". In any event, there are lots of ways creative accountants can legally hide profits to show that a tour was not profitable when it was. It happens in the film business all the time, when companies make money but show a loss. |
| cmsdrums 20.04.2014 04:29 |
I agree Holly - to bitch about the original VHS of Montreal being 'bad quality' (which it really wasn't, and was certainly the best available), and then release the Rio VHS with butchered edits, terrible picture and sound mix quality, is laughable. One of Brian's major complaints seems to be that Swimmer asked them to wear the same clothes two nights in a row for continuity purposes. This suddenly didn't become an issue when they did the Rio gigs a WEEK apart, but strangely all appeared in the same garb so they could splice his solos! In addition, the photo of John on the front of the Rio VHS that is reversed, making him look as if he's playing left handed, has always annoyed me! Is it coincidental that Swimmer brought out the WWRY VHS in 1984, and then Queen decide to rush release Rio very shortly after? I'm tempted to point out the 'bad mix' and 'same clothes' issues to Brian on his Soapbox! |
| Doga 20.04.2014 05:34 |
I always thought Montreal have a great quality, and is a top film with the band on fire. Maybe the problems with the clothes, the mix and the lightnings are simply the band and Swimmer never really get along. Then, the band attack the guy in every oportunity and the guy destroy the non-used film. Shame. I always wandered why Queen never actually filmed the Sao Paulo gigs instead. |
| dsmeer 20.04.2014 07:30 |
I have a better question why did Q+PR film the Ukraine gig? Probably pure for the money. |
| The Real Wizard 20.04.2014 09:42 |
Holly2003 wrote: Brian says they "finally" bought the rights -- why finally? Why not earlier?Apparently it couldn't be done while the director was still alive.. |
| The Real Wizard 20.04.2014 09:44 |
cmsdrums wrote: This suddenly didn't become an issue when they did the Rio gigs a WEEK apart, but strangely all appeared in the same garb so they could splice his solos!I reckon this is apples and oranges. They did the Montreal gigs purely with the intention of creating a concert film, but we can't necessarily say the same for the Rio gigs. The beef with Swimmer is pretty clear, and there's no need to take any of it with a pinch of salt. He was a film director who had no idea about how a rock concert worked, and he was cutting in on the band's territory. They were the biggest band in the world and he was telling them how to do their job. That's a time bomb waiting to go off. But of course you guys are right when it comes to the Rio DVD release. It is inexcusable. |
| Bad Seed 20.04.2014 09:47 |
I too would take Brian's comments with a pinch of salt. Saul Swimmer's version of events is very different to Brian's, his commentary on the wwry DVD is quite interesting. In that commentary he states that one of the reasons they chose Montreal was cost, it was cheap to film there. He also mentions that the band had the audio tapes for months while THEY were working on them NOT mobilvision, a dry mix was asked for but the band were obviously happy with it at the time. Roger even threw a premier party at his house in '83 so relationships couldn't have been that bad. |
| The Real Wizard 20.04.2014 10:07 |
Bad Seed wrote: He also mentions that the band had the audio tapes for months while THEY were working on them NOT mobilvision, a dry mix was asked for but the band were obviously happy with it at the time.But when would they have had the time to work on them? After the shows they almost immediately went into the studio to record Hot Space, then embarked on the longest tour of their career. And then they took 8 months off because they were internally falling apart. So they shipped off the tapes to Mack for him to work on, and we all know how well that went. Saul Swimmer certainly did not have the benefit of perspective. The fact that it was released like this doesn't mean they were happy with the final mix. If they had no creative control, then that's where the discussion ends and the questions begin. In the business arrangement, did the band relinquish all creative control to Swimmer, even regarding the audio mix? How in the world did this happen ?! Furthermore - they have been happy with the mix as a film to be shown in theatres, but not as a home video, which was not in the original game plan. These are two completely different mediums. |
| Holly2003 20.04.2014 10:14 |
The Real Wanker wrote:He directed one of the most famous rock films of the 1970s: linkcmsdrums wrote: This suddenly didn't become an issue when they did the Rio gigs a WEEK apart, but strangely all appeared in the same garb so they could splice his solos!The beef with Swimmer is pretty clear, and there's no need to take any of it with a pinch of salt. He was a film director who had no idea about how a rock concert worked, The Real Wanker wrote:and he was cutting in on the band's territory. They were the biggest band in the world and he was telling them how to do their job. That's a time bomb waiting to go off.You could easily turn that around: Queen had no idea how a concert film worked, he was a famous director and they wouldn't let him do his job properly. His demands, that they stay in the same costume both nights so that footage could be used from both nights, doesn't sound to me unreasonable at all. In fact, as cmsdrums has pointed out, they even did that themselves for Rio so it obviously seemed like a good idea at the time. And Brian was complaining of too many cameras? WTF!? (there are a couple of occasions when a cameraman is in shot, but that used to happen quite often in older concert films). And Swimmer changed their lights a bit. I would imagine he had more of an idea what would look best ON FILM (his medium of choice, not theirs) than they did. |
| The Real Wizard 20.04.2014 10:17 |
^ yup, fair play. As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. |
| Holly2003 20.04.2014 10:17 |
Bad Seed wrote: I too would take Brian's comments with a pinch of salt. Saul Swimmer's version of events is very different to Brian's, his commentary on the wwry DVD is quite interesting. In that commentary he states that one of the reasons they chose Montreal was cost, it was cheap to film there. He also mentions that the band had the audio tapes for months while THEY were working on them NOT mobilvision, a dry mix was asked for but the band were obviously happy with it at the time. Roger even threw a premier party at his house in '83 so relationships couldn't have been that bad.Interesting point about the audio. I've said before that on the old VHS I could hear two Fred's singing during WATC -- one is the main clear vocal and the other is an underlying, faint vocal that is different to the main one. So if my ears aren't deceiving me, either a vocal from one night was used over the top of another, or a new vocal was added in the studio. |
| musicland munich 20.04.2014 10:37 |
MACK and Brian have a strange but "professional" relationship. For somewhat reason they like to do their statements in public to hurt each other a bit... |
| Bad Seed 20.04.2014 10:51 |
The Real Wanker wrote:Well we know Freddie certainly had time to do plenty overdubs!Bad Seed wrote: He also mentions that the band had the audio tapes for months while THEY were working on them NOT mobilvision, a dry mix was asked for but the band were obviously happy with it at the time.But when would they have had the time to work on them? After the shows they almost immediately went into the studio to record Hot Space, then embarked on the longest tour of their career. And then they took 8 months off because they were internally falling apart. So they shipped off the tapes to Mack for him to work on, and we all know how well that went. Saul Swimmer certainly did not have the benefit of perspective. The fact that it was released like this doesn't mean they were happy with the final mix. If they had no creative control, then that's where the discussion ends and the questions begin. In the business arrangement, did the band relinquish all creative control to Swimmer, even regarding the audio mix? How in the world did this happen ?! Furthermore - they have been happy with the mix as a film to be shown in theatres, but not as a home video, which was not in the original game plan. These are two completely different mediums. |
| Pim Derks 20.04.2014 11:29 |
In addition to what already has been said regarding Roger's premiere party etc - I think the "Queen Works!" tourbook even had an advert for it, so I seriously doubt relations were that bad. |
| matt z 20.04.2014 13:40 |
musicland munich wrote: MACK and Brian have a strange but "professional" relationship. For somewhat reason they like to do their statements in public to hurt each other a bit...Sounds like they'll give each other a hard time. But Mack seemed to be the most unbiased in docs How sad. They're two of my avowed heroes. TCR could have benefited from Mack 's input |
| The Real Wizard 20.04.2014 21:44 |
Bad Seed wrote: Well we know Freddie certainly had time to do plenty overdubs!Ah yes, this is true ! I wonder if any of the others were involved .. ? |
| The Real Wizard 20.04.2014 21:47 |
matt z wrote: Sounds like they'll give each other a hard time. But Mack seemed to be the most unbiased in docsI've found it to be about equal. Mack recently slagged Brian off in a recent interview, about how he was too much of a perfectionist and actually wanted to hang around for the final mix - as if this was a bad thing ! |
| tero! 48531 21.04.2014 03:23 |
The Real Wanker wrote: Mack recently slagged Brian off in a recent interview, about how he was too much of a perfectionist and actually wanted to hang around for the final mix - as if this was a bad thing !That of course depends on the details of their agreement, which we don't know. It could very well be that Mack was supposed to be in charge of the final mix, and the band wasn't supposed to participate? |
| Toon_86 21.04.2014 08:29 |
Just watched it again, still think the crowd were pretty crap. I was at the Freddie tribute and Sheffield for Return of the Champions, so can understand the noise of the crowd gets lost, who wants to buy a DVD to hear the crowd singing right, but its their body language, just no movement of enthusiasm. And they didn't know LOML. :) |
| Toon_86 21.04.2014 08:32 |
Also, The Real Wanker? Shouldn't that be the Russian trolls nick? |
| rocknrolllover 21.04.2014 08:46 |
Toon_86 wrote: Also, The Real Wanker? Shouldn't that be the Russian trolls nick?No. He's not a troll. He is a king of Queenzone! |
| musicland munich 21.04.2014 10:07 |
sigh...what ever happen to my original post....
The Real "W" wrote:
I've found it to be about equal. Mack recently slagged Brian off in a recent interview, about how he was too much of a perfectionist and actually wanted to hang around for the final mix - as if this was a bad thing !
musicland munich wrote: If it's time for the final mix MACK's humor is about to make a full stop ! He has managed it to get David Bowie out of the control room while mixing " U P "... on the other hand there is Brian...have a look :) |
| luthorn 21.04.2014 17:13 |
Doesn't Fred say in the video 'you can shake your asses any time, you know' or something like to that regard, which kind of indicates how dull the crowd was. I just dont see people in Montreal being crazy for a British rock band called Queen. If it was a French band called "F the Queen" singing in French then it would be a riot. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 21.04.2014 21:38 |
"It could very well be that Mack was supposed to be in charge of the final mix, and the band wasn't supposed to participate?" Brian said that UP was the only final mix that he didn't participate in. Queen was going through huge changes in sounds and styles. Maybe Mack (probably?) felt that The Game was moving them forward as a band while Brian wanted to hang on to the old way of doing things? Mack was certainly right in the sense that a new era was here. Brian represented classic Queen (awesome stuff) but that wasn't going to fly in the 80s. Shades of gray. Brian's a perfectionist asshole, Mack's a perfectionist asshole. |
| The Real Wizard 21.04.2014 23:12 |
Yeah, but whose perfectionist assholeism (yes, it's a word now) resulted in records that will be listened to in decades (if not centuries) to come? A Night At The Opera or The Works? Is it really any contest? |
| Martin Packer 22.04.2014 01:57 |
Brian DID once make a comment about how Mack wanted them to mic stuff up differently. His commentary seemed to be it was interesting but it was clear he was uncomfortable with it. History doesn't relate how the others felt. |
| tero! 48531 22.04.2014 11:28 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Maybe Mack (probably?) felt that The Game was moving them forward as a band while Brian wanted to hang on to the old way of doing things? Mack was certainly right in the sense that a new era was here. Brian represented classic Queen (awesome stuff) but that wasn't going to fly in the 80s.Mack was obviously hired to do something different with the band's sound, so what's the point in changing it back to the old Queen again? (Whether the new Queen was better or worse is actually irrelevant...) It was a band decision to get him as a producer, but obiously Brian didn't stick to that decision. |
| Lord Gaga 22.04.2014 13:05 |
While their relationship might have been strained, Brian was comfortable – and friendly – enough with Mack to have him work on Star Fleet Project. Part of Brian's barbed words towards Mack might also have to do that he doesn't have very fond memories of working in Munich, especially considering the debauchery Freddie got himself into. As Brian said, the Munich years were dark days indeed. |
