| fofum 15.01.2015 10:26 |
I know a lot of work is done in post to make live performances suitable for release, but how great were Queen as musicians live? We're there a lot of flubbed notes? Any particular member who would frequently let the side down? The live bootlegs I owned when I was younger were oftentimes less than fantastic and I actually whinced at a few of the earlier recordings, especially in terms of the vocals being flat. I'm not being harsh here as I think Queen developed into perhaps the greatest live act of all time, but I just wonder if those who saw them were bothered about those things, or was it just too loud to really notice? |
| Vocal harmony 15.01.2015 10:49 |
The excitement and atmosphere carries a lot of bands through gigs which when viewed or listened to away from the concert hall can throw up some surprises. I've always thought that Freddie, if he went off, tended to sing sharp rather than flat. Through the years there were missed placed words or completely forgotten lines, but I don't think any of these ruined a performance. RT and JD were usually very tight and well rehearsed. I think BM was the one who possibly made more mistakes. But having said that when they were playing well they were amazing and after all these years looking back still one of the truly great live bands IMO. I never left a Queen show thinking ok I've seen them, now who's next. I always wanted to go back and see more. Yes there were/ are bands who play more complex music better than Queen, Zappa, Rush, King Crimson, Muse, Dream Theatre. . . The list is endless, but I don't think any could excite an audience in the same way that Queen did. Simon Cowell might go on about the X factor but in the real world very few had it or have it. Queen really did in bucket loads |
| fofum 15.01.2015 11:50 |
Great reply. Thank you :) I think the bootlegs I heard were really bad quality and the vocals sounded off because of the source material, rather than Freddie being bad. I know from personal experience in bands that a great show can sound awful when recorded on cheap equipment... the whole sonic experience being squashed onto a small cassette tape, for example. Thanks again, VH :) |
| tomchristie22 15.01.2015 16:33 |
They were an outstanding live band, in my opinion. Seems you've just heard the wrong recordings. Boston 1976 is a terrific Night at the Opera show, and in about as good quality as bootlegs get. Tokyo 1975, the last show of the Sheer Heart Attack tour, is also great on both performance and audio quality fronts. The two Newcastle 1979 shows are generally seen as Freddie's pinnacle, vocally. They're definitely worth checking out if you can endure the slightly poorer quality (still pretty listenable). You can also listen to Live Aid, which is an official release but hasn't had any work done on it. One of Freddie's best 80's performances for sure. |
| brENsKi 15.01.2015 17:14 |
the key thing is to not get caught up in the "bad recording quality" as an excuse for the band having an average/bad night. queen's bootlegs are generally quite poor compared to other big bands. i remember the first time I heard "Duck Soup" - the edited version of the Seattle 77 gig (think it was round about 80/81) and although it was clearly better than some most of the queen boots i heard at that time - it was still poorly recorded (to tape) compared to the Zep/Floyd boots i had on tape at the same time. |
| mike hunt 15.01.2015 22:05 |
In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way. |
| mike hunt 15.01.2015 22:05 |
In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way. |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2015 23:55 |
mike hunt wrote: In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.For sure, Queen's records had great complexity to them, but that comes down the technology that was available to them. Rush's arrangements weren't as lush. They were more direct, simply three guys playing, with some extra keyboard or guitar parts now and again. But in terms of their technical ability - the guys in Rush are simply better players than Queen. Their chops have always been in better shape, past and present, on record and on stage. Even at their peak, Queen could never pull off La Villa Strangiato. Cover bands can't pull off most Queen tunes because they need four guitarists and two dozen singers. Most attempts to recreate the albums with less than that end up sounding like a bad Abba tribute. There are a million guys who can play Rush songs because you just need to practice to get that good. But you can't practice to write a Bohemian Rhapsody. And that's why people will know Queen in 300 years and probably won't know Rush. |
| Viper 16.01.2015 03:49 |
Great response, "The Real Wizard"! |
| gerry 16.01.2015 04:48 |
Yes i saw Queen many many times, and on those occasions they were in my eyes faultless, but i have heard on bootleg tapes where they did have bad nights, such as freddies voice was under pressure (no pun intended) or Brian messed a few chords up, or on one occasion Brian fell as there were egg shells on the stage, and he slipped. I have always considered the four original guys in Queen as the greatest ever Rock group, no one can touch them for style, sound and intelligence. Freddie was the one who got the audiences excited and Brian contributed with his fancy guitar licks. I love Queen they were dynamite back in the day, and no one was greater. If you never witnessed Queen live with Freddie, then you missed the greatest event in Rock History. Mercury was indeed the rock messenger from god! |
| MackMantilla 16.01.2015 08:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Excellent point, Sirmike hunt wrote: In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.For sure, Queen's records had great complexity to them, but that comes down the technology that was available to them. Rush's arrangements weren't as lush. They were more direct, simply three guys playing, with some extra keyboard or guitar parts now and again. But in terms of their technical ability - the guys in Rush are simply better players than Queen. Their chops have always been in better shape, past and present, on record and on stage. Even at their peak, Queen could never pull off La Villa Strangiato. Cover bands can't pull off most Queen tunes because they need four guitarists and two dozen singers. Most attempts to recreate the albums with less than that end up sounding like a bad Abba tribute. There are a million guys who can play Rush songs because you just need to practice to get that good. But you can't practice to write a Bohemian Rhapsody. And that's why people will know Queen in 300 years and probably won't know Rush. |
| luthorn 16.01.2015 09:51 |
gerry wrote: Yes i saw Queen many many times, and on those occasions they were in my eyes faultless, but i have heard on bootleg tapes where they did have bad nights, such as freddies voice was under pressure (no pun intended) or Brian messed a few chords up, or on one occasion Brian fell as there were egg shells on the stage, and he slipped. I have always considered the four original guys in Queen as the greatest ever Rock group, no one can touch them for style, sound and intelligence. Freddie was the one who got the audiences excited and Brian contributed with his fancy guitar licks. I love Queen they were dynamite back in the day, and no one was greater. If you never witnessed Queen live with Freddie, then you missed the greatest event in Rock History. Mercury was indeed the rock messenger from god!That's what i love about bootlegs: little deviations, errors, omissions, changes, etc. It makes listening a lot more enjoyable than carefully crafted studio albums. |
| fofum 16.01.2015 10:08 |
Great replies guys. I was too young to see them live back in the day, so bootlegs were a big thing for me. It was only with the advent of the internet that I really started unearthing the real good stuff though... and there's a lot to get through. Thankfully :) |
| QueenTwo 16.01.2015 11:53 |
QUEEN the four of them together where just so good, anything would be hard to beat the show they did, specially in the 70's.Every 70's tour was so magical but I feel by the time they got to the crazy tour they were at the top of there game. so electrical and exiting..magic moments indeed, Not only Queen but most bands I feel were better in the 70's, 80s most band got a little bit too much poppy and into video's I think anyway.Sure there are mistakes during shows but who cares? |
| master marathon runner 16.01.2015 12:09 |
Spot on Gerry. |
| mike hunt 16.01.2015 13:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Excellent post, Rush are one of the best. Queen are one of the few bands that are completely different on stage compared to the studio records. Not many bands could pull that Off. live they were more of a straight foward Rock Band.mike hunt wrote: In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.For sure, Queen's records had great complexity to them, but that comes down the technology that was available to them. Rush's arrangements weren't as lush. They were more direct, simply three guys playing, with some extra keyboard or guitar parts now and again. But in terms of their technical ability - the guys in Rush are simply better players than Queen. Their chops have always been in better shape, past and present, on record and on stage. Even at their peak, Queen could never pull off La Villa Strangiato. Cover bands can't pull off most Queen tunes because they need four guitarists and two dozen singers. Most attempts to recreate the albums with less than that end up sounding like a bad Abba tribute. There are a million guys who can play Rush songs because you just need to practice to get that good. But you can't practice to write a Bohemian Rhapsody. And that's why people will know Queen in 300 years and probably won't know Rush. |
| Oscar J 16.01.2015 13:24 |
Vocal harmony wrote: Yes there were/ are bands who play more complex music better than Queen, Zappa, Rush, King Crimson, Muse, Dream Theatre. . . The list is endless, but I don't think any could excite an audience in the same way that Queen did. Simon Cowell might go on about the X factor but in the real world very few had it or have it. Queen really did in bucket loads Agree with what Wizard said - also don't forget that most bands today, including Muse as far as I'm concerned, play to click tracks live. |
| The Real Wizard 16.01.2015 17:17 |
Oscar J wrote: Agree with what Wizard said - also don't forget that most bands today, including Muse as far as I'm concerned, play to click tracks live.I wouldn't say most, but certainly quite a few. Jack White would strap his balls to a live battery pack before playing to a click. And I'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing. It's like clockwork. It's an entire production, not just guys playing. It's a different brand of entertainment that has evolved from the technology becoming increasingly available. The part of me that loves hearing a band play like Led Zeppelin at their peak thinks it's too calculated, but the part of me that has seen Muse in recent years thinks it's a fantastic experience in the moment ... but it's just ... different. It probably isn't much fun listening to concert recordings from night to night, since it's all so calculated. Rush have done it since the 80s. Even Dream Theater are doing it now. With the lights and production it's still a very good show, but the spontaneity factor just isn't there anymore. My feelings remain mixed. |
| OwenSmith 16.01.2015 18:59 |
Even live can be a bad experience. I saw Queen twice and they were very different experiences. The first was The Works tour Birmingham NEC second night. The NEC is a giant shoe box with nasty boomy audio. Myself and my brother were in one of the far back corners, couldn't see a bloody thing we were so far back (no big monitors in 1984), it was excessively loud and yet poor audio quality. And afterwards I had hearing threshold shift, couldn't hear a thing for about 6 hours. I bet that damaged my hearing, I was 16 at the time. Altogether a bit of a disappoinment. The second time was The Magic Tour at Newcastle Football Stadium. What a difference! We were in the middle of the pitch about a third of the way back. The sound quality was great and it wasn't deafening, I could hear afterwards. We (myself, my brother and my girlfriend) could see everything from that location, and it didn't rain (a worry with outdoor concerts). Altogether a fantastic experience, and there's even a pretty good quality bootleg of that concert. Had I only gone that Works concert, I dread to think what my long term opinion of Queen live would have been. And these days I wear music earplugs to live concerts. God knows why all concerts are so loud you need earplugs to hear them safely, but that appears to be the standard way it is done. It's stupid. |
| Fireplace 16.01.2015 19:58 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Quite true, and people tend to forget that "playing to a click" does not mean "having a drum machine do the work for you". It's a skill in its own right, and god have mercy on the drummer who tries but gets lost along the way....Oscar J wrote: Agree with what Wizard said - also don't forget that most bands today, including Muse as far as I'm concerned, play to click tracks live.I wouldn't say most, but certainly quite a few. Jack White would strap his balls to a live battery pack before playing to a click. And I'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing. It's like clockwork. It's an entire production, not just guys playing. It's a different brand of entertainment that has evolved from the technology becoming increasingly available. The part of me that loves hearing a band play like Led Zeppelin at their peak thinks it's too calculated, but the part of me that has seen Muse in recent years thinks it's a fantastic experience in the moment ... but it's just ... different. It probably isn't much fun listening to concert recordings from night to night, since it's all so calculated. Rush have done it since the 80s. Even Dream Theater are doing it now. With the lights and production it's still a very good show, but the spontaneity factor just isn't there anymore. My feelings remain mixed. On topic: just as there were several installments of Queen - the studio band, there were also at least two incarnations of Queen - the live band. I first saw them in 1982, not knowing then that their best live years were just behind them. It's hard to judge a band by its musical quality amidst a screaming, pushing and sweating mass, Their self proclaimed mission on stage was always to unite and entertain, and I never saw a single show where they didn't succeed. Musical proficiency is just part of the package, and they always managed to make it look effortless on stage. I'd say they were quite a bit better live than most people on this board give them credit for these days (remember that showing thier musical prowess was never a goal to begin with). Compared to a band like Dream Theater however, techncally they were just average. There is just one thing to remember: when Dream Theater were practsing hard in their bedrooms and dreaming of glory, they were listening to Queen. And on a personal note, listening to DT leaves me in awe, but it's the sort of awe you get from eating frozen pizza. Listening to Queen makes me forget all about analyzing their music very quickly, but always leaves me with the GLOW...... |
| mike hunt 16.01.2015 21:24 |
Remember, what made The Beatles the best of all time was their songwriting abilities, not musical ability. Queen were better writers by a country mile than DT IMO. |
| Holly2003 17.01.2015 02:36 |
Good to see some sensible, measured praise for the classic Queen line up. They were absolute great back then, and people have been able to capture here what made them great, rather than just the gushing fandom praise and empty comments that often masquerades as "debate" here. For me, a big part of the classic sound was Fred playing piano live. It adds depth. quality and variety to the performance. For me, they were a lesser band live when Fred started focusing on his "frontman" persona. Even less well-known songs that don;t have multi-layered vocals like Spread Your Wings have that classic Queen sound because of the piano input. |
| whynot 17.01.2015 06:38 |
Saw Queen in 1982, 1984 and 1986. Queen were a great live band, mostly because of the atmosphere and during the concert and the phantastic voice of Freddie (when he was in shape) . I remember in 1984, lights out and 21:00 start of the concert 21:20. Freddie's voice got worse in the eighties compared to 70's. In my opinion Queen were live at their best between 1977 and 1979. I'm also a Status Quo fan (saw them 20 times) and although you can't compare the music I always have missed a second guitar player in Queen. Brian has to carry the whole show himself and that's pretty tough. Status Quo have a great solo guitarist (Rossi, very much underrated) and probably the best rhythm guitar player (Parfitt). I'm a guitar player myself and I have noticed numerous mistakes made by Brian live, especially during the 1986 shows in Holland, and when you listen to Quo live it's stands as a house. What's also not speaking in the advantage of Queen is the synthesizer sounds made by different players, but not always visible on stage (for example: the radio ga ga sounds on live aid, Hand claps on under pressure in Rock Montreal, Piano parts in seven seas of rhye during the Magic tour). As said before Queen are great but not the greatest live band! |
| Vocal harmony 17.01.2015 09:22 |
IMO Queen functioned really well with a single guitar player. One of the things I didn't like about the PR lineup was the use of Jamie Mosses, I felt it took away something of what BM's live playing in Queen was about, and also introduced a different guitar sound. Live they had that classic British rock format, so many of the great bands of the late 60's and 70's seemed to follow, The Who, Zep, Purple, Cream, Sabbath etc. BM's style of playing has always been very full and leaves little space where a second player could improve things. The thing that helped this was of course the foundation that RT and JD built in the rhythm section. |
| The King Of Rhye 17.01.2015 11:03 |
Vocal harmony wrote: . BM's style of playing has always been very full and leaves little space where a second player could improve things. The thing that helped this was of course the foundation that RT and JD built in the rhythm section.Very true! The 'sonic volcano'....And dont forget Freddie playing piano, or at times Fred/Morgan/Spike.... (I notice from reading about the history of Queen, Morgan Fisher seems to keep popping up one way or the other...played with Mott, Tim Staffell, toured with Queen, probably some others I forget...lol) |
| OwenSmith 19.01.2015 14:14 |
Holly2003 wrote: Good to see some sensible, measured praise for the classic Queen line up. They were absolute great back then, and people have been able to capture here what made them great, rather than just the gushing fandom praise and empty comments that often masquerades as "debate" here. For me, a big part of the classic sound was Fred playing piano live. It adds depth. quality and variety to the performance. For me, they were a lesser band live when Fred started focusing on his "frontman" persona. Even less well-known songs that don;t have multi-layered vocals like Spread Your Wings have that classic Queen sound because of the piano input.I have to say that while I like both Q+PR and Q+AL, I think the thing both of them are missing most is a live grand piano on stage. I only saw Queen in 1984 and 1986 and even though that is after what most people consider their live peak I still miss the piano on stage. Contrary to what many people think, I feel Spike is OK on synthesisers. But he's bad at the piano parts and it shows. |
| moonie 19.01.2015 15:05 |
I was at those two gigs Owen.. I was in the middle of the floor of The NEC, and you're right.. It was hellishly loud. I was only 14 and it was my second gig after the Police.. I'd never experienced volume anything like it.. I remember thinking 'Is this legal?'...However, once I'd got my head around the volume, it began to sound pretty good where I was.. You could pick everything out in the mix.. I suppose it just goes to show the difference your position in an arena can make. I was right at the back of the stadium at Newcastle, having been near the front all day and then making the mistake of moving after Quo to get a surreptitious pint of underage lager ( I was 16) After that, there was no getting back into the thick of the crowd which seemed to double in size an hour or so before Queen came on.. I remember the cheer that Roger's drumkit got when it was unveiled.. I was sick as a parrot when One Vision started and we were scrabling round at the back trying to find a decent vantage point.. Which we did, and I've got to say that even at the back of St James' the sound was brilliant.. No delay towers, so it was all the main PA but still as clear as a bell, even over that distance.. Outdoor gigs don't sound anywhere near as good as that today in my opinion, with puny line arrays farting away.. Give me Queens massive Clair S4 rig any day.. Even live can be a bad experience. I saw Queen twice and they were very different experiences. The first was The Works tour Birmingham NEC second night. The NEC is a giant shoe box with nasty boomy audio. Myself and my brother were in one of the far back corners, couldn't see a bloody thing we were so far back (no big monitors in 1984), it was excessively loud and yet poor audio quality. And afterwards I had hearing threshold shift, couldn't hear a thing for about 6 hours. I bet that damaged my hearing, I was 16 at the time. Altogether a bit of a disappoinment. The second time was The Magic Tour at Newcastle Football Stadium. What a difference! We were in the middle of the pitch about a third of the way back. The sound quality was great and it wasn't deafening, I could hear afterwards. We (myself, my brother and my girlfriend) could see everything from that location, and it didn't rain (a worry with outdoor concerts). Altogether a fantastic experience, and there's even a pretty good quality bootleg of that concert. Had I only gone that Works concert, I dread to think what my long term opinion of Queen live would have been. And these days I wear music earplugs to live concerts. God knows why all concerts are so loud you need earplugs to hear them safely, but that appears to be the standard way it is done. It's stupid. |
| moonie 19.01.2015 15:07 |
I was at those two gigs Owen.. I was in the middle of the floor of The NEC, and you're right.. It was hellishly loud. I was only 14 and it was my second gig after the Police.. I'd never experienced volume anything like it.. I remember thinking 'Is this legal?'...However, once I'd got my head around the volume, it began to sound pretty good where I was.. You could pick everything out in the mix.. I suppose it just goes to show the difference your position in an arena can make. I was right at the back of the stadium at Newcastle, having been near the front all day and then making the mistake of moving after Quo to get a surreptitious pint of underage lager ( I was 16) After that, there was no getting back into the thick of the crowd which seemed to double in size an hour or so before Queen came on.. I remember the cheer that Roger's drumkit got when it was unveiled.. I was sick as a parrot when One Vision started and we were scrabling round at the back trying to find a decent vantage point.. Which we did, and I've got to say that even at the back of St James' the sound was brilliant.. No delay towers, so it was all the main PA but still as clear as a bell, even over that distance.. Outdoor gigs don't sound anywhere near as good as that today in my opinion, with puny line arrays farting away.. Give me Queens massive Clair S4 rig any day.. |
| moonie 19.01.2015 15:07 |
Sorry for the double post.. |
| Gregsynth 19.01.2015 22:57 |
It's cool reading all these fan stories! |
| Viper 20.01.2015 03:14 |
amazing replies! thx a lot guys! |
| Togg 20.01.2015 08:21 |
I saw them first in 1980, then every tour through to 2015's most recent tour. If I'm honest Fred made most of the mistakes followed by Brian, just like every other band on the planet when you are out there and the lights are in your face or suddenly go out, you miss notes on the guitar or forget the lyric. Queen were a totally different beast on stage to recorded, almost like two different bands. However they were the out and out best at putting on a show and 'performing' Nothing has changed there after seeing the 2015 gigs. |
| brENsKi 20.01.2015 12:03 |
mike hunt wrote: Remember, what made The Beatles the best of all time was their songwriting abilities, not musical ability. Queen were better writers by a country mile than DT IMO.that depends on what "musical ability" you're referring to learned/theory/taught ability - maybe not innovation/self taught ability - they really had no equal think about the technology available at that time, they really were pioneers - and the stuff they learned "in real time" has no comparison...listening to Abbey Rd, Revolver and "White Album" even today - i marvel at what i hear. and it's incredible how many of those initial small steps were expanded upon by queen, floyd, genesis and rush....the benefit of a few more years and better technology with 3x the storage just made things so much easier. |
| Gregsynth 22.01.2015 08:48 |
If I had to pick an era to time-travel back to see Queen, it'll either be the early gigs (pre-1975), or the Crazy Tour. Seeing Queen in those intimate venues? Awesome! |
| Planetgurl 22.01.2015 13:30 |
I think the most 'intimate' venue I ever saw them in was the Brighton Centre on the Crazy Tour. I went the second night and it was by no means a sell out, as there was space to move around in front of the stage believe it or not. We were pretty much at the front - those lights were hot! I met Steve Gett at Brighton railway station who was covering the tour for Melody Maker and we had a conversation on the train going back to Crawley and he gave me his pass.The Rainbow on that tour was interesting too, we ran down to the circle barrier upstairs and were there all night at the front having a great time - no-one stopped us or sent us back to our seats. Quite high up too... Kampuchea , well all the audience was completely up for it and it was a wild and euphoric night for all concerned. Very special night. WISH i'd gone to Purley Tiffany - that was a glorified discoteque but bigger than a small club. Probably was an old ballroom... |
| fofum 22.01.2015 14:57 |
Wow, great response Planetgurl. You really paint a good picture of what it was like :) I would love to have seen them, especially at a more intimate gig. When I think of Wembley or Knebworth, I always imagine myself at the back. |
| Planetgurl 23.01.2015 07:37 |
I've written a few concerts up on queenconcerts.com - first one was 29th November 1975 which is quite detailed... Yeah, me too. Although on the early tours, even in March '74, if you read the reviews their equipment played up a lot and was breaking down. I have a few reviews where that's mentioned. Nevertheless, must have been great to see them in tiny places in Croydon or many other places.... |
| brENsKi 23.01.2015 07:46 |
Vocal harmony wrote: Live they had that classic British rock format, so many of the great bands of the late 60's and 70's seemed to follow, The Who, Zep, Purple, Cream, Sabbath etc..would agree completely with your point, but Purple don't fit above - they were a five-piece using the combo of Lord's keyboards and Blacker's strat to interchange lead instrumentation....the other effectively taking the rhythm "guitar" role |
| Vocal harmony 23.01.2015 10:46 |
brENsKi wrote:Yeah that's very true, but didn't Queen kind of fit into that mould when Freddie was playing piano and BM allowed more space for the extra instrument, and maybe more so from 82 with a live keys player on stage.Vocal harmony wrote: Live they had that classic British rock format, so many of the great bands of the late 60's and 70's seemed to follow, The Who, Zep, Purple, Cream, Sabbath etc..would agree completely with your point, but Purple don't fit above - they were a five-piece using the combo of Lord's keyboards and Blacker's strat to interchange lead instrumentation....the other effectively taking the rhythm "guitar" role |
| Vocal harmony 23.01.2015 10:49 |
Planetgurl wrote: I think the most 'intimate' venue I ever saw them in was the Brighton Centre on the Crazy Tour. I went the second night and it was by no means a sell out, ..Interesting to read that. I was there on the first night which was packed |
| Planetgurl 23.01.2015 11:06 |
Yes I couldn't believe it either and what I don't understand now is why I didn't do both nights...doh! |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 27.01.2015 01:23 |
I was fortunate to see them in 1980 and 1982 (Chicago/Hoffman Estates) and have to say they always came off as pretty polished & perfect. Completely focussed, professional, but fun-loving and wild, too. Something about the way bootleg recordings are made seems to amplify mistakes, honestly, you don't even remember such things from one live experience. |
| Vocal harmony 27.01.2015 07:58 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: Something about the way bootleg recordings are made seems to amplify mistakes, honestly, you don't even remember such things from one live experience.Not exactly. When you are sitting at home or in the car or where ever listening to live recordings you are listening to the music, and that's the focus of your attention, so you hear everything. At a gig you become swept up by the atmosphere and excitment and visuals. In that setting some mistakes, missed Q's, wrong note etc tend to go largely un noticed |
| ANAGRAMER 28.01.2015 12:13 |
gerry wrote: Yes i saw Queen many many times, and on those occasions they were in my eyes faultless, but i have heard on bootleg tapes where they did have bad nights, such as freddies voice was under pressure (no pun intended) or Brian messed a few chords up, or on one occasion Brian fell as there were egg shells on the stage, and he slipped. I have always considered the four original guys in Queen as the greatest ever Rock group, no one can touch them for style, sound and intelligence. Freddie was the one who got the audiences excited and Brian contributed with his fancy guitar licks. I love Queen they were dynamite back in the day, and no one was greater. If you never witnessed Queen live with Freddie, then you missed the greatest event in Rock History. Mercury was indeed the rock messenger from god!I simply don't believe you Gerry |
| The King Of Rhye 28.01.2015 12:27 |
Vocal harmony wrote: Not exactly. When you are sitting at home or in the car or where ever listening to live recordings you are listening to the music, and that's the focus of your attention, so you hear everything. At a gig you become swept up by the atmosphere and excitment and visuals. In that setting some mistakes, missed Q's, wrong note etc tend to go largely un noticedThat's a good point there! I've listened to recordings of shows I was at, and always thought that it sounded better when I was there..... (actually kind of a cool story about one of those........I saw Rush in '94, and a few years later, I was in a store that sold bootleg cds and such...lo and behold, there was one of that very show! As I recall, it was NOT cheap, but a very cool thing to have.....especially being that those were the days before one could just download the recording the day after, or watch the whole thing on youtube!) |
| The King Of Rhye 28.01.2015 12:34 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: I was fortunate to see them in 1980 and 1982 (Chicago/Hoffman Estates)I have the recording of that '80 show, it's a pretty good one! Kinda funny how in the recording of the 78 Chicago, Freddie was complaining about how every time they came there, it was snowing, and then in the 80 show, he said something about how they finally came there when the weather was nice......:D And also, Brian went off on a bit of a rant about the sub-par acoustics of the arena......lol |