QueenZone discussion #1428870

CPL593h wrote: , I still can't forgive the band to cut the intro of Liar and fade it in... Tear it up, on of their all-time low tracks. There were probably better '86 concerts recorded. If not, there were better '84 concerts.

Doga wrote: But why pick Wembley?

Doga wrote: I know Wembley is probably the most legendary stadium they ever played, and the sea of people at daylight looks beautiful, but then, Queen went and recorded it in cheap videotapes instead of proper film, even 16 mm film looks stunning.

tomchristie22 wrote: QP could have pushed Budapest as their big iconic show, but there's also the fact that it's incomplete

Sebastian wrote: They don't make those decisions thinking about die-hard fans, professional musicians or Queen connoisseurs. They appeal to the lowest common denominator. If you take the average man on the street, you'll see that he's most likely to: * Recognise the word 'Wembley', even if it's just because of football, more than 'Hallenstadion', 'Müngersdorfer' or 'Groenoordhallen'. * Be familiar with 'Ga Ga', 'Magic' or Little Richard & Elvis covers than with 'Flick of the Wrist', 'The Prophet's Song' or 'You Take My Breath AWay'. * Ignore, overlook and/or fail to notice mistakes, errors or songs/phrases/bits that the band might have done it better elsewhere. Surely, out of the 700+ concerts the band played, there were many in which they might have performed better, had a better set-list, played bigger venues, Freddie could've hit more high notes, etc., but for the selling target they had all those aspects were relatively irrelevant compared to the legendary status of the venue and what it meant for a rock band to play there.

Doga wrote:

tomchristie22 wrote: QP could have pushed Budapest as their big iconic show, but there's also the fact that it's incomplete

Is only incomplete because they left the film reels in Hungary and that people destroyed them after a lot of years collecting dust.

Sebastian wrote: They don't make those decisions thinking about die-hard fans, professional musicians or Queen connoisseurs. They appeal to the lowest common denominator. If you take the average man on the street, you'll see that he's most likely to: * Recognise the word 'Wembley', even if it's just because of football, more than 'Hallenstadion', 'Müngersdorfer' or 'Groenoordhallen'. * Be familiar with 'Ga Ga', 'Magic' or Little Richard & Elvis covers than with 'Flick of the Wrist', 'The Prophet's Song' or 'You Take My Breath AWay'. * Ignore, overlook and/or fail to notice mistakes, errors or songs/phrases/bits that the band might have done it better elsewhere. Surely, out of the 700+ concerts the band played, there were many in which they might have performed better, had a better set-list, played bigger venues, Freddie could've hit more high notes, etc., but for the selling target they had all those aspects were relatively irrelevant compared to the legendary status of the venue and what it meant for a rock band to play there.

luthorn wrote: Good question. The band on Magic Tour sounds tired. You can almost feel it is a band downstream in their career, rather than upstream, full of vigor, band of the 1970s. Queen reached the peak of performance 1977-1982. Anything after 1982, aside Live Aid, was based on falling energy levels. Call it age or change in hormonal levels due to ageing.

Costa86 wrote:

luthorn wrote: Good question. The band on Magic Tour sounds tired. You can almost feel it is a band downstream in their career, rather than upstream, full of vigor, band of the 1970s. Queen reached the peak of performance 1977-1982. Anything after 1982, aside Live Aid, was based on falling energy levels. Call it age or change in hormonal levels due to ageing.

Although Freddie had admitted to tiring more easily, he still managed to run around the large stages of some of the Magic Tour shows, and he handled the massive Wembley stage with aplomb. Before 1985 they hadn't played on such huge stages, so I think you can hardly say they lacked energy when they managed to give great shows in such the large Magic Tour venues.

tomchristie22 wrote: On a slightly related note, check out the official presentation of the Saturday concert on YouTube: link 360p, terrible quality, stretched from 4:3 to 16:9. It'd be slightly more excusable if it was an upload from years ago, but it was uploaded in Jan 2014. Pretty appalling...

YourValentine wrote: Wembley was filmed on "cheap video" because it was meant for TV. It was aired by channel 4 with a simultaneous stereo radio airing on private radio. Budapest was filmed by a Hungarian film crew who used film cameras. I have to agree with brians wig - Wembley takes us right on the stage while Budapest looks distant. Until the BD release there was always the speed problem which made the film look weird, as well. It is obvious from many interviews that Wembley was very special for the band. It was a year after Live Aid and they filled the stadium twice which was a huge success after the Sun City disaster and the ensuing loss of reputation. Wembley was their home and the location of their huge comeback at Live Aid.

Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:

YourValentine wrote: Wembley was filmed on "cheap video" because it was meant for TV. It was aired by channel 4 with a simultaneous stereo radio airing on private radio. Budapest was filmed by a Hungarian film crew who used film cameras. I have to agree with brians wig - Wembley takes us right on the stage while Budapest looks distant. Until the BD release there was always the speed problem which made the film look weird, as well. It is obvious from many interviews that Wembley was very special for the band. It was a year after Live Aid and they filled the stadium twice which was a huge success after the Sun City disaster and the ensuing loss of reputation. Wembley was their home and the location of their huge comeback at Live Aid.

Video was the standard in the 80's. It was now portable, so video could be carried out any place now. There was the emering VHS market : video was aimed for the VHS market and for TV : why bother recording a higher output as the consumer could recieve at home. And video is much more easy to edit and one could re-use the tapes.  All the Western world would have Video as the standard in the 80's, second world countries like Hungary wouldnt have the portable video systems.  And last but not least the Hungarian producer was a real cineast ! Film makers won't film on video format.

The King Of Rhye wrote: That was pretty much done in ALL of the 86 concerts! (the Liar/Tear It Up thing)

cmsdrums wrote:

Costa86 wrote:

luthorn wrote: Good question. The band on Magic Tour sounds tired. You can almost feel it is a band downstream in their career, rather than upstream, full of vigor, band of the 1970s. Queen reached the peak of performance 1977-1982. Anything after 1982, aside Live Aid, was based on falling energy levels. Call it age or change in hormonal levels due to ageing.

The stage used on the Magic tour was a standard 60x40 ft platform. The actual stage space (width) was smaller than the outdoor Hot Space shows. The reason for this was the use of the two raised walkways at the sides of the stage linking up to the rear walkway. If you look at pics of the Magic Tour Freddies piano is almost hidden in the wings to save space, not the case on prvious tours. Compare pictures of indoor Magic show(s). It's still the same production but without the vast PA wings. The Wembley and Knebworth shows used a specially designed and built stage just for those three shows. This is the vast stage which most think of when talking about the Magic Tour. Although Freddie had admitted to tiring more easily, he still managed to run around the large stages of some of the Magic Tour shows, and he handled the massive Wembley stage with aplomb. Before 1985 they hadn't played on such huge stages, so I think you can hardly say they lacked energy when they managed to give great shows in such the large Magic Tour venues.

That's a really good point - even having played football stadia before, and events like Live Aid, the stage areas on those really was only pretty akin to an indoor arena gig; the Magic Tour stage size really was immense, and Freddie really did cover it so well.

cmsdrums wrote:

Costa86 wrote:

luthorn wrote: Good question. The band on Magic Tour sounds tired. You can almost feel it is a band downstream in their career, rather than upstream, full of vigor, band of the 1970s. Queen reached the peak of performance 1977-1982. Anything after 1982, aside Live Aid, was based on falling energy levels. Call it age or change in hormonal levels due to ageing.

The stage used on the Magic tour was a standard 60x40 ft platform. The actual stage space (width) was smaller than the outdoor Hot Space shows. The reason for this was the use of the two raised walkways at the sides of the stage linking up to the rear walkway. If you look at pics of the Magic Tour Freddies piano is almost hidden in the wings to save space, not the case on prvious tours. Compare pictures of indoor Magic show(s). It's still the same production but without the vast PA wings. The Wembley and Knebworth shows used a specially designed and built stage just for those three shows. This is the vast stage which most think of when talking about the Magic Tour. Although Freddie had admitted to tiring more easily, he still managed to run around the large stages of some of the Magic Tour shows, and he handled the massive Wembley stage with aplomb. Before 1985 they hadn't played on such huge stages, so I think you can hardly say they lacked energy when they managed to give great shows in such the large Magic Tour venues.

That's a really good point - even having played football stadia before, and events like Live Aid, the stage areas on those really was only pretty akin to an indoor arena gig; the Magic Tour stage size really was immense, and Freddie really did cover it so well.