| Supersonic_Man89 27.06.2015 08:17 |
I'm interested in what people feel are the Top 20 Unofficial gigs in terms of AUDIO QUALITY, and i was curious as to if we can all come to agreement as what would be the Top 20? Unfortunately my depth of knowledge regarding the bootlegs is quite shallow, however the ones i imagine would be up there would be: Hammersmith 75 Boston 76 Earls Court 77 Houston 77 Tokyo 79 Hammersmith 79 Sun City 84 |
| The Real Wizard 27.06.2015 08:43 |
Yeah, that's a great start. Check out my Top 10 list @ link. |
| Krypto_98 27.06.2015 10:18 |
Mannheim 86 is one of the best in terms of quality |
| pittrek 27.06.2015 13:34 |
1973 - Golders Green Hippodrome 1974 - Rainbow Theatre (all 3 shows) 1975 - Hammersmith Odeon (the Christmas show), the last Japan show is great and has pretty good quality 1976 - Boston second night, one of the best if not THE best sounding audience recordings 1977 - Earls Court, Houston 1978 - Montreal 1979 - hard to say, maybe again the Christmas show from Hammersmith Odeon? 1980 - hard to choose, probably Rosemont 1981 - some of the Japanese shows, or Buenos Aires 1982 - Milton Keynes of course, but there are great recordings from various Japanese shows too 1984 - Stuttgart, Sun City 1985 - Osaka 1986 - Mannheim, Knebworth, and of course Wembley |
| The King Of Rhye 27.06.2015 20:40 |
Chicago 78 has gotta be right up there, killer quality on that one... |
| Lplix 28.06.2015 02:32 |
considering the circumstances and the period so far I think Portland 28 april 1974 (when they were supporting Mott the Hoople) it's a good quality recording |
| brENsKi 28.06.2015 11:17 |
seattle 77? |
| The Real Wizard 28.06.2015 19:34 |
Yup, Seattle 77 is essential listening, as it's got both Queen and Thin Lizzy's sets. The Tokyo 81 shows are worth a listen too, as they've got the longer Flash medley. The Vienna 82 shows are criminally underrated. Check them out too. |
| little foetus 29.06.2015 04:46 |
It's a bit a shame to stick on audio quality only. Most of the very best recordings are from the 80ies whereas some 70ies recordings, while marginally worse sounding, are much more enjoyable to my ears. |
| The King Of Rhye 29.06.2015 06:32 |
little foetus wrote: It's a bit a shame to stick on audio quality only. Most of the very best recordings are from the 80ies whereas some 70ies recordings, while marginally worse sounding, are much more enjoyable to my ears.Case in point: the 75 Tokyo show......good quality but not quite the best, but damn thats a good show :D |
| The Real Wizard 29.06.2015 06:59 |
little foetus wrote: It's a bit a shame to stick on audio quality only. Most of the very best recordings are from the 80ies whereas some 70ies recordings, while marginally worse sounding, are much more enjoyable to my ears.Which of course makes sense, because it got easier to smuggle in better recording gear as technology improved. And if someone is just starting out listening to these recordings, they have to develop their "bootleg ears". Some of those 74-75 shows are fantastic but the tapes sound pretty bad. So you should probably start them off with the ones that are listenable if they're going to ever appreciate any of it. Even I have only listened to most Queen shows once or twice. There are about a dozen that I keep coming back to, and they're the better sounding ones. |
| brENsKi 29.06.2015 11:27 |
think i also heard an excellent milwaukee tape - but can't remember if it was the 75 or 76 tho |
| little foetus 29.06.2015 12:28 |
Probably the 1975 one, the 1976 recording is nice but not as good. Well about a top 20, if many 70ies recordings are from awful to very average, it is hard to choose the best recordings from the 80ies as so many sound great. Wonder if a list with "recordings you have to avoid unless you re a die hard collector" wouldn t be more useful to newbies... |
| brENsKi 29.06.2015 16:28 |
it depends really what you call "quality" - whether it's 70s or 80s you can't argue with the quality if these were sourced direct from a broadcast or a soundboard tape however, some of the 80s audience recordings seem a little "lacking event-experience" - the use of noise reduction has removed a bit of the "soul" of the recording. on the other hand - even the sh*ttiest quality 70s audience recordings retain a charm and authenticity that adds an "intangible quality" the biggest pity in all of this? when you listen to those 70s gigs one thing strikes me the gigs were fantastic - a hungry band that were seizing the moment to show the world how great they were...it's a pity that the "home recordings" of queen gigs were nowhere near as good as the fan recordings at zep/floyd and other big 70s bands at that time....weird huh? |
| Doga 29.06.2015 17:09 |
brENsKi wrote: .it's a pity that the "home recordings" of queen gigs were nowhere near as good as the fan recordings at zep/floyd and other big 70s bands at that timeZep/Floyd are famous for not record their shows officially. At least Queen recorded a bunch of shows (if they were the correct shows is another matter) |
| brENsKi 30.06.2015 01:35 |
Doga wrote:but that doesn't explain why zep/floyd "fan recordings" are generally superior quality to queen "fan recordings" of the same time period.brENsKi wrote: .it's a pity that the "home recordings" of queen gigs were nowhere near as good as the fan recordings at zep/floyd and other big 70s bands at that timeZep/Floyd are famous for not record their shows officially. At least Queen recorded a bunch of shows (if they were the correct shows is another matter) same equipment/technology, same venues, and in some instances same person(s) recording the gigs...all very odd |
| Doga 30.06.2015 09:00 |
brENsKi wrote:In Floyd case, maybe audiences were quieter, Queen fans are known to cheer and cheer during the entire show (like the japanese ones)Doga wrote:but that doesn't explain why zep/floyd "fan recordings" are generally superior quality to queen "fan recordings" of the same time period. same equipment/technology, same venues, and in some instances same person(s) recording the gigs...all very oddbrENsKi wrote: .it's a pity that the "home recordings" of queen gigs were nowhere near as good as the fan recordings at zep/floyd and other big 70s bands at that timeZep/Floyd are famous for not record their shows officially. At least Queen recorded a bunch of shows (if they were the correct shows is another matter) |
| brENsKi 30.06.2015 09:33 |
^^ that doesn't follow. i'm talking about quality of recording - what i'm saying is that the bootlegs themselves sound poorer - regardless of crowd noise. |
| Mr.QueenFan 30.06.2015 20:30 |
brENsKi wrote: ^^ that doesn't follow. i'm talking about quality of recording - what i'm saying is that the bootlegs themselves sound poorer - regardless of crowd noise.Maybe because Floyd fans are audiophiles by nature.They spend the extra cash to ensure the best quality. At least that's where i think the difference is. Floyd fans pride themselves of their band's sound and production. It's a different mentality. |
| brENsKi 01.07.2015 09:59 |
sorry. still doesn't follow. the equipment available at that time (of a size small enough to smuggle into gigs) was the same for everyone therefore, i'll ask again - why are queen's audience boots of poorer quality than floyd/who and zep audience boots? |
| Nitroboy 01.07.2015 17:33 |
brENsKi wrote: sorry. still doesn't follow. the equipment available at that time (of a size small enough to smuggle into gigs) was the same for everyone therefore, i'll ask again - why are queen's audience boots of poorer quality than floyd/who and zep audience boots? Because everyone and everything is different. Seriously, there's no real way of telling. |
| The Real Wizard 03.07.2015 14:38 |
brENsKi wrote: sorry. still doesn't follow. the equipment available at that time (of a size small enough to smuggle into gigs) was the same for everyone therefore, i'll ask again - why are queen's audience boots of poorer quality than floyd/who and zep audience boots?A lot of the great Zeppelin, Floyd, Yes and Stones tapes are from Mike Millard, who pretended to be handicapped to get a front row seat and tape the shows with top end gear. In the 80s there was a great interest in these bands, so his friends asked him for those tapes. Millard may have taped Queen and who knows who else, but it was only tapes of those four acts that got out during his lifetime. This is some of the best unreleased rock music ever heard. The reality is - in the US there were very few tapers who were interested in taping Queen, as evidenced by the very few tapes in comparison to shows elsewhere. Queen were most popular in the UK and Europe, and as a result there is at least one tape of virtually every show from 1980-86. Their Japanese shows from 75-86 are equally well represented as well. But why so few 70s US tapes? There are a ton of 1969 tapes of Zeppelin when they were playing clubs, compared to very few Queen tapes from 73-74. In fact, there are less tapes from US 75 and 76 when they were headliners than from 74 when they were opening for Mott The Hoople. The only US tour with a fair number of tapes is Jazz in 78. So Mr.QueenFan certainly does have a point about Floyd fans. It ultimately comes down to interest, and for some reason the tapers weren't all over Queen back then. That said, there are still a lot of great sounding Queen tapes from the 70s, but not nearly as many compared to some of the other big bands. But who knows how many tapes are sitting in the attics of America? There was a surge of new tapes that came out between 2007-12, but it came to a grinding halt for some reason. There's no algorithm - it happens when it happens. |
| brENsKi 05.07.2015 09:37 |
The Real Wizard wrote:well yes and no. his point explained by yourself. tho i doubt that's the point he was trying to make. his point implies that floyd fans were more "bothered about quality" - which is rubbishbrENsKi wrote: sorry. still doesn't follow. the equipment available at that time (of a size small enough to smuggle into gigs) was the same for everyone therefore, i'll ask again - why are queen's audience boots of poorer quality than floyd/who and zep audience boots?So Mr.QueenFan certainly does have a point about Floyd fans. It ultimately comes down to interest, and for some reason the tapers weren't all over Queen back then. . the truth of the matter is actually much nearer your own point Bob....USA fans were "more bothered about quality" and conversely USA fans "weren't (generally) recording queen live" add the two factors together and you get less "quality" fan boots recorded |