| Jake12 24.05.2016 19:26 |
Have been listening to RM for the past couple of days and was just wondering why doesn't Wembley, Budapest or Milton keynes sound as great as RM or even close? |
| MercurialFreddie 25.05.2016 02:57 |
It's my understanding that they wanted for the sound to resemble how it sounded on that particular day, at that particular venue, with these particular instruments. Maybe I'm wrong but if the intention behind the Montreal gig was to make it first live concert screened in cinemas they surely were provided with the best possible equipment. I agree that RM sounds very studio-like... all the instruments are so clear and apart from it there is a very good "feel" of the venue, slight reverb. Add to it that this album sounds very much "live" and the band is really on fire and you'll have an excellent live album. Wembley sounds "muddy" and it really shows when you compare mixes of the two nights to each other. Didn't they want to slightly cover the fact that Freddie's voice was not in its greatest shape on that day ? Budapest is really good. There is this "grand" feeling to the overall gig. I think Budapest can be described by Brian's own words when he talks about that "big, Queen sound". You can really hear how good they were on that day and Wembley second night pales in comparison to the instruments and voices captured. You can hear more shades of Freddie's voice than on the Wembley album. It was always bugging me, how come that whole album is so "open-sounding" and clear when there are some parts which are "muddy" e. g. Under Pressure from "cause love is such an old-fashioned word" and the rock section of the Bohemian Rhapsody (there Freddie's voice is really buried in the mix). Milton Keynes has some of my favourite live moments. While you could tell that RM is kinda "harsh", here you could say that Live At The Bowl has "round" sound. If I'd be behind the mix, I'd mix piano and drums differently. The sound of those instruments would be to what we hear on the bootlegs from 82'. Ps. March gig at the Rainbow venue really sounds excellent ! Listen to that ! |
| DQ1 25.05.2016 02:58 |
Do you mean the audio or the overall performance of the RM concert? In case of the performance, RM was not filmed/recorded during a tour but a special filmed one off concert/event (2 dates). Freddie's singing was superb because he wasn't on tour doing a concert every day or one/two. |
| Queenman!! 25.05.2016 10:14 |
With other words: The 35 mm film projects sound better. That included Rainbow 74 of course which was next to Budapest and Montreal also shot on 35 mm film. |
| Chief Mouse 25.05.2016 10:58 |
^ I don't think that matters as the audio was surely taken from separate audio master tapes in any case. And Rainbow wasn't shot on film if that's what you implied. |
| Biggus Dickus 25.05.2016 12:50 |
Montreal sounds good but a bit dry for my taste. I don't think Queen has released a truly great sounding live album. Bowl is probably my favourite when it comes to sound. Rainbow '74 and Hammy suffer from auto-tuning Freddie's vocals and over-compressing the drums making them sound unnatural and triggered. |
| Doga 25.05.2016 12:52 |
The march show of Rainbow was filmed, but the film is apparently missing, except for Son & Daughter and Modern Times. The november shows were videotaped, but that doesn't matter because video and sound are recorded separatedly. About Montreal, who knows? I also think is their best sounding live album. Maybe is because Saul Swimmer's crew used the best possible equipment. The guy filmed a full show in IMAX, even nowdays, is a big deal when a Hollywood movie film 10 mins. in that format, because is harder to work with and have much better quality,, so imagine back in 1981. My point is, if they filmed video in such quality, why not record the audio in the best possible way aswell? |
| jeffuk49 25.05.2016 12:53 |
thats currently in my work van full blast and loving it |
| ANAGRAMER 26.05.2016 07:18 |
Good topic. Does anyone remember the Montreal concert when it was first released on VHS in 1984? Was called 'we will rock you' I have an old copy somewhere. . the sound was horrible! Was mixed totally dry and, on occasion, poor sync with visuals I remember Brians guitar tone being particularly brittle and dry. They seemed to have fixed that on RM release but, without the remix, the audio (on the vhs) was the worst live release by a country mile Freddies vocals tho are simply astonishing! Pity they didn't do another one off like that after Works or Magic tour... |
| Oscar J 26.05.2016 12:32 |
^ Well, they did Live Aid. Montreal isn't all that great IMO, too clinical for my taste. My favourite live releases in terms of audio are the March Rainbow show and Live Killers. They're not perfect by any means, but the sound is so delightfully raw and "live". |
| Jeremy 26.05.2016 12:41 |
I prefer the original "We Will Rock You" mix, continuity issues notwithstanding. I like a mix that's more dry and in your face. RM is a bit reverby for my taste. |
| The Real Wizard 26.05.2016 13:36 |
It sounds great, but it's still crushed with compression. Every Queen release of the last 15 years years (including the 2011 remasters) has gone through the loudness war. I just don't enjoy listening to any of them. Even the Rainbow stuff. I don't hear concerts from 1974 and 1982. I hear Pro Tools. And it's sad that marketing has made this so. Never mind the upcoming bands trying to get their due, the biggest rock bands of 40 years ago can't escape it - even Jimmy Page had to compromise with the latest Zeppelin remasters. Music wasn't meant to sound like shit, but almost everything in the mainstream is precisely that now. I really hope the tide turns one day. |
| DepeX 26.05.2016 13:46 |
Hmm, I quite like the 2007 RM release but the mix isn't as "natural" and "live" as it could be. Among the latest releases the mix I like the most is the March Rainbow one, even if it's very loud. |
| Bad Seed 26.05.2016 13:59 |
Although I'm no fan of the show itself, I think LAWS is the best sounding live release. Brian's guitar sound is awful and Freddie is obviously in poor voice but it has a wonderful clarity not found on any other release. |
| vince73 26.05.2016 16:00 |
Rock Montreal is great. If I had to choose just one track from all Queen released stuff, the "Save me" version of RM wins hands down. |
| BradF 26.05.2016 16:06 |
ANAGRAMER - The poor syncing you mention I believe was due to taking the audio from one night and mixing it with the video from the other. This can be seen during Killer Queen when Freddie says "guaranteed to blow your mind", the first half of the line Freddie isn't even moving his lips! I remember when the re-releases came out how stunned I was at the sound quality because I was so used to the Montreal gig sounding like the 'We Will Rock You' VHS release. |
| The Real Wizard 26.05.2016 18:42 |
Bad Seed wrote: Although I'm no fan of the show itself, I think LAWS is the best sounding live release. Brian's guitar sound is awful and Freddie is obviously in poor voice but it has a wonderful clarity not found on any other release.Yup. See above re: loudness war. Every Queen live album released since has less of a dynamic range, since they're crushed by compression. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.05.2016 01:17 |
Most of the problem, when you get down to it, is the consumer, who insists on listening to music on crap devices with crap speakers or headphones, necessitating a completely butchered master to get anything resembling a decent sound out of tiny phone speakers and the like. There was a time when fairly big, well-sounding speakers were the norm for anyone who liked good music, but that seems to be ancient history now. The loudness war and compression-mania seem to be the industry's attempt to put make-up on the consumer's pig and call it beautiful. So goodbye, dynamics. Goodbye, subtlety, hello uniformity. Everything that's wrong with radio short of annoying DJs has made its way to even the most lovingly crafted albums. |
| dudeofqueen 27.05.2016 07:21 |
The Real Wizard, re: >I don't hear concerts from 1974 and 1982. I hear Pro Tools. This. I'd refer anyone even remotely interested in live Rock to hunt down the HDTracks 24/96 release of The Who's "Live At Leeds" - never before has an album gone through so many re-releases and editions to finally ended up sounding as if the band is actually there with you in the room. |
| Viper 27.05.2016 08:56 |
Actually I think RM doesn't have that great sound quality... |
| luthorn 27.05.2016 09:26 |
I personally think that the RM lacks energy from performance standpoint as the audience participation is flat. However, drums and guitar work comes through loud and clear. I wish they mixed their albums like that. Many albums, especially from the 80s, have a muffled sound. It seems Flash Gordon was the last album Queen got the sound right. |
| Killer_queenIII 27.05.2016 09:33 |
dudeofqueen wrote: I'd refer anyone even remotely interested in live Rock to hunt down the HDTracks 24/96 release of The Who's "Live At Leeds" - never before has an album gone through so many re-releases and editions to finally ended up sounding as if the band is actually there with you in the room.hmm... well, i wanted to hear what a best-sounding live album should sound like, i'll take your word for it and check it out. I wasn't that aware of the loudness war before, though listening to albums again now, i can understand why i couldn't appreciate the music when i turn the volume out loud. Case in point: November concert at the Rainbow. At max volume, it felt cluttered for my ears. Guess i'll have to listen to RM to reassess its sound. |
| Jake12 27.05.2016 10:36 |
Okay... More on sound quality and mix! What do you guys think about the sound/mix of Live Magic (Knebworth parts) |
| Killer_queenIII 27.05.2016 12:06 |
I remember Live Magic having a rather punchy sound, especially the drums. However, it could be dry sounding at times, such as the rock section in Bo Rhap IIRC. I never got to appreciate the album much because of the cuts and omissions. So much so, I used to call LM a big tease. |
| The Real Wizard 27.05.2016 15:10 |
dudeofqueen wrote: The Real Wizard, re: >I don't hear concerts from 1974 and 1982. I hear Pro Tools. This. I'd refer anyone even remotely interested in live Rock to hunt down the HDTracks 24/96 release of The Who's "Live At Leeds" - never before has an album gone through so many re-releases and editions to finally ended up sounding as if the band is actually there with you in the room.God damn, this is incredible. Thanks for mentioning it. Somehow this one bypassed me. Check out this site: link A database of music releases, measuring the loudness war - very useful ! |
| The Real Wizard 27.05.2016 15:10 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Most of the problem, when you get down to it, is the consumer, who insists on listening to music on crap devices with crap speakers or headphones, necessitating a completely butchered master to get anything resembling a decent sound out of tiny phone speakers and the like. There was a time when fairly big, well-sounding speakers were the norm for anyone who liked good music, but that seems to be ancient history now. The loudness war and compression-mania seem to be the industry's attempt to put make-up on the consumer's pig and call it beautiful. So goodbye, dynamics. Goodbye, subtlety, hello uniformity. Everything that's wrong with radio short of annoying DJs has made its way to even the most lovingly crafted albums.Depressingly accurate. Muse's Black Holes And Revelations is my favourite album of at least the last 15 years, but it sounds like crap - particularly the end of Invincible, where it's a giant brick wall. link ^ but according to this site, the vinyl is actually a great improvement. Hmm. |
| Mr.QueenFan 27.05.2016 16:21 |
Bad Seed wrote: Although I'm no fan of the show itself, I think LAWS is the best sounding live release. Brian's guitar sound is awful and Freddie is obviously in poor voice but it has a wonderful clarity not found on any other release.What is LAWS? I know the answer must be simple but i just couldn't figure it out for myself :-) |
| The Real Wizard 27.05.2016 16:24 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:Live At Wembley Stadium, of course !Bad Seed wrote: Although I'm no fan of the show itself, I think LAWS is the best sounding live release. Brian's guitar sound is awful and Freddie is obviously in poor voice but it has a wonderful clarity not found on any other release.What is LAWS? I know the answer must be simple but i just couldn't figure it out for myself :-) Indeed, it is the best sounding of all the Queen live albums, despite the musical flaws mentioned above. Live Magic is a close second. I do rather like the sound of the Knebworth tracks - everything pokes through. By comparison, the "Knebworth mix" of Under Pressure from the Rah mix CD single sounds like crap. The loudness war was already in full vigour by 2000. |
| The Real Wizard 27.05.2016 16:28 |
luthorn wrote: I personally think that the RM lacks energy from performance standpoint as the audience participation is flat.I bet people wouldn't be saying that if the original We Will Rock You versions didn't have the audience out of the mix almost completely. I think they sound just fine on RM. Except, of course, where they're punched in from another show during LOML. That's just inexcusable, blatant revisionist history. |
| Doga 27.05.2016 17:24 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Except, of course, where they're punched in from another show during LOML. That's just inexcusable, blatant revisionist history....and that raises the question,.. from what other show? It'll be interesting to know what shows were recorded aswell. |
| The Real Wizard 27.05.2016 18:35 |
It could be literally any 80s show. |
| luthorn 27.05.2016 21:13 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Compared with Montreal '78 the audience sounds dull as fuck. Maybe because audience sound was removed. I do not know. But once Freddie tells the audience to move their asses a bit, or something like that, it seems to me he is frustrated with their lack of participation. It seems the band plays perfect, but their energy is low compared with Live at the Bowl, for example, for that reason.luthorn wrote: I personally think that the RM lacks energy from performance standpoint as the audience participation is flat.I bet people wouldn't be saying that if the original We Will Rock You versions didn't have the audience out of the mix almost completely. I think they sound just fine on RM. Except, of course, where they're punched in from another show during LOML. That's just inexcusable, blatant revisionist history. I live in Canada now, so I can say from empirical evidence one day Canadians can be wild on fire, but the next day dull as fuck and you can never tell way. Maybe because Freddie did not speak French to them. Who knows. |
| Nitroboy 28.05.2016 07:33 |
Freddie gets slightly annoyed because people are still seated. Not because they're not singing. The audience can be heard clearly |
| Mr.QueenFan 28.05.2016 08:39 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Brain fart on my part! Thanks for the answer.Mr.QueenFan wrote:Live At Wembley Stadium, of course ! .Bad Seed wrote: Although I'm no fan of the show itself, I think LAWS is the best sounding live release. Brian's guitar sound is awful and Freddie is obviously in poor voice but it has a wonderful clarity not found on any other release.What is LAWS? I know the answer must be simple but i just couldn't figure it out for myself :-) The Real Wizard wrote: (...) Live Magic is a close second. I do rather like the sound of the Knebworth tracks - everything pokes through. By comparison, the "Knebworth mix" of Under Pressure from the Rah mix CD single sounds like crap. The loudness war was already in full vigour by 2000.Well, i always considered the Knebworth mix of Under Pressure to be the best live sound Queen released so far, and i consider myself very sensitive to shit sound. On a good stereo, it's a beauty! It has a clarity of sound and instruments that i haven't heard anywhere else on a Queen record! Is it loud? Certainly, but it gives me an idea of what was really like to be there! And the mix worked beautifully on "Under Pressure". But it's over 10 years sice i last heard it, so maybe it's time for me to revisit it! And in Queen's case, their live songs in 1986 didn't have that much dynamics extremes that can get lost in the loudness war. Due to the way they performed those songs, the studio dynamic was already lost. "In the Laps of the Gods" comes to mind. Great song, great dynamics in the studion, full power in the Magic tour. So, even though i agree that the Loudness war destroys studio songs, in Queen's case i prefer it over shit mixes like "Rock in Rio" VHS where Brian's guitar and general sound is weak! And i loved the sound of "Live in Budapest" VHS. But i confess, i've watched that concert so many times, i still haven't watched the new version of it. But on the VHS, i remember the wall of sound that came out of the "A kind of Magic" song. Probably the best performance of this song on the Magic tour. I hope they kept the good sound for the DVD release. I need to check it out! I must confess that lately i've been skipping Queen's live releases. I still prefer Sikke's shared version of the Rainbow concert, than the official release. But i will give it a listen in the near future. |
| The Real Wizard 28.05.2016 12:10 |
luthorn wrote: I live in Canada now, so I can say from empirical evidence one day Canadians can be wild on fire, but the next day dull as fuck and you can never tell way. Maybe because Freddie did not speak French to them. Who knows.I can tell you from personal experience that speaking to a Quebec audience in French (even just a few words) makes all the difference in tearing down that wall. It is so important to them to be culturally validated. |
| The Real Wizard 28.05.2016 12:14 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: Well, i always considered the Knebworth mix of Under Pressure to be the best live sound Queen released so far, and i consider myself very sensitive to shit sound. On a good stereo, it's a beauty! It has a clarity of sound and instruments that i haven't heard anywhere else on a Queen record! Is it loud? Certainly, but it gives me an idea of what was really like to be there! And the mix worked beautifully on "Under Pressure".For me it's the fact that the snare drum sounds so unnatural. Live Magic is Roger's sound to a tee - it's untreated. But that 80s compression is used on the Rah version, almost to the point of sounding like Def Leppard. I just can't enjoy it when all I hear every two beats is digital work being done after the fact. I must confess that lately i've been skipping Queen's live releases. I still prefer Sikke's shared version of the Rainbow concert, than the official release.Well, that's silly, considering that stuff is 7 or 8 songs (and also full of vocal overdubs). Not to mention the nearly complete March 31 show. All essential stuff for sure. The March show is much less processed - a very enjoyable listen. |
| Mr.QueenFan 28.05.2016 14:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Maybe i didn't explained it in the best way. The reason i still prefer Sikke's version is exactly because it's a small file :-)Mr.QueenFan wrote: I must confess that lately i've been skipping Queen's live releases. I still prefer Sikke's shared version of the Rainbow concert, than the official release.Well, that's silly, considering that stuff is 7 or 8 songs (and also full of vocal overdubs). Not to mention the nearly complete March 31 show. All essential stuff for sure. The March show is much less processed - a very enjoyable listen. . I remember listening to this file on my mp3 when i was waiting for someone outside the doctor, and it was a charm. Time flew and i was satisfied. Nothing to do with it's quality or overdubs. In fact i rarely listen to music in a very critical way on my mp3 player. Lately, i just don't have the patience to listen to Queen. In the nineties and 00's there would be no way i would skip any release, but now? I must give it a rest for some time until i feel it again. That's why i said i've been skipping Queen's live releases. It's not because of the sound, it's just becasuse i've listened to the CD's and VHS so many times that i don't feel motivated to check the DVD versions anymore. And that happened with the latest releases of Hammy and Rainbow too. Great as they are, i've already listen to it in bootleg format in very good quality, so i kind lost the motivation to watch it again anytime soon, even if the quality is better. But with time, i will revisit it again! |
| Mr.QueenFan 28.05.2016 14:23 |
luthorn wrote: (...) Compared with Montreal '78 the audience sounds dull as fuck. Maybe because audience sound was removed. I do not know. But once Freddie tells the audience to move their asses a bit, or something like that, it seems to me he is frustrated with their lack of participation. It seems the band plays perfect, but their energy is low compared with Live at the Bowl, for example, for that reason. (...) .I don't know if i've read it before - maybe from Brian(?) - but i'm starting to get the feel that something happened with the promotion of this concert that didn't attracted the right audience to the gig. What happened there isn't natural in any concert anywhere in the world. I'm guessing that the audience didn't knew the words to LOML because they weren't Queen fans. I would love to know who promoted this show and how. Why were those people there instead of true, die-hard Queen fans. There's something about this concert that doesn't click! It's like those people were recruited extras to help them make a movie. Or maybe they were asked before the concert to be quiet and stil because they were filming it. Very strange behaviour! |
| luthorn 28.05.2016 17:21 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Queen spoke in French to the audience in the '78 show, but that aside, the audience was a lot better than RMluthorn wrote: I live in Canada now, so I can say from empirical evidence one day Canadians can be wild on fire, but the next day dull as fuck and you can never tell way. Maybe because Freddie did not speak French to them. Who knows.I can tell you from personal experience that speaking to a Quebec audience in French (even just a few words) makes all the difference in tearing down that wall. It is so important to them to be culturally validated. |
| luthorn 28.05.2016 17:23 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:Some great points and questions, indeed. The first few rows by the stage are usually wild, at least I am when I go to shows. In this show, the front row looks like they are on sleeping pills.luthorn wrote: (...) Compared with Montreal '78 the audience sounds dull as fuck. Maybe because audience sound was removed. I do not know. But once Freddie tells the audience to move their asses a bit, or something like that, it seems to me he is frustrated with their lack of participation. It seems the band plays perfect, but their energy is low compared with Live at the Bowl, for example, for that reason. (...) .I don't know if i've read it before - maybe from Brian(?) - but i'm starting to get the feel that something happened with the promotion of this concert that didn't attracted the right audience to the gig. What happened there isn't natural in any concert anywhere in the world. I'm guessing that the audience didn't knew the words to LOML because they weren't Queen fans. I would love to know who promoted this show and how. Why were those people there instead of true, die-hard Queen fans. There's something about this concert that doesn't click! It's like those people were recruited extras to help them make a movie. Or maybe they were asked before the concert to be quiet and stil because they were filming it. Very strange behaviour! |
| Biggus Dickus 29.05.2016 01:41 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:luthorn wrote: (...) Compared with Montreal '78 the audience sounds dull as fuck. Maybe because audience sound was removed. I do not know. But once Freddie tells the audience to move their asses a bit, or something like that, it seems to me he is frustrated with their lack of participation. It seems the band plays perfect, but their energy is low compared with Live at the Bowl, for example, for that reason. (...) .I don't know if i've read it before - maybe from Brian(?) - but i'm starting to get the feel that something happened with the promotion of this concert that didn't attracted the right audience to the gig. What happened there isn't natural in any concert anywhere in the world. I'm guessing that the audience didn't knew the words to LOML because they weren't Queen fans. I would love to know who promoted this show and how. Why were those people there instead of true, die-hard Queen fans. There's something about this concert that doesn't click! It's like those people were recruited extras to help them make a movie. Or maybe they were asked before the concert to be quiet and stil because they were filming it. Very strange behaviour! I think the crowd is with it pretty good during the first concert, according to the bootleg. There's no audience recording available from the 2nd night and I don't know how much of the RM footage came from the 2nd night. |
| Nitroboy 29.05.2016 13:11 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: And i loved the sound of "Live in Budapest" VHS. But i confess, i've watched that concert so many times, i still haven't watched the new version of it. But on the VHS, i remember the wall of sound that came out of the "A kind of Magic" song. Probably the best performance of this song on the Magic tour. I hope they kept the good sound for the DVD release. I need to check it out! You will be very disappointed. It's as if the energy was sucked out of the show for the 2012 mix |