| Penetration_Guru 25.07.2017 07:21 |
I feel it's unlikely that "QPL has a copy of every show" because: - John Harris may not have recorded ABSOLUTELY EVERY early concert. He could have left his tape recorder at home, the lead may not have connected fully, someone might have split a beer, etc etc. - After he'd listened to it back the following day, how do we know he then KEPT them? Maybe he recorded new shows over old shows? Maybe he gave them to girls in exchange for....hugs? - Given that we know that the Queen studio masters were starting to degrade when they were transferred to digital when Greg first came on board, the chances are that some consumer-grade cassettes survived any better seems low. Opinion - In short, not everything was recorded. Not all of what was recorded was kept, and not all of what was kept will have survived. If we accept that 90% were recorded, 90% of those were kept, and 75% of those survive, then we're at 60% overall. And then, we have to assume that John Harris' tapes were passed to QPL at some stage. Given that Greg was trying to track him down 10 years ago, I wouldn't say that was a given. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Note - all of those assumptions apply to 1970-74 - once they started headlining tours, I would agree that 95%+ of concerts have been archived. Flame away....anger trumps logic, after all. |
| Kamenliter 25.07.2017 07:40 |
That sounds reasonable. Of course, thinking that every single last show is readily available would be a bit far reaching. Jim Jenkins, did say that John Deacon 'has loads of them.' (live recordings from John Harris). I'm sure they have lots of stuff that would make our eyes bug out if we saw a list. |
| on my way up 25.07.2017 08:25 |
It doesn't matter whether every concert was recorded. What DOES matter - and this has been confirmed - is that they have a shitload of soundboard recordings. Clearly we - Queen live enthusiasts - would welcome those recordings with open arms... Sadly, the band and/or the decisionmakers around them have no wish to release those recordings. It looks like these recordings are deemed not good enough (while they're surely better than 90% of the audience recordings we're listening to) and that they fear they'd flood the market. The last argument is totally ridiculous. The average record buyer - even those who buy every Queen live recording that gets released (like Rainbow, Hammersmith etc.) wouldn't know about those recordings they make available to us, die-hards, via their website or some other download system. Imagine having a series: the 50 best Queen live soundboard recordings, with each 6 months a new show made available... They'd be good for 25 years and we'd have a new recording each 6 months. We'd have more to discuss, we'd learn even more about the band. It would only stir the enthusiasm among the fans and the band wouldn't lose a penny. On the contrary, they'd win both money and respect from the fans. |
| dysan 25.07.2017 09:43 |
One possibility is that (as Ziggy Stardust tour soundman Robin Mayhew said) every show was recorded but on the same tape - literally reused every night. So the only night he has his original recording of is the last date of the tour. If it was lent out, perhaps copies were made. I'm sure many bands listen to the previous night's gig on the way to the next show to tweak the set. Whether or not copies would be made in the coach is tricky to assertain. Or certain gigs were recorded to keep / on request of the band. OR - and this is a long shot - Queen actually bothered buying blank tapes and all shows exist. |
| darcy-wright 25.07.2017 10:31 |
be awsome if theres one of Auckland NZ in 1985. |
| pittrek 25.07.2017 11:18 |
It's a very well known fact that every live show was recorded. But I personally see no reason why to believe that all of these recordings exist, maybe Ale has more information? |
| Ale Solan 25.07.2017 11:39 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: I feel it's unlikely that "QPL has a copy of every show" because: - John Harris may not have recorded ABSOLUTELY EVERY early concert. He could have left his tape recorder at home, the lead may not have connected fully, someone might have split a beer, etc etc. - After he'd listened to it back the following day, how do we know he then KEPT them? Maybe he recorded new shows over old shows? Maybe he gave them to girls in exchange for....hugs? - Given that we know that the Queen studio masters were starting to degrade when they were transferred to digital when Greg first came on board, the chances are that some consumer-grade cassettes survived any better seems low. Opinion - In short, not everything was recorded. Not all of what was recorded was kept, and not all of what was kept will have survived. If we accept that 90% were recorded, 90% of those were kept, and 75% of those survive, then we're at 60% overall. And then, we have to assume that John Harris' tapes were passed to QPL at some stage. Given that Greg was trying to track him down 10 years ago, I wouldn't say that was a given. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Note - all of those assumptions apply to 1970-74 - once they started headlining tours, I would agree that 95%+ of concerts have been archived. Flame away....anger trumps logic, after all.So, if we don't think the same way you do we're not being 'logic', right? |
| on my way up 25.07.2017 11:54 |
A dutch fan once asked the question to Brian in a Q&A and since Brian was noy expecting that question he gave - what I consider/judge as - an honest answer. I once posted here on QZ a transcription of what he said! I go and look for it. |
| on my way up 25.07.2017 12:00 |
This is what I wrote in early 2016 in a topic started by The Real Wizard after someone from the Queenonline staff said there are a "shitload of soundboards": "The most interesting comment regarding Queen recording and keeping the actual recordings in their archive came from Brian May in a radio Q&A (from the nineties I think). People could telephone and ask a question: a Dutch fan asked about the soundboard recordings; Brian - surprised by this question and so his answer was honest ;-) - then confirmed they INDEED recorded their shows (this was the rule, not the exception it seemed) and that those recordings were stored but that those were very dry recordings with no ambiance since those were recorded just for the band to check their playing... I think we can be pretty sure those tapes do exist but Brian just seems unwilling to let those out... " |
| Ale Solan 25.07.2017 12:04 |
on my way up wrote: This is what I wrote in early 2016 in a topic started by The Real Wizard after someone from the Queenonline staff said there are a "shitload of soundboards": "The most interesting comment regarding Queen recording and keeping the actual recordings in their archive came from Brian May in a radio Q&A (from the nineties I think). People could telephone and ask a question: a Dutch fan asked about the soundboard recordings; Brian - surprised by this question and so his answer was honest ;-) - then confirmed they INDEED recorded their shows (this was the rule, not the exception it seemed) and that those recordings were stored but that those were very dry recordings with no ambiance since those were recorded just for the band to check their playing... I think we can be pretty sure those tapes do exist but Brian just seems unwilling to let those out... "I repeat: what a single band on Earth would release everything they have in their vaults? Queen played approx 700 live shows until 1986. Maybe 500 or 600 survived? Maybe less? Still... commercially impossible. |
| on my way up 25.07.2017 12:38 |
Ale Solan wrote:Releasing a series of them over a long period of time (like I suggested, see above) is not the same as "releasing them all".on my way up wrote: This is what I wrote in early 2016 in a topic started by The Real Wizard after someone from the Queenonline staff said there are a "shitload of soundboards": "The most interesting comment regarding Queen recording and keeping the actual recordings in their archive came from Brian May in a radio Q&A (from the nineties I think). People could telephone and ask a question: a Dutch fan asked about the soundboard recordings; Brian - surprised by this question and so his answer was honest ;-) - then confirmed they INDEED recorded their shows (this was the rule, not the exception it seemed) and that those recordings were stored but that those were very dry recordings with no ambiance since those were recorded just for the band to check their playing... I think we can be pretty sure those tapes do exist but Brian just seems unwilling to let those out... "I repeat: what a single band on Earth would release everything they have in their vaults? Queen played approx 700 live shows until 1986. Maybe 500 or 600 survived? Maybe less? Still... commercially impossible. And there are artists who make many live recordings available. For example: Bruce Springsteen sells all the shows from his latest tours. |
| Vocal harmony 25.07.2017 13:45 |
My guess is that there are less than 50 good quality sound board recordings on 1/4 inch tape, if that. A previous post said that they probably have recorded over the same tape several times and I'm sure that's what happened. A touring production costs money and every available space on trucks is used for essential equipment . The chances are that on a major US or European tour the amount of space tape reels would take up would not be economical. |
| Negative Creep 25.07.2017 16:53 |
Who said they were recorded on "consumer grade cassettes"? Quarter inch reel tape wasn't expensive at all and storage would not have been a problem, because quarter inch tape is relatively small. Funny to see comments that, despite the size of the bands touring operation, they wouldn't have been able to store a recording of each night. What!? If they had genuinely been recorded to cassette, their contents would be near worthless - they would, as you alluded to, have degraded very badly by now and there would be tape flips involved. What's the point of making up scenarios where John Harris couldn't record certain gigs or that he (despite reports he lived and breathed Queen) he regularly wiped his tapes? bizarre. We don't know what they had or have, simples. We will never hear them anyhow, because they have no interest in releasing material that a, would be considered bootleg quality material by many/most and b, can't be remixed/doctored. Stuff like this would make great low key releases, but that is something QPL has no interest in. |
| The Fonz 25.07.2017 20:01 |
darcy-wright wrote: be awsome if theres one of Auckland NZ in 1985.shit yeah bro. |
| felix ibex 25.07.2017 22:56 |
Queen wont release what they have of the soundboards because they are so fussy ... Hoarders lol |
| dysan 26.07.2017 07:09 |
The Bowie example I gave actually involved consumer grade cassette. It's what most sound desks have so easy to do. Of course, as the tech changed I'm sure stuff would've gone straight to DAT or Minidisc. The question of sound being worthless - please try to check out the bootlegs of Bowie's last Ziggy show at Hammersmith Odeon that came from this tape (same gig as the famous Ziggy Stardust Motion Picture film - but NOT the same sound!). It is brilliant and in fantastic quality. Remember this was the biggest tour going on in 1973 and each show was recorded on a cassette. For personal use, this is fine. |
| Rick 26.07.2017 11:53 |
on my way up wrote: It doesn't matter whether every concert was recorded. What DOES matter - and this has been confirmed - is that they have a shitload of soundboard recordings. Clearly we - Queen live enthusiasts - would welcome those recordings with open arms... Sadly, the band and/or the decisionmakers around them have no wish to release those recordings. It looks like these recordings are deemed not good enough (while they're surely better than 90% of the audience recordings we're listening to) and that they fear they'd flood the market. The last argument is totally ridiculous. The average record buyer - even those who buy every Queen live recording that gets released (like Rainbow, Hammersmith etc.) wouldn't know about those recordings they make available to us, die-hards, via their website or some other download system. Imagine having a series: the 50 best Queen live soundboard recordings, with each 6 months a new show made available... They'd be good for 25 years and we'd have a new recording each 6 months. We'd have more to discuss, we'd learn even more about the band. It would only stir the enthusiasm among the fans and the band wouldn't lose a penny. On the contrary, they'd win both money and respect from the fans.Great idea, but with Brian being Mr. Perfectionist and all this will never happen. |
| Vocal harmony 26.07.2017 14:57 |
Negative Creep wrote: Who said they were recorded on "consumer grade cassettes"? Quarter inch reel tape wasn't expensive at all and storage would not have been a problem, because quarter inch tape is relatively small. Funny to see comments that, despite the size of the bands touring operation, they wouldn't have been able to store a recording of each night. What!? . . . . What's the point of making up scenarios where John Harris couldn't record certain gigs or that he (despite reports he lived and breathed Queen) he regularly wiped his tapes? bizarre. We don't know what they had or have, simples. . . . .Funny as it may appear, at the time John Harris was touring with them they were growing from unknown to relatively big, but they weren't at Led Zeppelin or Rolling Stones levels of ticket sales. Touring is always done on relatively tight budgets, not for the artists so much, but the crew and equipment. Space on trucks is at a premium. Yes quarter inch tape didn't cost a great deal, but carrying thirty plus pizza sized boxes costs. It's another flight case that room has to be found for. Also Harris may have lived and breathed Queen, but he wasn't a band member, he worked for them. It is very unlikely that he was recording shows just for him self. They were recorded for the band to review if the need arose and were then recorded over most of the time. It would have kept cost down. Two or three tape boxes in the sound engineers work box is a lot easier than a four foot case full. |
| Penetration_Guru 26.07.2017 21:59 |
Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have: link link The commercially impossible made real.... |
| Ale Solan 26.07.2017 22:40 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have: link link The commercially impossible made real....What makes you think Queen would do that? Because they don't have everything? As you claim based on... (you never gave a proof of that) Or just stupid decisions? |
| fernandosales 27.07.2017 01:45 |
link |
| on my way up 27.07.2017 06:59 |
Ale Solan wrote:You said no band releases its entire live catalogue. PG gives examples of bands who've made large portions of their live stuff available.Penetration_Guru wrote: Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have: link link The commercially impossible made real....What makes you think Queen would do that? Because they don't have everything? As you claim based on... (you never gave a proof of that) Or just stupid decisions? PG is not claiming anything concerning Queen releasing whatever they have, he just shows your claim as made earlier (no band is releasing their live vault) is incorrect. |
| Ale Solan 27.07.2017 13:44 |
on my way up wrote:I said no band would release its complete from scratch to finish live catalogue. He claimed Queen should do that if they have all their shows recorded.Ale Solan wrote:You said no band releases its entire live catalogue. PG gives examples of bands who've made large portions of their live stuff available. PG is not claiming anything concerning Queen releasing whatever they have, he just shows your claim as made earlier (no band is releasing their live vault) is incorrect.Penetration_Guru wrote: Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have: link link The commercially impossible made real....What makes you think Queen would do that? Because they don't have everything? As you claim based on... (you never gave a proof of that) Or just stupid decisions? |
| Ale Solan 27.07.2017 13:46 |
Still, this seems to be a competition to see who's right and who's wrong |
| Penetration_Guru 27.07.2017 18:02 |
Ale Solan wrote: He claimed Queen should do that if they have all their shows recorded.Not true, but at least you've stopped the namecalling. |