| Innuendo559 12.07.2019 22:34 |
If Lennon hadn't been shot and The Beatles reunited for Live AID, which band do you think would have given a better/more famous performance? |
| dysan 13.07.2019 07:56 |
I'd wager Lennon would've done the US show solo. I like to think if the Tribute concert happened a few months later Suede would've played. Although I doubt they would have been invited because Queen's taste in bands is questionable. |
| bucsateflon 13.07.2019 08:29 |
The Beatles live were crap compared to Queen(who wasn't?)... there goes your answer. |
| stevelondon20 13.07.2019 08:31 |
Queen would have still dominated the show regardless! |
| dudeofqueen 13.07.2019 13:08 |
The Beatles would have been a distraction to everyone on the day - many would possibly not have wanted to do anything to upstage them out of reverence. |
| Holly2003 13.07.2019 14:56 |
|
| Metropolis 13.07.2019 17:33 |
Beatles were a great band but Queen is better at live shows |
| Jimmy Dean 14.07.2019 04:17 |
dysan wrote: I like to think if the Tribute concert happened a few months later Suede would've played.What would you have them play? Fairy Feller, Fat Bottemed Girls, innuendo correctly? If only... |
| kevin79 14.07.2019 09:45 |
Comparing The Beatles during their touring days to Queen during theirs isn't fair. Queen had the benefit of a lot of advancement in equipment by the time they started touring. The Beatles never even had monitors to hear themselves back over the screaming of the crowds in the throws of Beatlemania. Heck, when they played Shea Stadium, their speaker system for the crowd was the baseball PA system! They were a great live band for their time when they could hear each other play. As for had the Beatles reformed for Live Aid, it all depends on how much they rehearsed for their set. Led Zeppelin's reunion should have out shined Queen given how hyped that was heading into the show. Of course, they ended up being pretty bad on the day. If you look at it, Queen was the only act on that whole show to come up with a set geared to pack as much into their slot as they could. And they rehearsed the heck out of it so they could be at their best on the day, which they were. Then add to that Freddie going out there and playing to everyone in Wembley, everyone watching on the screens in Philly and everyone watching from their homes, that's how they became THE ACT on that day. |
| dudeofqueen 14.07.2019 10:26 |
kevin79, re: >Led Zeppelin's reunion should have out shined Queen given how hyped that was heading into the show. Of course, they ended up being pretty bad on the day. Why? The Who proved that, even on their very worst day, they were a more dynamic live act than Zeppelin. |
| brandywine 14.07.2019 17:38 |
The Beatles would have been good but not great, the novelty would be the memory and it would have been fun. Queen's energy would have surpassed them by far. They were just on fire. Dylan was weird, Zeppelin was sloppy, Bowie was Bowie. The only band that came close was The Who |
| stevelondon20 14.07.2019 21:31 |
Queen were unstoppable on that day. No one even came close. |
| The Real Mary Austin 17.07.2019 10:47 |
Fear not! I cometh to tell you the truth. As I was around Wembley Stadium that day, I may correct some of the myths surrounding Freddie's performance on July 13, 1985. Myth #1: Freddie was unstoppable, not Queen. Myth #2: It was his spontaneous call & response with the audience that made all the difference. With that simple trick he reached out to everyone in that stadium. Myth #3: Regardless of how good Queen were as a unit, the other acts on the bill that day were so lame that Queen indeed stood out. Spandau Ballet anyone? The Boomtown Rats? Remember how awful they were? Costello? Sade? The ubiquitous Phil Collins? The Beatles would have been the pivotal band of that day, had they had a chance and the will to reunite for Live Aid. No question. Freddie would have been the first to acknowledge that. I love you. Myth Austin |
| The Real Mary Austin 17.07.2019 10:48 |
Fear not! I cometh to tell you the truth. As I was around Wembley Stadium that day, I may correct some of the myths surrounding Freddie's performance on July 13, 1985. Myth #1: Freddie was unstoppable, not Queen. Myth #2: It was his spontaneous call & response with the audience that made all the difference. With that simple trick he reached out to everyone in that stadium. Myth #3: Regardless of how good Queen were as a unit, the other acts on the bill that day were so lame that Queen indeed stood out. Spandau Ballet anyone? The Boomtown Rats? Remember how awful they were? Costello? Sade? The ubiquitous Phil Collins? The Beatles would have been the pivotal band of that day, had they had a chance and the will to reunite for Live Aid. No question. Freddie would have been the first to acknowledge that. I love you. Myth Austin |
| darcy-wright 18.07.2019 23:11 |
Myth #2: It was his spontaneous call & response with the audience that made all the difference. With that simple trick he reached out to everyone in that stadium. ---- no, it was not spontaneous. he had been doing it for many tours, evolving it. |
| The Real Mary Austin 18.07.2019 23:55 |
Fear not! I cometh to tell you the truth. You're right. Freddie had perfected that call & response-vocal-part for years, but it was still improvised. And, as far as I know, it was not originally intended to have been featured at Live Aid. I loveth you, Darcy-Wright. With regards from Kensington, M.A. |
| Innuendo559 21.07.2019 02:01 |
Mary Austin, you’re my favorite user in this website. The was you start every post with “fear not” is just incredible! ; ) |
| tomchristie22 21.07.2019 02:25 |
I'm not sure it's fair to say the Beatles sucked as a live band. The technology they had access to was far inferior, and their setlists were under-ambitious as a result of their lack of investment. But they still recreated their records well. John and Paul as live singers were certainly more consistent than Freddie, who routinely recorded notes in the studio that he wasn't able to recreate live. Paul could scream out Long Tall Sally night after night, without resorting to lowering notes. |
| tomchristie22 21.07.2019 02:25 |
[Double] |
| cmsdrums 21.07.2019 07:37 |
tomchristie22 wrote: I'm not sure it's fair to say the Beatles sucked as a live band. The technology they had access to was far inferior, and their setlists were under-ambitious as a result of their lack of investment. But they still recreated their records well. John and Paul as live singers were certainly more consistent than Freddie, who routinely recorded notes in the studio that he wasn't able to recreate live. Paul could scream out Long Tall Sally night after night, without resorting to lowering notes.Perhaps if The Beatles had toured like Queen had and had such a vocally challenging output, Paul would have soon seen his voice suffering as Freddie did on those massive tours of the mid/late 70s. |
| Dr Magus 21.07.2019 15:20 |
cmsdrums wrote:Also Long Tall Sally was well within Paul's register. Freddie sang Jailhouse Rock night after night without lowering notes.tomchristie22 wrote: I'm not sure it's fair to say the Beatles sucked as a live band. The technology they had access to was far inferior, and their setlists were under-ambitious as a result of their lack of investment. But they still recreated their records well. John and Paul as live singers were certainly more consistent than Freddie, who routinely recorded notes in the studio that he wasn't able to recreate live. Paul could scream out Long Tall Sally night after night, without resorting to lowering notes.Perhaps if The Beatles had toured like Queen had and had such a vocally challenging output, Paul would have soon seen his voice suffering as Freddie did on those massive tours of the mid/late 70s. In the studio Freddie pushed his voice to the absolute limit, and when you add the fact that Freddie did alot more cavorting on stage than either John or Paul, it's no surprise he didn't find it as easy to hit all the high notes live. |
| matt z 21.07.2019 22:06 |
Wow. 20 replies to this hypothetical question. Really nice and very unexpected. Btw: who is Myth Austin? |
| The Real Mary Austin 21.07.2019 22:49 |
Fear not! I cometh to tell you the truth. Matt Z, thy whole body shall be filled with light. Mythical, M.A. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 22.07.2019 00:22 |
Two things. I agree with the argument The Beatles didn't have a good technology to sound good. And of course, they would lose because Freddie demonstrated that day he was the best frontman of rock. Said by Dave Ghrol or the sadly missed Chris Cornell. But...for example, if Led Zeppelin did rehearsals...they would do also a brilliant performance About Suede....they were fans of Queen, so they could be in the tribute concert, like Nirvana or Nine Inch Nails or other bands. Trent Reznor loves Queen. He did a cover from Get Down Make Love, also in a remixed from Head like a hole put samplers from Body Language. With their greatest double album The Fragile he said it was like doing a queen album for being so complicated and complex...and he said that he felt more the Freddie's died than John Lennon's died, when said that in America was a shocking phrase....because Lennon for a lot of americans was killed for a fanatic (and it's true) and Freddie died because he was a sinner...of course, the reality is more complex. |