| Fenderek 27.01.2004 12:03 |
Exactly, WHY??!! It wasn't that good AT ALL Why is it, then...? |
| MexQueenFM 27.01.2004 12:07 |
er, because lots of people like it? and it was a great performance? their second to last ever performance?, i dunno why dude! |
| Togg 27.01.2004 12:08 |
So what was the big problem with it, I was there and it seemed fine to me, in fact it was the best one I attended. |
| ogre t raylot 27.01.2004 12:11 |
because it's the one that most people have seen. |
| Togg 27.01.2004 12:13 |
IMO the sound was the best I'd ever heard live at that point, you could hear everything very clearly and there was a fantastic vibe on the day. Which is more than you could say for Milton Keynes, because the sound was pretty bad at certain points, and the Wembley arena concerts, well you never get a good sound in that hole |
| Wayne Gretzky 27.01.2004 12:23 |
I don't think it's overrated at all. A overrated concert is the Knebworth gig. |
| Mr.Jingles 27.01.2004 12:30 |
I think that YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, Fenderek. I don't see anything wrong with the Wembley show and I doubt most people have a problem with it. Hence why almost everybody here has that 'Live at Wembley DVD'. Due to all the aspects of production of the show including the preservation of sound and picture quality, Wembley has been the most commercialized of all of Queen's gigs. Perhaps when it comes to Queen's performance I'd say that Budapest 86 was the best. Others would tell you that Milton Keynes 82, or Houston 77 were their best shows ever, but I doubt anyone else here would say that they didn't enjoy the Wembley show at all. Even if it's not their favorite. You're too overly critical of most of the things Queen did. Including those that most people here seem to have enjoyed. At least have to proove your point by saying what's exactly wrong with the Wembley gig. Maybe you should spend more time at message boards for other bands, because now that I think of it, you're not exactly a Queen fan. |
| Penetration_Guru 27.01.2004 13:01 |
Mex - it wasn't next to last, there were about a dozen after it. People like what they can see. They can see Wembley. That's partly why Wembley won that poll - only the hardcore had seen Milton Keynes/Earl's Court/Hammersmith, but Wembley is on every Xmas |
| MexQueenFM 27.01.2004 13:02 |
oh, thanks for clearing that P_G |
| Robin 27.01.2004 13:25 |
I don't think it's over rated at all. It's a great concert with lots of wonderful extra's. |
| Ms.Lurex 27.01.2004 13:33 |
it's a good concert, but not one of my favs. i wish other queen concerts were given as much attention as wembley gets...and yeah ppl do like it more since you can pick it up at any local wal-mart as compared to the harder to get concerts... |
| Daburcor? 27.01.2004 13:37 |
Wembley gig... Overrated?! Not in MY book. ;) |
| Sonja 27.01.2004 14:43 |
I haven't seen another concert so I can't tell. But I guess it's not just the concert itself or how Queen did the show. But it was Wembley, legendary stadium, London - home town of Queen, 2 nights in a row... I guess all that makes Wembley so special. Not just for fans but also for the band members themselves. Like Brian said in the interview on the Wembely DVD, that playing at home is always different and special. |
| FriedChicken 27.01.2004 15:07 |
I think the playing was great that evening, but Freddies voice wasn't in top shape that evening, I think his voice was much better in Budapest |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 27.01.2004 15:24 |
Its a great gig, but I think that the Budapest gig was much better. |
| YourValentine 27.01.2004 15:28 |
I love every minute of the Wembley concert and I am still getting used to the new DVD with all the previously edited material. I wore out 2 VHS tapes until I learned to make a digital copy of my 3rd tape. I bought the Brazilian DVD and now finally the official DVD in all its glory. You can criticise Freddie's voice but it's live, so what, it's still a breathtaking performance. |
| Penis - Vagina 27.01.2004 15:37 |
For years I've wondered about this. I've had the 80 minute version on tape, and now the full show on DVD. I keep asking myself.. should I enjoy this? Is it overrated? What will everyone think if I like it? I cannot rest until I know for sure that it's okay to enjoy this show. OMG, you are so right! I didn't realize it until you said so, but it is way overrated and we should all burn our copies and never speak of it again! Thanks for showing us the truth man! |
| The Real Wizard 27.01.2004 15:50 |
Fenderek is talking strictly from a performance point of view. If you've listened intently to many other bootlegs from the tour, and you've got a good musical ear, you'll realize that the second night at Wembley was actually the worst performance of the entire tour. Freddie's voice was cracking a lot on the higher notes (which still weren't his highest for most shows on the tour), so he couldn't sustain them well as a result. Also, Brian was missing guitar cues all over the place. They knew they were being filmed for a later release, so the nerves kicked in, and at times it really shows. Don't get me wrong, there are still many incredible moments during this show, but from a performance point of view, Knebworth, Budapest, both nights in Leiden, and the first night at Wembley all put the second Wembley night to shame. Simply put, unless people have heard other complete concerts from the tour, then they really can't put in their two cents, as this topic is about the PERFORMANCE, not the QUALITY. If you've only seen/heard one or two shows from the tour, of course 7-12-86 is going to seem great! It is, but not as great as the others. Fenderek is an honest fan, and he's judging this purely on the band's performance. In doing that, he is the antithesis of the word Stepford. Good stuff, Fenderek. |
| Mayboy 27.01.2004 15:54 |
Wembley is just a fantastic show, they were at their peak and it showed a true kind of magic :D |
| YourValentine 27.01.2004 16:33 |
I have heard a lot of Magic Tour shows in their best quality and I saw what we have from Knebworth, Budapest, Vienna, Manchester, Paris, Newcastle and Dublin, so I think I can voice an opinion. From all the shows I saw/heard Wembley is surely not the best performance but it's still a great concert and I simply enjoy watching it. But even if I had never seen another Queen concert it would be okay to enjoy Wembley. I don't need to rate shows and records all the time in terms of which is the best or worst single, album, concert etc. Maybe Fenderek, Bob and Niek are right when they say Wembley was not so good as so many other Magic Tour shows but it's the only one we have in excellent quality and complete, so forgive me when I just love to watch it:-) |
| [ Wybren™ ] 27.01.2004 16:51 |
"...it was Wembley, legendary stadium, London - home town of Queen, 2 nights in a row... I guess all that makes Wembley so special. Not just for fans but also for the band members themselves. Like Brian said in the interview on the Wembely DVD, that playing at home is always different and special." I totally agree with you And YV you said you've heard a couple of their concert in EX quality? I wish I had... |
| Penetration_Guru 27.01.2004 18:15 |
It's not difficult. Budapest is available in stereo on an official video and Mannheim was broadcast on FM radio. Before you head for some excellent bootleg sources. |
| Saffron Caribou 27.01.2004 18:48 |
Wembley turned out to be a big deal with fans, because it was the last concert recorded in full. Its their best, as far as the concerts I've seen, and I havent seen much. |
| goinback 27.01.2004 19:51 |
Wembley is a good show...but all Queen shows are, and I honestly never watch it. I've watched Budapest many times though. Freddie's voice is better of course, but I like how it was shot too. Even the "Bohemian Rhapsody" opera section is more creative, with the sparklers. The medley at the beginning of Budapest is better IMHO. My favorite part is at the beginning of Tie Your Mother Down, where Brian jumps down by the crowd and starts the guitar solo, and the camera doesn't *quite* get the chance to focus properly. Then it cuts to John hitting his note as the lights all swell, then cuts to Freddie off hanging on the rafters somewhere. It just all seems more "raw" and exciting. The medley at Wembley, on the other hand, doesn't have the same energy at the start of "Tear It Up", and was also shot in daytime. But I think a lot of fans have simply heard Wembley first, so that's why they like it. |
| The Real Wizard 27.01.2004 23:07 |
"Maybe Fenderek, Bob and Niek are right when they say Wembley was not so good as so many other Magic Tour shows but it's the only one we have in excellent quality and complete, so forgive me when I just love to watch it:-)" Same with me. I love it because of the quality. :) Being a musician, I can't help but rate things musically, but the quality of the new DVD still makes the concert an amazing thing to have. In a perfect world, if Sapporo 5-6-79 came out on DVD in that quality, I'd love it just as much, even though it was probably the worst Queen show ever! :P |
| Mr. Scully 28.01.2004 02:44 |
I'm not a musician and Wembley is the best Magic tour show for me. Maybe if I heard other Magic Tour bootlegs in DVD quality, I would change my mind but at the moment I love Wembley and it's my favourite Magic Tour show (or second favourite after Mannheim). Despite Freddie's voice which was indeed in bad shape. The audience makes a big difference too, in Budapest there were heaps of people who got the tickets because they were high in the Communistic Party and they knew shit about Queen. |
| Fenderek 28.01.2004 03:39 |
<> Mr Jingles- thanks for good laugh, laddy < Don't I have it...? Did I say- to hell with Wembley DVD...? I wasn't even talking about the DVD... It's out (VHS was released loooong, long time ago) and yes, we all have it... But not only because we like this gig so much; think this way- when you were buying it, did you know it...? I didn't... So I didn't buy it cause it's so f**king great, but because it was a Queen release and I HAD TO have it... < And this is an argument, isn't it... Wasn't that hard, was it...? Still- what about the PERFORMANCE...? < I would say all those you mentioned are better than Wembley PLUS around fifty more (and there is still PLENTY I haven't heard...) AND- did I say I don't enjoy it at all...? WHERE? I said it wasn't THAT GOOD at all... I meant- there are better shows, not being released, not being commercialised... Even those that were released- somehow they got much less atention than Wembley... Like Budapest, for instance.... < Oh I'm sorry - how could I offended thee... As far as I can see- you CAN'T have your OWN opinion on "queenzone by Mr Jingles"... < And your posts are- as always- really funny... << A overrated concert is the Knebworth gig.>> no comments... << OMG, you are so right! I didn't realize it until you said so, but it is way overrated and we should all burn our copies and never speak of it again!>> What the f**k are you talking about...? I just put the statement- "this gig is overrated"... Now- WHY...? I wanted ppl to tell me why OR at least give me the reasons why they don't agree.... Kind of a starting point to the discussion... Somehow- some ppl are absolutely unable to discuss.... And I didn't say- IT'S AN UTTER RUBBISH, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! For f**k's sake- I just said it's overrated... Bloody stepfords... < And I agree completely...!!! The point is- WHY the other shows aren't avaliable in this way, even though they're much better.... Why this one got so much press and everything and the others are forgotten, even by the band themselves...? WHY...? |
| Penis - Vagina 28.01.2004 04:37 |
I'm sorry, I just turned the sarcasm on because I didn't really see a point in asking why something is overrated. I'm the last person to defend any concert recording because in general, I don't enjoy them. Probably partly out of jealousy since I never got to see them live so it's not always a great thrill to hear more privelaged fans screaming in joy, but also I just tend to like original studio recordings much better. I just feel that a question like yours kind of answers itself.. people like it, and that's their choice. What can come of discussing the worth of something that isn't going to change? It's there, take it or leave it. But perhaps I'm being too dismissive. I just get tired of hearing debates like this. Perhaps if it were phrased differently, rather than calling it overrated, you could suggest that other concerts might make better releases.. but... that's been done a million times before already. I don't know. I just finished reading Hutton's book and I'm quite sad so I'm not sure I'm even making sense right now. |
| Fenderek 28.01.2004 04:52 |
< EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| siljeoen 28.01.2004 05:30 |
...no! Live at Wembley rocks!!!! |
| The Mir@cle 28.01.2004 05:45 |
Freddie's voice during the show in Montreal (We Will Rock You DVD) was great. Better than in Wembley '86. But if you look at all aspects, Wembley was the perfect concert. |
| jamesfrancistaylor 28.01.2004 06:41 |
Well .. to add my opinion.. I think the TV/DVD of the Wembley show is great... I was there and love having something to remember the show by. |
| Togg 28.01.2004 07:27 |
Can I just make a point here, this is all about ones personal perception of an event. No matter who you are musician or ordinary fan, it's still just your perception. Even the members of the band will have different perceptions of the day, many is the time a band member will come off stage and vent their anger at something others may not have been aware of. So to make a statement that 'It was not the best or The best show' is just your view, musician or fan, I think it virtually impossible to calculate which show is better than another do to the vast amout of elements that make up a performance. And whether you have listened to all tapes of the tour or been to each show or for that matter played in each show, how do you calculate which one was better? OK so the guitar string broke, or the voice cracked, does that wipe out the rest of the performance, no, it is a single event that just addes to a list of elements. The views in this thread are just personal opinions and nobody can make a statement of fact, sure you can list your perception of mistakes, but that's all it is, your perception. |
| Sonja 28.01.2004 08:30 |
Yeah calm down. Is it worth it to fight about this? Let everyone say their point of view and respect other's and then it's all fine. |
| Fenderek 28.01.2004 08:53 |
<< OK so the guitar string broke, or the voice cracked, does that wipe out the rest of the performance, no, it is a single event that just addes to a list of elements.>> Well, that's more than cracked voice few times or sth like that.. More of a band being too tied and nervous- MORE than even only 24 hours earlier... about being not so solid as a unit- and that's what IMO happened... But I agree with you- it is all about perception. Fine. That actually was the idea- starting point; that's my statement on this, what's yours... And some ppl just went bananas... I can agree with deacon fan saying that maybe it wasn't put the right way, should be rephrased... I can agree with that... Still- sometimes I think one's not allowed to have a critical opinion on this board.... |
| Togg 28.01.2004 12:08 |
No I think to discuss something from the standpoint of a critic is fine and what these boards should be about, I just get amused when I see posts that say I'm a musicain and this concert was worse than that one, if that's the case and your speaking from the standpoint of a musician then surely it's the performance as a whole that gets judged and not a few small elements, the whole thing should be viewed the sound, the lights, the individual musicians the atmosphere etc, all of which makes up in my opinion to many elements to accurately state one was better than another. |
| Shane Jazz 28.01.2004 13:07 |
I think the reason Wembley is so highly rated is that it was the natural highpoint to a triumphant tour that was defined by class. Everything ran like a well oiled machine, and the natural pinnacle of a tour of this magnitude would be the homecoming concert, especialy when it's a such a legendary place as Wembley Stadium. I think it's the glorious, almost triumphant circumstances that surround the Wembley shows that make them so highly rated. So it's not necessarily the technical merits of the show itself, it's the moment, the drama of it. That's why it was the one that was filmed. When I watch the DVD I thoroughly enjoy it, not so much because of the performances (although they are fantastic), I mostly enjoy putting the concert in the context of '86, with Queen full of confidence again after Live Aid and the Magic album. I'm sure there were many more technically superb shows on the Magic Tour, but being that it was Wembley, that it was home, makes it so special. Mick Jagger was even there! |
| Spisso 28.01.2004 13:16 |
Ditto |
| Hitman 28.01.2004 13:23 |
MY opinion:playing live with the band i must say that if the audience is completely with you the concert looks prettier. In London for Queen it was like playing in their courtyard with friends and relatives. In Budapest the gig was fantastic (that's sure) but the audience wasn't in my opinion as warm as in London. Take for example i want to break free... but de gustibus non disputandum est. last thing: wembley is not underrated at all according to me!!! |
| The Real Wizard 28.01.2004 14:42 |
"Freddie's voice during the show in Montreal (We Will Rock You DVD) was great. Better than in Wembley '86. But if you look at all aspects, Wembley was the perfect concert." Well, if all you can compare Wembley's second night to is Montreal 81, of course Wembley will seem better. The atmosphere was far better. "I just get amused when I see posts that say I'm a musicain and this concert was worse than that one" What amuses you about it? The fact that there are musicians out there who can actually critique a performance, rather than just say "it's Queen, therefore it is perfect" ?? "the whole thing should be viewed the sound, the lights, the individual musicians the atmosphere etc, all of which makes up in my opinion to many elements to accurately state one was better than another." That's correct, but this topic was purely about the performance, and nothing else. Why doesn't anyone here understand that? "Still- sometimes I think one's not allowed to have a critical opinion on this board...." With all the Stepfords here, you're right. It's almost impossible. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.01.2004 15:03 |
If so... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PERFORMANCE THEN?? IMO though Wembley wasn't perhaps Queen's best performance ever, but still a great one, and arguably to a lot of people one of their best. The only thing I'd have to say was wrong, was noticing that Freddie sang a little bit off key during the 'I Want To Brak Free' performance (especially during the << I want to break free from your lies >> part). Still it seems like some people can't understand that despite his huge talent and amazing voice, Freddie was still human and he could also make mistakes. Anyways, I noticed that during other performances Freddie's voice sounded slightly better, but during Wembley it was still great though not at its best. Remember that a voice like Freddie's is very delicate, and it can't always be at its best shape. So don't blame Freddie for not giving the best of himself because we all know that this man gave himself 100% to the audience on each performance. Each one is entitled to their opinions, but some people definitely cross the line. Like those who called Queen's performance at 46664 pathetic. That's why I question why some people here still call themselves Queen fans. |
| Kuku 28.01.2004 15:55 |
Aren't I just a stepford... When I first watched Wembley (I heard a few songs mp3 and went out to buy it as soon as the store in my little town had some in stock), I was really into Freddie's feminine falsetto voice... therefore wasn't too pleased with the concert, although it was the first Queen concert I watched. I honestly thought that he lost his high pitch during the 80s! (I didn't have later albums then.) Now, when I look back, I am amazed at how much my own musical preference can change my perception. (Now I am into heavier songs of Queen..) I don't think Freddie's voice was the best in Wembley, either. (Obviously, we all know how perfect, beautiful and godly his voice can get.) Yet, his showmanship was wonderful, and the audience was just really enthusiastic! The performance art is something that both the performer and the audience create. In that aspect, Wembley was a great show. Still, I am somewhat, or, very unsatisfied. My stupid local store has no other official concert DVDs or VHSs, and I am not of age to order online... (and considering where I live, the mailing price will exceed the actual price.) It drives me nuts to read about all those wonderful concerts at all those different places!!! (gargles) Hell, I would even go for the supposedly worst concert in Japan! I think Queen should care more about releasing more of the previously bootleg stuff officially. People like me down in this non-Queen area thirst for enough hype for those concerts to reach everywhere. |
| mrs_groucho 28.01.2004 16:31 |
I love the concert. It was just a matter of the right people and the right time and some really beautiful moments. And that's what it was, to me anyway...A beautiful moment and beautiful people, all coming together to make beautiful music, unselfishly, for the itching ears of their beautiful fans. ;) Love and I want that yellow jacket, Mrs. G |
| Matti 28.01.2004 20:18 |
Ooooh. I want that yellow jacket too.... OH Love the concert BTW!! |
| Saint Jiub 28.01.2004 22:09 |
Jingles - you have no right to an opinion because you are not a musician. LOL |
| Mr.Jingles 28.01.2004 22:51 |
Then perhaps we should have 2 forums on this board. One for the musicians, and another one for the fans. |
| The Real Wizard 28.01.2004 23:43 |
"Jingles - you have no right to an opinion because you are not a musician. LOL" Ahh, it's about time you turned up. Like usual, you're taking things out of context and failing miserably at being a comedian. Maybe there should be a special forum for those who think they're funny. When it comes to critiquing the level of a band's musical performance, naturally musicians have a better idea. If someone isn't a musician, then how would they know when someone hit a wrong chord, and why would they care if Brian forgot to do his solos in One Vision and Hammer To Fall at Wembley? From their perspective, it's still the same song, and it sounds fine. Did I complain about their perspective? Never. Did Fenderek? Absolutely not. |
| Saint Jiub 29.01.2004 00:42 |
"unless people have heard other complete concerts from the tour, then they really can't put in their two cents" |
| Daburcor? 29.01.2004 01:35 |
I thought Freddie was AWESOME that night! :D |
| The Real Wizard 29.01.2004 01:44 |
"unless people have heard other complete concerts from the tour, then they really can't put in their two cents" That was said in reference to comparing one performance to another... if you've only heard one concert, I'd say that's rather logical. How can one person cut another to shreds for comparing concerts if they've only heard 3 or 4 officially-released ones themselves? Bah, I've had enough of this topic. Wembley is a great show, but far from their best overall. Great atmosphere, great crowd, mediocre performance compared to most others. For the last time, good quality does not mean good performance. Period. |
| Togg 29.01.2004 07:01 |
Guitar hero your posts are most amusing do keep em coming |
| Freddie-B 29.01.2004 10:01 |
You can't say a gig is over-rated, because it's judging people's opinions. On one hand, 72,000 fans (and countless since) who think it's good can't be wrong, but if you don't think it's any good then they are. Why do you under-rate the gig so much? |
| The Real Wizard 29.01.2004 14:03 |
"Guitar hero your posts are most amusing do keep em coming" I will, just for you. Since you justify your complaints about my posts so very well (and with such wonderful grammar), some day I may actually mistake you for someone who's intelligent. "You can't say a gig is over-rated, because it's judging people's opinions. On one hand, 72,000 fans (and countless since) who think it's good can't be wrong, but if you don't think it's any good then they are. Why do you under-rate the gig so much?" I'll answer this too. The people who were at the show obviously enjoyed themselves, and of course I would have too. The lights, the stage, the setlist... it would have been amazing, and I'm sure I would have walked away feeling complete satisfaction. At the time, unless you had seen other shows on the tour, you couldn't compare them to others. I can't believe people are so blind and are not understanding that in this topic, the concert is being rated in comparion to others from the tour. Nobody is saying it was a terrible concert! Why can't anyone just entertain the fact that maybe Queen didn't put on a perfect show every single time? And most certainly, 72,000 people and countless others can be wrong. Just look at how many albums the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears have sold. The crowd isn't always right. In fact, the crowd is usually the one that's wrong, because they mindlessly follow the others. We can bring politics and religion into the discussion if you'd like. :) |
| Mr.Jingles 29.01.2004 14:45 |
<< The crowd isn't always right. In fact, the crowd is usually the one that's wrong, because they mindlessly follow the others. >> Yes, and since you happen to be a musician are you supossed to tell us what is right? Most people here have admitted that when it comes to the performance, Wembley wasn't exactly the best of the whole tour, but yet still there's no reason why to diminish the performance just because Freddie's voice wasn't at it's best possibly shape, or because Brian broke a string. Accidents happen, and that has nothing to be with the ability of Queen to deliver a great performance. Perhaps if one day you have the chance to perform in a venue like Wembley stadium, then perhaps we'll listen to you... until then, NO. |
| FairyQueen 29.01.2004 15:09 |
Queen.. concert overrated?....wow...never heard those words in the same sentence before....better than being underrated |
| Fenderek 29.01.2004 15:45 |
<< but yet still there's no reason why to diminish the performance just because Freddie's voice wasn't at it's best possibly shape, or because Brian broke a chord.>> AND WHO'S DOING THAT, JINGLES...? Can you read...? That's exactly what my point was- COMPARE the PERFORMANCE on Wembley to others... Somehow (because of publicity, I suppose) this gig is becoming/ became almost a trademark Queen show- ultimate Queen gig.... And so often I hear that Queen was a live band- WHY THEN its trademark is an avarage gig...? Ii'm not talking about lights or stage- just musically; I know those are also the part of the show, but not the most important ones- so many bands have attractive stage show and musically- crap... If Queen is considered as a live band even by Brian and Roger themselves, why is so little of EXCELLENT stuff avaliable to public...? (DVD, CD- whatever). It's not about- this gig was bad... it's about- this is not the Queen's best show... This is not even one of the Queen's best shows- TECHNICALLY, MUSICALLY speaking...- of course IMO, but- can't have one, can I...? < IT'S NOT ABOUT 'ACCIDENTS'- it's about the whole performance: the whole feeling of it, some kind of "musical energy" or "musical atmosphere"... You're getting paranoid, Jingles- who said anything about queen being UNABLE to deliver great performance...? Neither I nor Guitar Hero... We said so many times- Wembley wasn't utter rubbish; and when we say it also wasn't that good we're just talking in reference to OTHER Queen concerts, not in general... < Isn't this what actually you're doing...? Telling what's wrong or what's right and what does it mean to be a real fan...? I put my opinion and you're just slagging me off because you don't like this point of view, you don't agree with it... < That's just ridiculous... <> And this is an answer by someone who actually understood that I'm not implying that Queen live were crap... It's not that difficult, is it Jingles...? |
| Virtuoso 29.01.2004 16:29 |
"And most certainly, 72,000 people and countless others can be wrong. Just look at how many albums the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears have sold. The crowd isn't always right. In fact, the crowd is usually the one that's wrong, because they mindlessly follow the others. We can bring politics and religion into the discussion if you'd like. :)"I agree with almost everything,except the fact that 72,000 attentances was alot at the time...well that's all,it's actualy very hard to differ agains you Bob. |
| SlightlyQueenMad 29.01.2004 17:45 |
Earls Court '77 happens to be my favorite. But Wembley is absolutly somewhere at the top, even though i'm more into 70's. It's a great concert! |
| Mr.Jingles 29.01.2004 17:48 |
You are the one who has missed the whole point of this, Fenderek, because nobody but you has called Wembley "Overated". There are other things you could have called the Wembley show, such as "over-commercialized" or "over-promoted", but "overated" just doesn't fit quite well. The fact is that because of the circumstances surrounding the Wembley show, such as Queen being the pinnacle of their career, then there's this whole huge hype created surrounding their following massive tour. Due to all the investment on the aspects of production of a concert (such as Wembley) that will later be released on video, it'd be a loss to do such a thing on every single concert of the tour because they can't just release every single concert from the tour on video. A decision had to be made about what concert should be filmed, without knowing for sure how good will Freddie's voice sound during the gig. London of course was chosen because of many reasons... it's the place where Queen was formed, and Wembley Stadium used to be a legendary venue where most rock bands dream of selling out. So then it was decided by PMI and Queen Productions that the Wembley show should have been captured of film, not only to be aired on TV but also for a later video release. So that's why it has been the most promoted concert to be released on video, even though it wasn't necessarily the very best in terms of performance. Yet still it was good enough to be released on video. If the performance wasn't good enough, people wouldn't buy it as much as they do. Budapest was in terms of performance probably better than Wembley, yet still it hasn't been as commercialized because the audio and video quality wasn't as good as the Wembley show. I'm sure Budapest has been considered to be released and perhaps it will, but they can't release just one video after the other because production companies don't want their releases to compete against each other. |
| The Real Wizard 29.01.2004 19:42 |
"it's actualy very hard to differ agains you Bob." I'm sorry you feel that way. I like a good discussion. What I don't like is when in a discussion, people throw in uneducated opinions, and argue using those, again and again. I really don't need to mention any names. |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 29.01.2004 20:37 |
I adore Live At Wembley. And now that I know that the old stadium is gone and a new, bigger one is being built in its place, it makes one glad that Queen were able to play there and draw so many people to see them! I hope Brian and Roger will play at the new one...it wouldn't exactly be history repeating itself, but close enough! |
| Saint Jiub 29.01.2004 23:40 |
Oh eye C - u iz xpurt n uh muzishun 2 hoo haz red buks n I hav know rite to uh upinyon cuz I iz unedyouumikated. |
| Togg 30.01.2004 04:04 |
At the risk of repeating myself Guitar Hero, as you still seem to miss the point! All I have said is that is your opinion, NOT FACT, just your opinion which you are intitled to, just don't keep telling everyone your opinion is fact period, to quote your beloved phrase. And why qualify every thing you post with 'speaking as a musicain' so am I and have been for over twenty years, but that doesn't make my opinion any more important than anyone elses, these are opinions. Oh and before you shout again 'why can't we be critical' well you can, that NOT THE POINT, one more time so you really understand, it's your opinion Get it this time! |
| Fenderek 30.01.2004 09:58 |
< OK, but because of this over-promotion or whatever you call it, this gig became a "live Queen" trademark... It's not about- why was it released on video... What about CD...? There are many better shows... IF sth like Hammersmith'79 (my fav) or Milton Keynes or Houston'77 was out- people (general public, not ONLY fans) would consider it almost as good as "Made in Japan" Deep Purple or "Live in Leeds" The Who... The record like that would be a CLASSIC, because the PERFORMANCES were dazzling... I'm talking about CD- you don't have lights, you don't have stage- only music... Those shows I mentioned (or few others) could be a REAL example of how f**cking goog Queen live was... Instead of that (IMO not because of its class, but because of its over-promotion)- we've got Wembley as an ultimate Queen gig... And of course- IT IS GOOD. But it's not SO GOOD and it's too highly rated IMO... It's not a classic, when it gets to performance. Ask anyone who isn't exactly a die-hard Queen fan... You don't have to be a Deep Purple fan to consider MADE IN JAPAN as one of 2-3 best live records EVER... Some other Queen show WOULD be considered the same by general rock audience... Anyway- I've never seen Wembley CD in any general live albums poll- last time in CLASSIC ROCK "Live Killers" was somewhere between 20-30 position... No entry for Wembley... Guess why... |
| Togg 30.01.2004 10:12 |
Two things to consider here, 1) The Milton Keynes show did have a major problem when Brian's guitar lead came unstuck, not that that is too difficult to over-come but maybe Brian is not that happy with the show, and 2) the Wembley show contains more hits and arguably is Queen at their height of popularity so therefore it has to be the one to release. Also with the edit already done pretty much and it being a British group at the foremost UK location (cough) then is becomes a no-brainer from a business point of view. |
| The Real Wizard 30.01.2004 13:57 |
"And why qualify every thing you post with 'speaking as a musicain' so am I and have been for over twenty years, but that doesn't make my opinion any more important than anyone elses" When it comes to speaking about the technical aspect of music, it most certainly should! If the conversation was about law, and you were a qualified lawyer, I'd trust your opinion over a plumber's! "All I have said is that is your opinion, NOT FACT, just your opinion which you are intitled to, just don't keep telling everyone your opinion is fact period, to quote your beloved phrase." The fact that Brian missed many guitar parts is not an opinion. It is a fact. Watch the DVD, and watch Brian forget to do the solo in Hammer To Fall. It's also a fact that Freddie's voice wasn't in the best shape compared to other shows, not my opinion. Freddie could barely sustain an Ab at Wembley, but had no problems with a Bb in Budapest or almost any other Magic tour show. Those things are NOT opinions. I'm not talking about Freddie's showmanship here. In fact, he was probably better in that aspect than at a regular show, because he knew he was being filmed. Now, it *is* my opinion that the overall atmosphere of the show was amazing, making this a very triumphant concert for Queen. I'm sure most people here will agree with me there. But AGAIN, and for the LAST TIME, this topic was about the musical issues of the concert, which are not opinion-related. If you're not affected by musical mistakes in concerts, that's fine; this topic does not concern you then. This topic was aimed at people who do care about such differences from night to night. God, why the hell am I justifying myself? It's either you understand that musical technicality is NOT based on opinion, or you do not understand it. |
| Rich Tea 01.02.2004 16:13 |
Speaking purely as a fan! The problem with Queen live recordings is that they don't seem to capture the atmospere very well. Maybe its just me but they don't come anywhere near to being there! |
| Fenderek 26.07.2004 08:51 |
I'm actually wondering now... How will the new release (Milton Keynes) change ppl views on this subject... Especially those, who didn't hear much more than Wembley/Rio/Montreal stuff... And even those who heard plenty of boots- the sound on "On fire" is going to be as good as on Wembley, I'm sure... With a better performance... Well- just curious if it's going to open some eyes on the fact that Queen played many, many amazing gigs, much better than those mentioned above... Just wandering- how many ppl after seeing MK will still reamin on the position that "Wembley was the best"... |
| Sebastian 26.07.2004 09:20 |
The thing is that Wembley is very much a show for ... how to say... "average fans" (no offence). I mean, if you want the hits, you have them there (Pressure, Magic, Another One Bites, Bo Rhap, Break Fre...). If you want some no-hits, you have them (Is This The World, Tear It Up) If you want oldies you have some (Seven Seas, Lap Revisited, Now I'm Here), if you want covers you have some, if you want Fred at the piano you have Bo Rhap, if you want him at the guitar you have Crazy, if you want Brian playing the Red you have lots, if you want him on a Tele you have Crazy, if you want him on acoustic you have Love Of My Life, Is This The World, etc. If you want him on keyboard you have WWTLF. So it does have a lot. Plus guitar solo, blues impromptu, that day-oh thing with the audience... I personally prefer 70s concerts, like Hammersmith. They're great shows (with tambourine throwing, pyrotecnic fires, John playing triangle, Brian playing ukelele, great use of lights), and they're much more musical. |
| S@turn 26.07.2004 09:46 |
I think the wembley video is great, I dont see what's wrong with it. It lasted way too long before it finally complete (is it??) is released and that is the thing I blame Queenproductions for The qualitiy is good, I have seen Queen sometimes alive, and I realy love what I see in this dvd I do care about good quality, but I do not hear the difference between excellent and very good, I think For me there are more important things that the quality of the sound, like the performance, climate of the show and the interaction between public and performers It is an awesome show I never compared live shows with the albums, because the albums tend to perfectionism and on stage the band was simply a damn good rock band with a fantastic show, that developed through the years It is normal as well that through successfull years the shows change to "greatest hits" shows and the more unknown works are slightly disappearing from stage You cant expect that million sellers are not sang in favor of the favorite non hits of "experts" like queen fans are (no matter if they are musicians or, like me, just loving music) |
| Ramses 26.07.2004 10:22 |
Sir GH wrote: Also, Brian was missing guitar cues all over the place.Really? Wow...I must have a bad music ear...I didn't notice any abnormalities. Then again, I expect a live version to sound different. |
| Ramses 26.07.2004 10:23 |
Sebastian wrote: The thing is that Wembley is very much a show for ... how to say... "average fans" (no offence). I mean, if you want the hits, you have them there (Pressure, Magic, Another One Bites, Bo Rhap, Break Fre...). If you want some no-hits, you have them (Is This The World, Tear It Up) If you want oldies you have some (Seven Seas, Lap Revisited, Now I'm Here), if you want covers you have some, if you want Fred at the piano you have Bo Rhap, if you want him at the guitar you have Crazy, if you want Brian playing the Red you have lots, if you want him on a Tele you have Crazy, if you want him on acoustic you have Love Of My Life, Is This The World, etc. If you want him on keyboard you have WWTLF. So it does have a lot. Plus guitar solo, blues impromptu, that day-oh thing with the audience... I personally prefer 70s concerts, like Hammersmith. They're great shows (with tambourine throwing, pyrotecnic fires, John playing triangle, Brian playing ukelele, great use of lights), and they're much more musical.Very good point. I too prefer the earlier concerts (Hammersmith and Earl's Court especially) because there was less show and more of just their music and Freddie cavorting around stage. |
| Maz 26.07.2004 11:09 |
"The thing is that Wembley is very much a show for ... how to say... "average fans" " It is a great show, and I love my DVD, but it is the Greatest Hits concert, as Sebastian alludes to. I'm looking forward to MK because of the deviation in the normal setlist. I'm not sure how this will sell to the masses, however, and I hope this doesn't deter any future Queen DVDs that might come from a non-Magic Tour show. |
| Fenderek 26.07.2004 11:18 |
" I'm not sure how this will sell to the masses, however, and I hope this doesn't deter any future Queen DVDs that might come from a non-Magic Tour show." I have to say that's something I'm worried about... On one hand- it's an awesome gig, one of the best captured on the film... On the other- will it sell, not having all those "Ga-Ga's" and "Break Frees"...? And what if it won't sell...? Brian and Roger were saying sth about Hammersmith show (was it 75 or 79 they were mentioning?)... Seems like they want to release this stuff, but... What if Milton Keynes flops...? Will Wembley remain as the trademark Queen show for non-die hards...? |
| Sebastian 26.07.2004 12:03 |
Milton Keynes still has enough hits for a million seller - AOBTD, CLTCL, UP, both sport anthems, Play The Game. Moreover it has that legendary (amongst fans) version of Somebody To Love, which hopefully will overtake the legendary (to the world) George Michael one. It's still a risk (with the Hot Space tracks) but I expect it to pay off well. Hammersmith '75 (which is the one they were talking about, I guess, since I seem to remember Brian saying something about not having enough Kampuchea stuff or something like that) would be a great choice and a good seller for prog fans (or fans of the slightly prog Queen). They should try it, if they see that they can also sell with more musical and less pop DVDs, maybe they'd consider more 70s concerts for the future, like a complete Rainbow or a good quality Jazz tour gig (if there's any, I don't know about that anyway) And, since I haven't said anything about Wembley (in the case that even one of the posters is even slightly interested in my opinion, otherwise still I don't lose anything writing it): Some time ago my brother and I put all the songs of Wembley and Budapest in a vs, just musical aspects. I don't remember which night won:) but, I, personally, prefer Wembley. Musically I think Budapest was slightly better (except for the voice in 'Who Wants To Live Forever'), but show-wise Wembley was better And you all know I'm more into musical aspects than entertaining aspects, but in the case of Magic Tour shows, they were made more for big shows, with a frontman, with audience participation, with John's funny looks, Brian's hero pose during solos, Fred's "I'm the best" face playing the left hand fast piano scale in Bo Rhap, etc. Those shows are more focused on that, than in "the chord is Adim and not Adim7" problems. And, based on that, I think Wembley developed better that idea. |
| Lord Blackadder 26.07.2004 12:15 |
The people who say Wembley is overrated are the same people who say 'we don't like Bohemian Rhapsody, it's boring' and are the same as the Zeppelin fans who say they don't like Stairway To Heaven, it's the worst song. They are just trying to be differant. They don't want to like what the majority like. Why I'll never know... |
| Lord Stepford II 26.07.2004 12:19 |
*edited* |
| Sebastian 26.07.2004 12:25 |
Lord Blackadder wrote: The people who say Wembley is overrated are the same people who say 'we don't like Bohemian Rhapsody, it's boring' and are the same as the Zeppelin fans who say they don't like Stairway To Heaven, it's the worst song. They are just trying to be differant. They don't want to like what the majority like. Why I'll never know...Thanks, you reminded me what was I going to write here in the first place. I don't accuse Fenderek of doing that, I just mean that sometimes it looks cool to pick more obscure stuff and then be a real fan. Just like you say. But it's difficult to draw deep conclusions. Most Queen fans have Queen II, Innuendo or Opera as the top album. Therefore, if your fave record is one of those you can be accused of "following the masses", and you just choose to like 'The Works', for instance. But what if you really like 'The Works' (which is my least favourite btw)? Same case. That time will come when it'd be "cool" to hate 'March Of the Black Queen' because a lot of people love it. Still there can be people who geniunely hate it, and not because it's the "most overrated track". Stairway is, in my opinion, the greatest rock song ever (even though it's not my favourite, not even in the A side of the album). Yeah, millions of guitarists (or guitar apprendices) play that intro thousands of times in a lifetime. Millions of people know the track, and like it. Is it overrated or overplayed? In my opinion, no. We can't blame LZ for making such a wonderful record. |
| KillerQueen840 26.07.2004 23:17 |
Are you serious? I completely disagree. I thought Wembley (well I wasn't there I wasn't even born but from what I saw on the DVD) was an amazing performance. Every time I watch it I feel like there's something magical about it. I feel like I'm there. That is my favorite QUEEN DVD. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 26.07.2004 23:21 |
I love Wembley, but I think it's so celebrated because it's the one of the most well-known Queen performances. Maybe it's because of the DVD, or because it was a huge gig on their last tour. |
| Fenderek 27.07.2004 06:57 |
I agree with Sebastian here... Every time ppl start to discuss about music there's this argument about following masses / being original for the sake of it- which kills the discussion IMO... It's not because it's "cool" not to like WEMBLEY- I honestly think that around 50 other gigs I've heard are far better than this show... Friday night was good, but Saturday... I'll never say a bad word about Queen II or ANATO- am I following masses? I really can't stand 82-86 period- am I just trying to be cool...? F**k it- this way we'll never say what we think about this and that... It's of course easier to say that whatever Queen did was sheer genius and every single release is brilliant; all their decissions are fantastic; that I don't have favs- I love all the albums equally, I love the whole thing, I love Wembley, I love every single note they ever played- I'm the real fan... pretty dull, isn't it? I like "Stairway To Heaven"... It's not (IMO) one of the best songs ever... It's not even the best Zeps song (I really prefer "Gallows Pole" or especially "No Quarter")- but it's defintely not the worst... "D'yers Mak'er" is the one...:) And what- can't one say sth like that? What about those who really can't stand "Stairway..."? I for instance really, really can't stand "Radio Ga-Ga" and "We Are The Champions"- I REALLY CAN'T!!!! And what- can't I express it, because ppl will accuse me of trying to be cool...? Can't I criticise Wembley without being accused of desperately trying to be different...? I do believe it's the best quality Queen live document avaliable (not for long, I hope)... But I prefer to watch Budapest, simply because the performance is much better! And I'm really looking forward to Milton Keynes release, because than- if sound and picture quality will be similiar- I'll have an ultimate (well, almost) Queen performance out- and believe me, if the whole world is going to say it's awesome, I won't start to criticise it just for the sake of it.... |
| Roy ® 27.07.2004 07:55 |
At all, there is one conclusion: Everybody has a different taste. The first one loves Wembley ande the other one thinks it´s a average concert. My opinion is: I Love the concert |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2004 20:10 |
I see Fenderek's post is over the heads of most here. Good show, F. I've always liked your sense of individualism. |
| Lord Blackadder 28.07.2004 07:58 |
"Stairway is, in my opinion, the greatest rock song ever (even though it's not my favourite, not even in the A side of the album). Yeah, millions of guitarists (or guitar apprendices) play that intro thousands of times in a lifetime. Millions of people know the track, and like it. Is it overrated or overplayed? In my opinion, no. We can't blame LZ for making such a wonderful record". No,i agree. I wasnt saying i dont like Stairway. I was saying that some people say they dont. I do, it's just not quite as good as Bohemian Rhapsody. Or am i just following the masses???... |
| Oberon 28.07.2004 08:57 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Budapest was in terms of performance probably better than Wembley, yet still it hasn't been as commercialized because the audio and video quality wasn't as good as the Wembley show. I'm sure Budapest has been considered to be released and perhaps it will, but they can't release just one video after the other because production companies don't want their releases to compete against each other.But Budapest was the original release on VHS at the time from the tour and Wembley released later (due to popular demand? or money?). What does this say about what the band thought about the two performances? |
| Fenderek 28.07.2004 08:58 |
No,i agree. I wasnt saying i dont like Stairway. I was saying that some people say they dont. I do, it's just not quite as good as Bohemian Rhapsody.Make a "Best Ever!! Round1 (Final 2)" to solve this... |
| Fenderek 28.07.2004 08:59 |
*double post* |
| Fenderek 28.07.2004 10:44 |
"Budapest was in terms of performance probably better than Wembley, yet still it hasn't been as commercialized because the audio and video quality wasn't as good as the Wembley show. " Isn't the Budapest video better quality that wembley...? Sth to do with 35mm/70mm film tape...? And is really Wembley's sound better than Budapest's...? I know Wembley is in 5.1 but after doing the same with the other show- would it still be better...? |
| bitesthedust 28.07.2004 13:35 |
I've never been a fan of the Magic Tour setlist (too many songs from "The Works") but the Wembley gig is still good. |