| agneepath! 11994 05.10.2004 15:29 |
a simple question: Queen's performance was the highlight of the day... is it because: Queen were very good or other bands were poor/ average? i've not really seen other performances on the day (eagerly waiting for the DVD!) Queen were serious about it and rehearsed it perfectly but this is something that I've always wondered... |
| deleted user 05.10.2004 15:33 |
Isn't it that Queen was rather hesitant to perform because of no sound checks, no playback, and so on.. right? That makes it all the more challenging, knowing how meticulous and perfectionistic our favorite band is. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 05.10.2004 15:34 |
How Good??? Very Good. Queen by by far and away the best band of the day. |
| Lester Burnham 05.10.2004 15:44 |
While Queen's performance was nearly flawless, it's also that the other bands came unprepared, most notably The Who: John Entwistle's bass was out of tune the entire set, and Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend weren't totally in sync with each other, and I've read that they both fell over at different times! Led Zeppelin were also unprepared, and I can't say too much about David Bowie's performance except that, from what I understand, it was actually a decent performance, but nowhere near as good as Queen's. It's of my opinion that Queen had actually taken the time to rehearse their set as opposed to just going on and playing the hits, which seemed to be the style that most other bands were doing; therefore, they sounded the best, and, together with Freddie's crowd interaction, fuelled their passion for live performance and delivered one of the best shows of their career. Bam. |
| Robin 05.10.2004 15:51 |
I remember they broadcast it on tv and radio and of course I was only waitng for Queen. I had not "seen" them around the US since 1982 so it was a great treat. They knocked everyone else out of the park. They were awesome. |
| deleted user 05.10.2004 16:40 |
Lester Burnham wrote: While Queen's performance was nearly flawless, it's also that the other bands came unprepared, most notably The Who: John Entwistle's bass was out of tune the entire set, and Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend weren't totally in sync with each other, and I've read that they both fell over at different times! Led Zeppelin were also unprepared, and I can't say too much about David Bowie's performance except that, from what I understand, it was actually a decent performance, but nowhere near as good as Queen's. It's of my opinion that Queen had actually taken the time to rehearse their set as opposed to just going on and playing the hits, which seemed to be the style that most other bands were doing; therefore, they sounded the best, and, together with Freddie's crowd interaction, fuelled their passion for live performance and delivered one of the best shows of their career. Bam.Well said. |
| Sebastian 05.10.2004 17:27 |
I feel the Live Aid performance is over-rated. I do prefer it over the Works tour gigs, but not even close to Magic tour concerts (even though Magic tour is not my favourite tour from that band). Having said that, I think Queen & Spike played very good, unfortunately the few time they had didn't allow proper CLTCL & HTF renditions, and the short WWRY is a little bit of a dissapointment to me. Anyway it was the first Queen "concert" I ever saw so I didn't have other frames of reference the first time, and I did like it. David Bowie was ok, but not on top of form imo. Elton John was my favourite, Sting played quite good but Every Breath You Take (one of my very very very favourite songs ever) sounded awful even though he did it with Phil (I think); that song (and others of the concert like Let It Be, Stairway and the two finales) show that you can put a zillion stars together and still don't get a good thing done. |
| jericho05 05.10.2004 17:32 |
I think they were that damn good because they were one of the only bands who did exactly what was expected. That is rock the floor for fifteen or twenty minutes. They made the best use of the time they had and presented it with their usual professionalism. They seemed by far the most "ready" of any act. |
| brENsKi 05.10.2004 17:34 |
the live aid gig was them at their best because they were the only band to truly grasp the idea behind the day....It was billed as a global jukebox and queen trotted out a well-rehearsed medley of jukebox hits - 17 minutes - six hits - classic stuff ...while other supposedly greater and more "now" bands - u2/bowie/who dronned on and on into meandering versions of songs as for the works tour - i loved that tour....see new thread |
| Lester Burnham 05.10.2004 17:38 |
Sebastian wrote: that song (and others of the concert like Let It Be, Stairway and the two finales) show that you can put a zillion stars together and still don't get a good thing done.Hahaha. Btw, I don't think the picture from the Long Away sessions works properly, unless it's the one of John sitting in the studio. In which case, how can you tell that's from Long Away? |
| jericho05 05.10.2004 17:46 |
Actually I liked U2 at live aid. I thought they were one of the better ones. They were a relatively new band at the time and they made quite an impression on me then. I haven't seen the performance in years so maybe I am remembering it differently. |
| Rich Tea 05.10.2004 18:09 |
As someone who was fortunate enough to be at Wembley on that day I can say there was one very good reason why Queen were the best band of the day - Freddie Mercury and perhaps another reason - audience participation - They played the songs people wanted to hear they were not self indulgent and they got everyone singing along with them. There were a lot of excellent performances on the day U2/Bowie/Dire Straits/Sade/Status Quo/Elton John etc. Considering the circumstances 20 minute sets revolving stage one artist on as one went off you can't possibly compare it to a full Queen tour! Shame that people can now only rate it on the bootlegs they have heard it was an event that I will remember vividly forever!!!! |
| LiveAidQueen 05.10.2004 18:49 |
Very well. |
| love of my life 14018 05.10.2004 19:01 |
I'll let you know when I get the DVD. Aggghhhh, another whole month.... |
| deleted user 06.10.2004 01:03 |
Queen on Fire and LiveAid. Great christmas presents... |
| The Mir@cle 06.10.2004 09:30 |
I'm already saving my money. |
| Lord Blackadder 06.10.2004 10:57 |
There wasn't/isn't a better live act than Queen. Thats why they were best. |
| Nikos 06.10.2004 13:03 |
they were great |
| brENsKi 06.10.2004 13:52 |
have to add to that as someone who saw them live five times birmingham 24.11.1979, Milton Keynes 5.6.82, Birmingham 2.9.84, Wembley 13.7.86 and Knebworth 9.8.86 - there were NONE better live and in my time i've seen some bands - AC/DC (x4), deep purple, scorpions, ufo, dire straits, bowie, elton john, inxs (x2), blue oyster cult, whitesnake (x3), rainbow, teardrop explodes (supporting queen at MK), status quo (x4), meatloaf (x2), and loads of others but as i said before none of em came close - because none had such talent coupled with a great frontman who could hold the audience in the palm of his hand |
| brENsKi 06.10.2004 14:00 |
...and i wasn't slagging the u2/bowie performances - both were good on the day - but they both produces tow very long meandering numbers "bad" and "heroes" - i think - that missed the concept of the day - ie- the global jukebox |
| high-flying-adored 06.10.2004 22:32 |
Absolutely fabulous, nothing less. |
| Giacco 73 07.10.2004 00:52 |
Queen were absolutely the best band of the day making all the others acts so boring in comparison and Live Aid was the highlight of their concerts during the 80's. It prove to everyone they were/are the best live band and Freddie the best frontman in the world ever. |
| Voice of Reason 2018 07.10.2004 07:57 |
Queen were superb and Freddie was on top form. Made me proud of them. Also brought them to a new audience - even my gran said 'Your fella sang lovely'! |