luis663 21.09.2005 14:05 |
This may be heresy for some, don't get wrong I've been a Queen fan for 25 years now...but always wondered why Roger's drums sound like if he were hitting empty cans, and doing backing vocals like a cat?...or Freddie going totally out of tune, like if he were singing a different song, becauise he can't hit the high notes live...Brian sometimes goes somewhere else in some songs. Is it because Queen was basically a studio band, so prolific and elaborated and impossible to do a decent job live? |
deleted user 21.09.2005 14:09 |
1-wrong forum 2-i think your wrong in some cases, Queen rocked live and 3-they are only human, they cant sound exactly like studio albums you know, most of the artists that do sound like studios are MIMING, fakin there own live performance. |
Jjeroen 21.09.2005 14:14 |
No - Queen live definately rocked, there can be no question about that. But indeed, some nights they could be crappy. Too bad that some of the few officially released live shows are indeed recorded on 'not the best' nights. But there are plenty of not-released recordings (AND some official ones!) to prove you wrong for once and for all! cheers |
tilomagnet 21.09.2005 14:47 |
IMO unlike many other artists Queen never did a tour on which they played really bad throughout the whole tour. Even the one that I'd consider their worst(Works tour) had some outstanding shows. |
Mr_Bad_Guy_91 21.09.2005 14:54 |
QUEEN ROCKS |
deleted user 21.09.2005 15:21 |
no, they don't suck live. IMHO they are the best live band. We got sertain bootlegs (earls court, hyde park) wich sound less due to recording problems (and earls courts performance is also a collection of false notes yes) But further has anyone ever heared the copy from the master from the Rainbow '74 (march show)? They sound so pure live. Freddie's voice in budapest? Hammy, Houston just the entire NOTW tour is fantastic ,I mean give me a better live show. Studio and live they where the best. I take a friend for example who only likes to listen to live versions (On Fire fanatic). |
Jjeroen 21.09.2005 15:36 |
And what about the early 80's?! Those shows in south america KICKED ASS!! |
Moustache 21.09.2005 15:42 |
For sure Queen did not suck live!!! Of course they sound very different as you compare it to the studio work but the shows were really good!!! And Queen wanted to entertain, not just make music and that is really clear if you watch the dvds wembley and at the bowl... it is a total spectacle... and the improvisation that happened on stage is really superb... and of course sometimes things went wrong but Queen was only human so mistakes happened... but for me: Queen is a really good live band but with a totally different sound than the studio. |
BHM3368 21.09.2005 16:06 |
Queen always saw themselves as a live Band. They never wanted to make the live songs sound like the studio songs. Freddie had fun to improvise on stage, thats for sure. I can't say much about live sound and mixing, often it's the acoustic of the venue and a bootleg is not the same as a soundboard recording. |
FriedChicken 21.09.2005 18:46 |
I agree that Queen weren't the best playing live band of all time, but you're seriously overdoing :P |
Sithmarauder 21.09.2005 20:03 |
Yeah Brian was sloppy at times and Freddie couldn't hit the highs but so what. What made Queen great as a live band was that they did great live versions of their songs without sounding like the studio recording (ie Liar 1975 Christmas Show). If you want to hear a so called live performer that sounds like their studio recording try todays POP artists that we are forced to hear on top 40 radio!!! Queen were hands down the greatest live performers of my time. Have you forgotten Live Aid already? No one came close to them that day. |
PainPleasure 21.09.2005 21:37 |
whatever... |
The Real Wizard 21.09.2005 21:40 |
jeroen wrote: Those shows in south america KICKED ASS!!Definitely! Which show is your favourite from this period? I'd have to go with the third night in Buenos Aires, 3-8-81. I love Queen live, and I will always be one to admit that they had their flaws. Brian's vocal harmonies often sucked, and Freddie's vocal range was often limited. But - Brian would make many of their songs totally rock on stage, like Magic, Break Free, Calling All Girls, Back Chat, Spread Your Wings, the list goes on. Since their studio arrangements were usually pretty complex, they needed to rework songs for the stage - and I think it always worked. Well, with the possible exception of Body Language. Everything else was fantastic, even with their occasional shortcomings. However - this is a good time for me to say that Led Zeppelin are my favourite live band of all time. Although many shows later in their career were plagued by Jimmy Page's drug problems, from 69-75 they were virtually unbeatable. 71-73 were truly golden years. Every night of a tour would be almost the same setlist, but every show is so very different in so many ways. No band before or since has defined spontaneous brilliance like Zeppelin. |
crevecon 22.09.2005 00:08 |
Well, queen doesn´t suck live, but the tone in which Freddie sang were very much complicated to be sung live and of course the same way. I think it wasn´t that bad that Freddie couldn´t have done the same vocals within his concerts but nobody can, in fact, after having sung more than 10 song in a row. Freddie and queen were and will be the best rock band ever. |
deleted user 22.09.2005 03:54 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I'm totally in love with Sao Paulo 20.03.81 and I also like Buenos Aires 38.02.81 very mutch :D.jeroen wrote: Those shows in south america KICKED ASS!!Definitely! Which show is your favourite from this period? I'd have to go with the third night in Buenos Aires, 3-8-81. If somebody has that Buenos Aires first night video please contact me. Bob, I couldn't agree with you about the Led Zeppelin thing. Indeed they where a fabulous live band (Judging from my boots), but for me Queen will always beat them. |
Ozzy Queen 22.09.2005 05:12 |
Queen are voted one of the best live bands of all time. in my opinion, the best. The thing i feel about them live is, it's not the same which is good. It's like your getting two different songs. So you can buy their live albums and not be disappointed. And sure Freddies voice may not have been the same but it was still a beautiful voice. And with the energy he put into a stage show was fantastic |
BHM3368 22.09.2005 05:17 |
The Lord Of Darkness wrote: ...Bob, I couldn't agree with you about the Led Zeppelin thing. Indeed they where a fabulous live band (Judging from my boots), but for me Queen will always beat them....Just hear Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, trying to sing Queen's Innuendo at Freddie Mercury tribute in 1992. Even though it WAS part of the second half of the concert - they cutted it out on the DVD :D |
bgordon88 22.09.2005 05:37 |
Queen were very fast - almost anarchic. It case of having to be there really. I don't think they always held up as live recordings but they sure were fun !!!! |
mazz 22.09.2005 06:46 |
no they rocked in and out of the studio they r just simply the best darlings |
Queen& 22.09.2005 06:54 |
queen sound these days like a tribute band queen just sound like the band from we will rock you |
FriedChicken 22.09.2005 08:36 |
"Just hear Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, trying to sing Queen's Innuendo at Freddie Mercury tribute in 1992. Even though it WAS part of the second half of the concert - they cutted it out on the DVD :D" Just hear Freddie Mercury of Queen, trying to sing Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song at Berlin in 1986. Same story.. It sucked! |
Fenderek 22.09.2005 09:04 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Definitely! Which show is your favourite from this period? I'd have to go with the third night in Buenos Aires, 3-8-81.I guess a popular choice, but I reckon 20-3 is one f THE best Queen live shows EVER... Pity Brian fucked up solo during STL- taht would have been the best version of taht songs- Fred's ad-libs are nothing short of sensational!!! And I agree about Zeps- Queen definitely weren't the best live band ever but i also wouldn't call them a studio one... As mentioned by many people- there is a large number of songs that sound FAR better than the studio cuts- Spread Your Wings, White Queen, See What A Fool I've Been, Staying Power, Life Is Real, even the hits like Somebody To Love or We Will rock you (fast version kicks ass!)... I dunno- som things sound better in studio (Death on Two Legs, Flick Of The wrist), some better live... And as jeroen said- unfortunately some official releases come from "not so good" night (i.e. Wembley... ) |
dodo^^ 22.09.2005 09:35 |
You suck not Queen. You say you are a Queen fan for 25 years i don't belive this bull you're telling us. You say Queen suck live :)) than why all music specialists and very many people say Queen are one of the best LIVE BANDS EVER??????????????????????????!!!!!!!!! |
Charlie Gimbert 22.09.2005 10:13 |
luis663, what queen records do you have? greatest hits 1,2, or 3? |
Krizzy 22.09.2005 11:06 |
Man! Tell me Luis, who pissed in your Cheerios this morning! |
The Real Wizard 22.09.2005 11:16 |
BHM3368 wrote: Just hear Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, trying to sing Queen's Innuendo at Freddie Mercury tribute in 1992. Even though it WAS part of the second half of the concert - they cutted it out on the DVD :DDon't judge Led Zeppelin by one average performance by one of its members. That would be like judging Queen live after listening to one of Brian's concerts from 1993. Or how about judging Freddie Mercury's voice from the Japan 79 shows? If that's how good he was all the time, he never would have been a popular singer, because his voice was awful on that tour. Zeppelin's How The West Was Won... that's a rock concert. That destroys any the officially-released Queen concerts. |
Fenderek 22.09.2005 11:31 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Zeppelin's How The West Was Won... that's a rock concert. That destroys any the officially-released Queen concerts.Personally I'd add Who's "Live in Leeds" and- my fav live album of all time- Deep Purple's "Made in Japan"... |
on my way up 22.09.2005 12:55 |
Queen is fantastic live.They will always be my number 1.That isjust because I like their songs the best,I like freddie's voice best of all voices and non-one plays guitar like brian plays the Red Special:-)Of course there are other quality-bands aswell.One has often been named here:led zeppelin!their virtuosity is unique but they do not have the humor or great presentation of queen.Freddie is a born entertainer and a real star.Robert plant is just a singer:I don't like watching him very much,to be honest. |
deleted user 22.09.2005 13:51 |
maybe somebody needs them ears tuned? Queen are the best Live ever--- At least they are great entertainers,wich these days are missing obviously.... |
Yoda 23.09.2005 04:55 |
3* taylorgaga (Begg) wrote: 1-wrong forum 2-i think your wrong in some cases, Queen rocked live and 3-they are only human, they cant sound exactly like studio albums you know, most of the artists that do sound like studios are MIMING, fakin there own live performance.HERE, HERE!!!! |
Sithmarauder 24.09.2005 07:41 |
I've hear many bootlegs of Zeppelin Concerts and one of them being the MSG concert (The Song Remains The Same) and there was some major editing done to make that show sound good enough to release officially. How the West was Won was taken from 2 shows LA Forum/Long Beach 1972 (as you should know). You can't compare a realease that was taken from seperate shows to a single concert. If Zep was so great live, they would only need a single show for that release. Any band can take the best performances and compile them into one great sounding concert. If Zeppelin was better than Queen in anything, It would be that they were a true heavy rock band that did it better than anybody. |
The Real Wizard 24.09.2005 22:07 |
Fenderek wrote: Personally I'd add Who's "Live in Leeds" and- my fav live album of all time- Deep Purple's "Made in Japan"...Duly noted. I love those albums, too! Check your email, Tom! on my way up wrote: led zeppelin!their virtuosity is unique but they do not have the humor or great presentation of queen.Freddie is a born entertainer and a real star.Robert plant is just a singer:I don't like watching him very much,to be honest.Plant had a hell of a sense of humour on stage. His stage banter would be different each night. Some of my favourite Zeppelin concert moments are the plantations. He knew how to create a vibe between songs. Sithmarauder wrote: How the West was Won was taken from 2 shows LA Forum/Long Beach 1972 (as you should know). You can't compare a realease that was taken from seperate shows to a single concert. If Zep was so great live, they would only need a single show for that release.There is a good possibility that some of the tapes became damaged over the years. Disc 3 could have easily contained Thank You and Communication Breakdown, as the performances were stunning, so I see no musical reason as to why Page would have cut those songs out. Also keep in mind, those concerts were not recorded with the intention of being released officially, unlike Queen at Wembley. And are you forgetting that all of Queen's live albums are full of overdubs? How The West Was Won is a pretty honest live document, with very few alterations. |
Sithmarauder 25.09.2005 00:09 |
Your point is well taken Sir GH, about the Wembley GIG,yes I am aware that their Live albums are full of overdubs. Brian admitted on a radio interview when Live Killers was released in the US that live albumns were a copout because of the overdubbing. Frankly I never saw the reason for the overdubbing. I seen almost all of Queens shows at Madison Square Garden and I thought most were really tight. The best was A Day At the Races show. Unfortunately Freddies voice sounded a bit tired. I had a bootleg copy of that show on 8 track at one time but ,I lost it in a flood. Don't get me wrong Led Zeppelin does Rock. They are considered Rock Gods on every Rock Station here in NY and rightfully so. I guess it's unfair to try and compare the 2 bands since they are different styles. But they do share one thing. They're great. |
The Real Wizard 25.09.2005 23:13 |
Sithmarauder wrote: Your point is well taken Sir GH, about the Wembley GIG,yes I am aware that their Live albums are full of overdubs. Brian admitted on a radio interview when Live Killers was released in the US that live albumns were a copout because of the overdubbing. Frankly I never saw the reason for the overdubbing. I seen almost all of Queens shows at Madison Square Garden and I thought most were really tight. The best was A Day At the Races show. Unfortunately Freddies voice sounded a bit tired. I had a bootleg copy of that show on 8 track at one time but ,I lost it in a flood. Don't get me wrong Led Zeppelin does Rock. They are considered Rock Gods on every Rock Station here in NY and rightfully so. I guess it's unfair to try and compare the 2 bands since they are different styles. But they do share one thing. They're great.Agreed! My sympathies for your bootleg, lol! How good did it sound, and was it the complete show? The current bootleg is decent quality, but certainly not excellent. |
Sithmarauder 26.09.2005 13:28 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Thanks, I've been in morning ever since I lost that tape. LOLSithmarauder wrote: Your point is well taken Sir GH, about the Wembley GIG,yes I am aware that their Live albums are full of overdubs. Brian admitted on a radio interview when Live Killers was released in the US that live albumns were a copout because of the overdubbing. Frankly I never saw the reason for the overdubbing. I seen almost all of Queens shows at Madison Square Garden and I thought most were really tight. The best was A Day At the Races show. Unfortunately Freddies voice sounded a bit tired. I had a bootleg copy of that show on 8 track at one time but ,I lost it in a flood. Don't get me wrong Led Zeppelin does Rock. They are considered Rock Gods on every Rock Station here in NY and rightfully so. I guess it's unfair to try and compare the 2 bands since they are different styles. But they do share one thing. They're great.Agreed! My sympathies for your bootleg, lol! How good did it sound, and was it the complete show? The current bootleg is decent quality, but certainly not excellent. The recording was the complete show and the sound quality was very good for an audience recording(it didn't sound like a drive by recording if you know what I mean). It cost me 2 hard earned paychecks to buy that one. The shop owner knew I was a big Queen Fan so he took advantage. Unfortunately I didn't have the equipment to make a back up copy. |
The Real Wizard 27.09.2005 13:41 |
No chance to track down another copy, eh? |
Sithmarauder 27.09.2005 15:02 |
I was told that there are some record stores in the village area of New York that carry rare bootlegs. When I have the time to get there I'm going shop around for some Queen/Zep stuff. |