| lozitopj 22.09.2005 10:51 |
In response to the posting by LUIS663, I felt compelled to put up a new post about Queen being one of the best bands live. Luis663 is allowed to have a opinion, but to say Queen was a terrible band live was a wrong statement. I became a drummer because of Roger and Freddie is the best rock singer of all time. Nobody could even come close to his voice, and that was evident in the FM Tribute Concert. I hope everyone, including Luis663 has a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Serry... 22.09.2005 11:14 |
On behalf of band's name - thank you! |
| Yoda 23.09.2005 04:53 |
lozitopj wrote: In response to the posting by LUIS663, I felt compelled to put up a new post about Queen being one of the best bands live. Luis663 is allowed to have a opinion, but to say Queen was a terrible band live was a wrong statement. I became a drummer because of Roger and Freddie is the best rock singer of all time. Nobody could even come close to his voice, and that was evident in the FM Tribute Concert. I hope everyone, including Luis663 has a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!Exactly right!!! i've never even been to a Queen concert, and even i can see that QUEEN R THE BEST!!! |
| flash00. 23.09.2005 12:33 |
lozitopj wrote: In response to the posting by LUIS663, I felt compelled to put up a new post about Queen being one of the best bands live. Luis663 is allowed to have a opinion, but to say Queen was a terrible band live was a wrong statement. I became a drummer because of Roger and Freddie is the best rock singer of all time. Nobody could even come close to his voice, and that was evident in the FM Tribute Concert. I hope everyone, including Luis663 has a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!i couldn't of said it better, and i have seen queen live in 86, and they were amazing!!!! imo they were and are the greatest band ever, and one day the press will aknowledge this and champion freddie/queen instead of slating them, |
| chewing gum bum 24.09.2005 07:18 |
I became a fan when NOTW came out in 77. Saw them in 78 and 80 here in the States. Their shows were INCREDIBLE... and loud!The memories those two shows created have stayed with me all these years and two of the best I've ever seen! Unless Luis has seen them live in concert, he doesn't know what he's talking about! |
| Sebastian 24.09.2005 08:44 |
I respectfully disagree. IMO the fact they needed an auxiliar keyboardist was pathetic. There are - imho - bands who play much better live: Metallica, Iron Maiden, Scorpions and of course Pink Floyd. |
| Lord Blackadder 24.09.2005 08:58 |
Sebastian wrote: I respectfully disagree. IMO the fact they needed an auxiliar keyboardist was pathetic. There are - imho - bands who play much better live: Metallica, Iron Maiden, Scorpions and of course Pink Floyd.Why is it pathetic they needed a keyboardist? Would you rather have had Freddie stand there at a keyboard all night? Also every Metallica song sounds identical. It's just noise. As do most of Maidens. Scorpions are actually quite boring. Can't argue with the Floyd though. But I still say Queen & Zeppelin are the 2 best live bands ever. |
| Sebastian 24.09.2005 18:41 |
> Would you rather have had Freddie stand there at a keyboard all night? I wouldn't mind. I know most of fans would disagree with what I'm saying, but I always hated Fred's stage antics. I've never seen what's so brilliant about a chap running around the stage or making the audience say "eeeeooooo". If I want to see somebody dancing, I prefer Michael Jackson; if I want to say "eeeeeeoooooo" I can watch Teletubbies. If I go to a concert is to listen to good music, not to see somebody pretending to be a dancer. I know many people love Fred doing that, and I respect so, but I agree to disagree. Anyway, I like Queen Live in the 70s, they did superb arrangements - e.g. White Queen - not needing anybody else. I've never seen why did they need Morgan, Fred or Spike anyway. Except for Crazy Little Thing, but the other songs could have been easily performed either with Mercury at the piano (e.g. Friends Will Be Friends) or in a guitar-bass-drums setting (listen to the extraordinary way Extreme did Ga Ga and Break Free at Wembley). |
| goinback 24.09.2005 18:44 |
Speaking as someone whose other favorite band is Pink Floyd, you forget that on the 1987 tour onwards Floyd had about a zillion more people on stage rather than simply an extra keyboard player ;) And when going to a concert, it's so loud I can't hear the music anyway. To me it's more about the spectacle and excitement of the performer, maybe the lights, and of being with other people who like the same songs. If I wanted to hear music played perfectly then I'd just listen to the CDs. |
| Sebastian 24.09.2005 18:47 |
> Speaking as someone whose other favorite band is Pink Floyd, you forget that on the 1987 tour onwards Floyd had about a zillion more people on stage rather than simply an extra keyboard player ;) Yes but in that case it was neccesary. As I said, what were Spike and the other blokes for? besides Crazy Little Thing (where Freddie couldn't play piano and guitar at the same time) there wasn't any actual need for them. > To me anyway it's more about the spectacle and excitement of the performer, maybe the lights, and of being with other people who like the same songs. If all you want to hear is music played perfectly then that's what CDs are for IMHO (well vinyl at least).... Yes and that's a respectable opinion. I never said that the band had to reproduce the songs exactly the way they did them. In fact I mentioned they could have made synth-free arrangements for numbers like Ga Ga or Break Free. Anyway, the world would be so bleeding boring if everybody had the same taste. |
| goinback 24.09.2005 18:49 |
Why did PF need all those extra people? Why does it take two drummers to play the intro to "Time"? I actually don't know myself...it just seems like a lot of bands do that for some reason so I don't know if it's a bad thing or not. |
| Sebastian 24.09.2005 18:57 |
Because the concept of Pink Floyd concerts was different. Perhaps it wasn't neccesary two drummers for Time, but since they were in the mood of hiring extra people. I enjoy both sides of the Floyd in that sense: just the four of them as in Pompeii or with half of England in the stage. I would have liked as well if Queen had ever tried that out, looking for the big sound. It'd have given the chance for Roger to sing lead on stage much more or play guitar, which I would just love. In the same way I like the way that just the four of them playing instruments and singing for instance in the mid-70s medleys, that they seized semi-complex arrangements but still were able to do the vocal parts without an extra. What I don't like is the mediocre mid-point: not having an expanded sound but leaving their four-member formula. |
| goinback 24.09.2005 19:05 |
Actually, yeah I see what you're saying and I agree with you there. I didn't really like other people on stage with them in the '80s either (usually I skip those tracks because I think they sound cheesy). Actually I just didn't like the song selection in the mid-'80s as much in general, so other people playing with them didn't seem to ruin songs I didn't like as much anyway. :) I dunno if they technically played poorly or not though, and I do still like the shows even with those issues, but the '70s Queen was definitely more exciting to me. |
| Serry... 25.09.2005 03:05 |
I agree with Sebastian about Spike/Morgan/Fred Mandel (only about this I agree). They could perform most of their songs without additional musicians. And "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" was performed many many times without any help untill "Hot Space Tour". Then they needed in second guitarist in "Staying Power" - John did his job very well. |
| kagezan1313 25.09.2005 18:30 |
Viv, don't you think you've carried on this "crazy as a shithouse rat" routine long enough? It's getting kind of old. Like the cast of Saturday Night Live, you don't seem to know when we've had enough of a good thing. Try posting a real opinion for once. |
| YourValentine 26.09.2005 13:51 |
There was never a dead man in a leotard on stage with Queen - what did you smoke? |
| NOTWMEDDLE 26.09.2005 16:46 |
goinback wrote: Speaking as someone whose other favorite band is Pink Floyd, you forget that on the 1987 tour onwards Floyd had about a zillion more people on stage rather than simply an extra keyboard player ;) And when going to a concert, it's so loud I can't hear the music anyway. To me it's more about the spectacle and excitement of the performer, maybe the lights, and of being with other people who like the same songs. If I wanted to hear music played perfectly then I'd just listen to the CDs.Floyd used extra hands since 1973 when they added backing singers and Dick Parry for DSotM for the 1973/74/75 tours. Then for the 1977 Animals tour, the band added a second guitarist Snowy White plus Dick Parry whom was used on the WYWH sets and on the Money and Us and Them encores. The Wall shows in 1980 and 1981 there were four male singers and an extra guitarist, bass player, keyboardist and drummer. The 1987/88/89/90 shows had PF use an extra guitarist and keyboardist plus a percussionist as Nick Mason and Rick Wright's playing were shot to Hell from Roger Waters' belittling and David Gilmour practically saved them. By the 5th MLoR show, Nick and Rick were playing like in the old days. Guy Pratt took over touring bass duties and Scott Page was the band's Phantom as he was mainly used for sax work but he would go back onstage unbeknownst to the band and play extra rhythm guitar. The DB tour in 1994 saw David, Nick and Rick play like the PF of old again with Tim Renwick adding extra guitar, Guy Pratt on bass, Gary Wallis mainly on percussion and some drums to beef up the songs whilst Nick played extremely well, Jon Carin was mainly programmer and extra keyboards. Dick Parry returned for sax duties. I have many PF ROIOs and the live records and PF were incredible live! When I saw them in 1994, they had the best light show I have ever seen, best visual show and the sound was amazing, especially in an outdoor stadium. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 26.09.2005 16:50 |
goinback wrote: Why did PF need all those extra people? Why does it take two drummers to play the intro to "Time"? I actually don't know myself...it just seems like a lot of bands do that for some reason so I don't know if it's a bad thing or not.On the tours from 1972-89, Nick Mason's roto-toms were conviently next to his kit so he sat down and did the intro and then did the drum part(watch Delicate Sound of Thunder for proof). On the 1994 tour, Nick's roto-toms were in the air so he had to stand up and play the roto-tom intro to Time and would not have gotten to his kit fast enough to start the drums at "ticking away" so Gary Wallis played the fill-in and Nick came in at his kit on "ticking away" and took over. |