| on my way up 07.04.2006 15:16 |
I know that there are several people here that are really into ohter bands aswell. How would you rate Queen comparing them to these other bands when performing live?You have to compare them while playing(and performing) at their very best. |
| Sebastian 07.04.2006 17:30 |
I've never thought of Queen as an extraordinary live band, except in their Sheer Heart - Jazz period. |
| Jan78 07.04.2006 18:01 |
I think, it was Freddie's philosophy that made them a great live band. He said in an interview, that his job is to win the audience over, otherwise it is not a good performance. So a Queen show has always been mainly a Freddie show with a support band. As democratic as Queen might have been, but live they depended on Freddie, I believe. It's the huge flamboyant stage persona that matters to me in a live band. That's why I don't enjoy seeing little bands in dark basements, being happily unknown, because only unknown and independent music is good music. Bullshit. Compared to other bands of Queen's size and importance: have a look at U2 and their ZooTV and Popmart concerts. Or look at Metallica around 1992. Or Guns N' Roses back then. As Freddie said: the bigger, the better. In everything. It doesn't always work though. Look at the Rolling Stones. :-) Jan |
| Mr.Jingles 07.04.2006 18:13 |
Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s. Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage. Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image. |
| Jan78 07.04.2006 18:45 |
I guess, it's a question of personal taste. I don't care about the social activist part. I don't care if Bono calls Sarajevo in the middle of a concert, or asks for sanctions against South Africa on Rattle and Hum. But I care about a big show with a big stage and big lights and sounds. And ZooTV was all that. Sure, a few people might use words like "credibility", but hey, Macphisto or The Fly have been funny characters. That's what I go to a live show for. Not some crap like Prodigy in 1997 (2 hours late, 80 minutes show without any lights and gimmicks). I also enjoy live shows where every band member is adding to the show. U2 or Queen are "frontman-bands with a good guitarist" to me, where it's not exactly enjoyable to look at the bass player or the drummer for the whole concert. Metallica is different there, and the old Guns N' Roses too. You could enjoy looking at Jason Newsted (now Rob Trujillo) or Kirk Hammett, Slash or Duff. And on top of that, you need a great show. That's a good live band to me. Ok, I agree, when you go and see U2, you have to accept the occasional political rants, but that's ok. Back to Queen: they had their last big live show in 1986, all the other bands mentioned are still touring. So what about changing standards then? Was there a comparable live band in the mid-80's? Genesis? Pink Floyd? Anyone? And then, how do you rate the current tour (I don't say the word Queen) to other live bands these days? |
| zone 07.04.2006 21:08 |
I've seen every one except Zeppelin,and I have to say in all honesty Queen can blow any band on the planet away.They proved it when they did Live Aid.Ive never seen a front man grab a audience by the throat and just never let go till the end of the show the way Freddie did.John, Roger and Brian are pretty good too, these guys can play with the best of them on a bad night. |
| Sebastian 07.04.2006 21:56 |
IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one. |
| masterstroke_84 07.04.2006 22:47 |
I think that KISS, Zeppelin (today I Watch How The West Was Won... INCREDIBLE all of them...) and Pin k Floyd kick all asses... including Queen... I always prefer Queen but I have to be honest... and those bands are better... U2 and the Stones sucks... P. |
| Oszmercury 08.04.2006 00:21 |
Deep Purple Mkll is one of the most amazin acts in rock and roll history Pink Floyd circa 1969-1972 an impressive band, beyond our minds Zeppelin is the incarnation of rock and roll Miles Davis circa 1971-1975 is what a rock and roll band should be |
| Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 08.04.2006 02:35 |
what about ac/dc, they're pure energy on stage, but I like queen better |
| Winter Land Man 08.04.2006 02:55 |
nice robert plant performance of innuendo at the tribute concert, very great. Not. Queen beat all bands, all the other bands even admit that. |
| Sunshine 08.04.2006 04:48 |
This is so hard to compare, all those live bands. Is has to do with a lot of personal taste..also with the technique they play..But when you talk about topbands like these then it is mostly about taste... I love Aerosmith as a live band. Pure rock 'n roll with a kind of magic. Listen to Rattlesnake Shake, Lord Of The Thighs or Rats In The Cellar live, rock 'n roll doesnt get any better than this. Sometimes you also have to get know bands, like meeting people. Some people you meet have not a great first impression but when you get to know them better, you start to love them. Its the same with music. U2 is my opinion a fantastic live bands, as is Zeppelin, Stones etc... |
| Asterik 08.04.2006 06:43 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s. Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage. Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.I disagree. The social activist stuff is sanctimnious left-wing rubbish and thank God Queen didn't preach like that. U2's best years as a live band were in the 90s when they stopped trying to get on their moral high horse and actually had some ironic fun- the music and the sheer spectacle of their shows were outstanding. Now, they've gone back to dreary preaching about 3rd world poverty; give me a break.Their once explosive songs like Bullet The Blue Sky and the Fly sound tired and the shows are underwhelming. |
| Rick 08.04.2006 07:50 |
Sebastian wrote: IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. |
| deleted user 08.04.2006 07:57 |
<font color=blue>Rick wrote:I second that. Live Aid is way too overrated. Ok, it was a great performance, but not over the top compared to other Queen performances.Sebastian wrote: IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. |
| Monsieur Nobs 08.04.2006 08:37 |
What are the main characters for an outstanding live show? Spectacle? Musical skills? Do you prefer Bono dressed in gold to Pink Floyd sawing wood and playing a 25-minute Atom Heart Mother? It is all a matter of taste. All bands mentioned here plus THE WHO are pretty good live bands and Queen are (were) up there with those live legends. The good thing of Live Aid was its authenticity. On massive shows like Zoo TV or The Wall I am never sure what is real or playback. There is so much going on on stage. The main thing which Queen could have done better is a more varied setlist within a tour. I always feel sympathy for those guys who attend every show of a tour - and there are no surprises at all. It would have been a great deal if they kept on playing Don't Stop Me Now from time to time. And wouldn't it be great if Freddie returned to stage after GSTQ to surprise the audience with My Melancholy Blues? |
| on my way up 08.04.2006 11:33 |
Live Aid isn't the best live-performance ever from Queen but it was the best performance of the day and it was the biggest show on earth:-)It was important for their reputation!and one of freddie's best shows(certainly from that era) Hammer to fall is freddie's best ever version , or what version do you prefer?A low point during that version are the weak drums .I also think Bohemian Rhapsody is one of freddie's best ever versions aswell as Radio Ga Ga!! To me, other legendary Queen shows are: -Copenhagen 1978 -Newcastle 1979(both nights are perfect Freddie shows) -Tokyo 9/5/1985 Freddie as good as Live aid!!and great improvisation during several songs!! -Tokyo 31/3/1976:A decent shows for freddie(compared to show from around that night)and the rest of the band in great shape(listen to liar!and the rock'n roll medley) -London 8/12/1980:Fantastic show altough that date is a sad day in music.The band rocked and feddie at his live best. Lately I've become a fan of Led Zeppelin and I must say that they sound unique.Their Dvd is amazing and it's a fantastic product with great footage.My only regret is that I don't like Robert Plant's way of performing that much. U2, I think , is ceretainly weaker than Queen and Led Zeppelin. I especially love bands that find the rigt balance between presentation and musical skills.For me Queen does that perfectly:-) |
| on my way up 08.04.2006 11:39 |
Since my english isn't the best I did write something which I'm not too happy with.About Robert Plant:he is a great performer but to me watching him is more boring than watching freddie. His moves are not as big and godlike.Exactly the things I like about a perfomer. I hope I made my point more clear now. |
| QueenZeppelin 08.04.2006 11:39 |
Wow, I'm shocked that so many people are putting Queen behind so many other bands. To me, this where I am the direct opposite. So many people on this board think Queen bel;ongs in the top 10 greatest acts of all time--I disagree with that. But, besides The Who and maybe Springsteen, they are unquestionably the greatest live act of all time. So much eneergy, and almost every performace was musically right on the money. And yet people on this board, unfathomably, are the direct reverse. And Live Aid?!?! I've seen a lot of Queen live, and to me, NOTHING even comes CLOSE to Live Aid. Freddie was NEVER so good vocally as he was at Live Aid, and Brian was absolutely amazing. I thought they delivered the DEFINITIVE versions of Radio Gaga and Hammer to Fall; I refuse to listen to any other version of Gaga, and how can you not like the speed and passion and power with which Hammer is delivered? To me, it was the best, ANd I think, with maybe one or two exceptions being understandable, it was Queen's best live show. |
| on my way up 08.04.2006 11:51 |
I certainly think Queen belongs in the top 10:-)For me their best shows are among the best ever performed.I only regret Freddie had entire tours with voice problems(live killers for example)His voice sounded during that entire tour weak and when they were performing in Japan in '79 they were an amazing band with a singer with a totally destroyed voice!! |
| john bodega 08.04.2006 12:26 |
<font color=blue>Rick wrote:Really? I rather liked Live Aid.Sebastian wrote: IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. I like the Live Aid show for the energetic nature of it, they were on fire. I hate the drum sound, and I don't quite agree with the song selection (ok, it was always going to be a Greatest Hits list but still) but considering his doctors told him not to bother singing (he had some cold or throat infection or something) he did a pretty freakin' good job. I only rate Live Aid highly because I haven't seen too many shows myself. I've only got shows like Wembley or Earls Court to form a basis for comparison, you see. But, on it's own, I reckon it's a pretty good performance, they certainly smoked everyone else on the bill that day I think. Let's turn this negativity around - what's the best performance of Hammer to Fall, Rick? :D |
| epwchill 08.04.2006 12:38 |
As much as i love Led Zeppelin, i cant stand to here Plant sing live. The man has no vocal controll and his notes fly all over the place. As far as the rest go, i think that queen is ONE OF the greatest live bands ever. Maby the best, maby not but they were good. |
| epwchill 08.04.2006 12:40 |
BTW, i would say the best version of Hammer to Fall ive ever SEEN is from Japan 85. |
| jcrawford79 08.04.2006 12:50 |
Although Queen is my favorite band and an incredible live band, I think Zeppelin tops them when comparing live acts. |
| Jekaling 08.04.2006 12:55 |
I think U2 is the best live band coz not every concert has the same setlist. Every night a different setlist which makes them the best artists |
| Oszmercury 08.04.2006 13:06 |
Well, you should hear Copenhagen in 1971 and tell if Robert has no control of his voice, he has no moves, because he has that voice. I think is on the top 10 acts, specially their 80's concerts, but, well, here's my top 10, not in a particular order Pink Floyd Zeppelin Deep Purple The Who Miles Davis (his electric years) Rolling Stones (Mick taylor years) Jimi Hendrix Cream Bowie (Ziggy Stardust tour) Queen (80's years) |
| rockyracoon 08.04.2006 13:21 |
Having a different setlist every night makes one band the best artists?!?!? Gimme a break. I'll give U2 credit for having a lot of material, but the real problem is that musically VERY LITTLE OF IT IS ANY GOOD. Being older than most on this board, I have had the privilege of attending concerts by some of the biggest names in rock history, including the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, and U2. The Beatles drew a huge crowd to Shea Stadium in 1965, but the sound systems were so bad back in those days that all you could hear was the roar of the crowd, and the entire concert lasted all of about 45 minutes. Led Zeppelin, in 1969 at the Fillmore East in NYC, put on a good show, with very powerful vocals from Robert Plant and lightning fast wizardry from Jimmy Page. But I never cared much for the quality of Zeppelin's music, as it just never resonated with me on the inside. U2's always seems to get good reviews for their concerts, but somehow they never hit my hot button. Queen, on the other hand, always gave a show that included superior music (well-written, anthemic and majestic), excellent musicianship, and a strong sense of control over the emotional ebb and flow of a live concert. Queen always ended on a high note, with the audience begging for more. So my vote, in comparing Queen versus the other legendary live bands, goes overwhelmingly to Queen. P.S. I have not included comparisons versus the Rolling Stones or Michael Jackson. Never cared much for the Stones (too hard edged, with little refinement in the music), and I always viewed Michael Jackson as a great individual performer, but not as a legendary live band. |
| jcrawford79 08.04.2006 14:05 |
Oszmercury wrote: Well, you should hear Copenhagen in 1971 and tell if Robert has no control of his voice, he has no moves, because he has that voice.This statement confuses me. I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you're trying to say the Plant's voice was terrible that night, that doesn't really mean anything because there are several shows where Freddie's voice was bad. That's something every singer deals with from time to time. EDIT: Never mind, I just saw a post above that I think you were probably replying to. Sorry for the confusion. |
| jcrawford79 08.04.2006 14:09 |
epwchill wrote: As much as i love Led Zeppelin, i cant stand to here Plant sing live. The man has no vocal controll and his notes fly all over the place.To have an opinion is completely understandable, but to make a statement completely without merit is not. Your statement is completely untrue. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.04.2006 14:51 |
Asterik wrote:U2 and Bono have chosen to remain non-partisan. Just because they're advocating some concern towards people who everyday die of hunger and illness doesn't mean that they're actually pushing a political agenda. Sure thing, to many people it sounds like a political rant, but it's not that. It's just bringing some sense of concern for making the world a better place, not just for us, but for those who were not lucky enough to be born with the privileges that we have.Mr.Jingles wrote: Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s. Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage. Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.I disagree. The social activist stuff is sanctimnious left-wing rubbish and thank God Queen didn't preach like that. U2's best years as a live band were in the 90s when they stopped trying to get on their moral high horse and actually had some ironic fun- the music and the sheer spectacle of their shows were outstanding. Now, they've gone back to dreary preaching about 3rd world poverty; give me a break.Their once explosive songs like Bullet The Blue Sky and the Fly sound tired and the shows are underwhelming. The whole Mecphisto shit was a fuckin' joke. I seriously despised that whole crap because even though U2 wanted to have more fun, it's sort of pathetic to make an entire live show revolved around self-mockery. Leave that shit for Spinal Tap. Thank God U2 went back to the basics, because that's what made them big. Fuck the over the top live stages, the make-up, the techno beats, and all that image based crap. Make it all about the music and the message carried along with it. |
| Oszmercury 08.04.2006 15:20 |
jcrawford79 wrote:I was talkin bout his vocals, his range, his passion that night, it's an amazin show, i wasn't clear first, that is my real point, the power of his voiceOszmercury wrote: Well, you should hear Copenhagen in 1971 and tell if Robert has no control of his voice, he has no moves, because he has that voice.This statement confuses me. I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you're trying to say the Plant's voice was terrible that night, that doesn't really mean anything because there are several shows where Freddie's voice was bad. That's something every singer deals with from time to time. EDIT: Never mind, I just saw a post above that I think you were probably replying to. Sorry for the confusion. |
| epwchill 08.04.2006 15:50 |
jcrawford79 wrote:I realize i am basing my statement upon 2 performances (Seattle 7-17-77, and Earls Court 75) But my ears can here, and Plant really messes up stairway on both performances. He may have sounded better in earlier shows, but like i said, both shows i heard sounded bad.epwchill wrote: As much as i love Led Zeppelin, i cant stand to here Plant sing live. The man has no vocal controll and his notes fly all over the place.To have an opinion is completely understandable, but to make a statement completely without merit is not. Your statement is completely untrue. (BTW, the rest of Zep i consider great live) |
| Asterik 08.04.2006 16:58 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Fair enough- you ar eentitled to a view and I cmmmend you for conveying it in an eloquent fashion but I and a lot of others find this "sincere" U2 very nauseating and preachy. Thier best album in my and many other's views is Achtung baby, which is of their "post modern era"Asterik wrote:U2 and Bono have chosen to remain non-partisan. Just because they're advocating some concern towards people who everyday die of hunger and illness doesn't mean that they're actually pushing a political agenda. Sure thing, to many people it sounds like a political rant, but it's not that. It's just bringing some sense of concern for making the world a better place, not just for us, but for those who were not lucky enough to be born with the privileges that we have. The whole Mecphisto shit was a fuckin' joke. I seriously despised that whole crap because even though U2 wanted to have more fun, it's sort of pathetic to make an entire live show revolved around self-mockery. Leave that shit for Spinal Tap. Thank God U2 went back to the basics, because that's what made them big. Fuck the over the top live stages, the make-up, the techno beats, and all that image based crap. Make it all about the music and the message carried along with it.Mr.Jingles wrote: Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s. Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage. Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.I disagree. The social activist stuff is sanctimnious left-wing rubbish and thank God Queen didn't preach like that. U2's best years as a live band were in the 90s when they stopped trying to get on their moral high horse and actually had some ironic fun- the music and the sheer spectacle of their shows were outstanding. Now, they've gone back to dreary preaching about 3rd world poverty; give me a break.Their once explosive songs like Bullet The Blue Sky and the Fly sound tired and the shows are underwhelming. Their songs are great, I just hate them trying to save the world because it's killing the music. The last album was safe commercial rock (a few tracks excepted)- they're frightened to experiment now,because quite frankly, of fans such as yourself, who probably think, with some justification I admit, that The Joshua tree is the be-all and end all. U2 used to be exciting. |
| Asterik 08.04.2006 17:01 |
on my way up wrote: I certainly think Queen belongs in the top 10:-)For me their best shows are among the best ever performed.I only regret Freddie had entire tours with voice problems(live killers for example)His voice sounded during that entire tour weak and when they were performing in Japan in '79 they were an amazing band with a singer with a totally destroyed voice!!yes, Fred's voice was always weak by the time each tour got to Japan- look at '82 and '85, terrible. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.04.2006 18:09 |
Experimentation is OK as long as it doesn't damage the musical identity of the band. 'Achtung Baby' was a great album because it was original, fresh and still sounded like U2. 'Zooropa' and 'Pop' failed because they went too far with experimenting with a sound that made people question what kind of music are they trying to make. Same thing with 'News Of The World'. It was a step aside from the glam rock sound from Queen's previous albums, but it still sounded like Queen. 'Hot Space' wasn't well received because it also went too far when it came to experimenting with a different sound. Especially because disco was already an extinct genre, it was a dumb move to try to revive it. Btw, I never considered 'The Joshue Tree' to be that good. The singles were great, but the album itself as an overall is indeed overated. 'Boy', 'War', and 'The Unforgettable Fire' depict U2 at their best, IMO. |
| Jan78 08.04.2006 22:06 |
So does anyone know what a great live band even is? Some want to be entertained, because the songs can be heard on the record. Others want the band to play the songs and leave, because that makes them credible and closer to the public. They are no untouchable rock stars then. I prefer my big live show with gimmicks and jokes, and lights and pyro and stadium rock. That's Queen, U2, Metallica, Guns N' Roses. The general public seems to want the same. Or have you seen an offical album like "Queen playing in a club in front of 150 people"? That wouldn't be the same, right? But I can also enjoy the little shows and venues, because some music just needs that. This could be Nick Cave or Jewel (or for the Germans on this board: Helge Schneider). But however, artists can do what they want. They are not supposed to please you, neither on record, nor live. They see what works and what does not. If they are not selling tickets for the stadiums, they don't go to the stadiums. And then why would you go and play Wembley only with a few light bulbs and amplifiers, because when you do a big show, a few people think the show is more important than the music and hate you for that? If you only want the music, listen to the record. I don't care to wonder about what Queen wanted to express with Hot Space or U2 with Pop. I'm not a purist that only listens to Metallica's Ride The Lightning and hates Load. Same goes with the live shows, with any band. And with the music. The bottom line is: doesn't matter what you think, it's simply about whether you like it or not. If you like the concept, buy a ticket. If you don't, then stay home. It's really easy. |
| Jan78 08.04.2006 22:23 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Experimentation is OK as long as it doesn't damage the musical identity of the band. Btw, I never considered 'The Joshue Tree' to be that good. The singles were great, but the album itself as an overall is indeed overated. 'Boy', 'War', and 'The Unforgettable Fire' depict U2 at their best, IMO.Haha. That reminds of something Lars Ulrich said in 1987: "It is like a few people don't want you to be popular. When a teenager in Buttfuck, Egypt is cool because he is the first who discovered a band, and then the band gets big, and he is not cool anymore, he says the band sold out and became commercial." Hey, you can listen to Gloria or October or MLK or Red Light forever, or you can understand that In God's Country has a great riff, and All I Want Is You is great and even Wake Up Dead Man is or Love Is Blindness or Lemon or Wild Honey or Kite or whatever. But that's the very same with a few people on this board. They wanted Queen to release ANATO for the umpteenth time and not crap like The Works or A Kind Of Magic. Some folks just won't accept a development, especially when it helps the band to sell more records and tickets. Oh, Queen was so great when they still did millions of overdubs and choirs in every song, how could they sell themselves with Radio Ga Ga or It's A Hard Life? The same people cry for a concert setlist full of unknown songs, because they are cool again when only 5 out of 10,000 people know a song and you're one of them. Ridiculous! |
| Jan78 08.04.2006 22:42 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s. Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.It was still the same, only the outfit had changed, and you haven't recognized it. Bono could keep raising a white flag on stage for the rest of his life or he could show us how the media control our lives these days. Just a different social message, put across in a bigger and more entertaining show. And more people noticed it back then, while his performance at Live Aid basically went unnoticed. But as you say later, it was U2 at their best. Oh well... |
| mike hunt 09.04.2006 02:08 |
metallica suck! |
| Jan78 09.04.2006 02:21 |
A very profound comment. Speaking about sucking, you still call yourself "my cunt"? |
| mike hunt 09.04.2006 02:42 |
I could be your "cunt" if you want me to be!...guns and roses suck! |
| goinback 09.04.2006 06:10 |
There are several things that make a great concert, and I always thought Queen struck the right balance: right amount of lights and effects, right amount of musicianship and right amount of a frontman that the girls love :) But on this last tour I've found that Freddie might not have been the performer he was if they didn't have the backing of a great song catalog. The shows still go over great primarily due to the strength of the music, but also Queen's remaining members still have that knack of what order to put the songs in (incredibly important), and how to arrange the lights/video/overall spectacle (which, yeah, I think is part of a rock show), etc. |
| on my way up 09.04.2006 08:26 |
About Robert Plant: do not forget freddie had some very bad shows too.That's absolutely normal. We as queen and freddie-fans are sometimes too focussed on the fantastic stuff and want to forget about the less godlike performances;)Listen to Plant at his best and you will alter your opinion!!!He could be incredible!(early seventies) |
| Rick 09.04.2006 09:04 |
Zebonka12 wrote:The best? I think Wembley '86 is a very good one. But it's not an easy song to sing live. Freddie has most of time problems reaching the high notes. The 1984 versions are also very nice, especially the early shows. Freddie was in such a good shape. I think the Works tour opener, 24 August 1984 in Brussels, is one of Freddie's best shows ever!<font color=blue>Rick wrote:Really? I rather liked Live Aid. I like the Live Aid show for the energetic nature of it, they were on fire. I hate the drum sound, and I don't quite agree with the song selection (ok, it was always going to be a Greatest Hits list but still) but considering his doctors told him not to bother singing (he had some cold or throat infection or something) he did a pretty freakin' good job. I only rate Live Aid highly because I haven't seen too many shows myself. I've only got shows like Wembley or Earls Court to form a basis for comparison, you see. But, on it's own, I reckon it's a pretty good performance, they certainly smoked everyone else on the bill that day I think. Let's turn this negativity around - what's the best performance of Hammer to Fall, Rick? :DSebastian wrote: IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. |
| mog101 14.04.2006 07:38 |
brian may sounds awsome live probably the best live guitarist ever followed by dave gilmour |
| zone 14.04.2006 13:47 |
Robert Plant has an amazing voice live, What were you listing to some horrible bootleg? |
| Poo, again 16.04.2006 08:41 |
Led Zeppelin? |
| jamesB 18.04.2006 12:04 |
I think one of Queens strengths was to put on a dynamic full show - the rocking openers, the initmate acoustic momments, the fun cover versions and the big finish. The audiance was fully enternained at the end of the evening, which is exactly what the band wanted. |