| masterstroke_84 18.12.2006 16:36 |
a question for the people who have the honour to see both shows: In terms of SOUND QUALITY, wich one was better?... P. |
| mircal 18.12.2006 17:14 |
its been say 20 years since Freddie played with queen.... Thats likes saying whats better, Super Mario Bros on the NES or now Mario 64, Galaxy or what ever. Times have chnaged and Queen are not the band they once were. PLus the gigs now are smaller compared to there last tours with Fred. Im sure Queen would win no questions asked over Queen + RP.... But, i think with todays technology the sound would be better with Q+PR, cleaner, more chrisp sounds, even Rogers druming sounds sharper. |
| masterstroke_84 18.12.2006 17:24 |
neeeeext... |
| deleted user 18.12.2006 17:45 |
I never saw a Queen concert in my life (other than DVDs of course), but if you ask me Queen+Paul Rodgers is better only because the band members have improved over the years. Freddie Mercury would have become even a greater musician had he not have died so young. On the other hand, Freddie Mercury is what made Queen...QUEEN! So obviously a lot of people are going to prefer the original Queen line up. Besides, I miss the old Queen sound. The rock concerts that Queen+Paul Rodgers put on sounds to clean...if that makes any sense...which I'm sure doesn't. To be honest I suck at explaining myself in this particular topic...grrrr... On a personal note, I'd prefer Queen over Queen+Paul Rodgers...as with any other Queen fan. :) |
| thefairyfeller 18.12.2006 18:28 |
Solo vi a Q+PR En terminos de sonido seguramente es superior hoy en día... pero no creo que los shows puedan compararse... muy distintos...! Un abrazo guacho! jajaja Tas desaparecido... o quizas yo! =P Adiossssssssssssss |
| BRYCE THE TROLL 18.12.2006 19:55 |
from a voice qualaty stand point Queen Tears Q+PR's SPINE OUT AND BEATS HIM WITH IT from an instrument stand point Q+PR but that's not fair becuse Q+PR also has a shitload of backup musicions wich only make them seem fake! |
| Goin Back 19.12.2006 04:57 |
There isn't anything to say about it. Paul Rogers is a good singer, really, but he will never be as good as Freddie! There will never be a better singer than Freddie Mercury in this world. This is my opinion. Queen was QUEEN, and they were the BEST!!!! Now it's Queen + Paul Rogers. It's okay, but it's not QUEEN. |
| Ayreon 19.12.2006 06:33 |
Goin Back wrote: There isn't anything to say about it. Paul Rogers is a good singer, really, but he will never be as good as Freddie! There will never be a better singer than Freddie Mercury in this world. This is my opinion. Queen was QUEEN, and they were the BEST!!!! Now it's Queen + Paul Rogers. It's okay, but it's not QUEEN.Yeah Yeah, blah blah... Please READ the question. The question was about SOUND QuALITY; not which band is better... |
| Micrówave 19.12.2006 13:17 |
So you're asking: Does digital recording sound better than analog recording? Yes. |
| Bono Mercury 19.12.2006 13:22 |
We had this topic over and over again will ye just give a rest please fuck sake |
| PieterMC 19.12.2006 13:41 |
BRYCE THE TROLL wrote: Q+PR also has a shitload of backup musicions wich only make them seem fake!Queen Live 1986: Freddie Brian Roger John Spike Q+PR Live 2006: Brian Roger Spike Paul Jamie Danny Q+PR only have 1 extra person on stage. |
| Micrówave 19.12.2006 13:44 |
Yes, an extra guitarist. NOT an extra vocalist. |
| jeep49 22.12.2006 07:31 |
ahhhh but Jamie's also BV's |
| Drowse1 25.12.2006 12:03 |
Who cares about comparing the sound quality? Queen + PR didn't work, will never work and should be laid to rest immediately! |
| masterstroke_84 25.12.2006 12:46 |
Yes they DID work... give proves about you are saying.. my proves are: almost 50 European/Japanese SOLD OUT shows and a complete USA tour with GREAT reviews... and now they are recording a studio album... all that in 2 years... that is to "not work"?? P. |
| masterstroke_84 25.12.2006 12:56 |
... and thousands and thousands of happy fans all around the world... what other prove do you need?... think about the fans... the younger ones... that didn´t have the chance to see them live... I dont understand people who think they have the right to tell Brian and Roger what to do with his career... let them be happy and the fans too... P. |
| Serry... 25.12.2006 13:02 |
To sell out two full Wembleys or hardly sold out 75% of 5 small halls with 7000 seats - are different cases... I'd agree with opinion about extra musicians - that sucks! In Queen days Spike/Fred/Morgan appeared on stage to show themselves on 3 mins during CLTCL and even it was too much for them actually. Queen's greatest shows (which are their shows from the 70s) were played only by them... |
| masterstroke_84 25.12.2006 13:28 |
wrong... spike and morgan use to make background sounds in the complete show and backing vocals (for ex. Spike clearly on "Tear it up"... keyboards on "magic".. "who wants to live forever"... "break free"... "impromptu"...."ga-ga"... etc...) And about Jamie, Brian say that NOW, in these days... he prefers to have an extra guitarrist because he feels more free to improvise and not be forced to do rhythm fills, solos, arrengements, etc. Spike and Morgan fisher or fred mandel interact with the band the whole show, but they´re only showed onstage in CLTCL.. P. |
| Serry... 25.12.2006 13:39 |
Thanks for the lesson of Queen's history! "spike and morgan use to make background sounds in the complete show and backing vocals" ...and... "Spike and Morgan fisher or fred mandel interact with the band the whole show, but they´re only showed onstage in CLTCL.." This is what I wrote, didn't I? "In Queen days Spike/Fred/Morgan appeared on stage to show themselves on 3 mins during CLTCL and even it was too much for them actually." So why I'm wrong? About Moses - I'm not discussing why Brian NOW needs in him, I'm saying that it sucks. |
| Nathan 25.12.2006 14:19 |
Can someone please explain to me why this whole Q+PR thing is so controversial? Why do so many people hate it? I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions. Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour. But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too. Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle? Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in. |
| masterstroke_84 25.12.2006 15:15 |
exactly... seems like nothing in the world can make a Queen fan happy... :S only Freddie resurrecting maybe... if they didn´t make a tour: complain if they made a tour: complain if thet didn´t make a new album: complain is they make a new new new album: complain if they tour without Fred: complain and on and on... GOD BLESS QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS. |
| Serry... 26.12.2006 00:31 |
"if they didn´t make a tour: complain" Who did? "if thet didn´t make a new album: complain" Who did? |
| john bodega 26.12.2006 10:33 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: "if they didn´t make a tour: complain" Who did? "if thet didn´t make a new album: complain" Who did?People didn't complain much, did they? I did see the odd person (shit, I was one of them) saying "I wish they'd do something". It wasn't complaining, not compared to what one sees these days. |
| john bodega 26.12.2006 10:47 |
Nathan wrote: Can someone please explain to me why this whole Q+PR thing is so controversial? Why do so many people hate it? I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions. Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour. But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too. Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle? Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in.Well.... I dunno. It's not 'how many' of the original members are there. It's who you chop out. The Who : They still have their songwriter (who also happens to be the master of doing brilliant things with very basic chords!), and their singer. Throw Ringo Starr's son on that, and "We've got a hit". Anyone who doesn't see at least a little Who-iness in that, is just a nitwit anyway, so don't talk to them. Led Zeppelin : I don't know about these guys so much. Bonham is pretty irreplaceable... his son came to be pretty good on drums as years went by, but there just aren't that many reunions to speak of. However; would the reunions have worked as well if it'd been Robert Plant who was dead? It's not as simple as saying 'well THAT foursome toured with only 2 or 3 original members', because in some cases it might not work. But in some cases it does work. Hell, I think Oasis could tour without *any* of their original members (and an all new repertoire) and it'd be a vast improvement. It really is about the personalities you chop out.... it might sound like a double standard, but with some combinations it works - some it doesn't. I'll get shot for saying this but I reckon Queen could've toured without John Deacon. On the other hand, what would a Beatles tour in the 90's be, without John Lennon??? Replacing members works better for bands where the music doesn't matter ; Oasis, Lynrd Skynrd. To drift off for a moment... I think the justification for calling it Q+PR was flimsy, but morally acceptable. They were playing Queen songs, with Paul Rodgers as a singer. That works for me. However... I don't see how that extends to a new album. Not really Queen is it? ---- Can I just ask; wasn't this thread technically about the *sound* quality, comparing Queen gigs to Q+PR? In which case, I'd say it'd be a no brainer.... surely the technology has gotten better. But I haven't been to either, so I can't say. |
| bohemian 11513 26.12.2006 14:06 |
masterstroke_84 wrote: a question for the people who have the honour to see both shows: In terms of SOUND QUALITY, wich one was better?... P.Technology, whether digital or analog... does it realy matter? My new hearing aid works digital anyway... so, that´s an easy one to answer!!! Queen in the seventies sounded way better to me than nowadays... keep in mind it was "state of the art" live sound technology they used way back then. Just listen to BoRhap in, let´s say, 1986 and compare it with 2005/2006! What a difference!!! PS: ...even "All Right Now" sounded better to me when Fred used to sing it on stage in 1978! ;-) ...just talked to Trip and he confirmed! There´s no way colouring the hair if it turns grey... ...just get used to it!!! BUT AT LEAST HAVE FUN... :-) ...4 more to go till eternity guys!!! |