[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]marvinp01 wrote: [/b]
actually, QP next release will be Queen Live at The Rainbow, or Live at Budapest in Blu-Ray or HD
[/QUOTE]
Care to share with us how you know that? Or was it just a guess? More likely that we'll get something from the QPR tour surely? But if you are correct Budapest is the most likely next release. After all, it meets all Queen productions' criteria:
1. It's already been released before
2. Anyone who is more than a casual fan already has it
3. Fred has a moustache
4. Has all the hits
5. Minimal amount of work for supposedly maximum amount of profit.
[/QUOTE]
Reasons against Budapest>
- 1. they dont have the negative master
- 2. they dont have any positive film copy
- 3. they dont have any parts that are cut out of the vhs release
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]marvinp01 wrote: [/b]
actually, QP next release will be Queen Live at The Rainbow, or Live at Budapest in Blu-Ray or HD
[/QUOTE]
Care to share with us how you know that? Or was it just a guess? More likely that we'll get something from the QPR tour surely? But if you are correct Budapest is the most likely next release. After all, it meets all Queen productions' criteria:
1. It's already been released before
2. Anyone who is more than a casual fan already has it
3. Fred has a moustache
4. Has all the hits
5. Minimal amount of work for supposedly maximum amount of profit.
[/QUOTE]
well Queen owns all of the Rainbow stuff... and its mentioned in Brian May's wesite
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]marvinp01 wrote: [/b]
actually, QP next release will be Queen Live at The Rainbow, or Live at Budapest in Blu-Ray or HD
[/QUOTE]
Care to share with us how you know that? Or was it just a guess? More likely that we'll get something from the QPR tour surely? But if you are correct Budapest is the most likely next release. After all, it meets all Queen productions' criteria:
1. It's already been released before
2. Anyone who is more than a casual fan already has it
3. Fred has a moustache
4. Has all the hits
5. Minimal amount of work for supposedly maximum amount of profit.
[/QUOTE]
well Queen owns all of the Rainbow stuff... and its mentioned in Brian May's wesite
QPL can't put the bar so high. With new media being developed with better sound and video it is not realistic to put the same expectations on old material from before that time. This being the case, this material will never see the light of day. Before long Blueray will be replaced with something new, and then nothing could be released anymore due to insufficient screensize or 12 missing audio channels. The longer they wait with releasing this material the worst QPL will feel about releasing it on a superior format.
Why are you fans so eager to have Hammersmith and other rare concerts being released???
YOU UNFAIR BASTARDS!
Hasn't QP offered you 12 versions of ANATO???
9 versions of the Montreal show???
Aren't you forgetting about a future coming BOX with the same SINGLES, all over again???
Well, they (QP) could even release the 456th edition of GH1+2+3...
Oh, what about the 18 versions of TCR????
Not forgetting the huge amount of quality extras in the DVD's!!!
As for me, I can't wait to get the next edition of ANATO.. with even more surrond... to even hear the farts in the studio.
(read with sarcasm)
YOU UNFAIR BASTARDS!
Hasn't QP offered you 12 versions of ANATO???
9 versions of the Montreal show???
Aren't you forgetting about a future coming BOX with the same SINGLES, all over again???
Well, they (QP) could even release the 456th edition of GH1+2+3...
Oh, what about the 18 versions of TCR????
Not forgetting the huge amount of quality extras in the DVD's!!!
As for me, I can't wait to get the next edition of ANATO.. with even more surrond... to even hear the farts in the studio.
(read with sarcasm)
It's an impressive concert and the performances are very good. Being from the very end of 79', and even featuring Save Me, it could provide a very good sum up and overview of Queen's sound in the 70's, I think.
Have you guys the Dallas, 78 concert with you? If you do, and when time allows it, I think it'd be helpful to do a comparison between the first performance of Let Me Entertain You and the one at Hammersmith a year later.
In the Dallas, 78 gig, you guys will be able to notice that in the second chorus, I guess, almost about 2 min into the song, Freddie tries to go for the higher notes - TAIN-you... - and fails miserably - his voice cracks and one can't barely listen to anything. The thing gets him quite scared, to the point that he immediately tones down the chorus and gets clearly distracted by the flaw - not surprisingly, the last few verses, which demand a killer, slight, very sutbtle modal change attended by progressive higher notes - "Chicago..." - are given a very poor and boring rendition. It's interesting to say how insecure Freddie could get onstage.
I'm taking this song as an example because it's much more clever and difficult than many people realize.
Back to Hammersmith, 79: whenever I take a look at the footage, I always get amazed at Freddie's blistering rendition of the song - it's very close to the original studio version of Let Me Entertain You, but it has the live energy and atmosphere to it that make it much more fun.
Now, take the beginning of the song and look at the footage - Freddie goes wild and sings the first verses just like in the recording. His exercising all his body while he's singing, going through all the motions, and when it comes to sing "get you dancing..." one can clearly see he relaxing his left arm, I think, and doing a lot of abdominal work to avoid straining his vocal muscles. Surprise: he hits it flawlessly.
He grows confident. While Brian is soloing very beautifully, although Roger is having a bit of a trouble to keep in tempo - it's played very fast there - Freddie does all his classical moves. Remember those last few killing verses? "Chicago...". Again, and much to my surprise, he goes for the real thing, just like in the recording, and he nails it by strecthing his body backwards and putting a huge amount of pressure on the legs and the torax.
So, why should it be released? Well, it's an unique concert in that Brian is playing just wonderfully and Freddie is not only in great shape, but very confident, or trying to be very confident. Because the more I listen to the band, the more I notice how insecure Freddie was onstage, despite all his glaring persona.
A single mistake, just like that one in Dallas, was enough to derrail him and ruin his performance. Over time, I noticed that the main problem was his lack of vocal training - he had it all: talent, an unique, addictive timber, great musical intelligence, the guy rarely went out of tune - so rarely that I can count it on my fingers - he could modify the whole performance to adapt the song to his shape or confidence, but he just wouldn't get out of tune.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up. Take Save Me at Hammersmith, for instance: it's a pearl. He even laughs at himself while singing a "soul for sale or rent" so ridiculously flawless is his change in tune and color.
That'd be the reason, in my opinion, for the concert to get released: it captures Freddie in a very rare, unique moment, and the whole concert serves as an overview of Queen in the 70's. It reminds us, too, of how creative and challenging Brian's playing could be - he commands the whole things, from start to finish: the tempo, the power of the performance, thus allowing Freddie to go out of his usual nutshell.
I won't even comment on the technical side of the whole thing because at the hands of good engineers the material would sound and look as great as Montreal 81', given the conditions in which it was recorded. It's much harder, technically speaking, to recover the recordings of the mid 80's, depending on how they got recorded - that's why Wembley and Live Aid sound and look much worse than Montreal 81', which was very well shot and recorded.
Of course, I have the utmost respect for Brian and am sure he must have his reasons, and solid reasons, for not engaging in such a project at this time.
Hammersmith 79, pretty much like Live Aid, is an unique moment in Queen's career - provided, the band was not there onstage to replicate what they did in the studio. But these rare moments when they afforded to do both - make people have a hell of a good time while upholding very high musical standards - should be properly treated and released to make justice to such a good band.
Have you guys the Dallas, 78 concert with you? If you do, and when time allows it, I think it'd be helpful to do a comparison between the first performance of Let Me Entertain You and the one at Hammersmith a year later.
In the Dallas, 78 gig, you guys will be able to notice that in the second chorus, I guess, almost about 2 min into the song, Freddie tries to go for the higher notes - TAIN-you... - and fails miserably - his voice cracks and one can't barely listen to anything. The thing gets him quite scared, to the point that he immediately tones down the chorus and gets clearly distracted by the flaw - not surprisingly, the last few verses, which demand a killer, slight, very sutbtle modal change attended by progressive higher notes - "Chicago..." - are given a very poor and boring rendition. It's interesting to say how insecure Freddie could get onstage.
I'm taking this song as an example because it's much more clever and difficult than many people realize.
Back to Hammersmith, 79: whenever I take a look at the footage, I always get amazed at Freddie's blistering rendition of the song - it's very close to the original studio version of Let Me Entertain You, but it has the live energy and atmosphere to it that make it much more fun.
Now, take the beginning of the song and look at the footage - Freddie goes wild and sings the first verses just like in the recording. His exercising all his body while he's singing, going through all the motions, and when it comes to sing "get you dancing..." one can clearly see he relaxing his left arm, I think, and doing a lot of abdominal work to avoid straining his vocal muscles. Surprise: he hits it flawlessly.
He grows confident. While Brian is soloing very beautifully, although Roger is having a bit of a trouble to keep in tempo - it's played very fast there - Freddie does all his classical moves. Remember those last few killing verses? "Chicago...". Again, and much to my surprise, he goes for the real thing, just like in the recording, and he nails it by strecthing his body backwards and putting a huge amount of pressure on the legs and the torax.
So, why should it be released? Well, it's an unique concert in that Brian is playing just wonderfully and Freddie is not only in great shape, but very confident, or trying to be very confident. Because the more I listen to the band, the more I notice how insecure Freddie was onstage, despite all his glaring persona.
A single mistake, just like that one in Dallas, was enough to derrail him and ruin his performance. Over time, I noticed that the main problem was his lack of vocal training - he had it all: talent, an unique, addictive timber, great musical intelligence, the guy rarely went out of tune - so rarely that I can count it on my fingers - he could modify the whole performance to adapt the song to his shape or confidence, but he just wouldn't get out of tune.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up. Take Save Me at Hammersmith, for instance: it's a pearl. He even laughs at himself while singing a "soul for sale or rent" so ridiculously flawless is his change in tune and color.
That'd be the reason, in my opinion, for the concert to get released: it captures Freddie in a very rare, unique moment, and the whole concert serves as an overview of Queen in the 70's. It reminds us, too, of how creative and challenging Brian's playing could be - he commands the whole things, from start to finish: the tempo, the power of the performance, thus allowing Freddie to go out of his usual nutshell.
I won't even comment on the technical side of the whole thing because at the hands of good engineers the material would sound and look as great as Montreal 81', given the conditions in which it was recorded. It's much harder, technically speaking, to recover the recordings of the mid 80's, depending on how they got recorded - that's why Wembley and Live Aid sound and look much worse than Montreal 81', which was very well shot and recorded.
Of course, I have the utmost respect for Brian and am sure he must have his reasons, and solid reasons, for not engaging in such a project at this time.
Hammersmith 79, pretty much like Live Aid, is an unique moment in Queen's career - provided, the band was not there onstage to replicate what they did in the studio. But these rare moments when they afforded to do both - make people have a hell of a good time while upholding very high musical standards - should be properly treated and released to make justice to such a good band.
Yara
Thanks for your beautiful addition to this topic. I enjoyed reading your post and I entirely agree with you. The Dallas'78 show you mention is interesting because it's far from flawless. They even make 2 mistakes against the setlist:-) And Freddie's voice is indeed in pretty poor shape, your observation about LMEY is spot on.
The Hammy'79 show is, like you say, the perfect example of a Queen show. Both the showmanship and the musical side of things are top. And that's indeed the reason why it should be released. It shows a totally unique and wonderful live band.
Thanks for your beautiful addition to this topic. I enjoyed reading your post and I entirely agree with you. The Dallas'78 show you mention is interesting because it's far from flawless. They even make 2 mistakes against the setlist:-) And Freddie's voice is indeed in pretty poor shape, your observation about LMEY is spot on.
The Hammy'79 show is, like you say, the perfect example of a Queen show. Both the showmanship and the musical side of things are top. And that's indeed the reason why it should be released. It shows a totally unique and wonderful live band.
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
A single mistake, just like that one in Dallas, was enough to derrail him and ruin his performance. Over time, I noticed that the main problem was his lack of vocal training - he had it all: talent, an unique, addictive timber, great musical intelligence, the guy rarely went out of tune - so rarely that I can count it on my fingers - he could modify the whole performance to adapt the song to his shape or confidence, but he just wouldn't get out of tune.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up.
[/QUOTE]
Spectacular analysis. You should write a book about rock singers... it'd sell.
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
A single mistake, just like that one in Dallas, was enough to derrail him and ruin his performance. Over time, I noticed that the main problem was his lack of vocal training - he had it all: talent, an unique, addictive timber, great musical intelligence, the guy rarely went out of tune - so rarely that I can count it on my fingers - he could modify the whole performance to adapt the song to his shape or confidence, but he just wouldn't get out of tune.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up.
[/QUOTE]
Spectacular analysis. You should write a book about rock singers... it'd sell.
[QUOTE]
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up. Take Save Me at Hammersmith, for instance: it's a pearl. He even laughs at himself while singing a "soul for sale or rent" so ridiculously flawless is his change in tune and color.
[/QUOTE]
How Freddie can be continiusly called perfectionist here and there, while he didn't bother to teach himself to sing live or get coaching during 16+ years of live performances ? How a perfectionist could be content with vocal performances of 86 tour ? You can tell what he tried to save his voice for the rest of concert, but that only happened because he didn't have vocal training. Trained singers can have 17 concerts in one month and still retain same vocal shape as on first show.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up. Take Save Me at Hammersmith, for instance: it's a pearl. He even laughs at himself while singing a "soul for sale or rent" so ridiculously flawless is his change in tune and color.
[/QUOTE]
How Freddie can be continiusly called perfectionist here and there, while he didn't bother to teach himself to sing live or get coaching during 16+ years of live performances ? How a perfectionist could be content with vocal performances of 86 tour ? You can tell what he tried to save his voice for the rest of concert, but that only happened because he didn't have vocal training. Trained singers can have 17 concerts in one month and still retain same vocal shape as on first show.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
A single mistake, just like that one in Dallas, was enough to derrail him and ruin his performance. Over time, I noticed that the main problem was his lack of vocal training - he had it all: talent, an unique, addictive timber, great musical intelligence, the guy rarely went out of tune - so rarely that I can count it on my fingers - he could modify the whole performance to adapt the song to his shape or confidence, but he just wouldn't get out of tune.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up.
[/QUOTE]
Spectacular analysis. You should write a book about rock singers... it'd sell.
[/QUOTE] Indeed, best thing I've read on QZ for a long time.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
A single mistake, just like that one in Dallas, was enough to derrail him and ruin his performance. Over time, I noticed that the main problem was his lack of vocal training - he had it all: talent, an unique, addictive timber, great musical intelligence, the guy rarely went out of tune - so rarely that I can count it on my fingers - he could modify the whole performance to adapt the song to his shape or confidence, but he just wouldn't get out of tune.
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up.
[/QUOTE]
Spectacular analysis. You should write a book about rock singers... it'd sell.
[/QUOTE] Indeed, best thing I've read on QZ for a long time.
[QUOTE]
[b]djcamper wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up. Take Save Me at Hammersmith, for instance: it's a pearl. He even laughs at himself while singing a "soul for sale or rent" so ridiculously flawless is his change in tune and color.
[/QUOTE]
How Freddie can be continiusly called perfectionist here and there, while he didn't bother to teach himself to sing live or get coaching during 16+ years of live performances ? How a perfectionist could be content with vocal performances of 86 tour ? You can tell what he tried to save his voice for the rest of concert, but that only happened because he didn't have vocal training. Trained singers can have 17 concerts in one month and still retain same vocal shape as on first show.
[/QUOTE]
he was a perfectionist on the studio, he sang incredible there, but like freddie himself said, the show wasnt ment to be like the album, it was a live rendition of the album..., but of course, this is no excuse, and you guys are forgetting that freddie sufered from the same thing that suffered Johnny fontane (from the godfather movie/book) he cant sing for too much long, because those things that he had on his Throat inflamates or something like that, and then he had to rest,... he could have put an end to this, if he recurred to cirurgy, but this may have changed his voice, and he didnt want to take the risk... this is all explained on the freddie mercury book written by himself... just read... anyways... he was great when he was on shape...
[b]djcamper wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
But he was poorly trained. When he did everything right onstage, just like at Hammersmith, combining showmanship and flawless performance, it was almost by luck - it's clear he didn't have a clue about what was required for him to easily reach the notes, and when he did it, letting his body go through natural, spontaneous motions which allowed for a better vocal presence, he was able to blow one's mind up. Take Save Me at Hammersmith, for instance: it's a pearl. He even laughs at himself while singing a "soul for sale or rent" so ridiculously flawless is his change in tune and color.
[/QUOTE]
How Freddie can be continiusly called perfectionist here and there, while he didn't bother to teach himself to sing live or get coaching during 16+ years of live performances ? How a perfectionist could be content with vocal performances of 86 tour ? You can tell what he tried to save his voice for the rest of concert, but that only happened because he didn't have vocal training. Trained singers can have 17 concerts in one month and still retain same vocal shape as on first show.
[/QUOTE]
he was a perfectionist on the studio, he sang incredible there, but like freddie himself said, the show wasnt ment to be like the album, it was a live rendition of the album..., but of course, this is no excuse, and you guys are forgetting that freddie sufered from the same thing that suffered Johnny fontane (from the godfather movie/book) he cant sing for too much long, because those things that he had on his Throat inflamates or something like that, and then he had to rest,... he could have put an end to this, if he recurred to cirurgy, but this may have changed his voice, and he didnt want to take the risk... this is all explained on the freddie mercury book written by himself... just read... anyways... he was great when he was on shape...
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
It's an impressive concert and the performances are very good. Being from the very end of 79', and even featuring Save Me, it could provide a very good sum up and overview of Queen's sound in the 70's, I think. [/QUOTE]
Good overview of Queen's sound in the 70's? Not really - just 1978/79. Completetely different to even '77.
Earls Court or Hyde Park would surely be favoured over this gig. It's about time they started releasing 2 gigs together in the same package anyway - like the recent Who release.
It's an impressive concert and the performances are very good. Being from the very end of 79', and even featuring Save Me, it could provide a very good sum up and overview of Queen's sound in the 70's, I think. [/QUOTE]
Good overview of Queen's sound in the 70's? Not really - just 1978/79. Completetely different to even '77.
Earls Court or Hyde Park would surely be favoured over this gig. It's about time they started releasing 2 gigs together in the same package anyway - like the recent Who release.
@ yara's post.
Wonderful, wonderful post!! And I'm just talking about the language.
And you're just 18?
Made me search for more postings from you; you've got real talent, girl[img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] .
Wonderful, wonderful post!! And I'm just talking about the language.
And you're just 18?
Made me search for more postings from you; you've got real talent, girl[img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] .
I just wanted to join the praise of Yara's post :).
By the way, it's just a fantastic concert. They really should release it. With whatever sound quality they can.
A question. I was just watching We Will Rock You with Freddie on superman (had never seen it, amazing performance), and I remember seeing them play the fast version on that same concert... did they play two nights there?. And both of them on their own, no other band played?.
By the way, it's just a fantastic concert. They really should release it. With whatever sound quality they can.
A question. I was just watching We Will Rock You with Freddie on superman (had never seen it, amazing performance), and I remember seeing them play the fast version on that same concert... did they play two nights there?. And both of them on their own, no other band played?.
[QUOTE]
[b]Crisstti wrote: [/b]
I just wanted to join the praise of Yara's post :).
By the way, it's just a fantastic concert. They really should release it. With whatever sound quality they can.
A question. I was just watching We Will Rock You with Freddie on superman (had never seen it, amazing performance), and I remember seeing them play the fast version on that same concert... did they play two nights there?. And both of them on their own, no other band played?.[/QUOTE]
No. We Will Rock You (fast) was part of the opening and they ended the show with the usual threesome: WWRY, WATC and GSTQ. In other words: they played it twice albeit different versions.
[b]Crisstti wrote: [/b]
I just wanted to join the praise of Yara's post :).
By the way, it's just a fantastic concert. They really should release it. With whatever sound quality they can.
A question. I was just watching We Will Rock You with Freddie on superman (had never seen it, amazing performance), and I remember seeing them play the fast version on that same concert... did they play two nights there?. And both of them on their own, no other band played?.[/QUOTE]
No. We Will Rock You (fast) was part of the opening and they ended the show with the usual threesome: WWRY, WATC and GSTQ. In other words: they played it twice albeit different versions.
[b]Negative Creep wrote[/b]:
[i]Good overview of Queen's sound in the 70's? Not really - just 1978/79. Completetely different to even '77.
Earls Court or Hyde Park would surely be favoured over this gig. It's about time they started releasing 2 gigs together in the same package anyway - like the recent Who release.
[/i]Yes, I guess you're right about Hammy 79 not being exactly an overview of Queen's sound in the 70's. In face of such good recordings, just like Earls Court and Hyde Park, one does feel tempted to shout: "I want it all!!". :)))
----
As for the WWRY thing, it reminded me of my most successuful joke. One person laughed at it - so it was a success because I have absolutely no talent at all for humour - except for the involuntary kind, which I think we all have to some degree.
I got a cyber laugh from a Queenzoner when I replied to an user's question about which WWRY had come first: the fast version or the slow one.
I said then, trying to make the joke: "The fast one came first, of course!".
This was the climax of my career in humour - a pleasant, gentle cyber laugh probably written in order to keep me from further embarassement.
---
Thank you all for the kind words. As for the releasing, well, I think there are reasons for hope. First of all, the more accessible the sound and video editing technologies get, the easier it is for the organized fans to enhance the quality of their favorite performances. It's already happening, to some extent, and the tendency might be strenghtned in result of the crisis - people develop their own way of making what's available for them more enjoyable.
If Queenzone were a fan community, for instance, there could be a gathering around a project to enhance a particular concert in a matter of just a few years - people from fan communities are specialized in all kinds of things, and along with the technical work involved, there are always the discussions and ideas coming from larger fan base.
This move makes some tapers, though not all, and not every hoarder is a taper, more willing to share what they have - there are people who feel a bit dispirited that they're going to share a concert they taped in the 70's and it will keep sounding exactly as it was recorded 30 years before - it's kind of dispiriting. It's not that the original material should not be preserved, but a lack of effort in really significantly improving the quality of the recordings make the sharing process, for some, a bit pointless - "So here am I, 30 year later, and I will share this stuff which people will listen to exactly as it was recorded so long ago? No further work done?", and so on - no value being aggregated, that is.
---
As for the official side of the whole thing, I trust Brian and Roger and I think they know better what's worth working on and what's not, or, more specifically, when the times is ripe for engaging in a certain project or not. I have the utmost respect for their own view about what image and concept of the band they want to convey for the audience at large.
I wish you all the best on this sunday!!!
[i]Good overview of Queen's sound in the 70's? Not really - just 1978/79. Completetely different to even '77.
Earls Court or Hyde Park would surely be favoured over this gig. It's about time they started releasing 2 gigs together in the same package anyway - like the recent Who release.
[/i]Yes, I guess you're right about Hammy 79 not being exactly an overview of Queen's sound in the 70's. In face of such good recordings, just like Earls Court and Hyde Park, one does feel tempted to shout: "I want it all!!". :)))
----
As for the WWRY thing, it reminded me of my most successuful joke. One person laughed at it - so it was a success because I have absolutely no talent at all for humour - except for the involuntary kind, which I think we all have to some degree.
I got a cyber laugh from a Queenzoner when I replied to an user's question about which WWRY had come first: the fast version or the slow one.
I said then, trying to make the joke: "The fast one came first, of course!".
This was the climax of my career in humour - a pleasant, gentle cyber laugh probably written in order to keep me from further embarassement.
---
Thank you all for the kind words. As for the releasing, well, I think there are reasons for hope. First of all, the more accessible the sound and video editing technologies get, the easier it is for the organized fans to enhance the quality of their favorite performances. It's already happening, to some extent, and the tendency might be strenghtned in result of the crisis - people develop their own way of making what's available for them more enjoyable.
If Queenzone were a fan community, for instance, there could be a gathering around a project to enhance a particular concert in a matter of just a few years - people from fan communities are specialized in all kinds of things, and along with the technical work involved, there are always the discussions and ideas coming from larger fan base.
This move makes some tapers, though not all, and not every hoarder is a taper, more willing to share what they have - there are people who feel a bit dispirited that they're going to share a concert they taped in the 70's and it will keep sounding exactly as it was recorded 30 years before - it's kind of dispiriting. It's not that the original material should not be preserved, but a lack of effort in really significantly improving the quality of the recordings make the sharing process, for some, a bit pointless - "So here am I, 30 year later, and I will share this stuff which people will listen to exactly as it was recorded so long ago? No further work done?", and so on - no value being aggregated, that is.
---
As for the official side of the whole thing, I trust Brian and Roger and I think they know better what's worth working on and what's not, or, more specifically, when the times is ripe for engaging in a certain project or not. I have the utmost respect for their own view about what image and concept of the band they want to convey for the audience at large.
I wish you all the best on this sunday!!!