Hubb wrote: Live Killers has overdubs. Read this http://www.queenlive.ca/lkanalysis.htm Thanks for the link - very interesting.
This does sesem to back up my theory thought that there WEREN'T overdubs (ie studio ones), but drop ins from, and merges with, other gigs on the tour as I'd thought.
In fact the site confirms this on the thinking behind things like Fat Bottomed Girls not being included because of the vocals usually not being tight - if they were going to overdub in the studio then this would surely be one they would include?
Yes there were parts removed by studio 'trickery' (Roger's vox on Spred Your Wings for example), but it doesn't seem to me that there is anything on Live Killers that isn't actually truly live?
Yara · Member since
Hey, ploughman. With all due respect, I fail to see what's the puzzle here. Given the fact they had the multitracks, and taking into account that a whole lot of painstaking effort was put into producing Rock Montreal's last release, it shouldn't come as a surprise, to my mind, that the final output sounds so nice, especially with all the sound technology out there nowadays - records which have been very well recorded can be made to sound as clear as the Rock Montreal's gig.
That said, I don't think they resorted much, or at all, to overdubbing. No abstruse sound-engineering concepts here, but just some common sense.
Just ask yourself some basic questions:
a) If the guys really wanted to smooth all the rough edges, as you seem to suggest, why on earth did they leave "Dragon Attack" as it is, with Freddie fumbling the lines and losing the tempo in a pretty annoying way?
b) Had they gone out of their minds to make ammendments, why didn't they bother to fix Freddie's take on the first verse of the second part of such a crucial song as "Save Me"? One notices quite easily that he forgot the lines and tried to recover by speaking, instead of singing, them.
Had some other Queen concerts been as well recorded and produced as this one, I think we'd have by now even better sounding gigs out there on DVD or Blu-Ray: Overall, I think their performances in South America, as well as the "short-lived" Crazy Tour and a couple of U.S gigs from the Game Tour, not to mention the killer concerts at Wembley on December 1980, are significantly better than the two Montreal gigs.
As to overdubbing in general, it may in fact work as a way of doing justice to a great band - we all know that bands tend to get nervous if they are being recorded or, even worse, if there are huge cameras flying around them. Led's "How The West Was Won" has been significantly edited, but does it mean that the legendary quartet couldn't deliver some very good, tight performances, despite the minor flaws? It'd be unfair to Led's legacy and efforts if they released something which didn't do justice to the amazing songs and the outright magnificent band, which was absolutely exciting as a live act.
Cheers!
GratefulFan · Member since
Yara! So nice to see you!
I must know how the Olympics went and if that man liked his soccer ball...
And the sound is great on Montreal because....because.....because French Canadians are very absorbent. Hope that helps.
rhyeking · Member since
There's no rule saying that a band must NEVER, EVER overdub. A live album is a product like any other and the artist who releases it wants it to be the best it can be. Somehow, though, we've convinced ourselves that any editting or tampering with LIVE recordings is sacrelige, like rewriting history!
"No," we cry, "That's not how it was on the night!"
It's curious that this view is only strictly held toward live albums and releases. No one cares that an actor's performance in a movie is overdubbed and editted pretty much all the time now. A studio recording used to be more or less live on the take, with what was played in that moment being the final product, free of overdubs and re-recorded bits, until technology allowed for "perfecting" the music. No one complained about that because the music sounded good.
Alas, though, we want to see the crappy bits, just to remind ourselves that the band is human and capabale of mistakes, just like us, even if it mean putting out a product below their standards.
It always seems to come down to: the Fans are always right, even if it isn't what the band wants.
It used to be that the band dictated its output and the fans could take it or leave.
The artistic statement belongs to the ARTIST and was not predicated on being accepted by its audience.
inu-liger · Member since
I have to disagree with you, mate. A movie is basically the visual equivalent of a 'studio album', considering the work that goes more into making studio albums / films than with a live release. Studio recordings by your reasoning are also 'overdubbed' too. You know what, that's how people perfect studio albums and movies, they use the best material and technology possible to do so!
rhyeking · Member since
And they should not have the choice to "perfect" a recording made before an audience?
ploughman · Member since
Yara wrote: Hey, ploughman. With all due respect, I fail to see what's the puzzle here. Given the fact they had the multitracks, and taking into account that a whole lot of painstaking effort was put into producing Rock Montreal's last release, it shouldn't come as a surprise, to my mind, that the final output sounds so nice, especially with all the sound technology out there nowadays - records which have been very well recorded can be made to sound as clear as the Rock Montreal's gig.
That said, I don't think they resorted much, or at all, to overdubbing. No abstruse sound-engineering concepts here, but just some common sense.
Just ask yourself some basic questions:
a) If the guys really wanted to smooth all the rough edges, as you seem to suggest, why on earth did they leave "Dragon Attack" as it is, with Freddie fumbling the lines and losing the tempo in a pretty annoying way?
b) Had they gone out of their minds to make ammendments, why didn't they bother to fix Freddie's take on the first verse of the second part of such a crucial song as "Save Me"? One notices quite easily that he forgot the lines and tried to recover by speaking, instead of singing, them.
Had some other Queen concerts been as well recorded and produced as this one, I think we'd have by now even better sounding gigs out there on DVD or Blu-Ray: Overall, I think their performances in South America, as well as the "short-lived" Crazy Tour and a couple of U.S gigs from the Game Tour, not to mention the killer concerts at Wembley on December 1980, are significantly better than the two Montreal gigs.
As to overdubbing in general, it may in fact work as a way of doing justice to a great band - we all know that bands tend to get nervous if they are being recorded or, even worse, if there are huge cameras flying around them. Led's "How The West Was Won" has been significantly edited, but does it mean that the legendary quartet couldn't deliver some very good, tight performances, despite the minor flaws? It'd be unfair to Led's legacy and efforts if they released something which didn't do justice to the amazing songs and the outright magnificent band, which was absolutely exciting as a live act.
Cheers!
There are overdubs and then there are corrections.
The theatre version of Rainbow 1974 is of course full of overdubs.
Talking about "Rock Montreal", I'm actually more astounded by the sound. That's what I meant. They re-mixed it a couple of years ago, that's why the isolation of the different instruments is so good. My wonder is, why weren't they able to re-do this kind of sound on "Live at the Bowl"? Thay remixed it also a couple of years ago? Were the conditions so different in Montreal?
I think that the overall performance is really good, And the little hic-ups like the ones on Save Me and Dragon attack don't bother me at all. I think they are there, because that's how it was performed that night. I think ather vocals are also live, but what astounded me is that Freddie never missed the pitch of the note with his vocal during that night. That's why I tend to think that a little bit of aoutomatic pitch-correction was used. To do a 2-hour show, whitout ever wandering even a little bit out of tune, is a massive chore for the singer. But as I noted before and as you said, the shows from 1980-81 are really good with Freddie. Very powerful performances indeed. It could be that this is purely untouched.
The Real Wizard · Member since
ploughman wrote:
"To do a 2-hour show, whitout ever wandering even a little bit out of tune, is a massive chore for the singer. But as I noted before and as you said, the shows from 1980-81 are really good with Freddie. Very powerful performances indeed. It could be that this is purely untouched."
I'd say it is. For the most part, Freddie was a force to be reckoned with from 1980-82.
on my way up · Member since
Sir GH wrote: ploughman wrote:
"To do a 2-hour show, whitout ever wandering even a little bit out of tune, is a massive chore for the singer. But as I noted before and as you said, the shows from 1980-81 are really good with Freddie. Very powerful performances indeed. It could be that this is purely untouched."
I'd say it is. For the most part, Freddie was a force to be reckoned with from 1980-82. I agree. It was certainly possible for Freddie to sound as brilliant live as he did in Montreal. Several audience recordings are evidence of that. We often slagg QPL off (and often rightly so) but I really feel Queen rock Montreal was a good release. (
Also, in Freddie's defens(concerning his live vocals): some great periods from him aren't well-covered in terms iof bootlegs. Think about: NOTW '77, Crazy tour, US Game tour (especially the early gigs, really looking forward to those Vancouver songsù...).
I adore the Japanese shows of 1979 but I've got to admit that his voice was in weak shape. No discussion possible about that. Imagine we'd have as many Crazy tour recordings....
On a positive note, we have several nice European Game tour and European Hot Space tour recordings.
Wes90 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Gregsynth wrote: [/b] Bad Seed wrote: I've mentioned before that I believe quite a bit of Montreal is overdubbed. I'm almost certain NIH has almost entirely been re-done by Freddie at some point. I've never heard him sing the song this way before, and anyone with a good ear could tell that the vocal on that song doesn't sound the same as most of the other tracks.
============================
It's NOT overdubbed. I have the audience recording from the first night! Freddie's voice is stunning (he gets ALL the Under Pressure high notes)! [/QUOTE]
The rock part in Bohemian Rhapsody defenately sounds overdubbed, i think studio vocals are pretty easy to spot, it's just a different way of singing, i find it strange nobody noticed it but that part is not live for sure.
Wes90 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Gregsynth wrote: [/b] Bad Seed wrote: I've mentioned before that I believe quite a bit of Montreal is overdubbed. I'm almost certain NIH has almost entirely been re-done by Freddie at some point. I've never heard him sing the song this way before, and anyone with a good ear could tell that the vocal on that song doesn't sound the same as most of the other tracks.
============================
It's NOT overdubbed. I have the audience recording from the first night! Freddie's voice is stunning (he gets ALL the Under Pressure high notes)! [/QUOTE]
The rock part in Bohemian Rhapsody defenately sounds overdubbed, i think studio vocals are pretty easy to spot, it's just a different way of singing, i find it strange nobody noticed it but that part is not live for sure.
April Lady · Member since
Dude, I've been a fan for 36 years...chill a little [img=/images/smiley/msn/wink_smile.gif][/img]
space ghost · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Wes90 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Gregsynth wrote: [/b] Bad Seed wrote: I've mentioned before that I believe quite a bit of Montreal is overdubbed. I'm almost certain NIH has almost entirely been re-done by Freddie at some point. I've never heard him sing the song this way before, and anyone with a good ear could tell that the vocal on that song doesn't sound the same as most of the other tracks.
============================
It's NOT overdubbed. I have the audience recording from the first night! Freddie's voice is stunning (he gets ALL the Under Pressure high notes)! [/QUOTE]
The rock part in Bohemian Rhapsody defenately sounds overdubbed, i think studio vocals are pretty easy to spot, it's just a different way of singing,
i find it strange nobody noticed it but that part is not live for sure.[/QUOTE]
If you hear only the two back channels on 5.1 from Rock Montreal DVD you could hear the original vocals on Now I'm Here, Under Pressure (final), Jailhouse Rock, Bohemian Rhapsody (rock section), Tie Your Mother Down, Another One Bites The Dust and Sheer Heart Attack.
--------------
Sorry for my bad english!
luthorn · Member since
Irrespective of the answer I find Montreal a snooze. There are a lot better concerts from the period 1980 1982 that I would drool to see a video off.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]space ghost wrote:[/b]
If you hear only the two back channels on 5.1 from Rock Montreal DVD you could hear the original vocals on Now I'm Here, Under Pressure (final), Jailhouse Rock, Bohemian Rhapsody (rock section), Tie Your Mother Down, Another One Bites The Dust and Sheer Heart Attack.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting ! Could someone do a DVD rip of just those channels of those songs?
