Live backing vocals

Ok even as much of the Queen fans we are, we could admit the choruses of Champions rarely sounded good live. They only sounded good when Freddie sang the whole thing in the higher range like Stockholm 78 and Live Aid. Also, they sounded good during Japan 1979 because Freddie's ailing voice forced the other members to sing much more and it sounded more together. I have to say, most of the time it sounded shitty. Just listen to Hammy 1979

"Good" is subjective: As long as it's ON KEY, it's fine. Sorry, maybe you don't like it, but it doesn't mean it was "bad."

Yes, I would've loved the original notes to be sung by Freddie, but the best we've got is Stockholm 1978, Glasgow 1979, Live Aid, and the 2nd Leiden gig on the Magic Tour. I'm fine with Freddie singing in the lower octave--we've got Roger to sing the original octave.

BTW what's wrong with Hammy's version?

Besides the point, the vocal harmonies improved greatly within the next tour or so!

Finally to add, I see what you are saying about the chorus vocals, but "bad" or "unstable" aren't really the right words. "Undersung" is probably the word I use!

Which 1976 shows are we referring to?  On the Boston recording and most of the Japanese shows, the harmonies are pretty much spot on.

But for 1977, I agree... for some reason the harmonies were very shaky much of the time.

"What was wrong in the 1976-1977 period? Did they stop caring? "

I'd go so far as to say that they're a lot worse at the moment.  I don't know if it's that 2nd guitarist, or perhaps someone who stands offstage, but I've heard some absolute shockers in the shows they've done since 2005.

And in that case, technology's not an excuse.

The audio source is very important here as well. Soundboard recordings enable you to hear everything exactly as it was played, but the lack of overall balance and reverb or natural ambience makes them very unforgiving. Vocals on a dry soundboard recording tend to sound a little lost and out of context, unlike an audience recording.

I cringe every time I hear Brian sing back up to "Let Me Entertain You" live.
Worst examples are the South America shows.

The audio source is very important here as well. Soundboard recordings enable you to hear everything exactly as it was played, but the lack of overall balance and reverb or natural ambience makes them very unforgiving. Vocals on a dry soundboard recording tend to sound a little lost and out of context, unlike an audience recording.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Very good point. 
Most soundboard/monitor mixes are just "dry", as the acoustics of the building add a lot of echo and room to the performance and the final mix for the audience. On records this is usually created in the studio with numerous effects.

Anyway, in case of Queen the typical "Queen-sound" was the result of multitracking of same voices and also the same guitar. Queen couldn't do it on stage. Nowadays the players in the Musical get closer to that sound with two guitars. 
It would be an interesting experiment to put all those players together on one stage and then create live versions of "Procession" or "God save the Queen"......or the "March of the Black Queen".....and many more...

Sir GH wrote: Which 1976 shows are we referring to?  On the Boston recording and most of the Japanese shows, the harmonies are pretty much spot on.

But for 1977, I agree... for some reason the harmonies were very shaky much of the time.
I feel the same,; 1976 was great. A good example of not so good backing vocals for 1977  is Earls Court...:-)

I've always assumed that when the vocals sounded a bit iffy it was because someone was to high in the mix. A good example of this is Roger on fast WWRY, Houston 1977. Remember, singing harmony vocals isn't the same as just singing along, and when Roger is singing harmony on WWRY and his voice is too much in the foreground, it's gonna sound "off" when really it isn't.