I think the first Newcastle should be ranked pretty high (at least top 20).
To be quite frank, I don't believe Newcastle 12/3 and Glasgow 12/1 fall very far under Newcastle 12/4. After all, a large chunk of songs were better at 12/3 than 12/4.
Gregsynth · Member since
jamster1111 wrote:
"Nearly every song is sung and performed better at 5/8 or tied. The only one better at 5/9 is WATC and I never denied that...but that song in itself is not far better than 5/8, just slightly better. I say about 40% of the songs are tied, 55% are better at 5/8, and 5% are better at 5/9. I've listened to both vocal improvs many times and they are both very good but that kind of stuff is personal preference more than anything. The crowd is much more enthusiastic at 5/8 and the band are enthusiastic about both. And I doubt you can hear someone crying in the audience...that's just bullshit...no one cries that loud for a taper to pix it up which is recording a loud band in a hall filled with thousands of fans making noise." ==========================
I don't care if Freddie sang "slightly" better at one concert--that's only a small part of the criteria. The BAND (overall) is better and more creative at 5/9. The BAND improvs (along with Freddie's) are more creative and interesting (Freddie does MORE with his voice = more creative, the band does more with the improvs = more creative). The crowd is more UP-FRONT at 5/8's mix (but listening on a relative basis--both crowds are awesome).
Take a listen to the section after Now I'm Here (just before the slower songs), you can HEAR crying. Bob mentions it on his site as well. Just listen to it.
Gregsynth · Member since
jamster1111 wrote:
"I'm not saying it had to be perfect but at least decent. Most gigs from 75-79, when singing backup vocals, the band are very out of synch (one pulls away from the mic while the other is still singing). I never got why they couldn't just focus more on it.". =================
I was talking strictly pitch in my last post (you said the harmonies were "off" sometimes--which I agree with--I take the words "off" and "harmony" as pitch-related). There's plenty of "decent" harmonies throughout the 70s, not too worried overall.
The reason they didn't focus on the harmonies as much--was because they wanted to focus more on the music (the instruments). As long as the harmonies were decent enough, I'm fine.
Gregsynth · Member since
jamster1111 wrote:
To be quite frank, I don't believe Newcastle 12/3 and Glasgow 12/1 fall very far under Newcastle 12/4. After all, a large chunk of songs were better at 12/3 than 12/4. =======================
Glasgow isn't good enough to be that high, but I agree that the first Newcastle should at least crack high (possibly 9 or 10--I have to get opinions on that). It's about a 50/50 split on songs for me (both concerts are both ace), but the crowd is a bit better on the later Newcastle (though the first night is good in its own right).
jamster1111 · Member since
Gregsynth wrote:
The reason they didn't focus on the harmonies as much--was because they wanted to focus more on the music (the instruments). As long as the harmonies were decent enough, I'm fine. If they focused on the instruments, then why did Brian May fuck up at about 60% of the concerts? And i don't mean tiny blenders that nobody would notice but wrong notes or guitars. We hear it left and right.
Gregsynth · Member since
jamster1111 wrote:
If they focused on the instruments, then why did Brian May fuck up at about 60% of the concerts? And i don't mean tiny blenders that nobody would notice but wrong notes or guitars. We hear it left and right. ==================
Who honestly cares? Every band fucks up on stage. If they WEREN'T focused on the instruments--they wouldn't have gotten their reputation as being as one of the greatest live bands.
And how does Brian play wrong guitars? That must take some talent!
jamster1111 · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: jamster1111 wrote:
If they focused on the instruments, then why did Brian May fuck up at about 60% of the concerts? And i don't mean tiny blenders that nobody would notice but wrong notes or guitars. We hear it left and right. ==================
Who honestly cares? Every band fucks up on stage. If they WEREN'T focused on the instruments--they wouldn't have gotten their reputation as being as one of the greatest live bands.
And how does Brian play wrong guitars? That must take some talent! LOL I'm just saying, I love Queen and all and they were the best band of all time but they could have concentrated a little more on the music part of it their live performances.
Gregsynth · Member since
jamster1111 wrote:
LOL I'm just saying, I love Queen and all and they were the best band of all time but they could have concentrated a little more on the music part of it their live performances. =====================
That's a moot point--ANY band can spend more time concentrating on the music--it would be boring quite frankly. This isn't a opera concert or anything, it's a ROCK concert--mistakes happen for a reason (volume, singer goes out, strings break. etc). That last statement was kinda ignorant, no offense (I'm sure you've made mistakes live--I have before).
What do you want Queen to be: Technical robots (AKA DREAM THEATRE)? with all technique/little mistakes, but no "fun factor" or "rawness" to it? You aren't going to get that with Queen--you are going to get a raw rock band (complete with mistakes and all). Mistakes happen: String breaks? Get a new guitar on stage. Voice cracks? Stay off the highest notes. Sing off key? Adjust your pitch. Go off time? Get back on time. Frankly, bands that make mistakes live are more interesting.
jamster1111 · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: jamster1111 wrote:
LOL I'm just saying, I love Queen and all and they were the best band of all time but they could have concentrated a little more on the music part of it their live performances. =====================
That's a moot point--ANY band can spend more time concentrating on the music--it would be boring quite frankly. This isn't a opera concert or anything, it's a ROCK concert--mistakes happen for a reason (volume, singer goes out, strings break. etc). That last statement was kinda ignorant, no offense (I'm sure you've made mistakes live--I have before).
What do you want Queen to be: Technical robots (AKA DREAM THEATRE)? with all technique/little mistakes, but no "fun factor" or "rawness" to it? You aren't going to get that with Queen--you are going to get a raw rock band (complete with mistakes and all). Mistakes happen: String breaks? Get a new guitar on stage. Voice cracks? Stay off the highest notes. Sing off key? Adjust your pitch. Go off time? Get back on time. Frankly, bands that make mistakes live are more interesting. Of course we all make mistakes and they were the greatest live band of all time but I was just saying something that I've been wondering about.
Gregsynth · Member since
Yeah, but I'm sure EVERY band could sound better live--so it's kinda silly to say: "I think they could've focused more on the music."
formulaone+queenmad · Member since
1) Newcastle 12/4/1979
2) Leiden 6/12/1986
3) Edinburgh 6/1/1982
4) Boston 1/30/1986
5) Brussels 8/24/1984
6) Copenhagen 4/13/1978
7) Brussels 12/13/1980
8) Sao Paulo 2/28/1981 (next night's audio is shit!)
9) Tokyo 5/8/1985
10) Tokyo 5/1/1975
Gregsynth · Member since
Here's an updated list (combined with my original list--with some of Jamster's ideas)
ORIGINAL LIST:
1. Newcastle (12/4/1979) 2. Leiden (6/12/1986) 3. Rock In Rio (1/12/1985) 4. Boston (1/30/1976) 5. New York (12/2/1977) 6. Leeds (5/29/1982) 7. Bristol (5/23/1977) 8. Stockholm (4/12/1978) 9. Tokyo (5/9/1985) 10. London (12/8/1980)
UPDATED LIST:
1. Newcastle (12/4/1979) 2. Leiden (6/12/1986) 3. Rock In Rio (1/12/1985) 4. Boston (1/30/1976) 5. New York (12/2/1977) 6. Leeds (5/29/1982) 7. London (12/8/1980) 8. Stockholm (4/12/1978) 9. Newcastle (12/3/1979) 10. Philadelphia (11/23/1977)
Tokyo 1985 has been moved off (as well as Bristol). I added Philadelphia 1977 (it's really underrated), Newcastle 1979 (1st night), and moved London 1980 up a couple spots (it's a well-balanced awesome show).
Gregsynth · Member since
formulaone+queenmad wrote: 1) Newcastle 12/4/1979 2) Leiden 6/12/1986 3) Edinburgh 6/1/1982 4) Boston 1/30/1986 5) Brussels 8/24/1984 6) Copenhagen 4/13/1978 7) Brussels 12/13/1980 8) Sao Paulo 2/28/1981 (next night's audio is shit!) 9) Tokyo 5/8/1985 10) Tokyo 5/1/1975 ==============
3/20/1981 is the Sao Paulo date--but other than that--very interesting list!
formulaone+queenmad · Member since
I knew what I meant haha! And my lists and views are always interesting! :P
jamster1111 · Member since
Gregsynth wrote: Here's an updated list (combined with my original list--with some of Jamster's ideas)
ORIGINAL LIST:
1. Newcastle (12/4/1979) 2. Leiden (6/12/1986) 3. Rock In Rio (1/12/1985) 4. Boston (1/30/1976) 5. New York (12/2/1977) 6. Leeds (5/29/1982) 7. Bristol (5/23/1977) 8. Stockholm (4/12/1978) 9. Tokyo (5/9/1985) 10. London (12/8/1980)
UPDATED LIST:
1. Newcastle (12/4/1979) 2. Leiden (6/12/1986) 3. Rock In Rio (1/12/1985) 4. Boston (1/30/1976) 5. New York (12/2/1977) 6. Leeds (5/29/1982) 7. London (12/8/1980) 8. Stockholm (4/12/1978) 9. Newcastle (12/3/1979) 10. Philadelphia (11/23/1977)
Tokyo 1985 has been moved off (as well as Bristol). I added Philadelphia 1977 (it's really underrated), Newcastle 1979 (1st night), and moved London 1980 up a couple spots (it's a well-balanced awesome show). Stockholm 78? I think Newcastle 12/3 is a much better show. Newcastle 12/3 i think should be number 3.
