Is Queen Wembley 86 overdubbed?

I heard the saturday night show is heavily overdubbed.

Is Friday night overdubbed? Freddies voice sounds much better than saturday and I can't stand overdubs!

If friday is overddubed. can you please point of specific parts? Thanks fellow queen fans!

The Saturday show has so many overdubs, that I lost count!

The first Wembley show is mostly "legit." They fixed some guitar goofs on Who Wants To Live Forever, and they got rid of the feedback on "Is This The World We Created." There's probably more, but those two stick out!

Freddie truly does sound better on the Friday show (I don't believe they overdubbed his vocals for the Friday show)!

Very few, if any, official live recordings from the 70's and 80's were not overdubbed.

Unleashed in the East by Judas Priest was only half Jokingly known as Unleashed in the studio, some reports claimed the only live recording on the album being the Bass drum.

Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous, although denied at the time, was over dubbed on several tracks as was Live Killers which also had songs "stitched together" from more than one performance.

Both Milton Keynes and Wembley contain very different sounding performances from the original releases. In some places the vocal on Milton Keynes has been treated compared to the 80's TV broadcast.

Wembley 86 has been "altered" in places too.

Of course Frank Zappa being Frank Zappa, on the album Joe Garage, dubbed live guitar solos into the studio recording!

If your looking and hoping to find officially released pure live recordings they are few and far between.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Of course Frank Zappa being Frank Zappa, on the album Joe Garage, dubbed live guitar solos into the studio recording!
[/QUOTE]
^ Definition of genius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uCbm5PVK8

in this link are the raw concert of wembley 86 whitout overdubs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg4iPtEANEk

Audience recording. Not only is it not overdubbed, but it gives you an idea of what the live mixing practices were, with regards to echoes and reverbs being switched in on front of house sound.

The overdubs are a plus in some cases - the MK version of Fat Bottomed Girls is much better off without Freddie's squealing :P

[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
The overdubs are a plus in some cases - the MK version of Fat Bottomed Girls is much better off without Freddie's squealing :P [/QUOTE]

I can't agree. Overdubs are always a cheat. When I want a concert recording, I want to hear exactly what the audience could here. That's the meaning of live recordings - to give the buyer the feeling that he's on a (Queen) show.
And I prefer the original FBG on MK

^^^^^^^^
What he said ;-)


Yes and when I know where and when a overdub is patched into the recording. Each and everytime I listnen to it I know and think " oh yeah that's a overbud" And I am going to listnen very carefully if I can hear any patching done on the music.... The FBG from MK : you can hear a big difference it sound unnatural ... and is indeed annoying...

I disagree, I'd prefer to hear a live recording with a few overdubs if it means a better product. Freddie may have uncharacteristically slipped up on one note of a show, and it's a bit unfair to crystalise that for eternity by releasing it as it is.

Of course I don't mean overdubs to the extent where you can't tell what's live and what's not anymore, but for mistakes which i think will stand out, then why not? Queen were perfectionists, I'm sure they'd agree.

[QUOTE] [b]Supersonic_Man89 wrote:[/b] Freddie may have uncharacteristically slipped up on one note of a show[/QUOTE]

I think, good as he was Freddie's voice was not perfect.
There were many shows where his voice was strained or he went for lower notes for self preservation.

Yes he had amazing range and control as proved on many albums. But in the studio you can stop and start and take breaks. On stage you can't, and that showed during a number of Queen gigs.

I think you'll find that Paul Rodgers, when working with Queen was a more consistent singer than Freddie.

[QUOTE]

[b]Vocal harmony wrote: [/b] [QUOTE][b]Supersonic_Man89 wrote:[/b] Freddie may have uncharacteristically slipped up on one note of a show[/QUOTE]

I think, good as he was Freddie's voice was not perfect.
There were many shows where his voice was strained or he went for lower notes for self preservation.

Yes he had amazing range and control as proved on many albums. But in the studio you can stop and start and take breaks. On stage you can't, and that showed during a number of Queen gigs.

I think you'll find that Paul Rodgers, when working with Queen was a more consistent singer than Freddie.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Rodgers could definitely reproduce his nasal whine far more consistantly than Fred, especially the lyrics "lurrve yewww" .

Paul Rodgers doesn't suffer from vocal nodules afaik.

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but how can you even tell if a live show's been overdubbed?

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Yes, Rodgers could definitely reproduce his nasal whine far more consistantly than Fred, especially the lyrics "lurrve yewww" .[/QUOTE]

At least he did it night after night, in tune without breaking up or losing pitch. Something Freddie couldn't do as often.