MackMantilla wrote: I would be much appreciated if we could get a revisited list about soundboard recordings ;)
why would YOU get all the appreciation for a collective effort?
why would YOU get all the appreciation for a collective effort?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
why would YOU get all the appreciation for a collective effort?
^ fuck off brenski lol - you knew what he meant, and you almost made me choke on my tea into the bargain, you loveable old rogue :)
brENsKi wrote:
MackMantilla wrote: I would be much appreciated if we could get a revisited list about soundboard recordings ;)
why would YOU get all the appreciation for a collective effort?
Sorry, I made a mistake while typing. The correct word should be "it"
BTW, I have just corrected my post
:)
dudeofqueen wrote: Hasn't your English teacher taken you thorough basic sentence construction yet; think about what you're going to write before posting it so that anyone reading can understand exactly what you mean.
(You needed a comma placed after "in" to fully emphasise your point chap.)
Punctuation and spelling needs work -but Johnny will improve with practice and shows promise.
5 and a half out of 10.
^ lol :)
Known soundboard tapes (mono, stereo, multi-tracks, radio broadcasts)
Not counting video feeds (like Tokyo 5-1-75, Munich 5-3-78 and Caracas 9-27-81)
London 9-13-73
London 3-31-74
London 11-19-74
London 11-20-74
Helsinki 11-25-74 (supposedly in the possession of a Finnish radio station)
London 12-24-75
London 9-18-76
Richfield 1-23-77
London 6-6-77
London 6-7-77
Frankfurt 2-2-79
Zurich 2-4-79
Lyon 2-17-79
Barcelona 2-20-79
Paris 2-27-79
Paris 2-28-79
Paris 3-1-79
London 12-26-79
Buenos Aires 2-28-81
Mar Del Plata 3-4-81
Buenos Aires 3-8-81
Sao Paulo 3-20-81
Monterrey 10-9-81
Puebla 10-18-81
Montreal 11-24-81
Montreal 11-25-81
Milton Keynes 6-5-82
Tokyo 11-3-82
Sun City 10-19-84
Rio 1-12-85
Rio 1-19-85
Tokyo 5-11-85
London 7-13-85
Mannheim 6-21-86
Slane 7-5-86
Newcastle 7-9-86
London 7-11-86
London 7-12-86
Manchester 7-16-86
Budapest 7-27-86
Stevenage 8-9-86
... and a whole slew of raw mono soundboard tapes that we don't know about. Brian May once said they recorded every show as far back as 1974 and listened to / critiqued them in the limo on the way back to the hotel. These were probably just raw mono board tapes. If this is true, then nearly every Queen show exists somewhere rendering my list to be a pointless exercise.
Most of Jan-Mar 79 should be on multi-track since it was used for Live Killers.
Not counting video feeds (like Tokyo 5-1-75, Munich 5-3-78 and Caracas 9-27-81)
London 9-13-73
London 3-31-74
London 11-19-74
London 11-20-74
Helsinki 11-25-74 (supposedly in the possession of a Finnish radio station)
London 12-24-75
London 9-18-76
Richfield 1-23-77
London 6-6-77
London 6-7-77
Frankfurt 2-2-79
Zurich 2-4-79
Lyon 2-17-79
Barcelona 2-20-79
Paris 2-27-79
Paris 2-28-79
Paris 3-1-79
London 12-26-79
Buenos Aires 2-28-81
Mar Del Plata 3-4-81
Buenos Aires 3-8-81
Sao Paulo 3-20-81
Monterrey 10-9-81
Puebla 10-18-81
Montreal 11-24-81
Montreal 11-25-81
Milton Keynes 6-5-82
Tokyo 11-3-82
Sun City 10-19-84
Rio 1-12-85
Rio 1-19-85
Tokyo 5-11-85
London 7-13-85
Mannheim 6-21-86
Slane 7-5-86
Newcastle 7-9-86
London 7-11-86
London 7-12-86
Manchester 7-16-86
Budapest 7-27-86
Stevenage 8-9-86
... and a whole slew of raw mono soundboard tapes that we don't know about. Brian May once said they recorded every show as far back as 1974 and listened to / critiqued them in the limo on the way back to the hotel. These were probably just raw mono board tapes. If this is true, then nearly every Queen show exists somewhere rendering my list to be a pointless exercise.
Most of Jan-Mar 79 should be on multi-track since it was used for Live Killers.
The Real Wizard wrote:
Brian May once said they recorded every show as far back as 1974 and listened to /critiqued them in the limo on the way back to the hotel. These were probably just raw mono board tapes.
Wow! I did not know that, and hopefully the information is correct. However, as all of the information put forward from Brian and Roger through to Jim Beach, GB and GT seems to clash (a lot), I don't know how credible this recollection of Brian's is.
With a bit of luck, though, he's right - and with a bit of better luck, they have been preserved. Regardless of quality, they're bound to be superior to the audience recordings of that era.
I know it's been said before, but it would be great if they got round to digitising this gear - and, as previously suggested on numerous occasions right here on QZ - I wouldn't mind paying a fee per track/complete download, if lack of interest outwith us die-hards is such an issue. I understand it takes a lot to master, check, re-check and re-re-check a recording, and a lot more to package and distribute it, but if a digital download in the mould of iTunes is a potential way of getting this stuff out, I'd second that :)
Thistleboy1980 wrote:
The Real Wizard wrote:
Brian May once said they recorded every show as far back as 1974 and listened to /critiqued them in the limo on the way back to the hotel. These were probably just raw mono board tapes.
Wow! I did not know that, and hopefully the information is correct. However, as all of the information put forward from Brian and Roger through to Jim Beach, GB and GT seems to clash (a lot), I don't know how credible this recollection of Brian's is.
With a bit of luck, though, he's right - and with a bit of better luck, they have been preserved. Regardless of quality, they're bound to be superior to the audience recordings of that era.
I know it's been said before, but it would be great if they got round to digitising this gear - and, as previously suggested on numerous occasions right here on QZ - I wouldn't mind paying a fee per track/complete download, if lack of interest outwith us die-hards is such an issue. I understand it takes a lot to master, check, re-check and re-re-check a recording, and a lot more to package and distribute it, but if a digital download in the mould of iTunes is a potential way of getting this stuff out, I'd second that :)
If I recall correctly, someone also said that these concerts were recorded cheaply, and that that the sound quality is not that good.
I would think that the sound quality would be near excellent if it was recorded on soundboard.
Me too. But, on reflection, the quote only suggests that the shows were recorded - but doesn't detail how. Bob seems to speculate that the recordings were raw mono board tapes: they could be, but then again, they could have been done on some sort of home-deck, purely for the band's reference (for example, Peter Kay still does this on a cheap recorder during his live shows, as he can determine what material is good,what ad-libs worked and where they belong in a show). If the latter is the case, then the quality could just be the same as an audience recording. We can only speculate, but here's hoping there's more good quality stuff in the archives :)
Panchgani wrote:
If I recall correctly, someone also said that these concerts were recorded cheaply, and that that the sound quality is not that good.
I would think that the sound quality would be near excellent if it was recorded on soundboard.
Not necessarily. Going by personal past experience, if it was a monitor mix rather than the mix output through the stage speakers facing the audience, more likely than not they're not going to match the live speaker mix in terms of fidelity and typically are usually mixed closer to mono than stereo.
The build quality of the mixing board as well as any equipment on the chain rack (effects, EQ, etc.) will also definitely play a role.
And lastly but importantly too, the recording equipment itself also makes a significant difference.
inu-liger wrote:
Panchgani wrote:
If I recall correctly, someone also said that these concerts were recorded cheaply, and that that the sound quality is not that good.
I would think that the sound quality would be near excellent if it was recorded on soundboard.
Not necessarily. Going by personal past experience, if it was a monitor mix rather than the mix output through the stage speakers facing the audience, more likely than not they're not going to match the live speaker mix in terms of fidelity and typically are usually mixed closer to mono than stereo.
The build quality of the mixing board as well as any equipment on the chain rack (effects, EQ, etc.) will also definitely play a role.
And lastly but importantly too, the recording equipment itself also makes a significant difference.
OK - thanks for the clarification Inu.
Panchgani wrote:
OK - thanks for the clarification Inu.
Indeed! I'm not technically minded, I just appreciate what's put out for me to hear and don't tend to think about the process - that was a nice, digestible, lesson :)
Jeeze you know your stuff Inu-liger.
Alas just the more reason why Queen should be putting out more officially live audio releases that are stand alone from any video or film.
Don't forget the two reunion tours and one offs as Queen +!!!
Alas just the more reason why Queen should be putting out more officially live audio releases that are stand alone from any video or film.
Don't forget the two reunion tours and one offs as Queen +!!!
AlexRocks wrote:
Jeeze you know your stuff Inu-liger.
Comes from having a few year's experience recording my ex-band's shows obsessively :-)
Plus having a bandmate who later went on to train for a sound engineer's certificate also really helped
Panchgani wrote:
If I recall correctly, someone also said that these concerts were recorded cheaply, and that that the sound quality is not that good.
I would think that the sound quality would be near excellent if it was recorded on soundboard.
Generally, yes... but raw board recordings of the house mix (or possibly monitor mix, as Inu pointed out) still have their flaws.
Listen to the Zeppelin board tapes from 1971 and 73 - many of them aren't great.