Works tour revelation

[QUOTE] [b]Rick wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Is there any point to a Hammersmith 75 release. Visually the set on that tour wasn't much different to what was used at the Rainbow in Nov 74. Also the set list at Hammersmith wasn't what was played on the rest of the tour, being a shortened show to fit the best of the setlist into the broadcast time. What was played, apart from the Bo Rhap bit was more or less the same as the year before.

Yes it has it's place in Queen history because of what it was, but overall it repeats what the Rainbow was. IMO there are better 70's shows.

Something, better than Rio, needs to be released from the Works Tour [/QUOTE]

Hammy 1975 is a dull concert. Nothing special. So yeah, I agree.

Hyde Park 1976 and Earls Court/Houston 1977 are far more interesting gigs.

[/QUOTE]

It may be dull due to over-familiarity now but it is a cracking concert and is worthy of a full, official release. It wouldn't be the one I would necessarily want next, but definitely I would buy an official release.

-

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Is there any point to a Hammersmith 75 release.
[/QUOTE]

Bo Rhap and Brighton Rock are the only additions. Nonetheless, it is still a different show, with slightly different renditions of songs, different costumes. The band's interaction with the audience is shown very well on Hammersmith, whereas due to the angles on the Rainbow shows (and probably the camera positioning creating a barrier), the audience might as well not exist. With Hammersmith, we're also guaranteed that the vocals are all live - this will be a nice contrast with the Rainbow, where the backing vocals have near-invariably been polished in the studio.

Hey, Mr. Zappa, no, he said he loves the song, because we were talking about Hot Space as a very special record ;)
Yeah, he must be incorrected in the date. The only persons I talked whowere there, in Boston, was John Loungo and Fred Mandel of course, played!

Check Brighton Rock from Rio85..
Greatness!

[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Is there any point to a Hammersmith 75 release.
[/QUOTE]

With Hammersmith, we're also guaranteed that the vocals are all live - this will be a nice contrast with the Rainbow, where the backing vocals have near-invariably been polished in the studio. [/QUOTE]

I'm sure any Hammersmith release will also have polished vocals; they may all be live (as in flown in from other shows as opposed to studio overdubs), but I reckon they will still 'tweak' them with autotune etc..

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]12yrslouetta wrote:[/b]

Actually I have to disagree. I was lucky to see Queen twice in 1980 and they were great and wonderful. Saw them in 1982 and they were good – I thought they were better in 1980 actually. But in Leeds they were just fantastic. Have to say that all the Hot Space stuff they did was stupendous. You could see that they enjoyed playing those tracks. But the leap when I saw them in 1984 was incredible. The lights, the volume, the stage presentation was like nothing id ever seen from them. I saw them twice on that tour and it was maybe the best Id ever seen them. In 86 they seemed much more smiley and content with each other so it was a different experience really. In Manchester 86 for example they were fine but it was lacklustre after what I had seen from them before. But 1984 was great.
Id be interested to know if people are commenting how 84 was dreadful after just listening to rips/ audio or if you actually went to any of the gigs (by the way, im not saying that you cant enjoy it if you didn’t go to any of the gigs of course). Im just wondering if anybody else who went felt if Queen had jumped a few rungs up the ladder in their live progression, or did you think after seeing them that it wasn’t great and the gig was a step backwards.
[/QUOTE]

Good post.

Based on all I hear from those present at the gigs, the sound was great in the room, and I wholeheartedly agree that it was a great setlist too, and so I think a lot of the negative comments about The Works tour comes from the audio mixes of the officially released gigs from then: the (in most minds) unwise choice of really inappropriate use of keys and electronic drums (along with Roger's chrome Ludwig kit which did not suit their sound at all).

The audio mixes (Rio, Japan 85) are atrocious on the official releases; guitar muddy and buried in the mix, keys too synthesised, and electronic drums too loud and poorly selected as to when to play them.

I have no issues with keys being used; I think they work brilliantly on the Magic Tour - Now I'm Here, A Kind of Magic, Tie Your Mother Down etc.. . all sound great with subtle piano playing. I can only think however that on The Works tour that Spike and the band were testing various things out, and the 'trial and error' stage was more 'error' than 'trial' , as everything was just far too synth based on the keys sounds on most songs.

Roger's use of the electronic pads was poor in a lot of places – Another One Bites The Dust being a particular example where the songs just suffers for the whole song being played on them. Thankfully, that particular itch seems to have been scratched by 86 too!

Having heard the remixes from the tour released as bonus tracks (It's A Hard Life and Rock In Rio Blues), there is massive potential to get a fantastic sounding live release from The Works period, so I haven't given up hope just yet![/QUOTE]


i just want to pick up on a couple of things here, Rogers chrome kit wasnt a chrome kit like Bonhams, it was still Maple covered in Chrome, just like all his other kits.

i was at gig in 80, 82, 84 and 86, the sound at Wembley in 84 was wonderful in the arena, way better than in 80 for example, but nowhere near as good as 86. In the arena the electronic gear sounded pretty rocky and dynamic, but by the time I saw the Rio vhs, it sounded horrible so not sure which was right? IMO the front of house mix was amazing in 84 and the whole band sounded much bigger than in 80.

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Is there any point to a Hammersmith 75 release.
[/QUOTE]

With Hammersmith, we're also guaranteed that the vocals are all live - this will be a nice contrast with the Rainbow, where the backing vocals have near-invariably been polished in the studio. [/QUOTE]

I'm sure any Hammersmith release will also have polished vocals; they may all be live (as in flown in from other shows as opposed to studio overdubs), but I reckon they will still 'tweak' them with autotune etc..[/QUOTE]

True - I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement of it, I mainly meant the harmonies will consist of only three voices at any one time, without studio additions.

I'm sorry my Hammersmith post has hijacked this thread somewhat. It was meant for another thread!

Re comments about 84. On that tour they were using an updated and larger version of the Clair Brothers S4 rig which they had toured with since about 78 which may account for 84 being better than 1980 at the same venue.

The 1986 shows used a 500,000 watts version of the 84 rig. As Trip says out doors if there's no wind to deal with the sound should be as near perfect as possible with no concrete or metal walls and ceiling for the sound to hit.

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

I'm sure any Hammersmith release will also have polished vocals; they may all be live (as in flown in from other shows as opposed to studio overdubs), but I reckon they will still 'tweak' them with autotune etc..[/QUOTE]

Bingo. And we know that's the case based on the 2009 BBC mix. That's probably what will end up on DVD. Hugely disappointing how they excessively autotuned Freddie Mercury. I wonder if Bri and Rog even know ?

[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]

i was at gig in 80, 82, 84 and 86, the sound at Wembley in 84 was wonderful in the arena, way better than in 80 for example, but nowhere near as good as 86. In the arena the electronic gear sounded pretty rocky and dynamic, but by the time I saw the Rio vhs, it sounded horrible so not sure which was right? IMO the front of house mix was amazing in 84 and the whole band sounded much bigger than in 80.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for this first hand account. Extremely valuable.

[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]


i just want to pick up on a couple of things here, Rogers chrome kit wasnt a chrome kit like Bonhams, it was still Maple covered in Chrome, just like all his other kits.


[/QUOTE]


I did make that distinction in an earlier post, but good to have it confirmed - cheers

I saw Queen in Brussels in 84, Great gig. One of the best I ever saw. Visually it was their best tour I think.
It probably helped that I was right at the front of stage, just a few feet from Brian.

I bought a double LP bootleg of the show at a record fair a few months later and it sounded a bit sh#t tbh.

I don't think I played the boot more than a couple of times, didn't want to spoil a fantastic memory.
Maybe I'll dig it out and see.

It was the 2nd Brussels show I went to btw, so no intrusive cameras at the performance.
(I am on Brians Brixton Academy video, though I had to search really hard to find me even though I was right at the front)

Saw them in Leiden in 1984, the sound was not great but then again it never is in these great indoor halls. The show was very energized,and full of enthousiasm and mutual warmth between band and audience. My favourite part was actually the synth improvisation, because it went so well with the light and the Metropolis stage-theme. The band were half forced to do '39 by the audience, but Freddie very cleverly let the fans do most of the work(s).