And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album.[/QUOTE]
Ok using Sebastian's piece of logic . . . . .
It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album, part live part studio. However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's.
Thanks for this view on the subject.
cmsdrums · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Wasn't Live Killers a double album anyway?
And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album.[/QUOTE]
Ok using Sebastian's piece of logic . . . . .
It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album, part live part studio. However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's.
Thanks for this view on the subject.[/QUOTE]
I know that Sebastian is quick to pull others up on general statements, so I'd like to see what his definition of "a lot" is with regard to studio overdubs on Live Killers! Is is 10%, (which couldn't really be considered a lot), is is 25% (getting there, but still meanign 75% is genuinely live), is it 50% or over..etc..??
I understand that Live Killers has lots of different concerts included, but with genuine live takes from different gigs spliced together to give the overall impression of one performance. To me these aren't "done in the studio". Whilst I'm happy to accept that SOME of the tracks do indeed feature studio performed overdubs, I would be suprised if the actual number/percentage of overdubs is "A LOT" (and especially when compared to its contemporary live albums which are openly known,and admitted to by the artists, to contain large numbers of studio corrections).
Apocalipsis_Darko · Member since
I remember to read they though or Brian, better said, for a second to publish a double album with ANATO and ADATR....but as always, who knows! His memory is not very good.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. 'Best of' is entirely subjective. To me, for instance, it's not 'best of' if it hasn't got 'Good Company', 'Teo Torriatte', 'All Dead, All Dead', 'Somebody to Love', 'Lily of the Valley', 'You and I' or 'Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll', which it doesn't.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's.[/QUOTE]
The thread is about a double studio album, not about something falling into the 'classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's' (which would be worth defining for the purpose of this topic).
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Thanks for this view on the subject.[/QUOTE]
My pleasure.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
I know that Sebastian is quick to pull others up on general statements, so I'd like to see what his definition of "a lot" is with regard to studio overdubs on Live Killers!
[/QUOTE]
Good question. I suppose, if you claim your album to be a live one, a single bar done in the studio is 'a lot.' That's indeed a subjective measurement, as there's no clear-cut definition of what 'a lot' really is.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
Is is 10%, (which couldn't really be considered a lot)
[/QUOTE]
Of course it could. A lot of people have bought Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' (myself included). But that 'a lot' is 'just' around 60 million people, which is less than 0.00001% of the current world population. If we add up all people who died between the album's release and now, then you get that the amount of people who could've bought the album but didn't far, far, far, far, far outnumbers those who did. Still, 'a lot' of people bought the album.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
I would be suprised if the actual number/percentage of overdubs is "A LOT"
[/QUOTE]
Again, it's a subjective measure. Had I said, for instance, 'a hundred overdubs', then that could be rated right or wrong. When it comes to 'a lot', well, it's subjective.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
especially when compared to its contemporary live albums which are openly known,and admitted to by the artists, to contain large numbers of studio corrections.
[/QUOTE]
But that's also largely subjective, not that there's anything wrong with that. It is interesting, though: we could define 'a lot' according to how far it is from the standard deviation since, arguably, the amount of live albums who have more studio overdubs than 'Live Killers' far outnumbers the amount of albums who have less. Theoretically.
[QUOTE] [b]Apocalipsis_Darko wrote:[/b]
Brian ... His memory is not very good.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, I think it is. He's made mistakes from time to time, of course, and his witness statement shouldn't always be taken at face value, certainly. But it doesn't mean his memory's not very good. The amount of people whose memory is better than Brian's is probably 'a lot' less than the amount of people whose memory is worse than Brian's.
Apocalipsis_Darko · Member since
I mean, his memory without comparing with other people. In the Queen context. No pilláis ni una.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Apocalipsis_Darko wrote:[/b]
I mean, his memory without comparing with other people. In the Queen context.[/QUOTE]
It's also good in that context. The amount of things he remembers about Queen is far, far, far larger than the amount of things he forgets. For every mistake he's made (e.g., saying 'Love of My Life' was on 'Sheer Heart Attack') he's made scores of true statements.
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. 'Best of' is entirely subjective. To me, for instance, it's not 'best of' if it hasn't got 'Good Company', 'Teo Torriatte', 'All Dead, All Dead', 'Somebody to Love', 'Lily of the Valley', 'You and I' or 'Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll', which it doesn't.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's.[/QUOTE]
The thread is about a double studio album, not about something falling into the 'classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's' (which would be worth defining for the purpose of
this topic).
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Re read the subject heading and original post. "Double Studio Album" and the use of the 70's twice kind of indicate what it's about. In fact Live Killers doesn't belong in this thread, does it?
Now you, by your own classification of the album don't view it as a true live album, it must therefore be viewed as a compilation album sourced from and based upon live recordings. It's not a greatest hits album, but by your measure of what's right or wrong it isn't a best of either. So I guess Queen failed on all fronts with that one.
As for your comment that there are a lot of studio over dubs on it, there are not, well not according to Crystal. A point worth thinking about, if it was "worked on" why didn't they re touch the backing vocals which are in keeping with most bootleg recordings!
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Re read the subject heading and original post.
[/QUOTE]
I have. So?
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
"Double Studio Album" and the use of the 70's twice kind of indicate what it's about. In fact Live Killers doesn't belong in this thread, does it? [/QUOTE]
It does, considering it's a double album, it was partly done in the studio and it's from the 70's. All three qualifying factors are there.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Now you, by your own classification of the album don't view it as a true live album, it must therefore be viewed as a compilation album sourced from and based upon live recordings.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of 'must', but yeah. To that, you can add that it's double and it's from the 70's, and part of it was done in the studio, therefore fulfilling all the requirements you previously mentioned.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
by your measure of what's right or wrong it isn't a best of either.[/QUOTE]
Not 'right' or 'wrong', but 'best' and 'not best'. Or, more accurately, 'including all best songs' and 'not including all best songs'. It's not the same.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
As for your comment that there are a lot of studio over dubs on it, there are not, well not according to Crystal.
[/QUOTE]
The definition of 'a lot' is subjective. For an album claiming to be live, a single one may be considered 'a lot.'
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
A point worth thinking about[/QUOTE]
Indeed. See my reply above.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
if it was "worked on" why didn't they re touch the backing vocals which are in keeping with most bootleg recordings!
[/QUOTE]
Because the fact they added studio overdubs doesn't mean that *everything* was in the studio.
cmsdrums · Member since
On Seb's argument of Live Killers being classified as a studio one because of some studio work, I'm now calling out Innuendo and Flash Gordon as live albums - it's been confirmed that large parts were recorded 'live' by the band together, and people (engineers, producers, possibly others) were also there so they had an audience too!! ??
I'm also suprised that none has waded in yet to say it was actually a single album, based on it being issued overseas as an edited down single edition!!!
Back on topic, I'm suprised they didn't release a double album back in the 70s; they were prolific (can you imagine a sequence of six albums in five years of the quality of 'Queen' through to 'News of The World now?!!); I was always frustrated buying the vinyls for several albums and seeing gatefold sleeves but only one disc!!
Rick · Member since
Seb, always the smartass.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
On Seb's argument of Live Killers being classified as a studio one because of some studio work[/QUOTE]
To be fair, I didn't classify it as such, I just pointed out that it was double and it had been partly done in the studio.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
I'm now calling out Innuendo and Flash Gordon as live albums[/QUOTE]
Quite a few others as well.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
large parts were recorded 'live' by the band together[/QUOTE]
Another case of a term being vaguely defined, as what some would consider 'large' wouldn't necessarily be the same to everyone.
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
Back on topic, I'm suprised they didn't release a double album back in the 70s [/QUOTE]
They probably assumed they'd have another chance later on.
[QUOTE] [b]Rick wrote:[/b]
Seb, always the smartass.
[/QUOTE]
No, not really. Not 'always', not a 'smartass' and, above all, not 'the.'
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]
On Seb's argument of Live Killers being classified as a studio one because of some studio work, I'm now calling out Innuendo and Flash Gordon as live albums - it's been confirmed that large parts were recorded 'live' by the band together, and people (engineers, producers, possibly others) were also there so they had an audience too!! ??
I'm also suprised that none has waded in yet to say it was actually a single album, based on it being issued overseas as an edited down single edition!!!
Back on topic, I'm suprised they didn't release a double album back in the 70s; they were prolific (can you imagine a sequence of six albums in five
years of the quality of 'Queen' through to 'News of The World now?!!); I was always frustrated buying
the vinyls for several albums and seeing gatefold sleeves but only one disc!! [/QUOTE]
Agreed! The sleeves often hinted at more than a single disc. And yeah Innuendo is a great live album!
As for Live Killers and it's none live album classification because of the studio work carried out on it, this must now be true of most live recording because most have been remixes in a studio before mastering for release. Sebastian's ever evolving view and argument must mean that the term Live Album is redundant because of the use of recording studios in their development from recording to release.
fly · Member since
Even punk bands like Clash released double and even triple albums:
London Calling (1979)
Sandinista (1980)
Martin Packer · Member since
But Clash were doing something other than artistic with the double and triple ideas. I personally count London Calling and Sandinista! as almost perfect, with the possibility that there's a little padding in Sandinista! But they were trying to give an extreme form of value.
I think London Calling was £5.99 and Sandinista! £6.99 at a time when doubles and triples cost a lot more than that ordinarily.
But then Combat Rock (a single) is where I think they lost the plot.
And we could really use Joe Strummer (RIP) right now.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
As for Live Killers and it's none live album classification because of the studio work carried out on it.
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, I didn't say it wasn't a live album. It can easily be both, and it partially is. Life is not black and white, and it's not a greyscale either; there are millions of colours, and not being able to see the FIR or the UV doesn't mean they don't exist.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
this must now be true of most live recording because most have been remixes in a studio before mastering for release.
[/QUOTE]
Remixing and mastering are not the same as recording.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Sebastian's ever evolving view and argument must mean that the term Live Album is redundant because of the use of recording studios in their development from recording to release.
[/QUOTE]
No, that's not what I meant. If believing so, however, makes you happy, go ahead.
