Double Studio Album

Wow, this was a tedious read. So you start with naming Live Killers a double studio album, and then tie yourself up in knots trying to justify it. It is what it is - a collection of live performances with studio overdubs over it, just like Rock Montreal, Queen at Wembley, the Bowl and so on. These have always been regarded as live albums, and that won't change because you keep splitting hairs over it and cut peoples post into fragments so that they're out of context and easier to shoot down.

If you were actually able to see the world in millions of colours, you'd be able to weigh the different factors against each other properly and probably come to the conclusion that Live Killers is best regarded as a live album. Instead you start with a seemingly completely unnuanced comment, i.e. a "flamebait": "And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album." and then, once people start questioning you, you start relativising and marking peoples words until it's all become a nondiscussion.

The point of all this? Being able to put Live Killers as a studio album in one of your many lists?

It's a live album, or else it'd be called Studio Killers ;)

A tangent which I believe is more than interesting than the discussion at the moment: Was the Live Killers title supposed to be a reference to Killer Queen? It's the only thing I can think of which would make the album's title somewhat logical in the band's canon to that point. Otherwise, they just pulled it out of nowhere - perhaps felt the Killers label aptly described their visual and aural 'assault' in live performances.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

Wow, this was a tedious read.
[/QUOTE]

Then why do you read it? Am I so important in your life?

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

then tie yourself up in knots trying to justify it.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. I offered my reasons for having made that comment, which I still stand by.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

It is what it is - a collection of live performances with studio overdubs over it, just like Rock Montreal, Queen at Wembley, the Bowl and so on.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'm not denying that and haven't done so either.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

These have always been regarded as live albums
[/QUOTE]

And that's entirely accurate. I'm not denying that and haven't done so either. I didn't say 'they're not live albums,' I said that since a lot of LK was done in the studio, it could be considered a double studio album. It doesn't mean it can't be (primarily) a live album. Life's 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]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

that won't change because you keep splitting hairs over it
[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to change anything. I offered my point of view, and I still stand by it. I'm not starting a crusade to switch the definition of 'live album' or to put 'Live Killers' in the studio albums shelves (for those who have their CD's, LP's, etc., organised as such). I simply said that it could be considered, according to certain definition, a double-studio album. That was all. It's other people who've given that comment more weight.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

cut peoples post into fragments so that they're out of context and easier to shoot down.
[/QUOTE]

No, that's not the reason why I cut posts into fragments. I do it so it's clearer which part I'm replying to. I've no intention of shooting down anything or anyone.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

If you were actually able to see the world in millions of colours
[/QUOTE]

I am, as are hundreds of millions of people.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

you'd be able to weigh the different factors against each other properly and probably come to the conclusion that Live Killers is best regarded as a live album.
[/QUOTE]

Except that I haven't at all said that I don't regard it as a live album. I regard is as a live album, and also I think it could be classed as a studio album if we were to adhere to its exact definition. I did not say 'it's exclusively and strictly a studio double-album.'

Other people have put words in my mouth (well, my keyboard, to be accurate), but I haven't denied LK is a live album. I've only said, again, that it could be considered a double studio album in the sense that a lot of it was done in the studio.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

Instead you start with a seemingly completely unnuanced comment, i.e. a "flamebait"
[/QUOTE]

It wasn't meant to be flamebait. But if it were, then it's not my problem if other people reply to it instead of ignoring it.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

once people start questioning you, you start relativising and marking peoples words until it's all become a nondiscussion.
[/QUOTE]

I've no problem in people questioning me, I've got nothing to hide. If it annoys you so much, why do you keep reading something you regard so tedious? Am I so important in your life?

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

The point of all this? Being able to put Live Killers as a studio album in one of your many lists?
[/QUOTE]

No, the point was offering a way in which it could be classed as a double studio album. Everything else was out of other people giving the comment a lot of importance.

At the end of the day, if I wanted to put LK as a studio album in one of my many lists, I could do it without posting it here. I don't need anybody's permission anyway. Just like you don't need to bother reading my so-called tedious posts, let alone replying to them. If you choose to do it, go ahead.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]


Then why do you read it? Am I so important in your life?

[/QUOTE]

Ah, classic.

In an indirect way I suppose you are. Queen is important in my life, and you are, from what I've understood a well-regarded and influential member of it's fanbase. Though I don't see why it's relevant why I chose to post.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

cut peoples post into fragments so that they're out of context and easier to shoot down.
[/QUOTE]

No, that's not the reason why I cut posts into fragments. I do it so it's clearer which part I'm replying to. I've no intention of shooting down anything or anyone.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

If you were actually able to see the world in millions of colours
[/QUOTE]

I am, as are hundreds of millions of people.

[/QUOTE]

You do realise how perfectly you just confirmed my point, right?

It's relevant in the sense I don't see the point in reading something you regard tedious and involving someone with whose perspective and approach you seem to strongly disagree.

Discussions between people who agree on everything are rarely fruitful. Interesting how you just avoided the second part of my comment there, by the way.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

Discussions between people who agree on everything are rarely fruitful.[/QUOTE]

True, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily productive to discuss with people you so strongly disagree with.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

Interesting how you just avoided the second part of my comment there, by the way. [/QUOTE]

I avoided it because I haven't got anything else to say on the matter. To me, my comment about not being colourblind has nothing to do with trying to shoot you or your opinion or your post down; to you, it apparently does. Neither I'm going (or willing to try to) persuade you to agree with me, not will you be able to convince me to think like you.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

It's relevant in the sense I don't see the point in reading something you regard tedious and involving someone with whose perspective and approach you seem to strongly disagree.[/QUOTE]

It's only when you've read something that you are in a position to decide whether it's exciting, tedious or what ever else.

You can't form an opinion on something you haven't read, can you?

Being as this is a forum anyone is well within their rights to answer a post as they see fit. As long as they're not disrespectful.

I understand the tedious comment, and agree with it in part, because you did start off claiming that A LOT of Live Killers was recorded in a studio, for which you have no real proof, you then back tracked in an attempt to justify the comment. Saying "a lot" is subjective seems to give you the freedom to claim as little as a single vocal or guitar overdub is a lot. So by your own reckoning you will never have the wrong opinion or the view that other peoples opinions when not agreeing with yours could have a valued point.

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

It's only when you've read something that you are in a position to decide whether it's exciting, tedious or what ever else. [/QUOTE]

You don't need to, however, go through all of it. For instance, I can watch five minutes of an episode of a television programme, decide it's not really the kind of thing I like and change the channel, switch the telly off, close the window (if watching it on a computer) or any other option; there's no need to go through all the series just to finally decide 'oh, it was tedious.'

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

You can't form an opinion on something you haven't read, can you? [/QUOTE]

Of course you can. It might be premature to do so, but of course you can.

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

Being as this is a forum anyone is well within their rights to answer a post as they see fit. [/QUOTE]

Of course and, as such, as I answered as I saw fit, questioning the usefulness or uselessness of reading what was perceived as tedious.

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

for which you have no real proof [/QUOTE]

I didn't claim I had proof.

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

Saying "a lot" is subjective
[/QUOTE]

It is.

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

seems to give you the freedom to claim as little as a single vocal or guitar overdub is a lot. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, according to some perspectives, that's a lot. According to other views (which are neither less nor more valuable than any alternative), 'a lot' should be accounted for in terms of percentage or in terms of standard deviation or in terms of how many overdubs other people tend to have. And all of that is absolutely fine.

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

So by your own reckoning you will never have the wrong opinion [/QUOTE]

I've been wrong many times and I've been happy to admit it. I've also been right many times and I've been happy to stand by it.

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

other peoples opinions when not agreeing with yours could have a valued point.

[/QUOTE]

Other people's opinions when not agreeing with mine have many times had a valued point, and I've been happy to acknowledge it. Other people's opinions, regardless of whether they agree or not with mine, can be and have also been misleading, and I've been happy to point it out whenever I've noticed.