For those that actually saw Queen live back in the day

I know a lot of work is done in post to make live performances suitable for release, but how great were Queen as musicians live? We're there a lot of flubbed notes? Any particular member who would frequently let the side down?
The live bootlegs I owned when I was younger were oftentimes less than fantastic and I actually whinced at a few of the earlier recordings, especially in terms of the vocals being flat.
I'm not being harsh here as I think Queen developed into perhaps the greatest live act of all time, but I just wonder if those who saw them were bothered about those things, or was it just too loud to really notice?

The excitement and atmosphere carries a lot of bands through gigs which when viewed or listened to away from the concert hall can throw up some surprises.

I've always thought that Freddie, if he went off, tended to sing sharp rather than flat. Through the years there were missed placed words or completely forgotten lines, but I don't think any of these ruined a performance. RT and JD were usually very tight and well rehearsed. I think BM was the one who possibly made more mistakes. But having said that when they were playing well they were amazing and after all these years looking back still one of the truly great live bands IMO. I never left a Queen show thinking ok I've seen them, now who's next. I always wanted to go back and see more.

Yes there were/ are bands who play more complex music better than Queen, Zappa, Rush, King Crimson, Muse, Dream Theatre. . . The list is endless, but I don't think any could excite an audience in the same way that Queen did. Simon Cowell might go on about the X factor but in the real world very few had it or have it. Queen really did in bucket loads

Great reply. Thank you :) I think the bootlegs I heard were really bad quality and the vocals sounded off because of the source material, rather than Freddie being bad. I know from personal experience in bands that a great show can sound awful when recorded on cheap equipment... the whole sonic experience being squashed onto a small cassette tape, for example.
Thanks again, VH :)

They were an outstanding live band, in my opinion. Seems you've just heard the wrong recordings.

Boston 1976 is a terrific Night at the Opera show, and in about as good quality as bootlegs get. Tokyo 1975, the last show of the Sheer Heart Attack tour, is also great on both performance and audio quality fronts. The two Newcastle 1979 shows are generally seen as Freddie's pinnacle, vocally. They're definitely worth checking out if you can endure the slightly poorer quality (still pretty listenable).

You can also listen to Live Aid, which is an official release but hasn't had any work done on it. One of Freddie's best 80's performances for sure.

the key thing is to not get caught up in the "bad recording quality" as an excuse for the band having an average/bad night.
queen's bootlegs are generally quite poor compared to other big bands.

i remember the first time I heard "Duck Soup" - the edited version of the Seattle 77 gig (think it was round about 80/81) and although it was clearly better than some most of the queen boots i heard at that time - it was still poorly recorded (to tape) compared to the Zep/Floyd boots i had on tape at the same time.

In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.

In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.

[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]

In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.[/QUOTE]

For sure, Queen's records had great complexity to them, but that comes down the technology that was available to them. Rush's arrangements weren't as lush. They were more direct, simply three guys playing, with some extra keyboard or guitar parts now and again.

But in terms of their technical ability - the guys in Rush are simply better players than Queen. Their chops have always been in better shape, past and present, on record and on stage. Even at their peak, Queen could never pull off La Villa Strangiato.

Cover bands can't pull off most Queen tunes because they need four guitarists and two dozen singers. Most attempts to recreate the albums with less than that end up sounding like a bad Abba tribute.

There are a million guys who can play Rush songs because you just need to practice to get that good. But you can't practice to write a Bohemian Rhapsody. And that's why people will know Queen in 300 years and probably won't know Rush.

Great response, "The Real Wizard"!

Yes i saw Queen many many times, and on those occasions they were in my eyes faultless, but i have heard on bootleg tapes where they did have bad nights, such as freddies voice was under pressure (no pun intended) or Brian messed a few chords up, or on one occasion Brian fell as there were egg shells on the stage, and he slipped.
I have always considered the four original guys in Queen as the greatest ever Rock group, no one can touch them for style, sound and intelligence.
Freddie was the one who got the audiences excited and Brian contributed with his fancy guitar licks.
I love Queen they were dynamite back in the day, and no one was greater.
If you never witnessed Queen live with Freddie, then you missed the greatest event in Rock History.
Mercury was indeed the rock messenger from god!

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]

In some ways I cosider Queen more complex than a band like rush. I heard my share of cover bands doing a decent job of 2112. Not so much of Bo Rhap or Biycle Races. Could you Imagine many bands doing a cover of side Black? Queen were very complex in their own way.[/QUOTE]

For sure, Queen's records had great complexity to them, but that comes down the technology that was available to them. Rush's arrangements weren't as lush. They were more direct, simply three guys playing, with some extra keyboard or guitar parts now and again.

But in terms of their technical ability - the guys in Rush are simply better players than Queen. Their chops have always been in better shape, past and present, on record and on stage. Even at their peak, Queen could never pull off La Villa Strangiato.

Cover bands can't pull off most Queen tunes because they need four guitarists and two dozen singers. Most attempts to recreate the albums with less than that end up sounding like a bad Abba tribute.

There are a million guys who can play Rush songs because you just need to practice to get that good. But you can't practice to write a Bohemian Rhapsody. And that's why people will know Queen in 300 years and probably won't know Rush.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent point, Sir

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

Yes i saw Queen many many times, and on those occasions they were in my eyes faultless, but i have heard on bootleg tapes where they did have bad nights, such as freddies voice was under pressure (no pun intended) or Brian messed a few chords up, or on one occasion Brian fell as there were egg shells on the stage, and he slipped.
I have always considered the four original guys in Queen as the greatest ever Rock group, no one can touch them for style, sound and intelligence.
Freddie was the one who got the audiences excited and Brian contributed with his fancy guitar licks.
I love Queen they were dynamite back in the day, and no one was greater.
If you never witnessed Queen live with Freddie, then you missed the greatest event in Rock History.
Mercury was indeed the rock messenger from god![/QUOTE]

That's what i love about bootlegs: little deviations, errors, omissions, changes, etc. It makes listening a lot more enjoyable than carefully crafted studio albums.

Great replies guys. I was too young to see them live back in the day, so bootlegs were a big thing for me. It was only with the advent of the internet that I really started unearthing the real good stuff though... and there's a lot to get through. Thankfully :)

QUEEN the four of them together where just so good, anything would be hard to beat the show they did, specially in the 70's.Every 70's tour was so magical but I feel by the time they got to the crazy tour they were at the top of there game. so electrical and exiting..magic moments indeed, Not only Queen but most bands I feel were better in the 70's, 80s most band got a little bit too much poppy and into video's I think anyway.Sure there are mistakes during shows but who cares?

Spot on Gerry.