Why they pick Wembley as their trademark concert?

I understand the use of one show fromm the Magic Tour, their last one, and probably the more "mainstream-friendly" of all. But why pick Wembley?

I know Wembley is probably the most legendary stadium they ever played, and the sea of people at daylight looks beautiful, but then, Queen went and recorded it in cheap videotapes instead of proper film, even 16 mm film looks stunning.

From that tour they had Budapest which is a very superior concert performance-wise, the most challenging date of the tour and filmed in 35 mm, and they forgot it, picking Wembley over it (till almost now).

I've always found the Wembley performance (well, what we hear on the 1992 CD) awful. I hate Freddie's voice on it and 23 years later, I still can't forgive the band to cut the intro of Liar and fade it in... Tear it up, on of their all-time low tracks.

There were probably better '86 concerts recorded. If not, there were better '84 concerts.

Yeah, you said it.

After 1986 they have only two options, Wembley and Budapest, and they used Wembley in every piece of promotion, and was their first live DVD.

But in 1986 after Wembley they should have realized the show wasn't that good (by their standards) and film another date as well as Budapest.

[QUOTE] [b]CPL593h wrote:[/b]
, I still can't forgive the band to cut the intro of Liar and fade it in... Tear it up, on of their all-time low tracks.

There were probably better '86 concerts recorded. If not, there were better '84 concerts.[/QUOTE]

That was pretty much done in ALL of the 86 concerts! (the Liar/Tear It Up thing)

There's nothing wrong with the performance. Some songs in Budapest are better (in parts) others are better at Wembley eg I want to break free, tie your mother down etc. wembley also looks spectacular whereas Budapest it's hard to tell they're even in a stadium.

Wembley is the concert to show. I like Budapest but it can sound like it's lacking a "punch" whereas wembley rocks you. And the Saturday was better than the Friday!

[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]

But why pick Wembley?


[/QUOTE]

Because it's Wembley.

Good question. The band on Magic Tour sounds tired. You can almost feel it is a band downstream in their career, rather than upstream, full of vigor, band of the 1970s. Queen reached the peak of performance 1977-1982. Anything after 1982, aside Live Aid, was based on falling energy levels. Call it age or change in hormonal levels due to ageing.

I heard so much talking about this legendary Wembley concert,
and when I actually got my hand (ear) on it, I felt rather disapointed.
Freddie's voice just sounded bad.
I wonder why it was famous in the first place?

It's still a great show, the band are full of energy, Freddie commands the audience and you can see how much they're enjoying themselves. Yes there are better performances but to call it bad is going a bit far. It's been a consistently big seller and everyone I know that owns it or has seen it genuinely enjoys it a lot. It's a more enjoyable show to watch than Budapest for me personally, it captures the atmosphere that day and makes me very sad that I never got to see the original line up live.

[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]



I know Wembley is probably the most legendary stadium they ever played, and the sea of people at daylight looks beautiful, but then, Queen went and recorded it in cheap videotapes instead of proper film, even 16 mm film looks stunning.


[/QUOTE]

Cheap video instead of Film?
Give me cheap video over film anyday.
I can't stand concerts that are shot on film (or de-interlaced).
It bugs the hell out of me when a live TV show goes to a music guest and they de-interlace the damn picture - YUK!

I prefer the look of a lovely interlaced PAL videotape picture, thank you very much - that is, after all, what my eyes see everyday of the week: a nice, bright, fluid visual, not a dim, unrealsitic, jerky visual....
...but more than that, interlaced video gives the feel of actually being there where-as film/de-interlaced takes you away from that.

I think that after the great experience they had on Live Aid, they decided to get back there and record the full show of their Magic Tour.

QP could have pushed Budapest as their big iconic show, but there's also the fact that it's incomplete - I'm sure they'd much rather put out a show which has Another One Bites the Dust.

It's interesting to consider - is it only seen as legendary because Queen's representatives have consistently called it as such, and rereleased it countless times?

Personally, I'll take Budapest any day. Band sounds much better overall, and unlike brians wig, I do prefer the film aesthetic over video, even for live concerts.

They don't make those decisions thinking about die-hard fans, professional musicians or Queen connoisseurs. They appeal to the lowest common denominator.

If you take the average man on the street, you'll see that he's most likely to:

* Recognise the word 'Wembley', even if it's just because of football, more than 'Hallenstadion', 'Müngersdorfer' or 'Groenoordhallen'.

* Be familiar with 'Ga Ga', 'Magic' or Little Richard & Elvis covers than with 'Flick of the Wrist', 'The Prophet's Song' or 'You Take My Breath AWay'.

* Ignore, overlook and/or fail to notice mistakes, errors or songs/phrases/bits that the band might have done it better elsewhere.

Surely, out of the 700+ concerts the band played, there were many in which they might have performed better, had a better set-list, played bigger venues, Freddie could've hit more high notes, etc., but for the selling target they had all those aspects were relatively irrelevant compared to the legendary status of the venue and what it meant for a rock band to play there.

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

QP could have pushed Budapest as their big iconic show, but there's also the fact that it's incomplete [/QUOTE]

Is only incomplete because they left the film reels in Hungary and that people destroyed them after a lot of years collecting dust.


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

They don't make those decisions thinking about die-hard fans, professional musicians or Queen connoisseurs. They appeal to the lowest common denominator.

If you take the average man on the street, you'll see that he's most likely to:

* Recognise the word 'Wembley', even if it's just because of football, more than 'Hallenstadion', 'Müngersdorfer' or 'Groenoordhallen'.

* Be familiar with 'Ga Ga', 'Magic' or Little Richard & Elvis covers than with 'Flick of the Wrist', 'The Prophet's Song' or 'You Take My Breath AWay'.

* Ignore, overlook and/or fail to notice mistakes, errors or songs/phrases/bits that the band might have done it better elsewhere.

Surely, out of the 700+ concerts the band played, there were many in which they might have performed better, had a better set-list, played bigger venues, Freddie could've hit more high notes, etc., but for the selling target they had all those aspects were relatively irrelevant compared to the legendary status of the venue and what it meant for a rock band to play there.[/QUOTE]

Very well explained there, sir.

Now only one question remains, personal taste aside, a film as a lot more detail or resolution, and more quality that these tapes, so why don't film it instead? What a cheap move.