Sure the 2nd Wembley show might not be their best show, but at least they also filmed the 1st Wembley Concert which is a much stronger performance.
tomchristie22 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]
[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]
Yup - a real shame. Here's hoping that cut down concert films in general become a thing of the past soon.
tomchristie22 · Member since
On a slightly related note, check out the official presentation of the Saturday concert on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZGvdIIA6k
360p, terrible quality, stretched from 4:3 to 16:9. It'd be slightly more excusable if it was an upload from years ago, but it was uploaded in Jan 2014. Pretty appalling...
[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]
All this aside, a layperson would only need to watch the Saturday concert to notice two things which undermine the whole lowest common denominator approach:
- Freddie's voice is in much less impressive shape than on the studio recordings that the layman would know Queen by, even the 80's tracks. I realise personal anecdotes don't constitute evidence, but none of my friends who've watched this concert have come away thinking Queen's live show was anything but a shadow of their studio ability.
- The vocal harmonies which are inextricably connected with Queen, even to the most casual listeners, are barely there - this is worsened by the fact that Brian's mic is so low in the mix, effectively making the three part harmonies into two parts.
YourValentine · Member since
Wembley was filmed on "cheap video" because it was meant for TV. It was aired by channel 4 with a simultaneous stereo radio airing on private radio.
Budapest was filmed by a Hungarian film crew who used film cameras. I have to agree with brians wig - Wembley takes us right on the stage while Budapest looks distant. Until the BD release there was always the speed problem which made the film look weird, as well.
It is obvious from many interviews that Wembley was very special for the band. It was a year after Live Aid and they filled the stadium twice which was a huge success after the Sun City disaster and the ensuing loss of reputation. Wembley was their home and the location of their huge comeback at Live Aid.
on my way up · Member since
If I were QPL I'd release Hammy'79 and start promoting that concert as vintage Queen :-)
Costa86 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]luthorn wrote:[/b]
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. [/QUOTE]
I don't agree Queen were on a decline. They might have been pre-Live Aid, but in 1986 they were at the biggest they had ever been. I think they were still all phenomenal, including Freddie. Vocal-wise, he wasn't at his best, but that was due to the extensive touring and strain on his voice. Some of the earlier Magic Tour concerts have exceptionally good vocals from him. The others all performed at their best.
Although Freddie had admitted to tiring more easily, he still managed to run around the large stages of some of the Magic Tour shows, and he handled the massive Wembley stage with aplomb. Before 1985 they hadn't played on such huge stages, so I think you can hardly say they lacked energy when they managed to give great shows in such the large Magic Tour venues.
cmsdrums · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]luthorn wrote:[/b]
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. [/QUOTE]
Although Freddie had admitted to tiring more easily, he still managed to run around the large stages of some of the Magic Tour shows, and he handled the massive Wembley stage with aplomb. Before 1985 they hadn't played on such huge stages, so I think you can hardly say they lacked energy when they managed to give great shows in such the large Magic Tour venues.
[/QUOTE]
That's a really good point - even having played football stadia before, and events like Live Aid, the stage areas on those really was only pretty akin to an indoor arena gig; the Magic Tour stage size really was immense, and Freddie really did cover it so well.
Nitroboy · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]tomchristie22 wrote: [/b] On a slightly related note, check out the official presentation of the Saturday concert on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZGvdIIA6k
360p, terrible quality, stretched from 4:3 to 16:9. It'd be slightly more excusable if it was an upload from years ago, but it was uploaded in Jan 2014. Pretty appalling... [/QUOTE]
It was uploaded in 2008 when they launched their YouTube channel. Later on it was made private, and made public again in 2014, which is why it appears as being from 2014.
Ghostwithasmile is BACK! · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] Wembley was filmed on "cheap video" because it was meant for TV. It was aired by channel 4 with a simultaneous stereo radio airing on private radio.
Budapest was filmed by a Hungarian film crew who used film cameras. I have to agree with brians wig - Wembley takes us right on the stage while Budapest looks distant. Until the BD release there was always the speed problem which made the film look weird, as well.
It is obvious from many interviews that Wembley was very special for the band. It was a year after Live Aid and they filled the stadium twice which was a huge success after the Sun City disaster and the ensuing loss of reputation. Wembley was their home and the location of their huge comeback at Live Aid.[/QUOTE]
Video was the standard in the 80's. It was now portable, so video could be carried out any place now. There was the emering VHS market : video was aimed for the VHS market and for TV : why bother recording a higher output as the consumer could recieve at home.
And video is much more easy to edit and one could re-use the tapes.
All the Western world would have Video as the standard in the 80's, second world countries like Hungary wouldnt have the portable video systems.
And last but not least the Hungarian producer was a real cineast ! Film makers won't film on video format.
JackTorrance · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] Wembley was filmed on "cheap video" because it was meant for TV. It was aired by channel 4 with a simultaneous stereo radio airing on private radio.
Budapest was filmed by a Hungarian film crew who used film cameras. I have to agree with brians wig - Wembley takes us right on the stage while Budapest looks distant. Until the BD release there was always the speed problem which made the film look weird, as well.
It is obvious from many interviews that Wembley was very special for the band. It was a year after Live Aid and they filled the stadium twice which was a huge success after the Sun City disaster and the ensuing loss of reputation. Wembley was their home and the location of their huge comeback at Live Aid.[/QUOTE]
Video was the standard in the 80's. It was now portable, so video could be carried out any place now. There was the emering VHS market : video was aimed for the VHS market and for TV : why bother recording a higher output as the consumer could recieve at home.
And video is much more easy to edit and one could re-use the tapes.
All the Western world would have Video as the standard in the 80's, second world countries like Hungary wouldnt have the portable video systems.
And last but not least the Hungarian producer was a real cineast ! Film makers won't film on video format.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it was filmed by students of the Budapest film academy.
The friday (wembley) concert is much better than the saturday one, but unfortunately there were few camera's. I believe it where 4 camera's and on the second 11 or 12.
Budapest had 16 camera :-D
tomchristie22 · Member since
Oh, to have been alive to film a Queen show...
people on streets · Member since
Budapest is, by far, the best Queen film ever shot. IMHO. Pity it's not complete.
I prefer film over video any time.
CPL593h · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]
That was pretty much done in ALL of the 86 concerts! (the Liar/Tear It Up thing)
[/QUOTE]
I know... I've heard most of the 86 recordings. I just let the 16-years-old me write this sentence, as it was my initial reaction when I heard it for the first time in 1992. ;) I still can't stand it.
master marathon runner · Member since
Arthur Miller's 'the crucible" springs to mind.
Btw, rock Montreal is on Durham gala this coming Saturday,18th.
I'm off to London to see"sunny afternoon", the kinks musical , and will miss it, just like I missed Hungarian rhapsody.
Pfff.
maxpower · Member since
Live Aid obviously at the time had massive influence in the show being recorded. A home town gig for them too.
What I can't forgive is Knebworth not being recorded they knew it was the last gig of the tour. Gerry Stickells said on interview at the time in 1986 words along the lines of "we couldn't get a 3rd night at Wembley so booked Knebworth at the end hoping it would sell out fingers crossed" etc
Freddie also knew it would be his last gig & its a shame he didn't insist on it being recorded visually wise.
