The Bowie example I gave actually involved consumer grade cassette. It's what most sound desks have so easy to do. Of course, as the tech changed I'm sure stuff would've gone straight to DAT or Minidisc.
The question of sound being worthless - please try to check out the bootlegs of Bowie's last Ziggy show at Hammersmith Odeon that came from this tape (same gig as the famous Ziggy Stardust Motion Picture film - but NOT the same sound!). It is brilliant and in fantastic quality.
Remember this was the biggest tour going on in 1973 and each show was recorded on a cassette. For personal use, this is fine.
Rick · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]on my way up wrote:[/b]
It doesn't matter whether every concert was recorded.
What DOES matter - and this has been confirmed - is that they have a shitload of soundboard recordings.
Clearly we - Queen live enthusiasts - would welcome those recordings with open arms...
Sadly, the band and/or the decisionmakers around them have no wish to release those recordings. It looks like these recordings are deemed not good enough (while they're surely better than 90% of the audience recordings we're listening to) and that they fear they'd flood the market.
The last argument is totally ridiculous. The average record buyer - even those who buy every Queen live recording that gets released (like Rainbow, Hammersmith etc.) wouldn't know about those recordings they make available to us, die-hards, via their website or some other download system.
Imagine having a series: the 50 best Queen live soundboard recordings, with each 6 months a new show made available... They'd be good for 25 years and we'd have a new recording each 6 months. We'd have more to discuss, we'd learn even more about the band.
It would only stir the enthusiasm among the fans and the band wouldn't lose a penny. On the contrary, they'd win both money and respect from the fans.[/QUOTE]
Great idea, but with Brian being Mr. Perfectionist and all this will never happen.
Vocal harmony · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Negative Creep wrote:[/b]
Who said they were recorded on "consumer grade cassettes"? Quarter inch reel tape wasn't expensive at all and storage would not have been a problem, because quarter inch tape is relatively small. Funny to see comments that, despite the size of the bands touring operation, they wouldn't have been able to store a recording of each night. What!? . . . .
What's the point of making up scenarios where John Harris couldn't record certain gigs or that he (despite reports he lived and breathed Queen) he regularly wiped his tapes? bizarre. We don't know what they had or have, simples. . . . .
[/QUOTE]
Funny as it may appear, at the time John Harris was touring with them they were growing from unknown to relatively big, but they weren't at Led Zeppelin or Rolling Stones levels of ticket sales.
Touring is always done on relatively tight budgets, not for the artists so much, but the crew and equipment. Space on trucks is at a premium. Yes quarter inch tape didn't cost a great deal, but carrying thirty plus pizza sized boxes costs. It's another flight case that room has to be found for. Also Harris may have lived and breathed Queen, but he wasn't a band member, he worked for them. It is very unlikely that he was recording shows just for him self. They were recorded for the band to review if the need arose and were then recorded over most of the time. It would have kept cost down. Two or three tape boxes in the sound engineers work box is a lot easier than a four foot case full.
Penetration_Guru · Member since
Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have:
http://www.livemetallica.com/catalog.aspx
http://live.brucespringsteen.net/catalog.aspx
The commercially impossible made real....
Ale Solan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Penetration_Guru wrote:[/b]
Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have:
http://www.livemetallica.com/catalog.aspx
http://live.brucespringsteen.net/catalog.aspx
The commercially impossible made real....[/QUOTE]
What makes you think Queen would do that? Because they don't have everything? As you claim based on... (you never gave a proof of that) Or just stupid decisions?
Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have:
http://www.livemetallica.com/catalog.aspx
http://live.brucespringsteen.net/catalog.aspx
The commercially impossible made real....[/QUOTE]
What makes you think Queen would do that? Because they don't have everything? As you claim based on... (you never gave a proof of that) Or just stupid decisions? [/QUOTE]You said no band releases its entire live catalogue. PG gives examples of bands who've made large portions of their live stuff available.
PG is not claiming anything concerning Queen releasing whatever they have, he just shows your claim as made earlier (no band is releasing their live vault) is incorrect.
Ale Solan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]on my way up wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Penetration_Guru wrote:[/b]
Bands releasing significant proportions of the tapes they have:
http://www.livemetallica.com/catalog.aspx
http://live.brucespringsteen.net/catalog.aspx
The commercially impossible made real....[/QUOTE]
What makes you think Queen would do that? Because they don't have everything? As you claim based on... (you never gave a proof of that) Or just stupid decisions? [/QUOTE]You said no band releases its entire live catalogue. PG gives examples of bands who've made large portions of their live stuff available.
PG is not claiming anything concerning Queen releasing whatever they have, he just shows your claim as made earlier (no band is releasing their live vault) is incorrect.
[/QUOTE]
I said no band would release its complete from scratch to finish live catalogue. He claimed Queen should do that if they have all their shows recorded.
Ale Solan · Member since
Still, this seems to be a competition to see who's right and who's wrong
Penetration_Guru · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
He claimed Queen should do that if they have all their shows recorded.[/QUOTE]
Not true, but at least you've stopped the namecalling.
