Sealion
Thank God, none of them will ask you. ;-)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Star*
My opinion to which i am entitled too. Thank goodness i am not easily lead like most on here!
rockchic65
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
one could say the same about Tom Jones or Paul McCartney but there comes a time when they must step down because they start to look pathetic or die on stage ![/QUOTE]
Whilst the fans still want to see them I can't see anything wrong in it, regardless of their ages. Having seen them last year I can say they are far from looking pathetic at the moment, they put on a brilliant show.
one could say the same about Tom Jones or Paul McCartney but there comes a time when they must step down because they start to look pathetic or die on stage ![/QUOTE]
Whilst the fans still want to see them I can't see anything wrong in it, regardless of their ages. Having seen them last year I can say they are far from looking pathetic at the moment, they put on a brilliant show.
Star*
Of course you have to say that because your a Lambert fan.
Back in 2014 i saw them on Tv and they were truly lost souls on that stage, and it showed.
Queen rock Big Ben live which was aired on the BBC and i only watched at least 10 mins worth and i felt sick to my stomach.
No John Deacon and no Freddie Mercury it looked so weird.
Back in 2014 i saw them on Tv and they were truly lost souls on that stage, and it showed.
Queen rock Big Ben live which was aired on the BBC and i only watched at least 10 mins worth and i felt sick to my stomach.
No John Deacon and no Freddie Mercury it looked so weird.
matt z
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Check out Brians chords on A Day At The Races album and songs like Tie your mother down, he was on fire back then.
Yes i know he is 71 and still a great guitarist but his best days were in the 70s,[/QUOTE]
But he *IS* in his 70's!...
Check out Brians chords on A Day At The Races album and songs like Tie your mother down, he was on fire back then.
Yes i know he is 71 and still a great guitarist but his best days were in the 70s,[/QUOTE]
But he *IS* in his 70's!...
rockchic65
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Of course you have to say that because your a Lambert fan.
Back in 2014 i saw them on Tv and they were truly lost souls on that stage, and it showed.
Queen rock Big Ben live which was aired on the BBC and i only watched at least 10 mins worth and i felt sick to my stomach.
No John Deacon and no Freddie Mercury it looked so weird.
[/QUOTE]
Loads of people loved that, Adam's name was the top search on google for three days after it. That said I personally thought it was very tame and toned down compared to their on the road shows. If you're gonna compare to shows with Freddie it will obviously look weird by comparison, I'm guessing most people who go don't compare they just get into it and enjoy it for what it is.
Of course you have to say that because your a Lambert fan.
Back in 2014 i saw them on Tv and they were truly lost souls on that stage, and it showed.
Queen rock Big Ben live which was aired on the BBC and i only watched at least 10 mins worth and i felt sick to my stomach.
No John Deacon and no Freddie Mercury it looked so weird.
[/QUOTE]
Loads of people loved that, Adam's name was the top search on google for three days after it. That said I personally thought it was very tame and toned down compared to their on the road shows. If you're gonna compare to shows with Freddie it will obviously look weird by comparison, I'm guessing most people who go don't compare they just get into it and enjoy it for what it is.
Star*
Yes i guess i do compare because i have been a fan most of my life, and today seeing them the way they look is limp and there appeal for me now is zero.
rockchic65
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Yes i guess i do compare because i have been a fan most of my life, and today seeing them the way they look is limp and there appeal for me now is zero.[/QUOTE]
That's fair enough not everyone has to like them.
Yes i guess i do compare because i have been a fan most of my life, and today seeing them the way they look is limp and there appeal for me now is zero.[/QUOTE]
That's fair enough not everyone has to like them.
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Queen always toured with many many trucks so that is not unusual in Queen terms.[/QUOTE]
Production wise, nothing they toured with in the 70's and 80's compares to what they're using now.
The biggest arena production they toured with was The Works, it traveled in nine trucks with two crew busses.
The current tour, as Rockchic has pointed out, is using twenty two trucks. There is no comparison. Live production has changed so much since the mid 80's. Staging is more elaborate, video inbthe current tour is huge , two stage width screens, nine tons of flown lights plus a stage width wall of lights.
The only time Queen had more trucks on the road was during Hot Space and The Magic tour outdoor shows during which the extra trucks carries scaffold and extra PA needed to play outdoors. Both those tours used a 60x40ft stage platform, exeptance got Wembley and Knebworth 86 which used extra wide staging and a large video screen, the stage at both these shows didn't tour.
So yeah, in the 80's they were known for big lighting productions and for the time a fair amount ofvtrucks but compared to now.... Not even close
Queen always toured with many many trucks so that is not unusual in Queen terms.[/QUOTE]
Production wise, nothing they toured with in the 70's and 80's compares to what they're using now.
The biggest arena production they toured with was The Works, it traveled in nine trucks with two crew busses.
The current tour, as Rockchic has pointed out, is using twenty two trucks. There is no comparison. Live production has changed so much since the mid 80's. Staging is more elaborate, video inbthe current tour is huge , two stage width screens, nine tons of flown lights plus a stage width wall of lights.
The only time Queen had more trucks on the road was during Hot Space and The Magic tour outdoor shows during which the extra trucks carries scaffold and extra PA needed to play outdoors. Both those tours used a 60x40ft stage platform, exeptance got Wembley and Knebworth 86 which used extra wide staging and a large video screen, the stage at both these shows didn't tour.
So yeah, in the 80's they were known for big lighting productions and for the time a fair amount ofvtrucks but compared to now.... Not even close
cmsdrums
On the last few tours since the Q&PR return in 2005 I’ve paid between £50 (Brixton 2005) and £85 (London 2017). When compared to other ‘premium’ acts such as The Eagles, Guns n Roses, Madonna, U2 etc, Queen tickets have been far more competitively priced. Some standard tickets for other artists cost three figures for standard ones. I really don’t know what the person writing to complain about £300 has been smoking.
Star*
Surely "The Magic Tour" was Queens biggest tour to date as i saw a documentary about it many years ago.
If anything i think the stage show is pretty poor compared to the giant stages they had in the 70s & 80s.
If anything i think the stage show is pretty poor compared to the giant stages they had in the 70s & 80s.
Star*
CMSdrums: i am only reporting what it said in the newspaper today so nothing to do with me, just thought it was of interest to you all.
Sealion
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Surely "The Magic Tour" was Queens biggest tour to date as i saw a documentary about it many years ago.
If anything i think the stage show is pretty poor compared to the giant stages they had in the 70s & 80s.
[/QUOTE]
POOR ????
Lol, you really haven‘t seen it... I saw both. „The Magic Tour“ was big. Had a huge stage. Was stunning back in the days.
Q+AL at its current tour is stunning now. I can‘t say, I‘ve ever seen a production like that. It‘s absolutely fascinating in itself. And it‘s responsible for the fact, that I‘ve never seen less people going for a beer or the toilet during Brian‘s solo. Barely anyone left. Instead, many people started filming with their mobile phones. And I like the fact, that the whole stage has the form of the Red Special.
But as the huge stage at the Magic Tour doesn’t translate on TV, the current stage with all its extras looses its fascination on YouTube. You can never see all the videoscreens and lights.
Surely "The Magic Tour" was Queens biggest tour to date as i saw a documentary about it many years ago.
If anything i think the stage show is pretty poor compared to the giant stages they had in the 70s & 80s.
[/QUOTE]
POOR ????
Lol, you really haven‘t seen it... I saw both. „The Magic Tour“ was big. Had a huge stage. Was stunning back in the days.
Q+AL at its current tour is stunning now. I can‘t say, I‘ve ever seen a production like that. It‘s absolutely fascinating in itself. And it‘s responsible for the fact, that I‘ve never seen less people going for a beer or the toilet during Brian‘s solo. Barely anyone left. Instead, many people started filming with their mobile phones. And I like the fact, that the whole stage has the form of the Red Special.
But as the huge stage at the Magic Tour doesn’t translate on TV, the current stage with all its extras looses its fascination on YouTube. You can never see all the videoscreens and lights.
Vocal harmony
No stages in the 70's were bigger than 60x40ft in fact Hammersmith odeon (as was) had a 60x30ft stage, which was the biggest on the theatre gig circuit.
The standard arena stage platform is 60x40. Because of those measurements standard strussingbthat lights are hung from is 5, 8 or 10ft. The Pizza oven rig 40x28ft.
The Works tour used extra staging, the full stage was 80x40, this actually didn't fit into every arena and so only 60ft width was used, these shows only used a single mid section of the lighting rig, rather than the double middle section.
The Magic tour stage was only 60 ft wide. If you look at photos taken during that tour Freddie's piano is partially hidden in the stage right wing under the walk way. Only Wembley and Knebworth as I explained used a bigger stage but the effect of the way the lighting was designed was lost at these two venues because it hadcto be spread out to cover the floor space.
The current stage is 80x40 with an 80ft walk way (thrust). As I said before as an indoor show they've never done anything this big. The overhead light rig weighs 9 tons, each light has 28 directional, focus, and colour options. They've also developed a small transmitter device used by AL and BM which enables every lamp or any number of lamps to focus and follow the performer anywhere on stage, the system is also used for spot lighting.
The video screens can produce a 3D image, as used for the intro. Very expensive imaging and very effective.
As I pointed out The Magic tour and Hot Space used more trucks to transport outdoor scaffold, but the production used now is far more impressive and much than before.
To appreciate this you really have to see a show and make a comparison having physically see both the current tour and the classic 70's and 80's shows.
The standard arena stage platform is 60x40. Because of those measurements standard strussingbthat lights are hung from is 5, 8 or 10ft. The Pizza oven rig 40x28ft.
The Works tour used extra staging, the full stage was 80x40, this actually didn't fit into every arena and so only 60ft width was used, these shows only used a single mid section of the lighting rig, rather than the double middle section.
The Magic tour stage was only 60 ft wide. If you look at photos taken during that tour Freddie's piano is partially hidden in the stage right wing under the walk way. Only Wembley and Knebworth as I explained used a bigger stage but the effect of the way the lighting was designed was lost at these two venues because it hadcto be spread out to cover the floor space.
The current stage is 80x40 with an 80ft walk way (thrust). As I said before as an indoor show they've never done anything this big. The overhead light rig weighs 9 tons, each light has 28 directional, focus, and colour options. They've also developed a small transmitter device used by AL and BM which enables every lamp or any number of lamps to focus and follow the performer anywhere on stage, the system is also used for spot lighting.
The video screens can produce a 3D image, as used for the intro. Very expensive imaging and very effective.
As I pointed out The Magic tour and Hot Space used more trucks to transport outdoor scaffold, but the production used now is far more impressive and much than before.
To appreciate this you really have to see a show and make a comparison having physically see both the current tour and the classic 70's and 80's shows.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Surely "The Magic Tour" was Queens biggest tour to date as i saw a documentary about it many years ago.
If anything i think the stage show is pretty poor compared to the giant stages they had in the 70s & 80s.
[/QUOTE]
Face, meet desk. After you had just read this:
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Queen always toured with many many trucks so that is not unusual in Queen terms.[/QUOTE]
Production wise, nothing they toured with in the 70's and 80's compares to what they're using now.
The biggest arena production they toured with was The Works, it traveled in nine trucks with two crew busses.
The current tour, as Rockchic has pointed out, is using twenty two trucks. There is no comparison. Live production has changed so much since the mid 80's. Staging is more elaborate, video inbthe current tour is huge , two stage width screens, nine tons of flown lights plus a stage width wall of lights.
The only time Queen had more trucks on the road was during Hot Space and The Magic tour outdoor shows during which the extra trucks carries scaffold and extra PA needed to play outdoors. Both those tours used a 60x40ft stage platform, exeptance got Wembley and Knebworth 86 which used extra wide staging and a large video screen, the stage at both these shows didn't tour.
So yeah, in the 80's they were known for big lighting productions and for the time a fair amount ofvtrucks but compared to now.... Not even close[/QUOTE]
Someone who has a vast understanding of modern concert production just took the time to explain to you IN FULL about the differences between 1980s shows and today's, and you still default to your willful ignorance.
I'm not sure whether or not to feel sorry for you, because your basic reading comprehension skills are literally non-existent. Having an IQ at room temperature can't be easy.
Surely "The Magic Tour" was Queens biggest tour to date as i saw a documentary about it many years ago.
If anything i think the stage show is pretty poor compared to the giant stages they had in the 70s & 80s.
[/QUOTE]
Face, meet desk. After you had just read this:
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]happystar wrote:[/b]
Queen always toured with many many trucks so that is not unusual in Queen terms.[/QUOTE]
Production wise, nothing they toured with in the 70's and 80's compares to what they're using now.
The biggest arena production they toured with was The Works, it traveled in nine trucks with two crew busses.
The current tour, as Rockchic has pointed out, is using twenty two trucks. There is no comparison. Live production has changed so much since the mid 80's. Staging is more elaborate, video inbthe current tour is huge , two stage width screens, nine tons of flown lights plus a stage width wall of lights.
The only time Queen had more trucks on the road was during Hot Space and The Magic tour outdoor shows during which the extra trucks carries scaffold and extra PA needed to play outdoors. Both those tours used a 60x40ft stage platform, exeptance got Wembley and Knebworth 86 which used extra wide staging and a large video screen, the stage at both these shows didn't tour.
So yeah, in the 80's they were known for big lighting productions and for the time a fair amount ofvtrucks but compared to now.... Not even close[/QUOTE]
Someone who has a vast understanding of modern concert production just took the time to explain to you IN FULL about the differences between 1980s shows and today's, and you still default to your willful ignorance.
I'm not sure whether or not to feel sorry for you, because your basic reading comprehension skills are literally non-existent. Having an IQ at room temperature can't be easy.