[QUOTE] [b]Negative Creep wrote:[/b]
... the fact Brian clearly doesn't rate Queen very highly as a live band thourh the 70's at least.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think this happens, or what Brian actually said about it (if you know)?
Because without this piece of information we are revolving around the same infamous subject I brought up before my crucifixion as a certified homophobic.
I'm afraid that Brian's "perfectionism" on Queen as a live band through the 70's can be resumed as follows: It would have been perfect without Freddie's ass on stage.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Negative Creep wrote:[/b]
Sweet Lady was officially released - as a bonus on a DVD (ANAO documentary bonus?). I haven't watched the DVD in a long long time, but I'm guessing this is ripped from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyOlAkXvOrk
The audio on that is fine, although it does seem to be mono (could be a conversion thing or not) - if it's the original live/rough mix then it is (obviously) much cleaner than the bootlegs. The sound fluctuation comment is obviously just based on the bootlegs - the master of the rough cut is clearly fine based on the above.[/QUOTE]
Yep. This is just a clean copy of the video feed, not from the 24 track recording. Nobody seems to have any idea why even the best leaked copies sound so much worse.
. · Member since
It seems pretty obvious to me, all the circulating bootleg videos originate from the same source that was used for the QTV broadcasts.
All documentary footage shown on TV broadcasts is fine, be it mono or stereo.
pittrek · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Negative Creep wrote:[/b]
Sweet Lady was officially released - as a bonus on a DVD (ANAO documentary bonus?). I haven't watched the DVD in a long long time, but I'm guessing this is ripped from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyOlAkXvOrk
The audio on that is fine, although it does seem to be mono (could be a conversion thing or not) - if it's the original live/rough mix then it is (obviously) much cleaner than the bootlegs. The sound fluctuation comment is obviously just based on the bootlegs - the master of the rough cut is clearly fine based on the above. There's always whispers about supposed technically reasons for things like this and Earls Court not being released, but it's because of Brian and his so called perfectionism (and the fact he clearly doesn't rate Queen very highly as a live band thourh the 70's at least).[/QUOTE]
Not a fair example, though. This "TV edit" is actually different from the QTV edit. It seems to be done very early after the concert itself, because it has been shown on TOTP later in 1976, and on some American show a bit later (Don Kirchner show? No clue, I'm talking from memory). It was also transferred to 16mm film (maybe for an easier conversion to NTSC???? speculation, of course). In other words, "the paths of the two video sources were separated ages ago"
pittrek · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]
As far as I'm aware, the official reason given as to why HP hasn't and never will be released in full, is because they don't have the full multitracks for every song.
Of course, if this information is out of date, I'm sure Bob will correct me[/QUOTE]
I have no idea. The only people who know are people who have listened to the tapes.
All I can tell you is not a note of them has come out apart from You Take My Breath Away. Everything else in documentaries is from the mono video feed.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that? What about the Bohemian Rhapsody intro from the 2011 documentary? It had Fred's vocals loud and clear (and not overdubbed), whereas in the common video source you have to concentrate very hard to hear him at all.
[QUOTE]
The fact that the only song to emerge has no guitar, bass, drums, or backing vocals may suggest that one or more of those tracks on the 24 track tape may be damaged, but of course that's just speculation.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the BoRhap intro. But you might be on to something. A pity Brian or Roger won't talk about something like this.
pittrek · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
It seems pretty obvious to me, all the circulating bootleg videos originate from the same source that was used for the QTV broadcasts.
All documentary footage shown on TV broadcasts is fine, be it mono or stereo.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree. I have spent way too much time comparing the dozen or so copies of the gig I got and I think there are 4 main sources (or 3, 2 of the sources come from the same source, the difference is only the quality and the amount of footage before and after the concert). Thanks to the timecode the 4 sources could be perfectly synchronized and they have dropouts and other defects on completely different spots. Not to mention all of the alternate angles etc.
. · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Kurgan wrote:[/b]
It seems pretty obvious to me, all the circulating bootleg videos originate from the same source that was used for the QTV broadcasts.
All documentary footage shown on TV broadcasts is fine, be it mono or stereo.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree. I have spent way too much time comparing the dozen or so copies of the gig I got and I think there are 4 main sources (or 3, 2 of the sources come from the same source, the difference is only the quality and the amount of footage before and after the concert). Thanks to the timecode the 4 sources could be perfectly synchronized and they have dropouts and other defects on completely different spots. Not to mention all of the alternate angles etc.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with in the quote.
Perhaps you can provide samples of some TV documentary broadcasts where the wow and flutter occurs?
. · Member since
Also, you state you have a dozen or so copies of this gig?
. · Member since
Please confirm the sources and perhaps I can make an attempt at a response once I know what it is you disagree with.
