Queen sucks live?

This may be heresy for some, don't get wrong I've been a Queen fan for 25 years now...but always wondered why Roger's drums sound like if he were hitting empty cans, and doing backing vocals like a cat?...or Freddie going totally out of tune, like if he were singing a different song, becauise he can't hit the high notes live...Brian sometimes goes somewhere else in some songs. Is it because Queen was basically a studio band, so prolific and elaborated and impossible to do a decent job live?

1-wrong forum
2-i think your wrong in some cases, Queen rocked live and
3-they are only human, they cant sound exactly like studio albums you know, most of the artists that do sound like studios are MIMING, fakin there own live performance.

No - Queen live definately rocked, there can be no question about that.

But indeed, some nights they could be crappy. Too bad that some of the few officially released live shows are indeed recorded on 'not the best' nights.

But there are plenty of not-released recordings (AND some official ones!) to prove you wrong for once and for all!

cheers

IMO unlike many other artists Queen never did a tour on which they played really bad throughout the whole tour. Even the one that I'd consider their worst(Works tour) had some outstanding shows.

QUEEN ROCKS

no, they don't suck live. IMHO they are the best live band. We got sertain bootlegs (earls court, hyde park) wich sound less due to recording problems (and earls courts performance is also a collection of false notes yes)

But further has anyone ever heared the copy from the master from the Rainbow '74 (march show)?
They sound so pure live. Freddie's voice in budapest? Hammy, Houston just the entire NOTW tour is fantastic ,I mean give me a better live show.

Studio and live they where the best. I take a friend for example who only likes to listen to live versions (On Fire fanatic).

And what about the early 80's?!

Those shows in south america KICKED ASS!!

For sure Queen did not suck live!!! Of course they sound very different as you compare it to the studio work but the shows were really good!!! And Queen wanted to entertain, not just make music and that is really clear if you watch the dvds wembley and at the bowl... it is a total spectacle... and the improvisation that happened on stage is really superb... and of course sometimes things went wrong but Queen was only human so mistakes happened...

but for me: Queen is a really good live band but with a totally different sound than the studio.

Queen always saw themselves as a live Band. They never wanted to make the live songs sound like the studio songs. Freddie had fun to improvise on stage, thats for sure. I can't say much about live sound and mixing, often it's the acoustic of the venue and a bootleg is not the same as a soundboard recording.

I agree that Queen weren't the best playing live band of all time, but you're seriously overdoing :P

Yeah Brian was sloppy at times and Freddie couldn't hit the highs but so what. What made Queen great as a live band was that they did great live versions of their songs without sounding like the studio recording (ie Liar 1975 Christmas Show). If you want to hear a so called live performer that sounds like their studio recording try todays POP artists that we are forced to hear on top 40 radio!!! Queen were hands down the greatest live performers of my time. Have you forgotten Live Aid already?
No one came close to them that day.

whatever...

jeroen wrote:

Those shows in south america KICKED ASS!!

Definitely! Which show is your favourite from this period? I'd have to go with the third night in Buenos Aires, 3-8-81.

I love Queen live, and I will always be one to admit that they had their flaws. Brian's vocal harmonies often sucked, and Freddie's vocal range was often limited. But - Brian would make many of their songs totally rock on stage, like Magic, Break Free, Calling All Girls, Back Chat, Spread Your Wings, the list goes on. Since their studio arrangements were usually pretty complex, they needed to rework songs for the stage - and I think it always worked. Well, with the possible exception of Body Language. Everything else was fantastic, even with their occasional shortcomings.

However - this is a good time for me to say that Led Zeppelin are my favourite live band of all time. Although many shows later in their career were plagued by Jimmy Page's drug problems, from 69-75 they were virtually unbeatable. 71-73 were truly golden years. Every night of a tour would be almost the same setlist, but every show is so very different in so many ways. No band before or since has defined spontaneous brilliance like Zeppelin.

Well, queen doesn´t suck live, but the tone in which Freddie sang were very much complicated to be sung live and of course the same way. I think it wasn´t that bad that Freddie couldn´t have done the same vocals within his concerts but nobody can, in fact, after having sung more than 10 song in a row.
Freddie and queen were and will be the best rock band ever.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

jeroen wrote:

Those shows in south america KICKED ASS!!

Definitely! Which show is your favourite from this period? I'd have to go with the third night in Buenos Aires, 3-8-81.

I'm totally in love with Sao Paulo 20.03.81 and I also like Buenos Aires 38.02.81 very mutch :D.

If somebody has that Buenos Aires first night video please contact me.


Bob, I couldn't agree with you about the Led Zeppelin thing. Indeed they where a fabulous live band (Judging from my boots), but for me Queen will always beat them.