I know that there are several people here that are really into ohter bands aswell. How would you rate Queen comparing them to these other bands when performing live?You have to compare them while playing(and performing) at their very best.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I've never thought of Queen as an extraordinary live band, except in their Sheer Heart - Jazz period.
I think, it was Freddie's philosophy that made them a great live band. He said in an interview, that his job is to win the audience over, otherwise it is not a good performance. So a Queen show has always been mainly a Freddie show with a support band. As democratic as Queen might have been, but live they depended on Freddie, I believe. It's the huge flamboyant stage persona that matters to me in a live band. That's why I don't enjoy seeing little bands in dark basements, being happily unknown, because only unknown and independent music is good music. Bullshit.
Compared to other bands of Queen's size and importance: have a look at U2 and their ZooTV and Popmart concerts. Or look at Metallica around 1992. Or Guns N' Roses back then. As Freddie said: the bigger, the better. In everything. It doesn't always work though. Look at the Rolling Stones. :-)
Jan
Compared to other bands of Queen's size and importance: have a look at U2 and their ZooTV and Popmart concerts. Or look at Metallica around 1992. Or Guns N' Roses back then. As Freddie said: the bigger, the better. In everything. It doesn't always work though. Look at the Rolling Stones. :-)
Jan
Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s.
Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.
Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.
Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.
Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.
I guess, it's a question of personal taste. I don't care about the social activist part. I don't care if Bono calls Sarajevo in the middle of a concert, or asks for sanctions against South Africa on Rattle and Hum. But I care about a big show with a big stage and big lights and sounds. And ZooTV was all that. Sure, a few people might use words like "credibility", but hey, Macphisto or The Fly have been funny characters. That's what I go to a live show for. Not some crap like Prodigy in 1997 (2 hours late, 80 minutes show without any lights and gimmicks). I also enjoy live shows where every band member is adding to the show. U2 or Queen are "frontman-bands with a good guitarist" to me, where it's not exactly enjoyable to look at the bass player or the drummer for the whole concert. Metallica is different there, and the old Guns N' Roses too. You could enjoy looking at Jason Newsted (now Rob Trujillo) or Kirk Hammett, Slash or Duff. And on top of that, you need a great show. That's a good live band to me. Ok, I agree, when you go and see U2, you have to accept the occasional political rants, but that's ok. Back to Queen: they had their last big live show in 1986, all the other bands mentioned are still touring. So what about changing standards then?
Was there a comparable live band in the mid-80's? Genesis? Pink Floyd? Anyone? And then, how do you rate the current tour (I don't say the word Queen) to other live bands these days?
Was there a comparable live band in the mid-80's? Genesis? Pink Floyd? Anyone? And then, how do you rate the current tour (I don't say the word Queen) to other live bands these days?
I've seen every one except Zeppelin,and I have to say in all honesty Queen can blow any band on the planet away.They proved it when they did Live Aid.Ive never seen a front man grab a audience by the throat and just never let go till the end of the show the way Freddie did.John, Roger and Brian are pretty good too, these guys can play with the best of them on a bad night.
IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.
I think that KISS, Zeppelin (today I Watch How The West Was Won... INCREDIBLE all of them...) and Pin k Floyd kick all asses... including Queen...
I always prefer Queen but I have to be honest... and those bands are better...
U2 and the Stones sucks...
P.
I always prefer Queen but I have to be honest... and those bands are better...
U2 and the Stones sucks...
P.
Deep Purple Mkll is one of the most amazin acts in rock and roll history
Pink Floyd circa 1969-1972 an impressive band, beyond our minds
Zeppelin is the incarnation of rock and roll
Miles Davis circa 1971-1975 is what a rock and roll band should be
Pink Floyd circa 1969-1972 an impressive band, beyond our minds
Zeppelin is the incarnation of rock and roll
Miles Davis circa 1971-1975 is what a rock and roll band should be
what about ac/dc, they're pure energy on stage, but I like queen better
nice robert plant performance of innuendo at the tribute concert, very great. Not.
Queen beat all bands, all the other bands even admit that.
Queen beat all bands, all the other bands even admit that.
This is so hard to compare, all those live bands. Is has to do with a lot of personal taste..also with the technique they play..But when you talk about topbands like these then it is mostly about taste...
I love Aerosmith as a live band. Pure rock 'n roll with a kind of magic. Listen to Rattlesnake Shake, Lord Of The Thighs or Rats In The Cellar live, rock 'n roll doesnt get any better than this.
Sometimes you also have to get know bands, like meeting people. Some people you meet have not a great first impression but when you get to know them better, you start to love them. Its the same with music.
U2 is my opinion a fantastic live bands, as is Zeppelin, Stones etc...
I love Aerosmith as a live band. Pure rock 'n roll with a kind of magic. Listen to Rattlesnake Shake, Lord Of The Thighs or Rats In The Cellar live, rock 'n roll doesnt get any better than this.
Sometimes you also have to get know bands, like meeting people. Some people you meet have not a great first impression but when you get to know them better, you start to love them. Its the same with music.
U2 is my opinion a fantastic live bands, as is Zeppelin, Stones etc...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s.
Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.
Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The social activist stuff is sanctimnious left-wing rubbish and thank God Queen didn't preach like that. U2's best years as a live band were in the 90s when they stopped trying to get on their moral high horse and actually had some ironic fun- the music and the sheer spectacle of their shows were outstanding.
Now, they've gone back to dreary preaching about 3rd world poverty; give me a break.Their once explosive songs like Bullet The Blue Sky and the Fly sound tired and the shows are underwhelming.
Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.
Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The social activist stuff is sanctimnious left-wing rubbish and thank God Queen didn't preach like that. U2's best years as a live band were in the 90s when they stopped trying to get on their moral high horse and actually had some ironic fun- the music and the sheer spectacle of their shows were outstanding.
Now, they've gone back to dreary preaching about 3rd world poverty; give me a break.Their once explosive songs like Bullet The Blue Sky and the Fly sound tired and the shows are underwhelming.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever.
Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=blue>Rick wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. [/QUOTE]
I second that. Live Aid is way too overrated. Ok, it was a great performance, but not over the top compared to other Queen performances.
Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. [/QUOTE]
I second that. Live Aid is way too overrated. Ok, it was a great performance, but not over the top compared to other Queen performances.