[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jcrawford79 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oszmercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, you should hear Copenhagen in 1971 and tell if Robert has no control of his voice, he has no moves, because he has that voice.[/QUOTE]
This statement confuses me. I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you're trying to say the Plant's voice was terrible that night, that doesn't really mean anything because there are several shows where Freddie's voice was bad. That's something every singer deals with from time to time.
EDIT: Never mind, I just saw a post above that I think you were probably replying to. Sorry for the confusion.[/QUOTE]
I was talkin bout his vocals, his range, his passion that night, it's an amazin show, i wasn't clear first, that is my real point, the power of his voice
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jcrawford79 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]epwchill wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As much as i love Led Zeppelin, i cant stand to here Plant sing live. The man has no vocal controll and his notes fly all over the place.[/QUOTE]
To have an opinion is completely understandable, but to make a statement completely without merit is not. Your statement is completely untrue.[/QUOTE]
I realize i am basing my statement upon 2 performances (Seattle 7-17-77, and Earls Court 75) But my ears can here, and Plant really messes up stairway on both performances. He may have sounded better in earlier shows, but like i said, both shows i heard sounded bad.
(BTW, the rest of Zep i consider great live)
To have an opinion is completely understandable, but to make a statement completely without merit is not. Your statement is completely untrue.[/QUOTE]
I realize i am basing my statement upon 2 performances (Seattle 7-17-77, and Earls Court 75) But my ears can here, and Plant really messes up stairway on both performances. He may have sounded better in earlier shows, but like i said, both shows i heard sounded bad.
(BTW, the rest of Zep i consider great live)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Asterik wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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.[/QUOTE]
U2 and Bono have chosen to remain non-partisan. Just because they're advocating some concern towards people who everyday die of hunger and illness doesn't mean that they're actually pushing a political agenda. Sure thing, to many people it sounds like a political rant, but it's not that. It's just bringing some sense of concern for making the world a better place, not just for us, but for those who were not lucky enough to be born with the privileges that we have.
The whole Mecphisto shit was a fuckin' joke. I seriously despised that whole crap because even though U2 wanted to have more fun, it's sort of pathetic to make an entire live show revolved around self-mockery. Leave that shit for Spinal Tap.
Thank God U2 went back to the basics, because that's what made them big. Fuck the over the top live stages, the make-up, the techno beats, and all that image based crap. Make it all about the music and the message carried along with it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough- you ar eentitled to a view and I cmmmend you for conveying it in an eloquent fashion but I and a lot of others find this "sincere" U2 very nauseating and preachy. Thier best album in my and many other's views is Achtung baby, which is of their "post modern era"
Their songs are great, I just hate them trying to save the world because it's killing the music. The last album was safe commercial rock (a few tracks excepted)- they're frightened to experiment now,because quite frankly, of fans such as yourself, who probably think, with some justification I admit, that The Joshua tree is the be-all and end all. U2 used to be exciting.
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]
U2 and Bono have chosen to remain non-partisan. Just because they're advocating some concern towards people who everyday die of hunger and illness doesn't mean that they're actually pushing a political agenda. Sure thing, to many people it sounds like a political rant, but it's not that. It's just bringing some sense of concern for making the world a better place, not just for us, but for those who were not lucky enough to be born with the privileges that we have.
The whole Mecphisto shit was a fuckin' joke. I seriously despised that whole crap because even though U2 wanted to have more fun, it's sort of pathetic to make an entire live show revolved around self-mockery. Leave that shit for Spinal Tap.
Thank God U2 went back to the basics, because that's what made them big. Fuck the over the top live stages, the make-up, the techno beats, and all that image based crap. Make it all about the music and the message carried along with it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough- you ar eentitled to a view and I cmmmend you for conveying it in an eloquent fashion but I and a lot of others find this "sincere" U2 very nauseating and preachy. Thier best album in my and many other's views is Achtung baby, which is of their "post modern era"
Their songs are great, I just hate them trying to save the world because it's killing the music. The last album was safe commercial rock (a few tracks excepted)- they're frightened to experiment now,because quite frankly, of fans such as yourself, who probably think, with some justification I admit, that The Joshua tree is the be-all and end all. U2 used to be exciting.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]on my way up wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I certainly think Queen belongs in the top 10:-)For me their best shows are among the best ever performed.I only regret Freddie had entire tours with voice problems(live killers for example)His voice sounded during that entire tour weak and when they were performing in Japan in '79 they were an amazing band with a singer with a totally destroyed voice!![/QUOTE]
yes, Fred's voice was always weak by the time each tour got to Japan- look at '82 and '85, terrible.
yes, Fred's voice was always weak by the time each tour got to Japan- look at '82 and '85, terrible.
Experimentation is OK as long as it doesn't damage the musical identity of the band.
'Achtung Baby' was a great album because it was original, fresh and still sounded like U2. 'Zooropa' and 'Pop' failed because they went too far with experimenting with a sound that made people question what kind of music are they trying to make.
Same thing with 'News Of The World'. It was a step aside from the glam rock sound from Queen's previous albums, but it still sounded like Queen.
'Hot Space' wasn't well received because it also went too far when it came to experimenting with a different sound. Especially because disco was already an extinct genre, it was a dumb move to try to revive it.
Btw, I never considered 'The Joshue Tree' to be that good. The singles were great, but the album itself as an overall is indeed overated. 'Boy', 'War', and 'The Unforgettable Fire' depict U2 at their best, IMO.
'Achtung Baby' was a great album because it was original, fresh and still sounded like U2. 'Zooropa' and 'Pop' failed because they went too far with experimenting with a sound that made people question what kind of music are they trying to make.
Same thing with 'News Of The World'. It was a step aside from the glam rock sound from Queen's previous albums, but it still sounded like Queen.
'Hot Space' wasn't well received because it also went too far when it came to experimenting with a different sound. Especially because disco was already an extinct genre, it was a dumb move to try to revive it.
Btw, I never considered 'The Joshue Tree' to be that good. The singles were great, but the album itself as an overall is indeed overated. 'Boy', 'War', and 'The Unforgettable Fire' depict U2 at their best, IMO.
So does anyone know what a great live band even is? Some want to be entertained, because the songs can be heard on the record. Others want the band to play the songs and leave, because that makes them credible and closer to the public. They are no untouchable rock stars then.
I prefer my big live show with gimmicks and jokes, and lights and pyro and stadium rock. That's Queen, U2, Metallica, Guns N' Roses.
The general public seems to want the same. Or have you seen an offical album like "Queen playing in a club in front of 150 people"? That wouldn't be the same, right? But I can also enjoy the little shows and venues, because some music just needs that. This could be Nick Cave or Jewel (or for the Germans on this board: Helge Schneider).
But however, artists can do what they want. They are not supposed to please you, neither on record, nor live. They see what works and what does not. If they are not selling tickets for the stadiums, they don't go to the stadiums. And then why would you go and play Wembley only with a few light bulbs and amplifiers, because when you do a big show, a few people think the show is more important than the music and hate you for that? If you only want the music, listen to the record.
I don't care to wonder about what Queen wanted to express with Hot Space or U2 with Pop. I'm not a purist that only listens to Metallica's Ride The Lightning and hates Load. Same goes with the live shows, with any band. And with the music. The bottom line is: doesn't matter what you think, it's simply about whether you like it or not. If you like the concept, buy a ticket. If you don't, then stay home. It's really easy.
I prefer my big live show with gimmicks and jokes, and lights and pyro and stadium rock. That's Queen, U2, Metallica, Guns N' Roses.
The general public seems to want the same. Or have you seen an offical album like "Queen playing in a club in front of 150 people"? That wouldn't be the same, right? But I can also enjoy the little shows and venues, because some music just needs that. This could be Nick Cave or Jewel (or for the Germans on this board: Helge Schneider).
But however, artists can do what they want. They are not supposed to please you, neither on record, nor live. They see what works and what does not. If they are not selling tickets for the stadiums, they don't go to the stadiums. And then why would you go and play Wembley only with a few light bulbs and amplifiers, because when you do a big show, a few people think the show is more important than the music and hate you for that? If you only want the music, listen to the record.
I don't care to wonder about what Queen wanted to express with Hot Space or U2 with Pop. I'm not a purist that only listens to Metallica's Ride The Lightning and hates Load. Same goes with the live shows, with any band. And with the music. The bottom line is: doesn't matter what you think, it's simply about whether you like it or not. If you like the concept, buy a ticket. If you don't, then stay home. It's really easy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Experimentation is OK as long as it doesn't damage the musical identity of the band.
Btw, I never considered 'The Joshue Tree' to be that good. The singles were great, but the album itself as an overall is indeed overated. 'Boy', 'War', and 'The Unforgettable Fire' depict U2 at their best, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Haha. That reminds of something Lars Ulrich said in 1987: "It is like a few people don't want you to be popular. When a teenager in Buttfuck, Egypt is cool because he is the first who discovered a band, and then the band gets big, and he is not cool anymore, he says the band sold out and became commercial."
Hey, you can listen to Gloria or October or MLK or Red Light forever, or you can understand that In God's Country has a great riff, and All I Want Is You is great and even Wake Up Dead Man is or Love Is Blindness or Lemon or Wild Honey or Kite or whatever.
But that's the very same with a few people on this board. They wanted Queen to release ANATO for the umpteenth time and not crap like The Works or A Kind Of Magic. Some folks just won't accept a development, especially when it helps the band to sell more records and tickets.
Oh, Queen was so great when they still did millions of overdubs and choirs in every song, how could they sell themselves with Radio Ga Ga or It's A Hard Life? The same people cry for a concert setlist full of unknown songs, because they are cool again when only 5 out of 10,000 people know a song and you're one of them. Ridiculous!
Btw, I never considered 'The Joshue Tree' to be that good. The singles were great, but the album itself as an overall is indeed overated. 'Boy', 'War', and 'The Unforgettable Fire' depict U2 at their best, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Haha. That reminds of something Lars Ulrich said in 1987: "It is like a few people don't want you to be popular. When a teenager in Buttfuck, Egypt is cool because he is the first who discovered a band, and then the band gets big, and he is not cool anymore, he says the band sold out and became commercial."
Hey, you can listen to Gloria or October or MLK or Red Light forever, or you can understand that In God's Country has a great riff, and All I Want Is You is great and even Wake Up Dead Man is or Love Is Blindness or Lemon or Wild Honey or Kite or whatever.
But that's the very same with a few people on this board. They wanted Queen to release ANATO for the umpteenth time and not crap like The Works or A Kind Of Magic. Some folks just won't accept a development, especially when it helps the band to sell more records and tickets.
Oh, Queen was so great when they still did millions of overdubs and choirs in every song, how could they sell themselves with Radio Ga Ga or It's A Hard Life? The same people cry for a concert setlist full of unknown songs, because they are cool again when only 5 out of 10,000 people know a song and you're one of them. Ridiculous!
[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.[/QUOTE]
It was still the same, only the outfit had changed, and you haven't recognized it. Bono could keep raising a white flag on stage for the rest of his life or he could show us how the media control our lives these days. Just a different social message, put across in a bigger and more entertaining show. And more people noticed it back then, while his performance at Live Aid basically went unnoticed. But as you say later, it was U2 at their best. Oh well...
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.[/QUOTE]
It was still the same, only the outfit had changed, and you haven't recognized it. Bono could keep raising a white flag on stage for the rest of his life or he could show us how the media control our lives these days. Just a different social message, put across in a bigger and more entertaining show. And more people noticed it back then, while his performance at Live Aid basically went unnoticed. But as you say later, it was U2 at their best. Oh well...
metallica suck!
A very profound comment. Speaking about sucking, you still call yourself "my cunt"?
I could be your "cunt" if you want me to be!...guns and roses suck!
There are several things that make a great concert, and I always thought Queen struck the right balance: right amount of lights and effects, right amount of musicianship and right amount of a frontman that the girls love :)
But on this last tour I've found that Freddie might not have been the performer he was if they didn't have the backing of a great song catalog. The shows still go over great primarily due to the strength of the music, but also Queen's remaining members still have that knack of what order to put the songs in (incredibly important), and how to arrange the lights/video/overall spectacle (which, yeah, I think is part of a rock show), etc.
But on this last tour I've found that Freddie might not have been the performer he was if they didn't have the backing of a great song catalog. The shows still go over great primarily due to the strength of the music, but also Queen's remaining members still have that knack of what order to put the songs in (incredibly important), and how to arrange the lights/video/overall spectacle (which, yeah, I think is part of a rock show), etc.
About Robert Plant: do not forget freddie had some very bad shows too.That's absolutely normal.
We as queen and freddie-fans are sometimes too focussed on the fantastic stuff and want to forget about the less godlike performances;)Listen to Plant at his best and you will alter your opinion!!!He could be incredible!(early seventies)
We as queen and freddie-fans are sometimes too focussed on the fantastic stuff and want to forget about the less godlike performances;)Listen to Plant at his best and you will alter your opinion!!!He could be incredible!(early seventies)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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]
Really? I rather liked Live Aid.
I like the Live Aid show for the energetic nature of it, they were on fire. I hate the drum sound, and I don't quite agree with the song selection (ok, it was always going to be a Greatest Hits list but still) but considering his doctors told him not to bother singing (he had some cold or throat infection or something) he did a pretty freakin' good job.
I only rate Live Aid highly because I haven't seen too many shows myself. I've only got shows like Wembley or Earls Court to form a basis for comparison, you see. But, on it's own, I reckon it's a pretty good performance, they certainly smoked everyone else on the bill that day I think.
Let's turn this negativity around - what's the best performance of Hammer to Fall, Rick? :D[/QUOTE]
The best? I think Wembley '86 is a very good one. But it's not an easy song to sing live. Freddie has most of time problems reaching the high notes. The 1984 versions are also very nice, especially the early shows. Freddie was in such a good shape. I think the Works tour opener, 24 August 1984 in Brussels, is one of Freddie's best shows ever!
Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever. [/QUOTE]
Really? I rather liked Live Aid.
I like the Live Aid show for the energetic nature of it, they were on fire. I hate the drum sound, and I don't quite agree with the song selection (ok, it was always going to be a Greatest Hits list but still) but considering his doctors told him not to bother singing (he had some cold or throat infection or something) he did a pretty freakin' good job.
I only rate Live Aid highly because I haven't seen too many shows myself. I've only got shows like Wembley or Earls Court to form a basis for comparison, you see. But, on it's own, I reckon it's a pretty good performance, they certainly smoked everyone else on the bill that day I think.
Let's turn this negativity around - what's the best performance of Hammer to Fall, Rick? :D[/QUOTE]
The best? I think Wembley '86 is a very good one. But it's not an easy song to sing live. Freddie has most of time problems reaching the high notes. The 1984 versions are also very nice, especially the early shows. Freddie was in such a good shape. I think the Works tour opener, 24 August 1984 in Brussels, is one of Freddie's best shows ever!
brian may sounds awsome live
probably the best live guitarist ever
followed by dave gilmour
probably the best live guitarist ever
followed by dave gilmour