In the BB list near the top of this thread, I indicated that my ratings for Berlin 86 and Vienna 82 (13th) are likely inaccurate ... to minimize confusion (at least for me).
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Jesus, I'm a nitpicker by nature too, but I'm willing to state that this is as good a general guide as you'll get.
Some of you wanting individual concerts uprated or even questioning why some concerts were so low need your heads examining.
And the list isn't useless - if someone reads this and sees a concert they have in poor quality listed as AA, they know it's worth seeking out again, while if it's lower down they know they've got something close to the best available version.
Thanks Rip.
Some of you wanting individual concerts uprated or even questioning why some concerts were so low need your heads examining.
And the list isn't useless - if someone reads this and sees a concert they have in poor quality listed as AA, they know it's worth seeking out again, while if it's lower down they know they've got something close to the best available version.
Thanks Rip.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Thanks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Jesus, I'm a nitpicker by nature too, but I'm willing to state that this is as good a general guide as you'll get.
And the list isn't useless - if someone reads this and sees a concert they have in poor quality listed as AA, they know it's worth seeking out again, while if it's lower down they know they've got something close to the best available version.
[/QUOTE]
My sentiments exactly, I could not agree more.
I would just reiterate that as a general guide it seems fair enough to me. Even Mr. RVW suggests that he is open to revision, and willing to redraft his present ideas – but at least, as it stands, we have a solid foundation to build upon.
Also, I find that it is very easy to criticise. (Not that criticism in itself is a bad thing), but there are too many who just sit back and nitpick without any positive suggestions or recommendations to push the work forward.
We are all striving for perfection, and we all want the best quality (whether that is from lists or actual recordings it is the same), so it is always welcome when the envelope can be pushed forwards.
Perhaps rather than just disagreeing, we could justify reasons as to why this list should be modified, so we end up with the definitive top 75 (or 100) Queenzone boots.
Not that I want to take away from the above work, but I am sure that two or three heads ‘helping’ in such a project could come up with such a definitive list.
It would still in essence, be the original work, and I still think the original author should retain the credit, but if such small tweaks can bestow the ‘Queenzone seal of approval’, it could be something to think about.
And the list isn't useless - if someone reads this and sees a concert they have in poor quality listed as AA, they know it's worth seeking out again, while if it's lower down they know they've got something close to the best available version.
[/QUOTE]
My sentiments exactly, I could not agree more.
I would just reiterate that as a general guide it seems fair enough to me. Even Mr. RVW suggests that he is open to revision, and willing to redraft his present ideas – but at least, as it stands, we have a solid foundation to build upon.
Also, I find that it is very easy to criticise. (Not that criticism in itself is a bad thing), but there are too many who just sit back and nitpick without any positive suggestions or recommendations to push the work forward.
We are all striving for perfection, and we all want the best quality (whether that is from lists or actual recordings it is the same), so it is always welcome when the envelope can be pushed forwards.
Perhaps rather than just disagreeing, we could justify reasons as to why this list should be modified, so we end up with the definitive top 75 (or 100) Queenzone boots.
Not that I want to take away from the above work, but I am sure that two or three heads ‘helping’ in such a project could come up with such a definitive list.
It would still in essence, be the original work, and I still think the original author should retain the credit, but if such small tweaks can bestow the ‘Queenzone seal of approval’, it could be something to think about.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Thanks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Jesus, I'm a nitpicker by nature too, but I'm willing to state that this is as good a general guide as you'll get.
Some of you wanting individual concerts uprated or even questioning why some concerts were so low need your heads examining.
And the list isn't useless - if someone reads this and sees a concert they have in poor quality listed as AA, they know it's worth seeking out again, while if it's lower down they know they've got something close to the best available version.
Thanks Rip.[/QUOTE]
I just can`t figure you out Thanks, is it bad that other make comments about his ratings? Wasn`t this list supposed to be an overview over the best quality available?
Well, in my mind, positive critism will make this list even better. If not, I won`t bother anymore with this.
Some of you wanting individual concerts uprated or even questioning why some concerts were so low need your heads examining.
And the list isn't useless - if someone reads this and sees a concert they have in poor quality listed as AA, they know it's worth seeking out again, while if it's lower down they know they've got something close to the best available version.
Thanks Rip.[/QUOTE]
I just can`t figure you out Thanks, is it bad that other make comments about his ratings? Wasn`t this list supposed to be an overview over the best quality available?
Well, in my mind, positive critism will make this list even better. If not, I won`t bother anymore with this.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TheGame wrote:[/QUOTENAME]Wasn`t this list supposed to be an overview over the best quality available... positive critism will make this list even better...[/QUOTE]
Mr. Game: Obviously, you are correct in what you say. In fact, I kind of wrote someting similar, so I find it hard to disagree a with you.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:[/QUOTENAME] We are all striving for perfection, and we all want the best quality... Perhaps rather than just disagreeing, we could justify reasons as to why this list should be modified, so we end up with the definitive top 75 (or 100) Queenzone boots. [/QUOTE]
However, I think your original mail 'criticises' - but without justification, as all you present is your opinion.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TheGame wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I wonder why you rate 08.05.1977 as AA?
It`s not better then BB(+) for sure.
13.05.1982 Vienna, is better then BB, same is Berlin 86.
Sydney 26.04.1985 is AA++ in my mind.[/QUOTE]
Now, there is nothing WRONG with your opinion, and I have already stated above 'I find it hard to disagree with you', but, I would find it more useful if you listed some objective reasons for your 'beliefs'.
My point is that we can then distill your information into the 'final mix' as it were, thus creating a better 'end product' based on reason, rather than subjectivity.
I think we all agree that we have a really good piece of useful research here, which we can all benefit from, but, if it is felt that the need for revision is required, I guess it is up to us to provide the modifications which would eleveate this to list to 'perfection' status.
Mr. Game: Obviously, you are correct in what you say. In fact, I kind of wrote someting similar, so I find it hard to disagree a with you.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:[/QUOTENAME] We are all striving for perfection, and we all want the best quality... Perhaps rather than just disagreeing, we could justify reasons as to why this list should be modified, so we end up with the definitive top 75 (or 100) Queenzone boots. [/QUOTE]
However, I think your original mail 'criticises' - but without justification, as all you present is your opinion.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TheGame wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I wonder why you rate 08.05.1977 as AA?
It`s not better then BB(+) for sure.
13.05.1982 Vienna, is better then BB, same is Berlin 86.
Sydney 26.04.1985 is AA++ in my mind.[/QUOTE]
Now, there is nothing WRONG with your opinion, and I have already stated above 'I find it hard to disagree with you', but, I would find it more useful if you listed some objective reasons for your 'beliefs'.
My point is that we can then distill your information into the 'final mix' as it were, thus creating a better 'end product' based on reason, rather than subjectivity.
I think we all agree that we have a really good piece of useful research here, which we can all benefit from, but, if it is felt that the need for revision is required, I guess it is up to us to provide the modifications which would eleveate this to list to 'perfection' status.
I think the criticism is a good thing, even if it is presented without reasons. I can compare it with other opinions as well as qzboots, queenbootlegs and queenconcerts to see if the opinion could be more reasonable than mine. Already, I have learned to try and find a better version of 82-5-13 Vienna, and to give Berlin 86 another chance. So please keep your concert opinions coming ... even if your concert opinions are as worthless as my concert list - LOL.
By the way Rip, let me take this chance to say "thank you" for all those nice concerts you share on the hub. I did download some of your AA++ rated concerts a while ago and they are all (quality wise) very enjoyable to listen to!
I realy do appreciate your good work trying to rate them as accurate as possible... thanks!!!
I realy do appreciate your good work trying to rate them as accurate as possible... thanks!!!
Thanks everyone for your kind comments and constructive criticism.
I need more constructive criticism. Already, two concerts in this list clearly look like they need to be rated higher. I bet there are at least 10 more concerts in this list that could be rated higher.
By all means, please help improve this list to something better than "Greg Brooks accuracy".
I need more constructive criticism. Already, two concerts in this list clearly look like they need to be rated higher. I bet there are at least 10 more concerts in this list that could be rated higher.
By all means, please help improve this list to something better than "Greg Brooks accuracy".
Mr.Stuart: I do see your point, and i totally agree. People have different gen. and to seperate them, you need to describe why it have the rating it have. Perhaps bad explained, but i understand what you meant. I`ll try to explain why some of the concerts have wrong rating:
Vienna 13.05.1982: On my bootleg, the sound is very clear and "near". It have very tiny hiss, but the sound picture is still very clear. I`m sure there are a slightly better version out there, so i think AA should be fair to give. It is very enjoyable to listen, and BB is too strict. It is not as good as the date before, but almost. That was give AA++
Stockholm 08.05.1977: This was rated better then vienna, but it have worse quality. Mine is from a low gen, so i`m surprised if the quality is much better then mine. It have some distortion sometimes ( first few tracks), but ok clear ( some sharp)beside that, but you don`t get the "close" feeling. Since the most complete version is from different sources with various quality, it shouldn`t be rated AA, but BB.
Sydney 26.04.1985: This have very clear sound with well balanced sound. Perhaps some lack off bass, but the sound picture ( vocal, drums and no disturbing noises from the audience) is very enjoyable. No tape hiss and no distortion. Much better then stockholm 77, and just as good as many of the AA++ recordings.
Hope this explaines why i disagreed with the rating. As i said, take it as positive critism.
Vienna 13.05.1982: On my bootleg, the sound is very clear and "near". It have very tiny hiss, but the sound picture is still very clear. I`m sure there are a slightly better version out there, so i think AA should be fair to give. It is very enjoyable to listen, and BB is too strict. It is not as good as the date before, but almost. That was give AA++
Stockholm 08.05.1977: This was rated better then vienna, but it have worse quality. Mine is from a low gen, so i`m surprised if the quality is much better then mine. It have some distortion sometimes ( first few tracks), but ok clear ( some sharp)beside that, but you don`t get the "close" feeling. Since the most complete version is from different sources with various quality, it shouldn`t be rated AA, but BB.
Sydney 26.04.1985: This have very clear sound with well balanced sound. Perhaps some lack off bass, but the sound picture ( vocal, drums and no disturbing noises from the audience) is very enjoyable. No tape hiss and no distortion. Much better then stockholm 77, and just as good as many of the AA++ recordings.
Hope this explaines why i disagreed with the rating. As i said, take it as positive critism.
In the end it all depends on what kind of generation recording you own.
Well, i find this thread very useful.
I just bought today two bootlegs- Manheim 86, and Hammy 75. TOP SOUND- i think they`re both from:
a) Radio tapes directly, or
b) soundboard recording.
The sound is that good.
The sound of Manheim 86 concert it`s more warmer than wembley 86, and in some places beats wembley (i have the ´93 CD).
I was about to open a thread with the Question:
Wich bootlegs do we know that are either from radio airing or from soundboard recording?
These are my top priorities to buy.
So, great list. This is going to help a lot!
Take care
I just bought today two bootlegs- Manheim 86, and Hammy 75. TOP SOUND- i think they`re both from:
a) Radio tapes directly, or
b) soundboard recording.
The sound is that good.
The sound of Manheim 86 concert it`s more warmer than wembley 86, and in some places beats wembley (i have the ´93 CD).
I was about to open a thread with the Question:
Wich bootlegs do we know that are either from radio airing or from soundboard recording?
These are my top priorities to buy.
So, great list. This is going to help a lot!
Take care
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TheGame wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Mr.Stuart: I do see your point, and i totally agree. People have different gen. and to seperate them, you need to describe why it have the rating it have. Perhaps bad explained, but i understand what you meant. I`ll try to explain why some of the concerts have wrong rating:
[/QUOTE]
Excellent reply.
I am sure that this gives Mr. RVW something to think about.
I now look forward to re-reading this polished article in a few weeks time.
BTW: As it stands NOW - it still surpasses GB accuracy!
[/QUOTE]
Excellent reply.
I am sure that this gives Mr. RVW something to think about.
I now look forward to re-reading this polished article in a few weeks time.
BTW: As it stands NOW - it still surpasses GB accuracy!
I am downloading from the hub different versions (higher bitrate) of Vienna 82-5-13, Sydney 85, and Paris 86. Hopefully, these versions will be better for me and I will be able to rate them as AA++.
I listed to Berlin 86 while doing yardwork today. I will listen to it more closely in my car (it's my music haven) on Monday while driving to work. I think I will probably rerate it as AA++.
As for Stockholm 77, I marked my list as possibly downgrading it to BB. However, I believe that my AA rating is reasonable, as qzboots and queenbootlegs indicate that the most of the concert is VG+.
I listed to Berlin 86 while doing yardwork today. I will listen to it more closely in my car (it's my music haven) on Monday while driving to work. I think I will probably rerate it as AA++.
As for Stockholm 77, I marked my list as possibly downgrading it to BB. However, I believe that my AA rating is reasonable, as qzboots and queenbootlegs indicate that the most of the concert is VG+.
I'm pretty sure you had a different version of Paris 86, as the sound with the un-cut version is atleast a EX- qaulity in terms of sound, maybe the show is not the best but it is quite different from the normal Magic tour setlist with the additions of the extra day-o.
Same with Newcastle, a otherwise boring show is upgraded mostly due the qaulity of the sound.
Same with Newcastle, a otherwise boring show is upgraded mostly due the qaulity of the sound.
I don't have anything to say but I post anyway hoping that Mr.Stuart calls me Mrs YourValentine since we are all so polite for once:)