whoops, double post...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
whoops, double post...
whoops, double post...
whoops, double post...
whoops, double post...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]don't rely on the bootlegs all the time
if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg
ok, you get my drift[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. In fact, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.
[QUOTE]there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Anyone who knows enough about Queen concerts can listen carefully to a recording and know what date it's from, based on Freddie addressing a particular city, and the setlist. If it's an incomplete recording, then we trust that the date given is true, because Queen generally played the same setlist throughout a tour. If it's one day proven otherwise (which has occasionally happened), then we'll update our data. You then listen carefully for any cuts or changes in the sound quality to be sure that it's all from the same date. Since analog equipment was used and people taped from different parts of the concert venues, every concert has a unique sound quality to it. I own recordings of almost half of the concerts Queen played over their career. If you played 5 seconds of any one of my recordings, nine times out of ten I could immediately tell you which concert it was.
You really have no clue how much effort some collectors put into listening to the bootlegs to understand Queen as an evolving live band over the years. A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert. Official releases can be and have been altered by the band before being release. Bootlegs are made by fans in the audience, and in most cases, they are not altered in any way. Therefore a bootleg is the best way to know what happened on a particular date.
if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg
ok, you get my drift[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. In fact, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.
[QUOTE]there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Anyone who knows enough about Queen concerts can listen carefully to a recording and know what date it's from, based on Freddie addressing a particular city, and the setlist. If it's an incomplete recording, then we trust that the date given is true, because Queen generally played the same setlist throughout a tour. If it's one day proven otherwise (which has occasionally happened), then we'll update our data. You then listen carefully for any cuts or changes in the sound quality to be sure that it's all from the same date. Since analog equipment was used and people taped from different parts of the concert venues, every concert has a unique sound quality to it. I own recordings of almost half of the concerts Queen played over their career. If you played 5 seconds of any one of my recordings, nine times out of ten I could immediately tell you which concert it was.
You really have no clue how much effort some collectors put into listening to the bootlegs to understand Queen as an evolving live band over the years. A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert. Official releases can be and have been altered by the band before being release. Bootlegs are made by fans in the audience, and in most cases, they are not altered in any way. Therefore a bootleg is the best way to know what happened on a particular date.
Umm.. I think we got the point the first time...
but 5 times is a bit much ;-)
but 5 times is a bit much ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]don't rely on the bootlegs all the time
if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg
ok, you get my drift[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. In fact, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.******what a coincidence. guess what the stupidest thing is that I have read so far.
[QUOTE]there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Anyone who knows enough about Queen concerts can listen carefully to a recording and know what date it's from, based on Freddie addressing a particular city, and the setlist. And then you listen carefully for any cuts or changes in the sound quality to be sure that it's all from the same date. If it's an incomplete recording, then we trust that the date given is true, because Queen generally played the same setlist throughout a tour.
You really have no clue how much effort some collectors put into listening to the bootlegs to understand Queen as an evolving live band over the years. A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert. I own recordings of almost half of the concerts Queen played over their career. Official releases can be and have been altered by the band before being release. Bootlegs are made by fans in the audience, and in most cases, they are not altered. Any decent set of ears can hear a cut, cross-fade, etc. Therefore a bootleg is the best way to know what happened on a particular date.************ that is at best contradicting. first you say "A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert" then you basically dismiss this by adding "in most cases, they are not altered", admitting that some bootlegs ARE altered. but there is more in your post that doesn't even begin to make sense. you make it sound like freddie always adresses the venue date and setlist, like if he knew that someone sometime would wade through all the bootlegs and try to figure out what date and venue it was. laughable. I'm sure greg will be delighted to hear that. i'm sure that will be new to him.[/QUOTE]
if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg
ok, you get my drift[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. In fact, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.******what a coincidence. guess what the stupidest thing is that I have read so far.
[QUOTE]there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Anyone who knows enough about Queen concerts can listen carefully to a recording and know what date it's from, based on Freddie addressing a particular city, and the setlist. And then you listen carefully for any cuts or changes in the sound quality to be sure that it's all from the same date. If it's an incomplete recording, then we trust that the date given is true, because Queen generally played the same setlist throughout a tour.
You really have no clue how much effort some collectors put into listening to the bootlegs to understand Queen as an evolving live band over the years. A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert. I own recordings of almost half of the concerts Queen played over their career. Official releases can be and have been altered by the band before being release. Bootlegs are made by fans in the audience, and in most cases, they are not altered. Any decent set of ears can hear a cut, cross-fade, etc. Therefore a bootleg is the best way to know what happened on a particular date.************ that is at best contradicting. first you say "A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert" then you basically dismiss this by adding "in most cases, they are not altered", admitting that some bootlegs ARE altered. but there is more in your post that doesn't even begin to make sense. you make it sound like freddie always adresses the venue date and setlist, like if he knew that someone sometime would wade through all the bootlegs and try to figure out what date and venue it was. laughable. I'm sure greg will be delighted to hear that. i'm sure that will be new to him.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]first you say "A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert" then you basically dismiss this by adding "in most cases, they are not altered", admitting that some bootlegs ARE altered.[/QUOTE]
When I used the word "altered", I was referring to when someone intentionally splices one concert recording onto another recording without explicitly saying so, which does not happen often. I'd say it happens on 1 of every 100 bootlegs. I'll repeat myself: Every recording was made with analog equipment from a different part of each venue, so therefore each recording has its own unique sound. If you read my earlier post at all, I made it clear that it's not hard for trained ears to detect when a recording cuts into another show, as the overall sound will drastically change.
[QUOTE]but there is more in your post that doesn't even begin to make sense. you make it sound like freddie always adresses the venue date and setlist, like if he knew that someone sometime would wade through all the bootlegs and try to figure out what date and venue it was. laughable. I'm sure greg will be delighted to hear that. i'm sure that will be new to him.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you obviously haven't analyzed a bootleg in your life, so you have NO idea what you're talking about. Let me take you through the bootleg identification process. Let's say the setlist starts with Tie Your Mother Down and Ogre Battle. That would mean it's from the A Day At The Races tour. At virtually EVERY show (minus most Magic tour shows), after a couple songs, Freddie would address the audience of the city they were playing in. Rock stars do that, and you should know that if you've ever been to a concert. If Freddie said "Good evening Bristol", then you can check a concert list (like at www.queenconcerts.com, for example), and bingo, the date is May 23, 1977.
Yes, this process of bootleg analyzing may be news to Greg, because he made it clear in his new book that he can't detect a cut in a bootleg. Like I've said before, he got almost every US ADATR setlist wrong. Allow me to explain: Now I'm Here, which was normally performed as the first song of the encore on this tour, was cut from the Cleveland bootleg. Greg missed the cut, and assumed (wrongly) that Queen didn't play the song at all. He simply copied that setlist and pasted it onto a bunch of other shows, as if Queen didn't play Now I'm Here on those nights. For a few other shows, he decided to boast that Queen performed Now I'm Here after Jailhouse Rock, because the Cleveland recording cuts out part way through JR, leading him to "assume" they played Now I'm Here after Jailhouse Rock at a few shows, which NEVER happened. So, what started as an amateurish mistake resulted in him bullshitting his way through an ENTIRE TOUR in his book. But since most people aren't well-informed about bootlegs, this huge series of mistakes flies way over their heads, and they think Greg did a great job with the ADATR tour. He makes similar and worse mistakes all throughout the book.
There really should be no debate on this entire matter. If you can't see the sense in this, then you'd better go back to QOL and continue bashing bootlegs with all the other uninformed people who have no clue of what they're talking about. I have over 300 recordings of Queen concerts, and I know what I'm talking about. You don't. But maybe this did make sense to you, and I'll be happy if it did. Bootlegs really are treasures, and they are the only physical proof of what truly happened at concerts back in the day.
When I used the word "altered", I was referring to when someone intentionally splices one concert recording onto another recording without explicitly saying so, which does not happen often. I'd say it happens on 1 of every 100 bootlegs. I'll repeat myself: Every recording was made with analog equipment from a different part of each venue, so therefore each recording has its own unique sound. If you read my earlier post at all, I made it clear that it's not hard for trained ears to detect when a recording cuts into another show, as the overall sound will drastically change.
[QUOTE]but there is more in your post that doesn't even begin to make sense. you make it sound like freddie always adresses the venue date and setlist, like if he knew that someone sometime would wade through all the bootlegs and try to figure out what date and venue it was. laughable. I'm sure greg will be delighted to hear that. i'm sure that will be new to him.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you obviously haven't analyzed a bootleg in your life, so you have NO idea what you're talking about. Let me take you through the bootleg identification process. Let's say the setlist starts with Tie Your Mother Down and Ogre Battle. That would mean it's from the A Day At The Races tour. At virtually EVERY show (minus most Magic tour shows), after a couple songs, Freddie would address the audience of the city they were playing in. Rock stars do that, and you should know that if you've ever been to a concert. If Freddie said "Good evening Bristol", then you can check a concert list (like at www.queenconcerts.com, for example), and bingo, the date is May 23, 1977.
Yes, this process of bootleg analyzing may be news to Greg, because he made it clear in his new book that he can't detect a cut in a bootleg. Like I've said before, he got almost every US ADATR setlist wrong. Allow me to explain: Now I'm Here, which was normally performed as the first song of the encore on this tour, was cut from the Cleveland bootleg. Greg missed the cut, and assumed (wrongly) that Queen didn't play the song at all. He simply copied that setlist and pasted it onto a bunch of other shows, as if Queen didn't play Now I'm Here on those nights. For a few other shows, he decided to boast that Queen performed Now I'm Here after Jailhouse Rock, because the Cleveland recording cuts out part way through JR, leading him to "assume" they played Now I'm Here after Jailhouse Rock at a few shows, which NEVER happened. So, what started as an amateurish mistake resulted in him bullshitting his way through an ENTIRE TOUR in his book. But since most people aren't well-informed about bootlegs, this huge series of mistakes flies way over their heads, and they think Greg did a great job with the ADATR tour. He makes similar and worse mistakes all throughout the book.
There really should be no debate on this entire matter. If you can't see the sense in this, then you'd better go back to QOL and continue bashing bootlegs with all the other uninformed people who have no clue of what they're talking about. I have over 300 recordings of Queen concerts, and I know what I'm talking about. You don't. But maybe this did make sense to you, and I'll be happy if it did. Bootlegs really are treasures, and they are the only physical proof of what truly happened at concerts back in the day.
Ah, Bob come on - this kid will not understand. Don't bother.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jeroen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ah, Bob come on - this kid will not understand. Don't bother.[/QUOTE]
Well, I already did bother! :P
Well, I already did bother! :P
Don't bother anyMORE then ;-)