[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]seems like no-one can have an opinion because individuals like jpf insult you...
maybe I´m wrong... but you have to learn not to insult every person who have a different opinion...
Bye.[/QUOTE]
When I state that Aeroshit and Punk suck, that's my opinion.
When I state that Queen "Live Killers" was a cut and paste job, that's fact.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I wouldn't know much about KISS in concert....but I heard them a few times...and they sound pretty Okay.....Queen has a lot of energy and power on stage...and yes, Live Killers was a copy-paste job. lol. I prefer both bands in studio XD
"seems like no-one can have an opinion because individuals like jpf insult you..."
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but he was right about punk.
"How the hell do you overdub a live concert?
You're really talking out of your ass."
Ugh....
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6404/whagz2.jpg
Look. Once it's recorded, it's not a live concert anymore. It's a recording - same as any other one. It just happened to be recorded on a stage, dude.
Jesus!
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but he was right about punk.
"How the hell do you overdub a live concert?
You're really talking out of your ass."
Ugh....
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6404/whagz2.jpg
Look. Once it's recorded, it's not a live concert anymore. It's a recording - same as any other one. It just happened to be recorded on a stage, dude.
Jesus!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"How the hell do you overdub a live concert?
You're really talking out of your ass."
Ugh....
Look. Once it's recorded, it's not a live concert anymore. It's a recording - same as any other one. It just happened to be recorded on a stage, dude.[/QUOTE]
The person that I was responding to stated that KISS overdubbed when they were performing live in concert. I took that to mean that he was saying KISS were lip synching in concert, which is totally not true.
"How the hell do you overdub a live concert?
You're really talking out of your ass."
Ugh....
Look. Once it's recorded, it's not a live concert anymore. It's a recording - same as any other one. It just happened to be recorded on a stage, dude.[/QUOTE]
The person that I was responding to stated that KISS overdubbed when they were performing live in concert. I took that to mean that he was saying KISS were lip synching in concert, which is totally not true.
Hey.. well, about other bands that put up good shows I see PG brought up Metallica. I saw them in 1999 in Mexico City but I was on the benches, a bit far from the stage. Still I thought it was a very energetic and powerful show; the flames at the beginning of "Fuel" were printed deeply within my brain as I remember it almost made me jump off my seat, hehe :). Haven't seen AC/DC live, although I would like to do so.
Another good show, but in a more "theatrical" fashion, was Marilyn Manson. I enjoy some of his songs but I've never bought an album. Saw him around 2003-2004 and it was a very visual and entertaining show.
Check out U2's Zooropa Live from Sydney DVD for another larger than life spectacle. I think it was a very cool concept for that time and a great homage for the MTV/media generation, hehe :).
Wiley
Another good show, but in a more "theatrical" fashion, was Marilyn Manson. I enjoy some of his songs but I've never bought an album. Saw him around 2003-2004 and it was a very visual and entertaining show.
Check out U2's Zooropa Live from Sydney DVD for another larger than life spectacle. I think it was a very cool concept for that time and a great homage for the MTV/media generation, hehe :).
Wiley
I've seen KISS numerous times and only Queen once. I think it's unfornuate that Queen had such a bad promotion when it came to the States.
Kiss was promoted and that helped with their merchandising and career. Queen was also promoted, but it seems only in England.
They are both good. KISS has a fantastic stage show, with pyros and all. Queen also had a good stage show and that stage show was FREDDIE!
Still I like both.
Kiss was promoted and that helped with their merchandising and career. Queen was also promoted, but it seems only in England.
They are both good. KISS has a fantastic stage show, with pyros and all. Queen also had a good stage show and that stage show was FREDDIE!
Still I like both.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jpf wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]KISS concerts are FULL... FULL of overdubs...[/QUOTE]
How the hell do you overdub a live concert?
You're really talking out of your ass.
As far as the original question goes ...
There's KISS in concert, then there's everyone else. Queen, visually, was good. KISS wrote the book on the concert experience.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]and practically the whole KISS live albums are overdubs... the only way that you can compare is listening to some bootleg...[/QUOTE]
Queen "Live Killers" was all cut and paste. There are lines from one city intermixed with lines from other cities in a single track. If you listen carefully you can hear where the edits are.
KISS released Instant Live recordings from almost all of the shows on their "Rock The Nation" tour in 2004. I received my copy 20 minutes after the concert finished. No overdubs, just a great concert souvenir.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen were better live... because they not only put a hell of a show, but also have great musical perfomances... I think KISS only have a great visual show but not a great music show... Queen were awesome in both aspects.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you've never attended a KISS concert.
Listen to Queen's Hyde Park show. Freddie was terrible.[/QUOTE]
Alive! was overdubbed in the recording studio. There were many overdubs save the drums. Alive was chock full of overdubs. Deep Purple's Made in Japan, made a few years earlier, had NO OVERDUBS! KISS Instant Live CDs didn't last long as they were burned CDs of shows. They deteriorated after a short time.
For the record, I have attended four KISS concerts. The first one which was 1996 I didn't really get to enjoy cos of three of the eight people I went with (my two older brothers and my brother's friend) were either drunk or high or confrontational and took the starch out cos I had to hold my drunk second older brother up on his feet and then wound up fighting with him and my other older brother cos some drunk made fun of my clothing choice (Nike Cortez, Docker shorts, BIG WOW!). 1998 was better and the best of four KISS shows I saw IMHO and went with different group of people and no fights this go around. 2000 was not as enjoyable as older brother and his friend were complaining about beer prices. Admittedly, seeing Peter Criss play triggered drums on the post-1980 stuff was a laugh and the band didn't have the same energy they had on the 1998 tour. Then 2004 was not the same and majority of people who went to show I went to left before KISS took stage. I didn't like seeing doppleganger Peter and doppleganger Ace personally and there were certain parts of show where I did nod off. I enjoyed the 70s KISS concerts moreso.
Editing live records in the 1970s was more primitive than today. With today's technology you can record many shows and replace bad notes from one show with a better performance from another with a click of the mouse. That was how Pink Floyd's PULSE album was done. The band recorded all of the European leg of their 1994 tour and none of the band was around for the mixing as David Gilmour and his wife had a child so he was mainly at home with his wife and kids but popped in to approve what songs and performances to go on the album. Nick Mason was off auto racing somewhere and Rick Wright was sailing somewheres. Even PULSE co-producer/engineer and long time PF associate James Guthrie stated no one came in to re-record anything and bad notes were replaced with notes from other shows. Technology has changed since the 1970s for the better.
Even pro-tools fixed Freddie's voice on Fat Bottomed Girls on On Fire at the Bowl.
Aerosmith suck balls. They died in 2001 with that Super Bowl fiasco they did with B*tchn*y Sneers, N'S*ck, Hairy Mary J unoBliged and smelly Nelly.
Rush is superb l
How the hell do you overdub a live concert?
You're really talking out of your ass.
As far as the original question goes ...
There's KISS in concert, then there's everyone else. Queen, visually, was good. KISS wrote the book on the concert experience.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]and practically the whole KISS live albums are overdubs... the only way that you can compare is listening to some bootleg...[/QUOTE]
Queen "Live Killers" was all cut and paste. There are lines from one city intermixed with lines from other cities in a single track. If you listen carefully you can hear where the edits are.
KISS released Instant Live recordings from almost all of the shows on their "Rock The Nation" tour in 2004. I received my copy 20 minutes after the concert finished. No overdubs, just a great concert souvenir.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen were better live... because they not only put a hell of a show, but also have great musical perfomances... I think KISS only have a great visual show but not a great music show... Queen were awesome in both aspects.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you've never attended a KISS concert.
Listen to Queen's Hyde Park show. Freddie was terrible.[/QUOTE]
Alive! was overdubbed in the recording studio. There were many overdubs save the drums. Alive was chock full of overdubs. Deep Purple's Made in Japan, made a few years earlier, had NO OVERDUBS! KISS Instant Live CDs didn't last long as they were burned CDs of shows. They deteriorated after a short time.
For the record, I have attended four KISS concerts. The first one which was 1996 I didn't really get to enjoy cos of three of the eight people I went with (my two older brothers and my brother's friend) were either drunk or high or confrontational and took the starch out cos I had to hold my drunk second older brother up on his feet and then wound up fighting with him and my other older brother cos some drunk made fun of my clothing choice (Nike Cortez, Docker shorts, BIG WOW!). 1998 was better and the best of four KISS shows I saw IMHO and went with different group of people and no fights this go around. 2000 was not as enjoyable as older brother and his friend were complaining about beer prices. Admittedly, seeing Peter Criss play triggered drums on the post-1980 stuff was a laugh and the band didn't have the same energy they had on the 1998 tour. Then 2004 was not the same and majority of people who went to show I went to left before KISS took stage. I didn't like seeing doppleganger Peter and doppleganger Ace personally and there were certain parts of show where I did nod off. I enjoyed the 70s KISS concerts moreso.
Editing live records in the 1970s was more primitive than today. With today's technology you can record many shows and replace bad notes from one show with a better performance from another with a click of the mouse. That was how Pink Floyd's PULSE album was done. The band recorded all of the European leg of their 1994 tour and none of the band was around for the mixing as David Gilmour and his wife had a child so he was mainly at home with his wife and kids but popped in to approve what songs and performances to go on the album. Nick Mason was off auto racing somewhere and Rick Wright was sailing somewheres. Even PULSE co-producer/engineer and long time PF associate James Guthrie stated no one came in to re-record anything and bad notes were replaced with notes from other shows. Technology has changed since the 1970s for the better.
Even pro-tools fixed Freddie's voice on Fat Bottomed Girls on On Fire at the Bowl.
Aerosmith suck balls. They died in 2001 with that Super Bowl fiasco they did with B*tchn*y Sneers, N'S*ck, Hairy Mary J unoBliged and smelly Nelly.
Rush is superb l
As much as I tend to prefer Kiss, especially for a live setting (because of the songs, not the actual band), I think Queen (during the 70s) were better: shows were both visual and musical, and indeed the songs were far more complex so it's a plus too.
Even if Brian wasn't half as good live as he was in the studio, he was much more versatile than any guitarist Kiss have ever had: have you noticed that Ace, good as he was/is, always plays the same bloody thing?
Even if Brian wasn't half as good live as he was in the studio, he was much more versatile than any guitarist Kiss have ever had: have you noticed that Ace, good as he was/is, always plays the same bloody thing?
"have you noticed that Ace, good as he was/is, always plays the same bloody thing?"
You would too, if you were that drugged up :P
You would too, if you were that drugged up :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As much as I tend to prefer Kiss, especially for a live setting (because of the songs, not the actual band), I think Queen (during the 70s) were better: shows were both visual and musical, and indeed the songs were far more complex so it's a plus too.
Even if Brian wasn't half as good live as he was in the studio, he was much more versatile than any guitarist Kiss have ever had: have you noticed that Ace, good as he was/is, always plays the same bloody thing?[/QUOTE
Brian is a well thought out, intelligent guitar player who has a style that no one seems to be able to copy very well and has been very successful, artistically and financially. Ace, while showing occasional flashes of brilliance and by all accounts very intelligent person who has allowed drugs and booze to ruin his life. Ace is probably more of a stereotypical rock and roll star, Brian is a far more what most people wish they could be...yet Ace seems happy with his lot in life and Brian sometimes seems very unhappy, despite what would seem to be a great life.
Even if Brian wasn't half as good live as he was in the studio, he was much more versatile than any guitarist Kiss have ever had: have you noticed that Ace, good as he was/is, always plays the same bloody thing?[/QUOTE
Brian is a well thought out, intelligent guitar player who has a style that no one seems to be able to copy very well and has been very successful, artistically and financially. Ace, while showing occasional flashes of brilliance and by all accounts very intelligent person who has allowed drugs and booze to ruin his life. Ace is probably more of a stereotypical rock and roll star, Brian is a far more what most people wish they could be...yet Ace seems happy with his lot in life and Brian sometimes seems very unhappy, despite what would seem to be a great life.
Overrated clowns
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"have you noticed that Ace, good as he was/is, always plays the same bloody thing?"
You would too, if you were that drugged up :P[/QUOTE]
that state of mind forced Hendrix to never play the same song the same way twice ;-)
You would too, if you were that drugged up :P[/QUOTE]
that state of mind forced Hendrix to never play the same song the same way twice ;-)
Both shows were great in the 70's when the band's were at their height. But as far as musicianship goes Queen takes it hands down. KISS was good musically but because of certain members with addictions and living the rock and roll lifestyle they weren't too consistant on stage. Peter had the tendancy to speed up his drumming while Ace tended to be a little sloppy. Queen on the other hand worked together very well musically and paced themselves during live performances. To me both bands are great but Queen still overules them anyday in this department.
"Comparing KISS and Queen concerts..."
Please don't mistake duster for hand towel...
Please don't mistake duster for hand towel...
I'll probably have my head bitten off for even slightly giving KiSS any credit...
But for what they are (cheap trash, basically), they're good for that purpose. I've never seen them as high art, but COME ON! It's Kiss! What the hell did you expect?? :)
But for what they are (cheap trash, basically), they're good for that purpose. I've never seen them as high art, but COME ON! It's Kiss! What the hell did you expect?? :)