Queen Vs. Queen+PR

a question for the people who have the honour to see both shows:

In terms of SOUND QUALITY, wich one was better?...

P.

its been say 20 years since Freddie played with queen.... Thats likes saying whats better, Super Mario Bros on the NES or now Mario 64, Galaxy or what ever.

Times have chnaged and Queen are not the band they once were. PLus the gigs now are smaller compared to there last tours with Fred. Im sure Queen would win no questions asked over Queen + RP.... But, i think with todays technology the sound would be better with Q+PR, cleaner, more chrisp sounds, even Rogers druming sounds sharper.

neeeeext...

I never saw a Queen concert in my life (other than DVDs of course), but if you ask me Queen+Paul Rodgers is better only because the band members have improved over the years. Freddie Mercury would have become even a greater musician had he not have died so young.

On the other hand, Freddie Mercury is what made Queen...QUEEN! So obviously a lot of people are going to prefer the original Queen line up. Besides, I miss the old Queen sound. The rock concerts that Queen+Paul Rodgers put on sounds to clean...if that makes any sense...which I'm sure doesn't. To be honest I suck at explaining myself in this particular topic...grrrr...

On a personal note, I'd prefer Queen over Queen+Paul Rodgers...as with any other Queen fan. :)

Solo vi a Q+PR

En terminos de sonido seguramente es superior hoy en día... pero no creo que los shows puedan compararse... muy distintos...!

Un abrazo guacho! jajaja

Tas desaparecido... o quizas yo! =P

Adiossssssssssssss

from a voice qualaty stand point Queen Tears Q+PR's SPINE OUT AND BEATS HIM WITH IT from an instrument stand point Q+PR but that's not fair becuse Q+PR also has a shitload of backup musicions wich only make them seem fake!

There isn't anything to say about it. Paul Rogers is a good singer, really, but he will never be as good as Freddie! There will never be a better singer than Freddie Mercury in this world.
This is my opinion. Queen was QUEEN, and they were the BEST!!!! Now it's Queen + Paul Rogers. It's okay, but it's not QUEEN.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Goin Back wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There isn't anything to say about it. Paul Rogers is a good singer, really, but he will never be as good as Freddie! There will never be a better singer than Freddie Mercury in this world.
This is my opinion. Queen was QUEEN, and they were the BEST!!!! Now it's Queen + Paul Rogers. It's okay, but it's not QUEEN.[/QUOTE]

Yeah Yeah, blah blah... Please READ the question. The question was about SOUND QuALITY; not which band is better...

So you're asking: Does digital recording sound better than analog recording?

Yes.

We had this topic over and over again will ye just give a rest please fuck sake

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]BRYCE THE TROLL wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Q+PR also has a shitload of backup musicions wich only make them seem fake![/QUOTE]

Queen Live 1986:

Freddie
Brian
Roger
John
Spike

Q+PR Live 2006:

Brian
Roger
Spike
Paul
Jamie
Danny

Q+PR only have 1 extra person on stage.

Yes, an extra guitarist. NOT an extra vocalist.

ahhhh but Jamie's also BV's

Who cares about comparing the sound quality? Queen + PR didn't work, will never work and should be laid to rest immediately!

Yes they DID work... give proves about you are saying.. my proves are: almost 50 European/Japanese SOLD OUT shows and a complete USA tour with GREAT reviews... and now they are recording a studio album... all that in 2 years... that is to "not work"??

P.