Were Queen better live than on record?

Talk about Queen's live performances.

Were Queen better live than on record?

Much better, yes.
6
19%
Overall, slightly better.
6
19%
No different.
9
29%
Not really.
5
16%
No way! Their studio work was far better.
5
16%
 
Total votes : 31

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby maidenpriest » Sat May 05, 2012 10:17 am

Queen Live and Studio are two totally seperate entities and should be judge as such so i guess 'no difference' :-)
 
maidenpriest
We Will Rock You
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:37 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby Kes » Sun May 06, 2012 12:19 pm

It would seem that there "should" have been an option that said "No, Different", as most of the people who seem to have voted for "No different" actually interpreted it to mean that Queen studio and Queen Live are two completely different animals, both of which they consider to be VERY good.
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14859
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 362 times

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby bruce » Sun May 06, 2012 12:51 pm

studio and stage are both different worlds. basically i prefer studio albums in any artist's catalogue.

some Q songs when delivered live were greater to my taste than their orignal versions - ie. songs from Hot Space
 
bruce
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:06 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby Kes » Sun May 06, 2012 12:57 pm

I think they are two different roads.

To be a good live band, you have to be able to play to the crowd, whereas Queen in the studio were all about production, and what they considered to be ultimate perfection, two things you've often got to leave behind you when you're trying to recreate something in front of an audience.

To be voted one of the best produced studio bands in the world, and ALSO be voted one of the best live concert tickets at the same time, well, I think that takes two sets of skill bases.

I personally don't think they were any better or worse a live band, as recorded one. They excelled at being noticeably competent in both fields
What is left of your dream?
Just the words on your stone.
A man who learnt how to teach,
But forgot how to learn.
 
Kes
Moderator
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 14859
Images: 747
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:41 am
Location: London, England
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 362 times

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby fosterol » Wed May 09, 2012 5:54 pm

I would vote for Queen studio as that is where i have more enjoyment of the music. Live wonderful, however the letdown live for me, more so later on was Freddies vocals. The 70s shows were superior vocally for me and maybe the culmination is the peak at around Montreal i believe 81.
Queen 85/86 for me was a bit tiresome and i soon tire of freddie shouty vocals and the same songs repeated with no sense of fun as in the early days. I wouldn't have missed Knebworth for the world, however I wouldn't choose the wembley/live magic (shite) to listen to over even the worst studio album.
 
fosterol
We Will Rock You
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:19 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby Simon » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:00 am

I remember when I listened to a Queen live record for the first time.
It was around 1995, when I was just discovering my love for the band. I did not have much money and there was not Internet. So all I could to was save up some money until finally I had enough to buy a Queen CD, basically two each month. However, my brother was a Queen fan (albeit only briefly) and had two LPs, one of them being Live Magic. I put it on and was VERY disappointed. Freddie sounded so different, Roger croaked, and everything was so raw. It took me months to finally cherish the different approach to the music with the different vibe. Therefore, I never recommend Queen live music as a first listen. They were undoubtedly spreading joy and entertainment in within the live environment. But just listening to it for the first time was a bit of a downer for me.
"Or you have it, or you don't!"
 
Simon
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 2481
Images: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:12 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby sebastian » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:28 am

Different, both very good, but still one clearly better than the other IMO.

Sometimes less is more but sometimes the bigger the better, and I think that applies to Queen most of the time. For me:

* Freddie not hitting the high notes loses to Freddie hitting the high notes.
* Freddie singing a great lead vocal loses to Freddie singing (sometimes double-tracked) lead + multi-tracked harmonies.
* Freddie playing piano occasionally loses to Freddie playing much more piano (and sometimes other instruments too).
* Brian playing a great lead guitar loses to Brian playing the same great lead guitar and adding (often double-tracked) rhythm plus multi-tracked harmonies plus sometimes also acoustic and other instruments.
* Brian singing a great harmony vocal (e.g. Save Me) loses to 3-9 Brians singing great harmony vocals. Same for Roger.

Obviously there are many factors where live they had advantages, such as tempo, vocal strength (Freddie sang way better in the late 70's than five years earlier), drumming quality (e.g. KYA, Staying Power), but for me their studio work still clearly 'wins', most of the time at least.
John hated Hot Space. Frederick's favourite singer was not Paul Rodgers. Roger did not compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
 
sebastian
The Show Must Go On
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 8:02 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby merceauroix » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:13 pm

Kes wrote:I think they are two different roads.

To be a good live band, you have to be able to play to the crowd, whereas Queen in the studio were all about production, and what they considered to be ultimate perfection, two things you've often got to leave behind you when you're trying to recreate something in front of an audience.

To be voted one of the best produced studio bands in the world, and ALSO be voted one of the best live concert tickets at the same time, well, I think that takes two sets of skill bases.

I personally don't think they were any better or worse a live band, as recorded one. They excelled at being noticeably competent in both fields
I think that too.

Besides, how can you judge something if you weren't there? A rock concert is not just about the music, it's also about being there and feeling the atmosphere.
 
merceauroix
Spread Your Wings
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:35 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Were Queen better live than on record?

Postby julymorning » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:56 pm

I don't know how to fit my answer into the choices. Here's my opinion:

I enjoy the songs MORE after having either seen them perform them live or seeing them performed via DVD/VHS, than just hearing the songs.

But then, for most of the really good performing muscians this is true for me. For instance Dire Straits, the Scorpions, etc.

By the same token seeing songs performed live by groups with (IMHO) no real stage presence, my enjoyment of songs I loved before went down a few notches. Such as Nazereth and a few others.

Well, and stage presence isn't the only criteria; muscianship and band 'tightness' figure in highly as well.

Queen couldn't help but impress on all levels live.

ETA: after reading some of the above comments above vocal quality reduction later on with Queen, I saw them last in 1980, so that I can't comment on.
.It is my uppermost hope that even histories' genius's lost their minds as they aged. I'd hate to think that I really am an idiot. sjm
 
julymorning
The Show Must Go On
 
User avatar

 

This is probably as good as it gets.

      
 
Posts: 1675
Images: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Missouri, U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Has thanked: 427 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Previous

Return to Live Killers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests