Forums > Queen - General Discussion > AND THE WINNER IS: QUEEN "LIVE AT WEMBLEY"

forum rss feed
Author

sandrativadar user not visiting Queenzone.com
Freddie is love of my life
sandrativadar

add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Mar 09, 21:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

WINNER - "BEST LIVE ROCK ALBUM OF ALL-TIME"
QUEEN "LIVE AT WEMBLEY"
Congratulations to Queen and all their fans!

Second place Bon Jovi- One wild night
Eliminated Live albums:
Deep Purple- Made in Japan
Framptom comes alive
Aerosmith- Live Bootleg
Led Zeppelin- The song remains the same
Kiss alive!
Cheap Trick- Live at Budokan
Journey- Captured
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street band 1975-1985

http://votenumber1.com/votebestlivealbum.html



Sandra /Hungary
Bigfish user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 09, 09:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi,

Bit surprised about this to put it politely.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd  as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

Hope this helps.


Big Fish.


Big Fish
Bigfish user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 09, 09:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi,

Bit surprised about this to put it politely.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd  as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

Hope this helps.


Big Fish.


Big Fish
Bigfish user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 09, 09:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi,

Bit surprised about this to put it politely.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd  as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

Hope this helps.


Big Fish.


Big Fish
Bigfish user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 09, 09:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi,

Bit surprised about this to put it politely.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd  as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

Hope this helps.


Big Fish.


Big Fish
absento user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 88 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Mar 09, 15:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

did you really need to post that four times?


Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Mar 09, 15:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, it always helps to have the input of someone who followed Queen's career and watched their gigs back in the 70 and 80's. 

I'm si(y?)mpathetic to the view of "having to be there": Mahler had a witty dictum for it. I agree that music really happens when you're there, facing the artist and getting all the sound as it comes, without filters and "airbags" in case of risky moves. The exciting of it is irrepraceable. Watching the people you admire actually getting nervous on stage (!) - there's a pianist I love whose recital I attended who I thought was a robot and unable to do mistakes...but although he's really otherwordly, he was actually nervous in the recital and had his share of fumbles and mistakes...

I love it. 

Though I think both Live Montreal and Milton Keynes are underated. It's not just that both are great live albums - now I'm talking about live albums only. They're also representative of a mixture of technical accuracy, brilliant musicianship and amazing visuals, effects and showmanship that are so rare, I mean. Very rare for rock bands, really. 

I prefer any of those to any Who release any time, though, of course, I do respect the mainstream consensus about the best live albums and Queen is usually not there, and sometimes the reasons people bring up are sound, I have to be fair.

On a personal level, though, I prefer these two, and even Wembley, to any Who release. It may sound outrageous, but I can't have fun with Who live albums, I think they were really bad live, bad to the point of hurting one's ear. Roger Daltrey couldn't get in tune, I can't stand "Who At Leeds", and I LIKE THE SONGS! But then..."we're not gonna take it" is a disgrace, it sounds so ugly, pinbal wizard...they do a wonderful job in the classic cover of Summertime Blues, though. Townshend's way of delivering the annoying "parental advise" lines. Hehehe. 

Well, just a question:

Are you experiencing any kind of problem posting here? Because your message showed up here 4 times!!!

And I read all the four cause I thought you might be doing ammendments to the thing, you see...lol


Yara
lalaalalaa user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 841 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Mar 09, 22:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Live at the Hammersmith FTW  (if they would FRICKEN release it officially).  We have proof that it is good enough quality to release :P

Bigfish user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Mar 09, 09:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, lots of problems. It's all over the place. 4 times here and it's in other places too. To make it worse I just complained to the administrator that I couldn't find it. Ha ha ha. Being a first generation Queen fan has it's disadvantages, like age and techno fear. I'm probably going to get thrown out....


Big Fish
Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 24 Mar 09, 09:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Bigfish wrote:

Yes, lots of problems. It's all over the place. 4 times here and it's in other places too. To make it worse I just complained to the administrator that I couldn't find it. Ha ha ha. Being a first generation Queen fan has it's disadvantages, like age and techno fear. I'm probably going to get thrown out....

Haha. No way! I hope you have a good time here. I liked your post a lot and your opinion is very, very valuable, it's great to read people who have actually lived the dreams of many of us!

Great to have people like you here on the website!

Best Regards.





Yara
roddanrocks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 5 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 May 09, 12:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I´ve been a Queen admirer since 1977 and I fully agree on the verdict about Live at Wembley that:
- Capture the ultimate show is (with a postmodernistic term) "hyperreal". (Over realistic).
- To deliver about 120 minutes flawless playing without any sour notes it´s impossible if you move around like Freddie did all the time. No musician are a sports athlet.
- With todays "audio ear plugs" Freddie would have singed a lot better - but he just went for it and didn´t bother if some notes would reach out of the harmony paragraphs.

It was "the event" that was importened, to be there. When I first saw the Wembley show on VHS in 1990, it was always Freddies voice that made med think "such a shame" when they offered the best show in town. But that´s life. Freddies precense was far enough better than most singers anyway, even when he´s voice couldn´t deliver 100%.

The Rainbow (74) Montreal (81), Milton Keynes (82) and Budapest (the Magic Tour 86) are very much Queen in their prime as entertainers.

Let´s hope for a 70´s DVD soon. I think Queen production should rethink and not always see the problems with the quality. They don´t have to remix the audio in 5.1 surround. I think it´s enough with a good traditional remastered stereo mix in Dolby digital 2.0. And with the picture quality, you can´t do a miracle (even though it´s possible to do remarkable things in the digital masteringprocess).

Live Killers was my favourite live album back in 79 and now 30 years on it makes me happy everytime I hear it.
Few could match the rawness and live feeling Queen had when they were on top.

Roddan Rocks
Sweden

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 May 09, 13:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's a great live document but I don't think it's their best, not in the slightest.  Certainly doesn't rate very highly among other live DVDs I own/borrow.  I'm thinking about Thin Lizzy stuff, The Band with that Last Waltz DVD, the Concert for George...  some Jimi things I've seen...  The Who Isle of Wight DVD...  even the parts of the Led Zeppelin DVD where Jimmy Page isn't soloing, that stuff is better.  Live at Wembley simply isn't their banner performance.  To be quite honest, their best stuff isn't on DVD yet.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 May 09, 10:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i managed to grow up with queen - saw them live five times. wembley 86 is a shite show/album.

as for the list...can't fekkin believe i am seeing this as a genuine compilation...

where are:-

lizzy - live and dangerous
ufo - strangers in the night
pink floyd - pulse
rush - exit...stage left



go deo na hÉireann
mr mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
mr mercury
Deity: 4626 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 May 09, 12:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



brENsKi wrote:

i managed to grow up with queen - saw them live five times. wembley 86 is a shite show/album.

as for the list...can't fekkin believe i am seeing this as a genuine compilation...

where are:-

lizzy - live and dangerous
ufo - strangers in the night
pink floyd - pulse
rush - exit...stage left




Thin Lizzy's album should be renamed to "Recorded In The Studio (apart from the drums) and Dangerous"





"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 May 09, 13:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Mr Mercury wrote:



 



brENsKi wrote:



i managed to grow up with queen - saw them live five times. wembley 86 is a shite show/album.

as for the list...can't fekkin believe i am seeing this as a genuine compilation...

where are:-

lizzy - live and dangerous
ufo - strangers in the night
pink floyd - pulse
rush - exit...stage left





Thin Lizzy's album should be renamed to "Recorded In The Studio (apart from the drums) and Dangerous"



at least lizzy's was recorded from one source...queen used 50 gigs for 23 tracks on live killers...how much dubbing went into that?

and by the way - the new version of lizzy's gig - "still dangerous" shows that L&D was still a great gig....even with the bum notes








go deo na hÉireann
mike hunt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2751 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 May 09, 03:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

every band fixes their live albums in the studio, that's been going on forever.

Winter Land Man user not visiting Queenzone.com
Jake
Winter Land Man
Deity: 4400 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 May 09, 21:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote































Mr Mercury wrote:















Thin Lizzy's album should be renamed to "Recorded In The Studio (apart from the drums) and Dangerous"










LMAO!



"Please buy my upcoming album... I need the money"
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 May 09, 04:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I would never spell it 'Wembly'.  If you're going to make up quotes, do it with someone else.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
lalaalalaa user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 841 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 May 09, 15:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



mike hunt wrote:

every band fixes their live albums in the studio, that's been going on forever.


Not every band!

Kansas didn't fix anything with Two For The Show.  It was basically a "what you hear is what you get"