Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Queen versus other legendary live-bands

forum rss feed
Author

on my way up user is on Queenzone.com

Deity: 2186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 15:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I know that there are several people here that are really into ohter bands aswell. How would you rate Queen comparing them to these other bands when performing live?You have to compare them while playing(and performing) at their very best.


on my way up
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 17:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've never thought of Queen as an extraordinary live band, except in their Sheer Heart - Jazz period.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Jan78 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 264 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 18:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think, it was Freddie's philosophy that made them a great live band. He said in an interview, that his job is to win the audience over, otherwise it is not a good performance. So a Queen show has always been mainly a Freddie show with a support band. As democratic as Queen might have been, but live they depended on Freddie, I believe. It's the huge flamboyant stage persona that matters to me in a live band. That's why I don't enjoy seeing little bands in dark basements, being happily unknown, because only unknown and independent music is good music. Bullshit.
Compared to other bands of Queen's size and importance: have a look at U2 and their ZooTV and Popmart concerts. Or look at Metallica around 1992. Or Guns N' Roses back then. As Freddie said: the bigger, the better. In everything. It doesn't always work though. Look at the Rolling Stones. :-)

Jan

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 18:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s.
Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.

Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Jan78 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 264 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 18:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I guess, it's a question of personal taste. I don't care about the social activist part. I don't care if Bono calls Sarajevo in the middle of a concert, or asks for sanctions against South Africa on Rattle and Hum. But I care about a big show with a big stage and big lights and sounds. And ZooTV was all that. Sure, a few people might use words like "credibility", but hey, Macphisto or The Fly have been funny characters. That's what I go to a live show for. Not some crap like Prodigy in 1997 (2 hours late, 80 minutes show without any lights and gimmicks). I also enjoy live shows where every band member is adding to the show. U2 or Queen are "frontman-bands with a good guitarist" to me, where it's not exactly enjoyable to look at the bass player or the drummer for the whole concert. Metallica is different there, and the old Guns N' Roses too. You could enjoy looking at Jason Newsted (now Rob Trujillo) or Kirk Hammett, Slash or Duff. And on top of that, you need a great show. That's a good live band to me. Ok, I agree, when you go and see U2, you have to accept the occasional political rants, but that's ok. Back to Queen: they had their last big live show in 1986, all the other bands mentioned are still touring. So what about changing standards then?
Was there a comparable live band in the mid-80's? Genesis? Pink Floyd? Anyone? And then, how do you rate the current tour (I don't say the word Queen) to other live bands these days?

zone user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 261 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 21:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've seen every one except Zeppelin,and I have to say in all honesty Queen can blow any band on the planet away.They proved it when they did Live Aid.Ive never seen a front man grab a audience by the throat and just never let go till the end of the show the way Freddie did.John, Roger and Brian are pretty good too, these guys can play with the best of them on a bad night.

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 21:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
masterstroke_84 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 542 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Apr 06, 22:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think that KISS, Zeppelin (today I Watch How The West Was Won... INCREDIBLE all of them...) and Pin k Floyd kick all asses... including Queen...

I always prefer Queen but I have to be honest... and those bands are better...

U2 and the Stones sucks...

P.


Queen rocks!
Oszmercury user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 229 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 00:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Deep Purple Mkll is one of the most amazin acts in rock and roll history
Pink Floyd circa 1969-1972 an impressive band, beyond our minds
Zeppelin is the incarnation of rock and roll
Miles Davis circa 1971-1975 is what a rock and roll band should be


Loser in the end!!!
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury
Royalty: 1054 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 02:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

what about ac/dc, they're pure energy on stage, but I like queen better


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

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 02:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

nice robert plant performance of innuendo at the tribute concert, very great. Not.

Queen beat all bands, all the other bands even admit that.


"Please buy my upcoming album... I need the money"
Sunshine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 191 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 04:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This is so hard to compare, all those live bands. Is has to do with a lot of personal taste..also with the technique they play..But when you talk about topbands like these then it is mostly about taste...

I love Aerosmith as a live band. Pure rock 'n roll with a kind of magic. Listen to Rattlesnake Shake, Lord Of The Thighs or Rats In The Cellar live, rock 'n roll doesnt get any better than this.

Sometimes you also have to get know bands, like meeting people. Some people you meet have not a great first impression but when you get to know them better, you start to love them. Its the same with music.

U2 is my opinion a fantastic live bands, as is Zeppelin, Stones etc...


You ain't seen nothing 'till your down on the muffin...;)
Asterik user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 649 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 06:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Didn't work so good for U2 back in the 90s.
Their music became extremely overly experimental and their image was based on extravagance along with the package that was used to sell their live shows. Besides that, how can you take seriously a social activist rock star that through the 80s sent a social message through his music, and then in the 90s goes on stage dressed up like clown and humping cameras on stage.

Truth is that most people prefer U2 without over the top marketing image.


I disagree. The social activist stuff is sanctimnious left-wing rubbish and thank God Queen didn't preach like that. U2's best years as a live band were in the 90s when they stopped trying to get on their moral high horse and actually had some ironic fun- the music and the sheer spectacle of their shows were outstanding.

Now, they've gone back to dreary preaching about 3rd world poverty; give me a break.Their once explosive songs like Bullet The Blue Sky and the Fly sound tired and the shows are underwhelming.


hj
Rick user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4796 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 07:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote:

IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.


Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever.


John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."

Monsieur Nobs user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 20 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 08:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What are the main characters for an outstanding live show? Spectacle? Musical skills? Do you prefer Bono dressed in gold to Pink Floyd sawing wood and playing a 25-minute Atom Heart Mother?
It is all a matter of taste. All bands mentioned here plus THE WHO are pretty good live bands and Queen are (were) up there with those live legends.

The good thing of Live Aid was its authenticity. On massive shows like Zoo TV or The Wall I am never sure what is real or playback. There is so much going on on stage.

The main thing which Queen could have done better is a more varied setlist within a tour. I always feel sympathy for those guys who attend every show of a tour - and there are no surprises at all. It would have been a great deal if they kept on playing Don't Stop Me Now from time to time. And wouldn't it be great if Freddie returned to stage after GSTQ to surprise the audience with My Melancholy Blues?

on my way up user is on Queenzone.com

Deity: 2186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 11:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Live Aid isn't the best live-performance ever from Queen but it was the best performance of the day and it was the biggest show on earth:-)It was important for their reputation!and one of freddie's best shows(certainly from that era)

Hammer to fall is freddie's best ever version , or what version do you prefer?A low point during that version are the weak drums .I also think Bohemian Rhapsody is one of freddie's best ever versions aswell as Radio Ga Ga!!

To me, other legendary Queen shows are:
-Copenhagen 1978
-Newcastle 1979(both nights are perfect Freddie shows)
-Tokyo 9/5/1985 Freddie as good as Live aid!!and great improvisation during several songs!!
-Tokyo 31/3/1976:A decent shows for freddie(compared to show from around that night)and the rest of the band in great shape(listen to liar!and the rock'n roll medley)
-London 8/12/1980:Fantastic show altough that date is a sad day in music.The band rocked and feddie at his live best.

Lately I've become a fan of Led Zeppelin and I must say that they sound unique.Their Dvd is amazing and it's a fantastic product with great footage.My only regret is that I don't like Robert Plant's way of performing that much.

U2, I think , is ceretainly weaker than Queen and Led Zeppelin.

I especially love bands that find the rigt balance between presentation and musical skills.For me Queen does that perfectly:-)



on my way up
QueenZeppelin user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 316 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 11:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wow, I'm shocked that so many people are putting Queen behind so many other bands. To me, this where I am the direct opposite. So many people on this board think Queen bel;ongs in the top 10 greatest acts of all time--I disagree with that. But, besides The Who and maybe Springsteen, they are unquestionably the greatest live act of all time. So much eneergy, and almost every performace was musically right on the money. And yet people on this board, unfathomably, are the direct reverse.

And Live Aid?!?! I've seen a lot of Queen live, and to me, NOTHING even comes CLOSE to Live Aid. Freddie was NEVER so good vocally as he was at Live Aid, and Brian was absolutely amazing. I thought they delivered the DEFINITIVE versions of Radio Gaga and Hammer to Fall; I refuse to listen to any other version of Gaga, and how can you not like the speed and passion and power with which Hammer is delivered? To me, it was the best, ANd I think, with maybe one or two exceptions being understandable, it was Queen's best live show.


"Have you ever seen or touched any monkeys?"
on my way up user is on Queenzone.com

Deity: 2186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 11:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Since my english isn't the best I did write something which I'm not too happy with.About Robert Plant:he is a great performer but to me watching him is more boring than watching freddie. His moves are not as big and godlike.Exactly the things I like about a perfomer. I hope I made my point more clear now.


on my way up
on my way up user is on Queenzone.com

Deity: 2186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 11:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I certainly think Queen belongs in the top 10:-)For me their best shows are among the best ever performed.I only regret Freddie had entire tours with voice problems(live killers for example)His voice sounded during that entire tour weak and when they were performing in Japan in '79 they were an amazing band with a singer with a totally destroyed voice!!


on my way up
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Apr 06, 12:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=blue>Rick wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

IMO Live Aid was all right but Queen did half a hundred of better performances than that one.


Agreed. Hammer To Fall is the worst version ever.


Really? I rather liked Live Aid.
I like the Live Aid show for the energetic nature of it, they were on fire. I hate the drum sound, and I don't quite agree with the song selection (ok, it was always going to be a Greatest Hits list but still) but considering his doctors told him not to bother singing (he had some cold or throat infection or something) he did a pretty freakin' good job.

I only rate Live Aid highly because I haven't seen too many shows myself. I've only got shows like Wembley or Earls Court to form a basis for comparison, you see. But, on it's own, I reckon it's a pretty good performance, they certainly smoked everyone else on the bill that day I think.

Let's turn this negativity around - what's the best performance of Hammer to Fall, Rick? :D


"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