| brENsKi 14.09.2007 06:37 |
As a long-standing queen fan (33 yrs) and a beatles fan of longer...i (naturally) draw most of my comparisons between these two great bands. so when we look at the amount of demos and outtakes that are generally (not collector only) available queen come up some way short. queen made many more studio albums than the beatles - yet the quantity and quality of beatles "unreleased" material in public domain is far greater... there are some very fine recordings that are available and most do not require any kind of searching or hunting:- Kinfauns (Esher Demos) - white album accoustic demos * Alternate White Album * Alternate Abbey Road * The Beatles Mythology * Garage Tapes 1992 * Ultra Rare Tracks 65=70 * Lost Pepperland Reel * Let It Be Rehearsals * Turn Me On Dead Man * Rubber Soul Sessions * Dehra Dun * Revolution ...these are all full (multi) cds worths of music...in addition to the anthology 6 cd & 8 dvd official release - that makes for an awful lot of music from a band that only survived 8 years By comparison queen have very little - a track or two per album - sometimes up to five or six... why? ***Is Brian desperate to hold onto the crown jewels? and never let them see official or otherwise light of day? ***Did Queen junk an awful lot of stuff?....ie not used = binned for good. ***Or is the talk of an anthology just a load of crap to try maintain some kind of public awareness? ***Why don;t QOL put all these rarities up on site for download (let's face it they weren't averse to sticking shit version of live gigs for sale)...i'd be happy to pay a £1 a track just to hear the rarities...even in mp3 format |
| slithybill 14.09.2007 11:01 |
It's possible that Queen kept tighter control on who had access to the control rooms and the tapes. Maybe Queen had more loyal producers and engineers and techs than the Beatles. Or maybe Queen paid these folks really well. Queen recorded in at least a dozen different studios in the 70's. That's a lot of people who possibly had access to the tapes. That's a lot of studios where tapes may still be stored. But I'm sure Queen Productions has already scoured each studio's archives. I'm surprised that nothing has leaked from the Sheffield brothers. |
| Benn 14.09.2007 11:10 |
Not sure what you're trying to get from this thread chap: >>***Is Brian desperate to hold onto the crown jewels? and never let them see official or otherwise light of day? Not sure Brian has any say / control in what comes out or not. There are more powerful figures in the organnisation that make the big decisions. I'm sure that Brian would probably like Queen fans to be able to hear as much of the music the band created as possible, but something tells me that there are puppeteers who decide that only certain things will EVER see the light of day. >>***Did Queen junk an awful lot of stuff?....ie not used = binned for good. We probably will never know. History dictates that Queens sessions seem to have been pretty poorly documented (as opposed to those of Hendrix, Clapton, The Beatles etc) if the lack of concrete information is anything to go by. But, you'd *assume* that there were PLENTY of ideas / thoughts laid down at some stage, but whether they were stored is unlikely. Those that were possibly have been lost due to the poor archiving we've all been so openly told about. Hell, they even managed to LOOSE some master tapes that HAD been stored for so many years - what does that tell you? >>***Or is the talk of an anthology just a load of crap to try maintain some kind of public awareness? The talk of an anthology / rarities release has only ever REALLY been within the fan base. There have NEVER, to my knowledge, been any official announcements - and I don't consider the Fan Club to be official other than *oficially* organising weekend-long-wank-a-thons. The fan base is perpetuating the myth and, understandably, QPL are reluctant to make any statements - with a bit of luck, everyone will forget about "the anthology" and stop talking about it. Perhaps then QPL will move on it and surprise us all...... >>***Why don;t QOL put all these rarities up on site for download (let's face it they weren't averse to sticking shit version of live gigs for sale)...i'd be happy to pay a £1 a track just to hear the rarities...even in mp3 format Because it's of limited appeal and, as such will return them little in the way of £/$. They never did produce any stats for the top 100 bootleg downloads and that's possibly because there was so little demand for them. I'm giving up the ghost in the hope that I'll, for once be surprised by QPL. But I've been waiting for that for 30 years.......... |
| Negative Creep 14.09.2007 12:01 |
Benn wrote: >>***Why don;t QOL put all these rarities up on site for download (let's face it they weren't averse to sticking shit version of live gigs for sale)...i'd be happy to pay a £1 a track just to hear the rarities...even in mp3 format Because it's of limited appeal and, as such will return them little in the way of £/$. They never did produce any stats for the top 100 bootleg downloads and that's possibly because there was so little demand for them.Yeah, the Beatles anthologies prove that. Come off it - any official Queen rarities release will probably sell atleast the same amount of an album by a newish artist. There is a worldwide market for them. Does someone want to roll out the usual bollocks like they won't issue any of the rarities because it will lose them money? Despite the fact it would be all previously recorded material and all costs would be covered by EMI. EMI are probably gagging to release some interesting Queen releases. And any official release isn't comparable to the download bootlegs things - because they were download only, they weren't proper releases, they were previously released bootlegs and they weren't really promoted. |
| Negative Creep 14.09.2007 12:03 |
. |
| Togg 14.09.2007 12:04 |
Personnaly I think it's simple, these days bands are much more aware of putting out a finished product that is refined, Brian, Freddie, Roger and John are all perfectionists and simply don't allow unfinished stuff to get out if they can help it. Studios are much more tightly controlled these days you don't get people wandering around studios while top bands are recording any more in the same way you used to in the 60's. Plus a good amout to Queen's work was done overseas and so again they were effectivly out of site out of mind, only surfacing when the product was ready. The fact is they simply don't want you to hear what isn't ready and signed off, which any creative artist would feel the same about. There is much interest in how tracks like Bo Rap were completed, however even on the DVD talking about it Brian only plays the finished version of the tracks and cuts off before additional parts are exposed. I don't blame him, why let people hear what you consider to be a mistake or unfinished. |
| Maz 14.09.2007 12:09 |
Benn wrote: I'm sure that Brian would probably like Queen fans to be able to hear as much of the music the band created as possible, but something tells me that there are puppeteers who decide that only certain things will EVER see the light of day.Are we talking about the same Brian? You know, the ultra perfectionist Brian who disliked the sound on the WWRY DVD so much that they bought back the rights to release it (yet again) themselves? Brian's made his stance on demos clear in the past (ie Marie's the Name His Latest Flame) - I'm guessing he only wants people to hear any music that he considers up to snuff and not "as much of the music the band created as possible." |
| slithybill 14.09.2007 16:54 |
Togg wrote: Studios are much more tightly controlled these days you don't get people wandering around studios while top bands are recording any more in the same way you used to in the 60's.and <font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: queen made many more studio albums than the beatles - yet the quantity and quality of beatles "unreleased" material in public domain is far greater...Brenski, as a Beatles fan, do you know how much "unreleased" product is available for the solo members of the Beatles? They were recording in the seventies, like Queen, so I think this would be a more apt comparison. Are publicly available demos/outtakes of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr as numerous as the Beatles, or as scarce as Queen? |
| brENsKi 14.09.2007 17:45 |
far from it... you shouldn't have asked me this... as it only emphasises the differences..:- Ringo Starr: All dried up 3x cd George Harrison and Ringo Starr Lost and found (inc The Memphis unreleased 1987 album & "Cloud 9" rough mixes) Que sera sera - the complete vertical rarities Rough mixes (6 cds_) Ognir Rrats George Harrison: Living In The Alternate World(DPRO:79963) Living In The Underground (Zapple:ZAP-80840) Somewhere in England(Pegboy:1005) George Harrison - Completed Rarities Vol.1 (PolyPhone:PH 1301) George Harrison - Completed Rarities Vol.2 (PolyPhone:PH 1302) Pirate Songs(VIGOTONE:146) 12 Arnold Grove(Pegboy:1007) the mystic maestro(HQ 003/VIGOTONE:146) Shanghai Surprise (YELLOW DOG/ORANGE:YD-ORANGE 023) Somewhere in Utopia(Unknown:WX-124CD1/2) LOST & FOUND(VOXX:VOXX-0004-01/02) John, Paul, George & Ringo (YELLOW DOG/ORANGE Traveling Wilburys Unsurpassed Masters (HARD RAIN:HARD RAIN-005) TRAVELING WILBURYS VOLUME TWO (GOBLIN:CD3003) TRAVELING WILBURYS VOLUME FOUR (IN THE GROOVE:AWCD21) TRAVELING WILBURYS VOL.4 1/2(ADAM VIII:CD 49-021) RECOVERED TREASURE(VOXX:VOXX-0011-01) TRAVELING WILBURYS COMPLETE COLLECTION (WILBURY RECORD:TW001/002) TRAVELING WILBURYS COMPLETE COLLECTION (TENDOLAR:TDR-020/021) TRAVELING WILBURYS WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR FRIEND JEFF (Unknown:HQ002) Paul McCartney?john Lennon - far too many to mention...seriously |
| slithybill 14.09.2007 22:13 |
Wow. I had no idea there was so much. I always thought Queen's dearth of leaked materials was the rule, not the exception. I've always taken it for granted that Queen just kept a tighter lid on their tapes than any other band. Maybe the tapes did just all get thrown away or recorded over. It's hard to believe they would be concerned with keeping track of outtakes for the first few albums, but with all four members having college degrees, maybe one of them (John, perhaps?) was meticulous or obsessive enough to keep them under lock and key even in the beginning. Then again, maybe Queen were just so good that they didn't have many outtakes to begin with! |
| The King Of Rhye 15.09.2007 04:31 |
just a kind of little aside to this....when Hollywood Records re-released all the Queen albums on CD in the USA back in 1991 or so....would it have been that hard for them to, instead of adding the mostly worthless remixes, just add B-sides or some sort of unreleased tracks? They had the right idea with Queen and Queen II and The Miracle....but I can think of something for almost every other album I would have liked more than a remix...like A Human Body instead of the Dragon Attack remix on The Game...or Soul Brother on Hot Space....or hell, Trent Reznor's remix of Stone Cold Crazy instead of that other one on SHA.... |
| M.H 15.09.2007 05:21 |
In Peter Freestones book he says that Queen went into the studio mostly with out songs, so the work was done in the studio, it was only on a couple of occasions that someone would have a pre-written song to take in, so there weren't that many extra songs to record. And as others have said, the songs that didn't get onto the album would not have been as good, 'Made The Swine' being a good example. I like the song, but it doesn't match up to any of the other songs on 'Queen'. M.H |
| bigV 15.09.2007 05:59 |
link link link ...you were saying? V. |
| bigV 15.09.2007 06:16 |
Oh, you meant in terms of officially released demos and outtakes... Er... nevermind. V. |
| Bobby_brown 15.09.2007 15:48 |
The other day i´ve found a Beattles book about their unreleased stuff, and man it was HUGE! I don´t understand how that´s possible for 8 years of existence, and from time to time they still find more stuff. I don´t think Queen can compete with that! But, i might be wrong. Take care |
| Penetration_Guru 15.09.2007 17:16 |
I don't think the comparisons are valid as recording techniques changed in the interim. The Beatles would play songs over and over until they'd put in a good enough performance - Queen never did this. Plus The Beatles are the most collectable band on the planet - Queen are (at best) a distant second. This creates a significantly increased demand/market/value for/to unreleased material - increasing the temptation for the type of people who COULD leak stuff. Finally, if, 20 years ago, you'd have said to me that I'd be able to hear recordings of: The Reaction Ibex 1984 Wreckage I'd have been astounded. Which perhaps goes to show that the more we get, the more we want. |
| John S Stuart 15.09.2007 17:54 |
I think to be fair also, against popular belief, there are NOT that many Queen out-takes (especially from the earlier albums) and by comparison the cupboard is bare. Like the 'hundereds' of live studioboard concerts which were supposed to exist - the existence of loads of studio demos is another urban myth. I know this is a controversial stance - but just think about it. First: Roger Taylor tells us that while recording 'Queen II' the tape '...went transparent - and that many of the overdubs had to be glued to the master'. From the very beginning, the Master version of 'Queen II' was in such disrepair, the best version in existence is NOT the original first generation master per say - but a safety copy. Therefore the only 'Queen II' 'out-takes' of any worth are the individual isolated tracks. (True from this we can re-create 'new mixes', 5.1 remixes or even karaoke or acapella versions - but there are certainly no missing masterpieces like an EMI Trident version of the BBC's 'See What A Fool I've Been'). Second: Greg has been hawking 'the best of the rest' at conventions since c2000 - and apart from false-starts or 'remixed demo's' (by that I mean isolated karaoke, bass or drum parts etc) and nothing of great worth has leaked from any of these events. I am NOT saying that NOTHING exists - or that an 'Anthology' would not be a worthwhile project - however, if you are waiting for a repeat of a 'Beatles' type box-set, I think we are all in for a major disappointment. |
| Negative Creep 15.09.2007 18:40 |
John S Stuart wrote: First: Roger Taylor tells us that while recording 'Queen II' the tape '...went transparent - and that many of the overdubs had to be glued to the master'. From the very beginning, the Master version of 'Queen II' was in such disrepair, the best version in existence is NOT the original first generation master per say - but a safety copy. Therefore the only 'Queen II' 'out-takes' of any worth are the individual isolated tracks. (True from this we can re-create 'new mixes', 5.1 remixes or even karaoke or acapella versions - but there are certainly no missing masterpieces like an EMI Trident version of the BBC's 'See What A Fool I've Been'). I am NOT saying that NOTHING exists - or that an 'Anthology' would not be a worthwhile project - however, if you are waiting for a repeat of a 'Beatles' type box-set, I think we are all in for a major disappointment.They can only overdub on the original multitracks - not what would become the stereo master. The number of overdubs would have no bearing of the physical condition of the stereo mixdown master. The stories of the multitracks going transparent are probably exaggerations anyway to get the point across regarding the number of overdubs. This also says nothing about any outtakes that may or may not be remaining. I'm sure it fair to say there is easily enough decent material in the vaults to match the Beatles anthologies. |
| Negative Creep 15.09.2007 18:41 |
. |
| Pim Derks 16.09.2007 14:45 |
If Freddie's 2-album solo career could fill a 10 CD boxset, I'm sure there must be some interesting Queen stuff in the archives. Probably no unreleased BoRhap part II - but the instrumental Sail Away Sweet Sister just shared here on QZ is great too. I wouldn't mind seeing a disc filled with instrumental and a capella songs from the Queen II album. I wouldn't mind having a 3 CD set for each album - 1 original album in 5.1 / sacd + 1 cd with the most interesting a capella & instrumentals (I wouldn't mind if the instrumental WWRY wasn't included ;)) / + 1 CD with outtakes, demo's and unheard tracks. |
| Pim Derks 16.09.2007 14:46 |
Oh BTW Greg - what happened to the "Queen Singles" - 10 CD set which was supposed to be released this year? I think this was also announced at a convention? |
| The Fonz 18.09.2007 00:15 |
every year my interest in Queen falls away. |
| Darren1977 18.09.2007 17:41 |
Like everything else Pim, certain people have these amazing ideas for Singles Collections, Live Archives and Anthologies but nothing ever comes of it. I mean surely Queen Productions/EMI knew when and where a particular single got to number one. A lot of debating usually around two to three months of it and then nothing. Why Brian May cannot post here or on his website about any upcoming releases of any interest besides QPR and Montreal,i don't know. |
| brENsKi 24.09.2007 13:53 |
DARREN1977 wrote: Why Brian May cannot post here or on his website about any upcoming releases of any interest besides QPR and Montreal,i don't know.because he really can't be arsed |
| Darren1977 07.10.2007 12:25 |
Exactly, unles you are an astronomer that's all he seems to give a fuck about nowadays |
| brENsKi 10.10.2007 17:08 |
DARREN1977 wrote: Exactly, unles you are an astronomer that's all he seems to give a fuck about nowadayswell as his own personal star has been ont he descendency of about 16 yrs...i suppose "stargazing" is all he has left |
| The Real Wizard 18.09.2016 18:06 |
slithybill wrote: I'm surprised that nothing has leaked from the Sheffield brothers.Somehow I stumbled upon this thread... We can be pretty certain that the Sheetkeeckers bootleg (with the March 1974 Rainbow Theatre material) comes from them. Theory - they were dumped by Queen and couldn't reap the rewards of their first live album, so they sent the tapes to bootleggers instead. I bet I'm not far off. Otherwise, where else did a properly mixed 1974 board tape come from in 1975, at the exact same time that Queen changed management? It was the first Queen bootleg. And such a Queen bootleg has not been released since. |
| luthorn 18.09.2016 21:00 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Now, that's interesting.slithybill wrote: I'm surprised that nothing has leaked from the Sheffield brothers.Somehow I stumbled upon this thread... We can be pretty certain that the Sheetkeeckers bootleg (with the March 1974 Rainbow Theatre material) comes from them. Theory - they were dumped by Queen and couldn't reap the rewards of their first live album, so they sent the tapes to bootleggers instead. I bet I'm not far off. Otherwise, where else did a properly mixed 1974 board tape come from in 1975, at the exact same time that Queen changed management? It was the first Queen bootleg. And such a Queen bootleg has not been released since. |
| Vocal harmony 19.09.2016 10:04 |
The Real Wizard wrote:[ Somehow I stumbled upon this thread... We can be pretty certain that the Sheetkeeckers bootleg (with the March 1974 Rainbow Theatre material) comes from them. Theory - they were dumped by Queen and couldn't reap the rewards of their first live album, so they sent the tapes to bootleggers instead. I bet I'm not far off. Otherwise, where else did a properly mixed 1974 board tape come from in 1975, at the exact same time that Queen changed management? It was the first Queen bootleg. And such a Queen bootleg has not been released since.I always thought that recording had come from a source close to the band and or close to the recording "staff" either at the gig or the mixing studio but I'd never thought about the Sheffield brothers themselves as being responsible. Can you imagine had Queen signed with Peter Grant in 75 the shit the Sheffield's would have been in!! |
| dysan 19.09.2016 14:47 |
Same as the Spunk Sex Pistol demo bootlegs. Even Franz Ferdinand had an 'official' bootleg way back. |
| The Real Wizard 19.09.2016 22:42 |
Vocal harmony wrote:Are you calling John Reid a pansy? ;)The Real Wizard wrote:[ Somehow I stumbled upon this thread... We can be pretty certain that the Sheetkeeckers bootleg (with the March 1974 Rainbow Theatre material) comes from them. Theory - they were dumped by Queen and couldn't reap the rewards of their first live album, so they sent the tapes to bootleggers instead. I bet I'm not far off. Otherwise, where else did a properly mixed 1974 board tape come from in 1975, at the exact same time that Queen changed management? It was the first Queen bootleg. And such a Queen bootleg has not been released since.I always thought that recording had come from a source close to the band and or close to the recording "staff" either at the gig or the mixing studio but I'd never thought about the Sheffield brothers themselves as being responsible. Can you imagine had Queen signed with Peter Grant in 75 the shit the Sheffield's would have been in!! |
| Vocal harmony 20.09.2016 06:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Are you calling John Reid a pansy? ;)Wouldn't dream it :) I was actually thinking about the old story about Peter Grant being tipped off about a record shop selling Zep boots in the early 70's in Camben, I believe. He turned up one day and smashed the place up with a lump hammer while telling the guy not to fuck with Zeppelin! |
| The Real Wizard 20.09.2016 08:24 |
Ahh, the wonderful and gentlemanly Peter Grant strikes again ! "OK folks, I think that's all of 'em - no more Zeppelin bootlegs to be found, ever." -- Peter Grant, apparently sober around 1971 I admire the man in so many ways, but he was completely out of his mind on this issue. |
| Vocal harmony 20.09.2016 10:25 |
^^^^ I met him on a couple of occasions, he was quite chatty and had a sense of humour but you could tell he was not a man you would want to get on the wrong side of! |