| Bobby_brown 22.02.2008 19:56 |
Since Poopchute posts were erased because it contained the links to the multitracks- wich is understandable- i just started this topic for people to continue discussing about the multitracks, but this time with no links. I thinks it´s pertinent for us fans to discuss this topic, since many things are happening, and i would love to hear about what is really out there in the hands of collectors. If anyone has updates about the subject, i would appreciat to read it. Take care |
| AnywayWindBlows 22.02.2008 22:43 |
Queen Get Down Def Leppard Rock of Ages, Bringing On The HeartBreak & Pour Some Sugar On Me... |
| popy 22.02.2008 23:45 |
i don't think it's understandable... why? because other sites that are also sharing this master tapes HAVE NOT erased they're topics about this... oh...and yes thoose foruns/sites that share the master tapes don't allow people to share official recordings (complet albuns or separete songs) so , we Queen fans , have to go to other generic music foruns to get them, instead of getting them in the foruns that we are supposed to. here on queenzone or other Queen foruns so i don't think it's understandable. ps: also, does anyone really thinks that someone is not going to buy the albuns/songs because of master tapes being leaked? i know that master tapes are not suposed to be circulating like BR and KQ are, but once they're out there, it's almost impossible to stop these from being shared , and i repeat, no one thinks "oh i have master tape of this song, so i'm not buying the album". also if this is deleted, please delet also leaked demos,leaked concert videos,leaked sound-board concert recordings , etc.. because they're also suposed to be ONLY on Queen Production vaults, like the master tapes that leaked... |
| john bodega 23.02.2008 00:00 |
I don't think it's understandable. HAHAHAH wait a sec let me laugh some more. AHAHHAHA Jesus Christ. It's the general rule of the internet. When someone 'high up' notices what you're doing, you fucking well listen when they say "TAKE IT DOWN", or you're headed for an almighty clusterfuck. Someone complained, the shit got taken down, end of story. If you're so desperately upset by all this, just start e-mailing people instead. Fucking hell. |
| kestrel101 23.02.2008 02:41 |
A fact you can't argue with, it's STILL someone else's property. Although everyone apparently "does" it, it will never make 'theft' right though, will it? There's almost a sense of "Robin Hood" about it, Queen are the rich people with the goods everybody wants, and us, the "frustrated fans" are the poor, who are quite happy receiving the stolen goods. |
| YourValentine 23.02.2008 04:41 |
Theoretically it would have been possible to leave the threads in place, scroll through the pages, enter the accounts of the users who posted the links and manually remove them. This has never been done on Queenzone - user posts are not manipulated. The alternative is to delete the thread which is a pity because very good posts and ideas are removed but it's much better than to edit user posts. For me it's a matter of principle. I would not want to post on a board where mods fiddle with my messages. When the tracks first appeared I emailed Richard for instruction and he said they cannot be on the QZ tracker but each user is responsible for their posts. However, when Queen representatives complain, there is no room for discussion imo. First of all they have the power and the money and who wants to have a legal fight with them? This website is run by a fan and not someone whose aim in life is to piss the band off. Secondly, Queen are always generous, they have never taken action against fans as far as I know, so if they don't want us to allow these links on the forum, it is only fair and honest to respect this and remove them. I cannot think of another website where non-official material of another band can be shared so freely and the band never complains. |
| cmsdrums 23.02.2008 05:34 |
That's fair enough. We should be thankfully that they have never taken action before, and we can happily carry on sharing live audio, video, studio outtakes, B sides etc... without(so far)any reproach |
| NickName 23.02.2008 05:52 |
Fair deal... well done! |
| brENsKi 23.02.2008 05:59 |
cmsdrums wrote: That's fair enough. We should be thankfully that they have never taken action before, and we can happily carry on sharing live audio, video, studio outtakes, B sides etc... without(so far)any reproachyou can't share B-sides...they are official releases |
| kestrel101 23.02.2008 06:06 |
But if the band actually condoned the practice, places like link and the band's official website would have hubs like here, wouldn't they? It's because QZ is independent of the band, that there's a certain amountof "freedom", but even then that's only up to a point, obviously. You could say QOL had that series of "official live bootleg downloads" but they were generally no better quality than the ones "on the market". Maybe that was the whole point. |
| kestrel101 23.02.2008 06:09 |
By the way, I'm probably all for everybody getting away with whatever they can get away with. You won't find a better inspiration to Brian and Roger to release something, than them think there's another pound note/euro/dollar flying out of the window. |
| Raf 23.02.2008 07:24 |
Wait... So there were more master tapes shared here other than BoRhap and Killer Queen...? Is there a full list of masters that have been shared on the deleted threads? |
| jpet 23.02.2008 07:32 |
YourValentine wrote: Theoretically it would have been possible to leave the threads in place, scroll through the pages, enter the accounts of the users who posted the links and manually remove them. This has never been done on Queenzone - user posts are not manipulated. The alternative is to delete the thread which is a pity because very good posts and ideas are removed but it's much better than to edit user posts. For me it's a matter of principle. I would not want to post on a board where mods fiddle with my messages. When the tracks first appeared I emailed Richard for instruction and he said they cannot be on the QZ tracker but each user is responsible for their posts. However, when Queen representatives complain, there is no room for discussion imo. First of all they have the power and the money and who wants to have a legal fight with them? This website is run by a fan and not someone whose aim in life is to piss the band off. Secondly, Queen are always generous, they have never taken action against fans as far as I know, so if they don't want us to allow these links on the forum, it is only fair and honest to respect this and remove them. I cannot think of another website where non-official material of another band can be shared so freely and the band never complains.so basically that rude guy digital moanfest was correct? so was the email rreal? |
| Yankovic 23.02.2008 07:46 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Wait... So there were more master tapes shared here other than BoRhap and Killer Queen...? Is there a full list of masters that have been shared on the deleted threads?Bob Marley - Is This Love Bob Marley - Lively Up Bob Marley - No Woman No Cry Christina Aguilera - Genie In A Bottle Doobies - Long Train Running Marvin Gaye - I Heard It Through the Grapevine Marvin Gaye - Mercy Mercy Me Marvin Gaye - What's Going On Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - Aint No Mountain High Enough Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing Nirvana - Marijuana Nirvana - Penny Royal Tea (Loser) Nirvana - Polly (New Wave) Nirvana - Sappy Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Queen - Killer Queen Stevie Wonder - Superstition The Beatles - A Day In The Life The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonley Hearts Club Band The Beatles - She's Leaving Home The Beatles - With A Little Help From My Friends |
| Raf 23.02.2008 07:56 |
Yankovic wrote:Wow!!! Would you be able to send me the links by e-mail, please? My address is on my profile. :)<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Wait... So there were more master tapes shared here other than BoRhap and Killer Queen...? Is there a full list of masters that have been shared on the deleted threads?Bob Marley - Is This Love Bob Marley - Lively Up Bob Marley - No Woman No Cry Christina Aguilera - Genie In A Bottle Doobies - Long Train Running Marvin Gaye - I Heard It Through the Grapevine Marvin Gaye - Mercy Mercy Me Marvin Gaye - What's Going On Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - Aint No Mountain High Enough Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing Nirvana - Marijuana Nirvana - Penny Royal Tea (Loser) Nirvana - Polly (New Wave) Nirvana - Sappy Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Queen - Killer Queen Stevie Wonder - Superstition The Beatles - A Day In The Life The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonley Hearts Club Band The Beatles - She's Leaving Home The Beatles - With A Little Help From My Friends I'm mostly interested in The Beatles, Nirvana and Bob Marley, but all of them would be interesting! :) Thanks in advance. |
| poopchute 23.02.2008 08:00 |
I dont think it was that Digital Manifest was correct. All it takes is 1 person to shout loud enough about it and action gets taken. 1 person. Like Rapidshare and Megadownload and the others that people were using. If they get 1 complaint that a link you have is illegal/copyrighted or something. Bam! it goes down. Digital Manifest probably went right after being laughed outta here to picking up the phone and somehow calling Queen or their headquarters or whatever. And if he was pissed enough from being embarrased and laughed at he could probably get something done... That said I dont know the whole story. Id like to read the "letter" or email from Queen. But Anyway...I dont hold any hard feelings about the mods haveing to do what they had to do. Im frankly supprised it lasted this long. Someone asked for a complete list of everything that is out there... Nirvana 4 songs... Marvin Gaye 5 songs... Bob Marley 3 songs... Doobie Brothers 1 song... Stevie Wonder 1 song... Beatles 4 songs... Queen 3 songs...(Get Down is the 3rd 1. I think its not really worth having unless you are SuperDooper Hardcore...) Def Leppard 3 songs... I dont have everything listed. But thats what I know IS out there. There may be a few other songs and Artists...Ive heard The Police and Issacc Hayes Mentioned as well as Hendrix and Jackson 5...But I think those would be really hard to find... So by all means lets keep up the discussion... IN Fact...Why Dont we write a petition to Queen. Something along the lines that We all want the Multitracks from their Greatest Hits. Why cant they sell them to us. I'd pay 25 bucks per song. Id even buy Bohemian Rhapsody and Killer Queen even if I have them. The worst they can do is say no. But at least we can voice the fact that their Die Hard Fans want this product...and are more than willing to pay for it. So all they gotta do is be the 1st Big Scale Mega band to doit... Oh and just for reference...My email is Queenzonebootlegs@hotmail.com |
| Raf 23.02.2008 08:06 |
poopchute wrote: Queen 3 songs...(Get Down is the 3rd 1. I think its not really worth having unless you are SuperDooper Hardcore...) Def Leppard 3 songs...Have you got Get Down Make Love and the Def Leppard songs? I'd be interested in getting them, if it's possible. :) |
| Dan C. 23.02.2008 13:21 |
What Raf said. |
| Crazy LittleThing 23.02.2008 16:37 |
YourValentine wrote: . . . whose aim in life is to piss the band off. Secondly, Queen are always generous, they have never taken action against fans as far as I know, so if they don't want us to allow these links on the forum, it is only fair and honest to respect this and remove them. I cannot think of another website where non-official material of another band can be shared so freely and the band never complains.Again, very well said, YV. Thanks for taking the heat for us. You rock! --Cindy |
| AnywayWindBlows 23.02.2008 17:05 |
Queenigma wrote: I've been lurking here for years, and there are others like me. The fact is that most of what you "traders" do is too petty to involve legal action. But now you've screwed the pooch, and the big boys won't let it stand. There is no more serious form of copyright infringement. Do you think that Coca Cola would allow you to "trade" its soft-drink formulas? Lawyers live for this, and you can bet they're drooling right now. You'd better hope you didn't leave a trail. Queenigma wrote: I contacted Brian about this matter. Those of you in favor of stealing these multitrack recordings obviously have no idea how much effort went into creating the songs. Any true "fan" would respect Queen's right to control access to the basic building blocks (i.e., the individual tracks) of their career. "Trading" bootlegged live recordings is one thing, but you've crossed the line here.Oohh I think it's Digital Manifest incarnate! |
| thunderbolt 31742 23.02.2008 17:36 |
Queenigma wrote: I've been lurking here for years, and there are others like me. The fact is that most of what you "traders" do is too petty to involve legal action. But now you've screwed the pooch, and the big boys won't let it stand. There is no more serious form of copyright infringement. Do you think that Coca Cola would allow you to "trade" its soft-drink formulas? Lawyers live for this, and you can bet they're drooling right now. You'd better hope you didn't leave a trail.Digital Manifart returns? QPL's lawyers have better things to do than chase down the IP addresses of people who downloaded the multi-tracks to two of their songs. I figured from the second the KQ multis went up that it was only a matter of time, and once BoRhap hit the fan, I had a hunch that anyone whose feathers were ruffled before had just received a cold-water enema. As I said back then, it depends on your definition of "official," and though there was little doubt in my mind as to where that line would be drawn by the powers that be, I held out hope that they would embrace the opportunity for the fans to get that rare glimpse into the creative process. They didn't, and now we move on. |
| Penetration_Guru 23.02.2008 18:32 |
Queenigma wrote: I contacted Brian about this matter. Those of you in favor of stealing these multitrack recordings obviously have no idea how much effort went into creating the songs.Nobody here stole anything, advocated stealing anything, or incited anyone to steal anything. These files have been around for YEARS before anyone here knew about their availability. You'll be trying to pin the Kennedy shooting on us next. In fact, I'd argue if this is actually stolen property. The mastertapes are securely held in a studio, and these computer files were GIVEN by QPL to a third party. The likeliest "crime" is breach of contract, on the assumption that whoever QPL donated them to signed a confidentiality agreement of some sort, but even that would be a civil, as opposed to criminal matter. Even then, the defendants could easily argue that there is no proof they were responsible, given the lack of security historically within QPL (eg Ibex). So take your pathetic posturing, whichever WUM you are, and stick it up your arse. |
| Deacon Fan 23.02.2008 19:10 |
Well I said this before in a thread which is now gone, but if these tracks are available to either students or engineers or anyone for that matter, then some dedicated fans who've paid enormous amounts of money to collect the shit their favorite band keeps re-issuing certainly aren't hurting anyone by getting to hear them. Seriously, if they exist anyway and are traded amongst non-fans, what's the problem? I agree we should keep them off the forum though, for the sake of not causing any trouble to Richard. And now a question.. for Barbara perhaps: How does this affect the sharing of remixes? I was really looking forward to hearing some of what the fans can do with this stuff. Are those forbidden now too? |
| John S Stuart 23.02.2008 19:30 |
Penetration_Guru wrote:I think the real problem is that these tracks have existed inside a small elite for quite a while.Queenigma wrote: I contacted Brian about this matter. Those of you in favor of stealing these multitrack recordings obviously have no idea how much effort went into creating the songs.Nobody here stole anything, advocated stealing anything, or incited anyone to steal anything... So take your pathetic posturing, whichever WUM you are, and stick it up your arse. Now they are starting to leak out - it seems that those guys are losing their family silver. They don't really give a damn about Queen or Brian May - it really is all about protecting their own selfish self interests. However, both the 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and the 'Killer Queen' mutlitracks are still available via peer-to-peer networking sites. They may exist no more on Queenzone, but their life continues elsewhere. Seems a bit daft to me to close this site, when infact, it is the only saloon in town not to carry the damned things! |
| YourValentine 23.02.2008 20:36 |
Maybe we can all calm down a bit. Queen know that the fans on Queenzone are no thieves, they just wanted us to stop allowing to spread these tracks. We stopped and that's the end of the story. Nobody wants to close the website. As to the question of fan mixes - I'll ask Richard about it but my personal feeling is that it's maybe better not to use these tracks for mixes atm. In the 7 years I have been sharing on QZ I never heard about a complaint, so - yes we should take it serious enough to tread carefully in this matter. |
| bluephoenix 23.02.2008 20:44 |
so what have i missed, which multi tracks leaked ? |
| john bodega 23.02.2008 23:46 |
Queenigma wrote: I've been lurking here for years, and there are others like me. The f .......... BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ....... ers live for this, and you can bet they're drooling right now. You'd better hope you didn't leave a trail.Yeah, what are you, Batman? Stop acting like you're looking out for anyone but yourself. |
| motownboy 24.02.2008 00:58 |
There are still other multitracks out there from the Stax label like Isaac Hayes' version of "The Look of Love' and the ubiquitous Theme from "Shaft." Rumour has it that there a couple of ABBA multitracks on european forums and blogs including "Dancing Queen!" |
| ern2150 24.02.2008 02:07 |
YourValentine wrote: it's maybe better not to use these tracks for mixes atm. In the 7 years I have been sharing on QZ I never heard about a complaint, so - yes we should take it serious enough to tread carefully in this matter.Please let me know your admin decision, as well as Queen's official position if applicable, as soon as possible. I had planned to publish a podcast with at least one remix built from these, and if you don't want that advertised here, then I'm not sure if I want to put it up at all. QZ has really been the only place to actively support fanmixes, and I don't want to lose that. |
| Deacon Fan 24.02.2008 02:11 |
motownboy wrote: There are still other multitracks out there from the Stax label like Isaac Hayes' version of "The Look of Love' and the ubiquitous Theme from "Shaft." Rumour has it that there a couple of ABBA multitracks on european forums and blogs including "Dancing Queen!"Good heavens, I'd give my entire Queen collection for Dancing Queen multitracks! |
| AnywayWindBlows 24.02.2008 03:27 |
Also some Billy Joel tracks from the umixit set that I have, but these can be bought officially FYI. Zanzibar-16 track I Go To Extremes (Live) Only The Good Die Young Big Shot(Live) Movin Out(Live) Keepin The Faith(Remix Version) As well as some Barenaked Ladies multitracks $2.49 each that can be bought via their label's site. link |
| John S Stuart 24.02.2008 06:51 |
J7 wrote:I bet Brian May is more upset to hear that, than he was to discover that the multitracks leaked!motownboy wrote: Rumour has it that there a couple of ABBA multitracks on european forums and blogs including "Dancing Queen!"Good heavens, I'd give my entire Queen collection for Dancing Queen multitracks! |
| Sebastian 24.02.2008 07:11 |
Actually Dr Wig likes 'Dancing Queen', as far as I know... maybe he's upset the leaked songs were BR and KQ rather than TPS and (the other) BR. |
| Fenderek 24.02.2008 08:15 |
AnywayWindBlows wrote:Whoever this is he didn't get laid for a loooooong time...Queenigma wrote: I've been lurking here for years, and there are others like me. The fact is that most of what you "traders" do is too petty to involve legal action. But now you've screwed the pooch, and the big boys won't let it stand. There is no more serious form of copyright infringement. Do you think that Coca Cola would allow you to "trade" its soft-drink formulas? Lawyers live for this, and you can bet they're drooling right now. You'd better hope you didn't leave a trail.Queenigma wrote: I contacted Brian about this matter. Those of you in favor of stealing these multitrack recordings obviously have no idea how much effort went into creating the songs. Any true "fan" would respect Queen's right to control access to the basic building blocks (i.e., the individual tracks) of their career. "Trading" bootlegged live recordings is one thing, but you've crossed the line here.Oohh I think it's Digital Manifest incarnate! John S Stuart wrote: I think the real problem is that these tracks have existed inside a small elite for quite a while. Now they are starting to leak out - it seems that those guys are losing their family silver. They don't really give a damn about Queen or Brian May - it really is all about protecting their own selfish self interests.That's EXACTLY what I think... |
| kestrel101 24.02.2008 09:18 |
Maybe it just shows that it's about time the band came up with a DVD-rom of some of their multi-tracks, and an attached mixing suite. The stuff stills stays copyrighted, so anyone going public with their results is still committing a crime, but in the meantime, those of us who like to play being their own personal Roy Thomas Baker, have their dreams come true, and the rest of us who are just curious at looking at the components of the jigsaw, also have the dreams of years fulfilled. Make it official, the band get their cut of the money, we get something truly wondrous, and then everybody's happy. By the way, I think Bowie did something like this several years back. |
| Sebastian 24.02.2008 09:45 |
What if anyone wants to put info about the separate tracks on print? Would that be penalised? |
| Holly2003 24.02.2008 14:08 |
Queenigma wrote: I've been lurking here for years, and there are others like me. The fact is that most of what you "traders" do is too petty to involve legal action. But now you've screwed the pooch, and the big boys won't let it stand. There is no more serious form of copyright infringement. Do you think that Coca Cola would allow you to "trade" its soft-drink formulas? Lawyers live for this, and you can bet they're drooling right now. You'd better hope you didn't leave a trail.Are you sure you didn't mean to say "I've been leeching here for years"? |
| Bulsarian 24.02.2008 14:33 |
Queenigma wrote: I contacted Brian about this matter. Those of you in favor of stealing these multitrack recordings obviously have no idea how much effort went into creating the songs. Any true "fan" would respect Queen's right to control access to the basic building blocks (i.e., the individual tracks) of their career. "Trading" bootlegged live recordings is one thing, but you've crossed the line here.The hello you did you liar! Taking credit for someone else's shit? You just now come around and try and say shit? Let me guess, Evan? lol. Nobody turned anyone in for anything, Brian got a whiff of this through Queenonline's webmaster, so bugger off wanker. Also, Lawyers do not 'Live' for this, because the fact is that there is no substantial case for this, QZ is not liable! |
| Deacon Fan 24.02.2008 14:41 |
If they put some out officially, it would probably be the typical small loops type of remix thing. Those aren't as much fun (okay not as easy to mix) as full-length tracks ;) You get little segments of stuff and have to put it all together without the benefit of synchronized equal-length files. |
| Sebastian 24.02.2008 20:17 |
I suppose my original 'tracksheet' was lost, so I'll post a compressed version: BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY: Track 1: It's got part of the final bounce for the left-channel intro vocals. Then some harmonies in the ballad section (before the solo), a three-part "Sacarmouch... fandango", a big choir for "thunderbolt... me" including Fred's bass-voice and Roger's high A, the left-channel definitive "Magnifico", top and bottom voice from "he's just a poor boy...monstrosity", big choir in "no we will not let you go", two "we will not let you go" with bass-voice dominating, the third one including high part, "will not let you go" all parts, the definitive "no no no no no no no" (too bad Rog's and Bri's separate bits aren't in the multitrack), another big choir for "Mamma mia ... for me" having Rog hitting a high F, and for the reprise a bounce of beautiful "oh yeah" harmonies, you can tell both Fred and Rog are there, but IMO Bri isn't. Track 2: Right-side definitive bounces for intro, same part as 1 for ballad bit (but of course coming from a different take in order to reinforce the sound), "Scaramouch...", "Thunderbolt" and "Magnifico" and "He's just ... will not let you go". "Magnifico" has some little differences but put together 1+2 you've got what made it to the final mix. "No no no..." and "Mamma mia ... for me" miss Fred's bass-voice, and a close listen makes me think Rog did both the middle and high part. All in all, Bri's barely heard in the song (vocally), he probably joined in the 'fat' bits only, but the other two always dominated the vocal side ('Somebody to Love', otoh, has some more May-estic influence in the vocals, especially in "at the end of the day", also live). The reprise is again a double-track of the 1st. Track 3: "No escape from reality" vocal bounce (favouring low parts), and for the rest of it, drums. Track 4: "No escape from reality" vocal bounce (favouring high parts), and for the rest of it, drums. Track 5: Fred's count to four, and drums. Track 6: Drums Tracks 7, 8 & 9: Bass (DI, amp and speaker, respectively) Tracks 10 & 11: Piano (left and right channels, respectively). There are some small mistakes and a bit of cross-talk, and at the end you can hear Fred saying "oh fuck it". The first four chords were edited out in the final mix to leave an a capella start. Track 12: Guide vocal for the intro, not included in the final version (there are some off-pitch notes actually). Then there's a bounce of Fred doing octaves for "thunderbolt...me", a separate bit of the "Magnifico" build-up (not used since they had the bounce in 1&2), "He's just a poor boy...monstrosity" has a two-part harmony in the low range, again I can pick Fred's and Rog's voices there, but not Dr May's. Then there's Fred's double-tracked low "Bismilah", the "never never never never let me go" line that made it to the final cut, "Mamma mia let me go ... for me" having a falsetto-then-head multi-track done only (or chiefly) by Mercury. And then one of the rhythm guitars from Brian (rock section and reprise). |
| Sebastian 24.02.2008 20:18 |
Track 13: Single-tracked lead vocal for the intro (sounds similar to the one in the released version but I don't think it's it), an alternative take of the ballad section lead vocal (having some melodic alterations), "let him go" on three-part harmony without Rog's high falsetto, all or most of the bits for "let me go" and an overdubbed snare for rock and reprise sections. Track 14: Another unused guide vocal (unused isn't the proper term but you get the idea) for intro and ballad. "Let him go" and "let me go" favouring high parts (but missing Rog's sustained falsetto), and the build-up for "let me gooooo" is almost complete. Since those were the days of live mixing, they bounced the trickier parts beforehand so they would have a lighter workload. Rock and reprise features Bri's rhythm guitar (different take, in order to reinforce the sound), very well-played. Bri made less mistakes than Rog, John and Fred, but then again, his parts were overdubbed later, while the other three had to record the majority of their instruments in one simultaneous take. Track 15: Lead vocal for intro and ballad bit (without the second chorus). They actually copied some of these lines to track 22, where the 'ultimate' lead vocal would be stored. Here, Bri did his exceptional solo too. There's a soprano Fred doing "very very frightening me" (not used in the final version), a fragment of the first build-up, the high "Bismilah" (double-tracked by Lord Teeth), "will not let you go" by Fred in octaves, rhythm guitar for the end of opera section, then for rock & reprise we've got the signal coming from Fred's boom mic at the backing track (which he recorded while he was laying down the piano part), hence we've got some humming and the "fuck it" line again. They should've ended the song with it ;) Oh, btw, there's one of the guitar lines during the piano solo too. Track 16: Lead vocal punching (i.e. correcting odd lines) during intro and ballad. Then there's another bounce for "Scaramouch", a multi-tracked separate part for "lightning...me", fragments of "Magnifico", Roger's high falsetto for "he's...family", Fred's high "spare...monstrosity", Rog's timpani for "Bismilah", Fred's bass-voice for "no no..." and "beelzebub...for me", and overdrubbed drum-part for rock section, the multi-tracked guitar fanfare (my favourite bit in the entire song) and at the post-end there's some talk between Rog and Fred. Track 17: During the intro there's yet another unused guide vocal from Lord Teeth, plus the "wind blows" flanged cymbal. During the solo, Bri's rhythm guitar. "Very very frightening me" is another unused double-tracked soprano Freddie; "he's just a poor boy...monstrosity" has a baritone Freddie, double-tracked. "Bismilah" has Fred's bass-voice, double-tracked as well. "Never never... let me go" is an unused take, off-pitch in "go", "Beelzebub...for me"has Lord Teeth's double-tracked bass-voice, Fred's lead vocal in the rock section, an overdubbed (unused?) piano part, high harmonies during the reprise, and Fred's lead vocal from "nothing really matters" to the final line, after which he tries another "blows" and then says "no". Track 18: Another unused guide vocal for the intro, "wind blows" flanged cymbal again (they had two takes of these things in order to mix them stereo), Bri's rhythm guitar during the solo (ditto), middle part for "lightning...me", a "Magnifico" fragment, Rog's excellent falsetto in "he's just...family" and "spare...monstrosity", although in the latter it sounds like there are more people there. Fred's low "Bismilah" again, and, again, "let me go" is off-key; "Mamma mia let me |
| Sebastian 24.02.2008 20:19 |
Track 23: Unused guide vocal in the intro, the famous “anyway the wind blows” and a falsetto ascending-descending harmony, both by single-tracked Freddie. For the opera bit, we’ve got Rog’s high “Galileo” and double-tracked “he’s just a poor boy … monstrosity” falsetto. Then Fred’s double-tracked bass-voice in the first two “Bismilah”, another unused “never never… let me go” and another double-tracked bass-voice by Fred at the end of opera. Rhythm guitar at the end of rock section, and some guitar ornaments during the piano solo. Track 24: Another unused guide vocal in the intro, another take of 23’s ballad harmonies, Fred’s low “Galileo Figaro”, a high falsetto during “he’s just a poor boy…monstrosity”, Fred duplicating what he did in 23’s during “Bismilah”, another off-pitch “never…let me go” line, another double-tracked bass-voice by Lord Teeth at the end of the opera section, and the missing part of the puzzle: another guitar at the end of rock and beginning of reprise (the one that keeps playing when Fred sings “nothing really matters anyone can see”). |
| Sebastian 25.02.2008 08:32 |
GET DOWN MAKE LOVE: Drums take eight and half tracks (2-8, 22 and part of 14), bass takes two (9 and 10), piano takes two (11 and 12), Bri's main guitar is triple-tracked (1, 17 and 18), Fred's lead vocal compiled in 19, having background harmonies in 14 & 15 (high-part, verse), 16 (low-part, verse), 20 (low-part, chorus) and 21 (high-part, chorus). Indeed, all vocals were by Lord Teeth. Btw his ridiculous 'sexual' moaning can be found in tracks 19, 20 and 21, there's no multi-tracking per se though. Harmoniser takes tracks 13 to 15. Around 3:24 in track 14 Fred says "OK, let's just carry on, one two three four". All in all, they did spend a lot of time doing such a crappy song... sound quality and performance are brill, but they could've put the same effort in something worthy of it. |
| poopchute 25.02.2008 09:28 |
Anywaythewindblows... Where can you get those Billy Joel Multis? Id be interested in a couple of those. I tried searching in google but nothin came up... |
| Adam Baboolal 25.02.2008 09:31 |
Seb... Get Down??? Where is that??? Btw, I saved your track sheet, so could post a lot of it if need be. Adam. |
| Fenderek 25.02.2008 11:29 |
*edited* |
| Bohardy 25.02.2008 12:44 |
Nothing to see here... |
| john bodega 25.02.2008 13:58 |
The Get Down multitrack being available really hurts. It's like having the Sgt. Pepper 4 track, but not being able to play with something really awesome like Revolver or Abbey Road. Haha :P |
| CRM 25.02.2008 14:09 |
Me too - let me know at cr_murphy27@yahoo.co.uk! |
| Yankovic 25.02.2008 14:34 |
I would also appreciate if someone send a link to: yankovic51@yahoo.se |
| Sebastian 25.02.2008 14:50 |
Did QMS disappear? |
| pittrek 25.02.2008 15:06 |
Sebastian - thanks for the detailed info, but where are the GDML multitracks ? Thanks |
| Pim Derks 25.02.2008 15:33 |
- |
| Johan 25.02.2008 16:56 |
. |
| Adam Baboolal 25.02.2008 17:37 |
The Brighton Rock one has been drastically compressed with MP3 I'm afraid folks. Great to hear, still. But after getting the previous tracks in uncompressed audio, this is a slight disappointment. Slight. Still downloading. I'd link to it, but it may not be what the QZ wants, i.e. more attention. Adam. |
| Deacon Fan 25.02.2008 17:40 |
Yes, Brighton Rock is probably the guitar-studyists wet dream. The first one to have so many strictly guitar tracks :) Some people are complaining that it's mp3.. but being separate mono files, it still sounds pretty darn good. I won't reject a wav version though :) Edit: We were posting at the same time Adam ;) Edit 2: And GDML is actually a lot of fun to mix and does have some extra guitar, plus it reveals that there was an edit on the final mix ;) I'm still loving this stuff.. haven't seen the Def Leppard tracks yet and kinda craving them now :) |
| Penetration_Guru 25.02.2008 17:44 |
These are getting a bit odd now. I imagine that DigiDesign would be more than happy to use two well known songs like KQ & Bo Rhap to showcase whatever it was, but to be honest if I was them being offered GDML, I'd probably say how happy I was with just the two... |
| Adam Baboolal 25.02.2008 18:04 |
True, PG. Too true. It makes me think more and more that these are the stolen tracks. Brighton Rock seems more like a copied one because I've never heard of SHA being stolen. But as we all know, the News of the World stuff was taken, wasn't it? I think I remember Brian making a plea for it in a few places in 2003. This was due to the recent 5.1 mixes made and Brian wanted NOTW treated similarly. Adam. |
| John S Stuart 25.02.2008 18:17 |
Perhaps it's just me - but I think under the circumstances - you could all use a little more discretion gentlemen. |
| Erin 25.02.2008 18:28 |
John S Stuart wrote: Perhaps it's just me - but I think under the circumstances - you could all use a little more discretion gentlemen.That's just what I was thinking. |
| AnywayWindBlows 25.02.2008 18:56 |
Wow you guys are harsh on GDML, it Isn't so bad. I liked being able to widen up the stereo field a bit and strip the chorus effect on Freddie's lead. |
| poopchute 25.02.2008 19:11 |
Anywaythewindblows... Where can one find the Billy Jeol Stuff? Thanks |
| Adam Baboolal 25.02.2008 19:15 |
Discretion? Why so? |
| Mr Mercury 25.02.2008 19:25 |
I think what John was pointing at is the removal of the "hint" in this thread as to where other multi's are. At least thats what I think he is on about. After all, according to Barb, the site was given a polite request to remove all links to the Bo Rhap stuff, etc. |
| princetom 25.02.2008 19:38 |
@ Fenderek: forget about my mail. :-D @ pim derks: thanks a lot, dude! |
| John S Stuart 25.02.2008 19:46 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Discretion? Why so?If there ARE any more 24 multitracks out there - perhaps the words 'goose' and 'killing' or 'attention and 'drawing' springs to mind - or has anyone else not thought this through? Perhaps a little 'reflective editing' could be employed on some of the replies? |
| Adam Baboolal 25.02.2008 19:52 |
Well, I've just echoed what Seb started saying and what someone else said about where it was. I still had a link bookmarked and that's how I knew. Anyway, when did Barb get this "hint"? And if keeping things quiet is utmost, perhaps that should be made clear from the outset. No more cloak and dagger emails, hmm... If things need kept quiet, start out by saying that and then we (most of us anyway) WILL keep it quiet. Trust in us and we shall follow by example. Adam. |
| Erin 25.02.2008 19:57 |
poopchute wrote: Anywaythewindblows... Where can one find the Billy Jeol Stuff? ThanksI would love to hear those, as well. |
| John S Stuart 25.02.2008 20:00 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Well, I've just echoed what Seb started saying ... Trust in us and we shall follow by example.Adam we are all adults. All I am asking is for us to employ a little personal discretion. Barbara has already been approached by Queen PLC to remove certain links - that is why certain threads, and mails have been erased. I guess that with a little help from Mr. Google further 24 tracks may also turn up, but I don't think shouting about them in here will do anyone any favours. |
| Fenderek 25.02.2008 20:14 |
move along, there's nothing to see here... |
| AnywayWindBlows 25.02.2008 20:20 |
John S Stuart wrote: I guess that with a little help from Mr. Google further 24 tracks may also turn up, but I don't think shouting about them in here will do anyone any favours.Not likely, they're more obscure than you think, at least the ones that haven't been shared here are. Think we're ok. And about Billy Joel, they were released by a company called umixit. Go to their website, umixit.com to purchase the tracks. Not sure if they're still the 16 track versions though. I got mine at Best Buy when it was released and they came on a disc. |
| Erin 25.02.2008 20:46 |
AnywayWindBlows wrote: And about Billy Joel, they were released by a company called umixit. Go to their website, umixit.com to purchase the tracks. Not sure if they're still the 16 track versions though. I got mine at Best Buy when it was released and they came on a disc.Wow! Look at this from umixit's website: Jan. 18th, 2007 Billy Joel Catalog We are planning on releasing a Special 30th anniversary edition of "The Stranger" in 2007. If this release goes well, we are planning on releasing BILLY JOEL'S ENTIRE CATALOG IN UMIXIT! More details to come... I wish Queen would do something like this. |
| AnywayWindBlows 25.02.2008 20:56 |
Erin wrote: Wow! Look at this from umixit's website: Jan. 18th, 2007 Billy Joel Catalog We are planning on releasing a Special 30th anniversary edition of "The Stranger" in 2007. If this release goes well, we are planning on releasing BILLY JOEL'S ENTIRE CATALOG IN UMIXIT! More details to come... I wish Queen would do something like this.Only problem is, 2007 has come and gone. They've been around for while. It seems people aren't as eager as us to get ahold of multi tracks. |
| Erin 25.02.2008 20:59 |
AnywayWindBlows wrote: Only problem is, 2007 has come and gone. They've been around for while. It seems people aren't as eager as us to get ahold of multi tracks.I didn't even notice that was written last year. DOH! |
| Fenderek 26.02.2008 02:17 |
yeah, whatever... edited... ;) |
| YourValentine 26.02.2008 03:09 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Discretion? Why so?Please people, do not get this website in trouble. I can't believe the insensitivity of some users here. No links to these tracks can be posted here and no hints to links can be posted or I have to delete the whole thread or delete the user account of the person who posts the hint/link to remove it from the forum. I am NOT going to edit any messages to enforce this. We promised QP to remove these links and we have to leave them off the forum. |
| NickName 26.02.2008 03:17 |
Well Barb, then go and tell Mr. Derks... By the way here is an article from the Daily Express in April 2003 about the missing Multitracks: link |
| pittrek 26.02.2008 04:37 |
Pim Derks wrote: -Oops looks like you edited it out before I could read it, so could somebody please send me an e-mail to pittrek@hotmail.com ? I would really be grateful :) |
| Fenderek 26.02.2008 05:15 |
NickName wrote: By the way here is an article from the Daily Express in April 2003 about the missing MultitracksIt mentions 4 tracks from NOTW- but not the GDML... |
| poopchute 26.02.2008 05:30 |
So then are we talking about these multis as being the ones that were missing? If thats so then I would think Queen would still like to find them. Just to think. Someone may have the "Real" original 2" tapes and they just keep it around to play once and a while or they did these transfers so that they wouldnt have to ruin the tape by repeated playing. |
| NickName 26.02.2008 05:42 |
Fenderek wrote: It mentions 4 tracks from NOTW- but not the GDML...So GDML isn´t missing... or ...they haven´t noticed it yet. :-) |
| Adam Baboolal 26.02.2008 05:54 |
YourValentine wrote:For god's sake, it's a question. I wanted to know the reason. Why? Because - guess what? We're not bloody mind readers. I've been away for the last couple of weeks and haven't been able to keep up with things happening here so when I ask why discretion is needed, it's a genuine query. It's not being insensitive or reckless. In fact, I got a vibe from this thread and didn't post any links before posting that question.Adam Baboolal wrote: Discretion? Why so?Please people, do not get this website in trouble. I can't believe the insensitivity of some users here. Realise that we're not all in the loop and don't follow everything that happens here, all of the time. Adam. |
| Fenderek 26.02.2008 05:59 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: we're not all in the loop and don't follow everything that happens here, all of the time.I have to second that. I missed quite a bit, actually, didn't even notice when certain threads disappeared, missed most of the Digital Something guy, missed any QP communication (if there was any ON this board, maybe it was Emails... I don't know, simply don't know). Nonetheless discretion is absolutely fine by me, NOBODY in their right mind wants anything bad happening to QZ... |
| Fenderek 26.02.2008 06:02 |
poopchute wrote: So then are we talking about these multis as being the ones that were missing?No- the article mentions SLEEPING ON THE SIDEWALK, SHEER HEART ATTACK, ALL DEAD and SPREAD YOUR WINGS only, not GDML... seems it has been copied not stolen... or they didn't notice that... I've heard taht someone stole Hammy 79 multis as well- and that might be the reason why this gig is not being released. True? If so- fucking bastard... |
| john bodega 26.02.2008 06:36 |
Queenigma wrote: why not do what I've been doing for 25+ years, namely, become a musician and then compose, arrange, record, and produce your own music?To coin a phrase; 'who the fuck are you'? |
| Pim Derks 26.02.2008 06:39 |
I'm sorry for posting a hint. I guess we also can't say that using Google will lead you to the links? |
| NickName 26.02.2008 06:55 |
Pim Derks wrote: I'm sorry for posting a hint...Too late!!! You are banned... ...and you are going to rot in hell now that you even dared to mention Google. ;-) |
| Sebastian 26.02.2008 07:15 |
I'm still wondering (and if anybody can help me) about how safe or dangerous would it be to publish comments like... "Fred's lead vocal for 'Bo Rhap' was recorded in tracks ..., ..., ..., and the final version for intro and ballad sections was compiled in track 23" ... in print (e.g. a magazine). Can it be one of those cases where journalists have confidential sources? |
| NickName 26.02.2008 07:22 |
Sebastian wrote: ...Can it be one of those cases where journalists have confidential sources?Better go and ask Robert Woodward or Carl Bernstein... |
| Jeroen 26.02.2008 07:39 |
Sebastian wrote: I'm still wondering (and if anybody can help me) about how safe or dangerous would it be to publish comments like... "Fred's lead vocal for 'Bo Rhap' was recorded in tracks ..., ..., ..., and the final version for intro and ballad sections was compiled in track 23" ... in print (e.g. a magazine). Can it be one of those cases where journalists have confidential sources?Bein a professional journalist myself I can guarantee that nothing could ever be done against you. Even stronger: they will NOT even contact you to find out where you heard these at all. Besides: you found them on the internet and then used your own ears for the list. Nothing illegal about it. |
| YourValentine 26.02.2008 07:42 |
Okay, okay - it would have been enough to read this thread:) We have no experience with censorship, so please bear with me. I am not enjoying it, either - if I would like to scroll topics to check if they are "in line" I would certainly be on QOL. Also, I did not edit any message, the user edited it himself, thanks for that. The links are all over the internet, so they cannot be contained and QZ was not the first website where they were discussed. However, since QPL asked Queenzone to remove the links (we do not know about other sites), there is no use to have a fight with them considering there are numerous other possibilities to obtain these links if someone really wants them. Also, if you want a real time discussion, you can always use the QZ chat room. It's mostly empty these days. |
| Sebastian 26.02.2008 07:43 |
NickName wrote:Sure, because they're an integral part of the multi-track mafiaSebastian wrote: ...Can it be one of those cases where journalists have confidential sources?Better go and ask Robert Woodward or Carl Bernstein... Jeroen wrote:Thanks mate.Sebastian wrote: I'm still wondering (and if anybody can help me) about how safe or dangerous would it be to publish comments like... "Fred's lead vocal for 'Bo Rhap' was recorded in tracks ..., ..., ..., and the final version for intro and ballad sections was compiled in track 23" ... in print (e.g. a magazine). Can it be one of those cases where journalists have confidential sources?Bein a professional journalist myself I can guarantee that nothing could ever be done against you. Even stronger: they will NOT even contact you to find out where you heard these at all. Besides: you found them on the internet and then used your own ears for the list. Nothing illegal about it. |
| kestrel101 26.02.2008 09:51 |
YourValentine wrote: Okay, okay - it would have been enough to read this thread:) We have no experience with censorship, so please bear with me. I am not enjoying it, either - if I would like to scroll topics to check if they are "in line" I would certainly be on QOL. Also, I did not edit any message, the user edited it himself, thanks for that.Just one question YV, you've given absolutely Trojan answers, err, except maybe one. What makes you think you could just walk in and be able to edit someone else's posts on QOL? Are you saying that you have moderating power there too? Failing that, could you put a name to anyone on there that you think who appears to "like" censoring other people? Surely QOL is just another fansite like this one, with the same sort of protocols in place (OK they have the added issue of it being run indirectly by Jim Beach). But Lord knows QZ has also had it's share of knobs passing through who seem to try their best to spoil the place too. How does QZ deal with threads about the distinguishing marks on Freddie's cock? I wish people would just drop the sibling rivalry, and show they realise we all ultimately follow the same band. PS, I must admit on the very rare occasions that it happens, I don't like seeing people putting down QZ on there, either. |
| YourValentine 26.02.2008 10:39 |
I have nothing against QOL, I have been a member there since the 1st edition. I don't like censorship and I know that it happens on QOL because it happened to me, okay? And I did not violate any rules. But this thread is not about QOL but Queenzone and here threads are usually not moderated, that's all. And I have no clue what a "Trojan answer" is. |
| kestrel101 26.02.2008 11:14 |
YourValentine wrote: I have nothing against QOL, I have been a member there since the 1st edition. I don't like censorship and I know that it happens on QOL because it happened to me, okay? And I did not violate any rules. But this thread is not about QOL but Queenzone and here threads are usually not moderated, that's all. And I have no clue what a "Trojan answer" is.Noted YV. The old meaning of something being a "trojan" before the internet, was "solid" or "dependable", like you could "bank on it". Maybe given it's new meaning, the way it was meant might be open to misinterpretation. Sorry for that. Threads are not "normally" moderated elsewhere either. If you had threads dicked with at QOL, I can only apologise on behalf of that site. I don't like the idea of censorship any more than any body else, but as you'll agree, some people doing the rounds on this ethereal world we call the internet, just can't seem to help themselves. Sorry to sidetrack your thread. |
| kestrel101 26.02.2008 11:20 |
Back to the subject of these things they'd rather not talk about, without pointing the finger, can someone tell me "in a broader sense" how they escaped the supposed vault like security that Queen are meant to hold on their mastertapes? It's always bothered me how they bleat like crazy when this stuff escapes. It seems obvious to me that someone, or a series of people, in a position of trust, patently doesn't deserve the responsibility they've been given. Rather than bloody moan about, maybe they ought to employ someone to go round chopping off the bollocks of the offenders! |
| NickName 26.02.2008 12:05 |
kestrel101 wrote: ...can someone tell me "in a broader sense" how they escaped the supposed vault...Fred used to store them under his pillow in the bedroom of his flat and when he died the next tenant found those mastertapes and put them in a box. And he gave the box a name... Someone opened the box called Pandora... and there you have it! |
| Deacon Fan 26.02.2008 12:08 |
Well if you were lucky enough to know where to find the topic from elsewhere which was mentioned, Brighton Rock is now available in wav :) |
| Ozz 26.02.2008 12:11 |
I understand the problem of Linking directly the banned material What i dont understand is where is the line that defines the "Hint" as a direct link. The links aren't all over internet, not the last ones at least (BR AND GDML) I would like to know how a HINT is a proof of something illegal i think theres a lot of ways of not being direct like rot13.com Ex: "gncrbc sbehz ba tbbtyr" I think this issue is becoming really stupid there's should be a clear limit and i think "no direct links" is the usual one |
| NickName 26.02.2008 12:20 |
Ozz wrote: I understand the problem of Linking directly the banned material What i dont understand is where is the line that defines the "Hint" as a direct link. I think this issue is becoming really stupid there's should be a clear limit and i think "no direct links" is the usual oneRead the following thoughts... and THINK about it for yourself! John S Stuart wrote:If there ARE any more 24 multitracks out there - perhaps the words 'goose' and 'killing' or 'attention and 'drawing' springs to mind - or has anyone else not thought this through? |
| Ozz 26.02.2008 12:32 |
If things will leak ....eventually they will anyway. And we have seen that in the history of this forum And if the "attention" will kill the "goose", thats definitively not QZ fault.... In fact i came to the first files thanks to another forum, not queen related .. thanks to google.... So the "attention" is out there, and wherever happens here i dont think will affect what is happening out there with the tracks.... The "No links" rule, is in order to keep this forum "clean" , and in that case... a hint does not harm . And theres other forums spreading the word, so maybe they will kill the goose, not us Is just what i think |
| Adam Baboolal 26.02.2008 12:53 |
I guess, I hear what you mean. But, we must respect the wishes of those in charge of this site. The only reason I know about where certain things are is due to the previous BoRhap thread. Now that that has gone from this forum, it's harder to find. Fact is, the site needs to deflect any new problem items. Adam. |
| kestrel101 26.02.2008 13:41 |
NickName wrote:No, I can't help thinking that it must be simpler than that. I'd hazard a guess that very few people have had completely unsupervised access to the multi-tracks of things like Bohemian Rhapsody. I thought even people like Eddie Schreyer who remastered most of the Hollywood set only "generally" had access to stereo masters.kestrel101 wrote: ...can someone tell me "in a broader sense" how they escaped the supposed vault...Fred used to store them under his pillow in the bedroom of his flat and when he died the next tenant found those mastertapes and put them in a box. And he gave the box a name... Someone opened the box called Pandora... and there you have it! Saying that, I guess they did the rounds a bit while everybody was doing the DVD-A mix of ANATO to below Brian's expectations. Still doesn't explain the other tracks from albums which haven't had the DTS treatment though, does it? |
| Fenderek 26.02.2008 14:59 |
Queenigma wrote: One of you ladies asked about my identity. Quite simply, I am Your Superior. Is that too bold? Perhaps you should just think of me as your teacher, because you all have much to learn. Your detailed ramblings are pointless. The answer is simple: what you're doing is selfish and immoral, and insulting your instructor won't change that. I must say, however, that your data-entry skills are impressive.Get laid. It will feel VERY different to what you're experiencing right now... |
| brENsKi 26.02.2008 15:00 |
Queenigma wrote: One of you ladies asked about my identity. Quite simply, I am Your Superior. Is that too bold? Perhaps you should just think of me as your teacher, because you all have much to learn. Your detailed ramblings are pointless. The answer is simple: what you're doing is selfish and immoral, and insulting your instructor won't change that. I must say, however, that your data-entry skills are impressive.fucking hell!!! Seizure Moron has changed his nick? |
| Sebastian 26.02.2008 15:01 |
So please doth tell us, grand teacher, how art thou such a pain in the arse? |
| FriedChicken 26.02.2008 15:37 |
Earchsay orfay "Apetay Op-way Orumfay Illerkay Ueenqay ultitrackmay" on-way Ooglegay |
| write your letters in the sand 26.02.2008 15:42 |
kestrel101 wrote: . . . Rather than bloody moan about, maybe they ought to employ someone to go round chopping off the bollocks of the offenders!Kes, you're a GENIUS! Who needs "Miami" Beach? Tickets could be sold to the "chopping off" event, thereby staunching the flow of unauthorised material spewing from the bowels of the legendary vault, while at the same time generating profit without anyone having to dirty their hands with the nasty business of a box set. Result! |
| write your letters in the sand 26.02.2008 15:44 |
What post? |
| Pim Derks 26.02.2008 15:49 |
Cause one day we'll find it, the Ainbow-ray Onnection-cay, the lovers - the dreamers - and meeeeeee lalalaaaaa la la laaaaa la la la la dieeeeeeee |
| Rien 26.02.2008 15:53 |
Thanks FriedChicken! |
| popy 26.02.2008 21:34 |
Fenderek wrote:the article mentions 10 multi tracks missing ,including thoose 4 songspoopchute wrote: So then are we talking about these multis as being the ones that were missing?No- the article mentions SLEEPING ON THE SIDEWALK, SHEER HEART ATTACK, ALL DEAD and SPREAD YOUR WINGS only, not GDML... seems it has been copied not stolen... or they didn't notice that... I've heard taht someone stole Hammy 79 multis as well- and that might be the reason why this gig is not being released. True? If so- fucking bastard... ps: did they really record this on 6 track? link |
| Fenderek 27.02.2008 05:45 |
popy wrote:Yes, but it specifically mentions 4 NEWS OF THE WORLD tracks... I guess if there were 5 1977 tracks among the missing ones they would write 5, wouldn't they?Fenderek wrote:the article mentions 10 multi tracks missing ,including thoose 4 songs ps: did they really record this on 6 track? linkpoopchute wrote: So then are we talking about these multis as being the ones that were missing?No- the article mentions SLEEPING ON THE SIDEWALK, SHEER HEART ATTACK, ALL DEAD and SPREAD YOUR WINGS only, not GDML... seems it has been copied not stolen... or they didn't notice that... I've heard taht someone stole Hammy 79 multis as well- and that might be the reason why this gig is not being released. True? If so- fucking bastard... |
| Freddie May 27.02.2008 05:51 |
the article mentions 10 multi tracks missing ,including thoose 4 songs ps: did they really record this on 6 track? linkFor (the excellent band) Arcade Fire they didn't record it on 6 tracks : it's just a "video-mix" for fans. There should have been a lot more tracks in the original recording ;) |
| Fenderek 27.02.2008 05:52 |
Queenigma wrote: Dearest Fenderek, your fixation on my sex life suggests that your brain is even smaller than your desicated little gonad(s).Than why would few people with brains smaller than their gonad(s) animate you so much...? pathetic... Your fixation on OUR choices and action shows exactly what? Hollier than thou? pathetic... get a life- if you had one you wouldn't waste your time on answering someone with such a small brain... |
| kestrel101 27.02.2008 06:09 |
write your letters in the sand wrote:I wouldn't go quite THAT far.kestrel101 wrote: . . . Rather than bloody moan about, maybe they ought to employ someone to go round chopping off the bollocks of the offenders!Kes, you're a GENIUS! However, it seems to me that whoever is leaking these things, must have a lot of bollocks just in the morality of being able to give away something that belongs to someone else. So there is definitely some quanitity of spherical objects there to provide the entertainment. And I think it's probably fair to say it must be a lot nicer watching someone else become neutered, than yourself. |
| john bodega 27.02.2008 11:19 |
Queenigma wrote: One of you ladies asked about my identity. Quite simply, I am Your Superior.Oh. Hi, Tom Petty. Didn't realise you posted here. Can you please retire? |
| Sebastian 27.02.2008 13:58 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Standing ovation!!Queenigma wrote: One of you ladies asked about my identity. Quite simply, I am Your Superior.Oh. Hi, Tom Petty. Didn't realise you posted here. Can you please retire? |
| Micrówave 27.02.2008 15:36 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Oh. Hi, Tom Petty. Didn't realise you posted here. Can you please retire?here here! (But don't retire! Highway Companion was greatness!) |
| popy 27.02.2008 20:25 |
the intro (that circus/carousel sound) is not in the multitracks from Brighton Rock... I always thought that it was a Queen original. And when some years ago a band in my country (Portugal) called GNR (not Guns N Roses lol) used that same intro on one of they're songs , i thought "woww they used a Queen sample on this" But now after listening to the multitrack, that circus/carousel intro is missing. So my question is where that sound came from? |
| Erin 27.02.2008 21:25 |
popy wrote: But now after listening to the multitrack, that circus/carousel intro is missing. So my question is where that sound came from?From John S Stuart's Ultimate Collection threads: Carousel (Intro into Brighton Rock) Taken from an in-house Elektra album of fairground effects. Carousel also features on “Madame Magical” (a nine and a half minute epic which uses a longer segment of the same intro) from the 1969 album - “For Fox Sake” (Fontana 6309 007), by “The Fox”. One of the engineers on the album was Roy Baker (no “Thomas” in the middle of his credit), which would explain how the same obscure sound effects recording came to be used on both albums. |
| Pim Derks 28.02.2008 01:00 |
The full "Carousel" sound effect has also 'leaked' a couple of years ago. Not that interesting, but nice to hear on it's own :) |
| ern2150 28.02.2008 01:07 |
Sniffffffff...hmmm. Air seems nice and clear in here now. Can't quite remember what the problem was. Odd, that. Anyway. Wouldn't it be great if out of all of this we got another "One Night Stand"-style competition? What rules would you set? |
| john bodega 28.02.2008 01:46 |
Pim Derks wrote: Cause one day we'll find it, the Ainbow-ray Onnection-cay, the lovers - the dreamers - and meeeeeee lalalaaaaa la la laaaaa la la la la dieeeeeeeeWhy are you singing Face it Alone? |
| John S Stuart 28.02.2008 06:42 |
As Erin has pointed out 'Carousel' is not a Queen construct - but a clip from a 'soundfile' library - which was added to 'Brighton Rock' at a later stage. 'Carousel' does not exist as a 24 track - so I guess the 'soundfile' master must have been added to the bounced down 'Brighton Rock' stereo mix, but I also guess Seb will help us out here. If anyone really wants the 'Carousel' track, it can be found at: link |
| Sebastian 28.02.2008 08:19 |
Yes, the final mix must've been then combined with the fairground noise (via crossfading). As far as I know, 'Death on Two Legs' was done that way too: intro in one mastertape, the 'rest' in another. And I suppose 'Breakthru' too, and maybe 'All Dead'. Btw, it's a shame that backing vocals in 'Brighton Rock' were bounced to one track. |
| Fenderek 28.02.2008 10:33 |
Sebastian wrote: Btw, it's a shame that backing vocals in 'Brighton Rock' were bounced to one track.It is a bit... you know, Brian needed space for guitars ;) But it's a pity- those bvs sound very nice... :) |
| theravenstroke 28.02.2008 13:46 |
And what about of the Seven Seas whistle in the intro? It doesn't appear in the tracks. |
| Adam Baboolal 28.02.2008 14:00 |
theravenstroke wrote: And what about of the Seven Seas whistle in the intro? It doesn't appear in the tracks.True. I, too, was wondering about that whistle. But I guess it's reasonable to think that it is contained on another of the multitracks. Seb already explained that the intro for DOTL appears on another multitrack away from the main song. Adam. |
| Dane 28.02.2008 15:44 |
John S Stuart wrote: As Erin has pointed out 'Carousel' is not a Queen construct - but a clip from a 'soundfile' library - which was added to 'Brighton Rock' at a later stage. 'Carousel' does not exist as a 24 track - so I guess the 'soundfile' master must have been added to the bounced down 'Brighton Rock' stereo mix, but I also guess Seb will help us out here. If anyone really wants the 'Carousel' track, it can be found at: linkHaha, thanks so much John! I've been wondering what the hell that piece would sound like for ages! Awesome :) |
| Deacon Fan 28.02.2008 15:51 |
What!!!!!!!!!????????? You mean Brian didn't create all those sounds with just his guitar? I'm shocked! Using a pre-recorded intro is worse than using synths! I shall burn all my copies of SHA immediately! But seriously, yeah it was most likely just designed to crossfade as was stated. Having separate intro parts was also a factor on "The Game" where Justin's technical notes for the DVD-A even state that 'Play the Game' and 'Rock It' BOTH have their intros on other tapes: link In related news, 'Get Down, Make Love' contains a section which is to be edited out for the final mix too. On the multitrack you can hear Freddie saying "Alright let's just continue" or something like that. |
| Bohardy 28.02.2008 17:27 |
J7 wrote: In related news, 'Get Down, Make Love' contains a section which is to be edited out for the final mix too. On the multitrack you can hear Freddie saying "Alright let's just continue" or something like that.But of course. Just as it contains a handful of guitar parts that weren't present on the final mix. As does Brighton Rock. As do Bo Rhap and Killer Queen, to an extent. |
| Sebastian 28.02.2008 23:47 |
Fenderek wrote:Yes, but they could've compiled the bass in one track, or deleted unused lead vocal tracks. Same for the (few but marvellous) guitar choirs: they could've used more tracks instead of bouncing them all. But of course I understand they wouldn't have had the time to think about it, let alone imagine that a score of QZers would 'complain' about it three decades later.Sebastian wrote: Btw, it's a shame that backing vocals in 'Brighton Rock' were bounced to one track.It is a bit... you know, Brian needed space for guitars ;) |
| kosimodo 29.02.2008 03:29 |
Hej Sebastian, U figured Bo Rap so beautifully for us out... Figured Brighton Rock out allready??;) Love to see that list!! :Cheers: |
| Fenderek 29.02.2008 06:17 |
Sebastian wrote: let alone imagine that a score of QZers would 'complain' about it three decades later.He, he... I believe they didn't think about it, did they ;) |
| Sebastian 29.02.2008 08:11 |
BRIGHTON ROCK: Bass (2 tracks, DI and amp): Quite Zeppelin-esque, isn’t it? There are some small mistakes in the second verse. Guitar (amp): Great rhythm playing by Dr May, but I personally believe John Deacon is better for these sorts of things (check out Staying Power, for instance). This track shows Queen were flirting with funk long before ‘Hot Space’. There’s some cross-talk. Guitar Lead: Beautiful! Quite Page-esque too, but with a much better technique. The intermittent noise (intro and reprise) is annoying by itself but it makes sense in the final mix, I reckon Guitar Lead: Echoing the other for stereo effect. It’s a shame Brian didn’t do a double-delay thing in the studio cut, but now with the multi-tracks it’s possible to re-mix the whole thing and leave it even better Guitar Room: Nice 70’s overdrive. In the middle there’s a great (unused) solo variant, and at the end the wonderful guitar outro Guitar Room (5): Another marvellous semi-funk thing, but Bri played this one much better than the one in the backing track. Guitar (Rhythm): This one would’ve been better if John played it. It’s like having Freddie singing I’m in love With My Car or ‘39. Guitar (Slide): A great uncovered Deacy-amp choir during the chorus. That part is, for me, better than the solo itself. Guitar (01): Some rhythm problems at the beginning. Bri wasn’t precisely Dr Clockwork ;) Drums (five tracks): Very Bonham-esque. Roger’s a much underrated drummer, indeed. Actually, the snare-beat makes me think a little about early 21st century’s hardcore punk. I love that deep sound of the bass-drum! There’s some bass in the cross-talk, but no guitar. Vocal (2-01): Falsetto verse by Freddie - way too camp for my taste actually. Hate the trilled ‘r’ in ‘promenade’; a guitar is here at the end too. Roger could’ve done it (the vocal) much better. Vocal (3): Freddie’s semi-falsetto, semi-head voice in the first verse, only the head-voice bit in the second and third. Again, there’s an overdubbed guitar at the end. At the beginning somebody’s speaking btw. Vocal (4): Freddie punching some parts. This one's not so 'camp'. Again, a guitar at the end. Vocal (Bass): Punching bits in the middle range. Not precisely 'bass', but of course much more comfortable for Freddie's cords. Vocal (Chorus): The final vocal mix, compiling lead and harmony bits. Now, there you can hear Brian! There are some guitar bits in the middle as well. It seems that Fred was trying to make a rural Southern accent, but it didn't quite work IMO. Vocal (01): Lead vocals, plus Fred counting in one of the instrumental breaks. Then one of the solo guitars. After the song's over Fred says "yes, let’s just do it". ===== A DAY IN THE LIFE: 1: Some noise, you can hear guitar and piano and of course John's vocals. Note the flapped ‘photograph’, ‘notice’ and ‘but I’ (trying to deaden feedback, I suppose); there’s also Mal counting to twenty-four. Paul also counts before starting to sing. There’s some background studio noise, and after Paul stops you can listen to John’s marvellous surreal bit. 2: Acoustic guitar, and some piano and drums in the background. In some bits you can also hear the bass. The piano part in the first 24-break would work perfectly for a horror film, although there are some (maybe deliberate) dissonances near the end. The famous alarm-clock is here too. Great music-hall playing during Paul’s part, you can absolutely tell he’s left-handed. I love the percussion during the reprise and second break. Nice piano things, a little November Rain-esque in a way! 3: During the intro there’s an unused guitar (it sounds DI'd), then there’s the orchestral break, it’s wonderful to listen to it uncovered. I love the trumpets! Then there’s the orchestra for the bizarre dream, it’s actually quite simple, George had done much more interesting scores before (e.g. Eleanor Rigby). 4: Bass and drums. Interesting chemistry between |
| audiodrome 29.02.2008 13:34 |
Does anyone know what's going on with the drum room tracks on Get Down Make Love? I can't tell if there is supposed to be a stereo spread or if there are just three different room mics. |
| Bobby_brown 29.02.2008 17:53 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:Are you guys talking about the "Seven seas of Rhye" multitracks?theravenstroke wrote: And what about of the Seven Seas whistle in the intro? It doesn't appear in the tracks.True. I, too, was wondering about that whistle. But I guess it's reasonable to think that it is contained on another of the multitracks. Seb already explained that the intro for DOTL appears on another multitrack away from the main song. Adam. Take care |
| Adam Baboolal 29.02.2008 18:22 |
Uh...no. What gave you that idea, BB? Adam. |
| Bobby_brown 29.02.2008 19:12 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Uh...no. What gave you that idea, BB? Adam.Confusion :-) I´m sorry about that! I remembered a post some years ago about that Whistle on Brighton Rock. Until that time i had never heard it, but today i couldn´t remember wich song wast it, so i went for the obvious one- "Seven seas of rhye" even though i didn´t hear any whistle. Only when i read your answer i imediatelly remembered that it was on Brighton Rock. Sorry folks! Take care |
| kosimodo 01.03.2008 06:33 |
Thx Sebastian:) I now wonder if u have a 'normal' life;) |
| Sebastian 01.03.2008 06:46 |
It depends on what you define as 'normal'. |
| Adam Baboolal 01.03.2008 07:12 |
I see that we'll need to find a new place to hear other stuff. Adam. |
| AP-Racing 01.03.2008 09:04 |
Thank You Seb.....That was great |
| Dane 01.03.2008 12:30 |
edit |
| audiodrome 01.03.2008 21:10 |
So, does anyone know what's going on with the "Get Down Make Love" drum room mics? Are two of them a stereo spread or are they just three different mono room mics? |
| Adam Baboolal 01.03.2008 23:58 |
audiodrome wrote: So, does anyone know what's going on with the "Get Down Make Love" drum room mics? Are two of them a stereo spread or are they just three different mono room mics?You keep asking but no-one's replying. Maybe nobody knows. It's a bit difficult for an outsider to work out exactly what is going on. I haven't listened to them yet, but if I do, I'll try and post something. But you've asked this quite a few times now. Adam. |
| mooghead 02.03.2008 04:14 |
Could one of you kind people take the time to point me in the direction of where I could obtain a link to download Brighton Rock and Get Down Make Love? I would be ever so grateful. robmain55@hotmail.com Cheers. |
| audiodrome 02.03.2008 15:52 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:It's only the second time I've asked - jeesh! It's bugging me because I can't figure it out. None of the three tracks seems to make a stereo pair. The imaging just doesn't work. One of the tracks is definitely further away than the other two, but that's all I make out.audiodrome wrote: So, does anyone know what's going on with the "Get Down Make Love" drum room mics? Are two of them a stereo spread or are they just three different mono room mics?You keep asking but no-one's replying. Maybe nobody knows. It's a bit difficult for an outsider to work out exactly what is going on. I haven't listened to them yet, but if I do, I'll try and post something. But you've asked this quite a few times now. Adam. |
| Adam Baboolal 02.03.2008 18:56 |
I probably said that cause I saw your request on the 'other' webpage... What tracks are you wondering about? What are the numbered tracks you're looking at? Adam. |
| Deacon Fan 02.03.2008 20:17 |
All I can say about GDML and the drums is that I had absolutely no trouble putting together a drum mix to start off my remix. That's how I work actually, I do sections at a time so I don't have to deal with so many tracks at once. When I had the drum mix in stereo and the way I liked them, I added piano, and so on. The best way to do it is to try that.. just load up the drum tracks and mess around until you have a nice sound. There are no rules :) I don't have the tracks on the HD at the moment but if there's 3 of anything, then making them left, right and centered never hurts.. |
| audiodrome 02.03.2008 21:17 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I probably said that cause I saw your request on the 'other' webpage... What tracks are you wondering about? What are the numbered tracks you're looking at? Adam.Oh yes, I see!! I forget what they are numbered because I renamed them, but they are the three drum overhead/room mics where you can hear the piano and bass in the background. |
| audiodrome 02.03.2008 21:23 |
J7 wrote: All I can say about GDML and the drums is that I had absolutely no trouble putting together a drum mix to start off my remix. That's how I work actually, I do sections at a time so I don't have to deal with so many tracks at once. When I had the drum mix in stereo and the way I liked them, I added piano, and so on. The best way to do it is to try that.. just load up the drum tracks and mess around until you have a nice sound. There are no rules :) I don't have the tracks on the HD at the moment but if there's 3 of anything, then making them left, right and centered never hurts..But there are no two drum overhead/room tracks that pan out to make a true stereo image. You can pan them but it's not real stereo - it's just two tracks panned left and right. In other words, when you pan them out, you hear a hi-hat hard right and a hi-hat hard left - there is no true picture with the drums placed where they should be panned across the stereo image. |
| Machines or back to Machines 03.03.2008 15:29 |
Can anyone message me as to where I can download these Multitracks..BR and GDML. Cheers |
| Machines or back to Machines 03.03.2008 15:29 |
Can anyone message me as to where I can download these Multitracks..BR and GDML. Cheers |
| Machines or back to Machines 03.03.2008 15:30 |
Can anyone message me to where I can download these multitracks, BR and GDML Cheers. |
| Dane 03.03.2008 17:16 |
GDML Drums... From what I can hear it's something like this; 2. Room1 Cymbals 3. Room2 4. HiHat 5. Tom1 6. Tom2 7. Snare 8. BassDrum I do believe it is one take, just very nicely stereo'ised |
| Adam Baboolal 08.03.2008 20:01 |
Get this folks. I read this on another forum -> "...Nothing more than studios dumping rake loads of 2inch tapes for nothing, for others to use as their want. People have been checking out what's on them and finding all sorts of gems.. I have all the roughs of the original version of "Take It easy" by the Eagles, found on a tape we bought for re-use." Is this possible??? Some of it might be possible, but ALL those songs had those multi's on them? Hard to take in. If so, that would mean it's the people selling the tapes off that have made the mistake. And quite frankly, it's their own fault, if it's true. Hmm...thoughts on this? Adam. |
| ern2150 08.03.2008 20:43 |
Hey adam, can you email me some more details? Apparently since this thread is doing a fair bit of re-ordering, I'll add my own context. Adam, can you give me more info via email about the article you read about trashed master tapes? |
| Sebastian 08.03.2008 20:56 |
Dear lord, I love 'Take It Easy'! |
| Adam Baboolal 09.03.2008 12:02 |
Here's the thread: link |
| Mr Mercury 09.03.2008 15:09 |
Adam, the link you supplied doesnt work properly anymore. It just says "We cannot proceed. There was a problem looking up the post in our database. Please use your browser's BACK button to return to the previous page" |
| Negative Creep 09.03.2008 16:26 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Get this folks. I read this on another forum -> "...Nothing more than studios dumping rake loads of 2inch tapes for nothing, for others to use as their want. People have been checking out what's on them and finding all sorts of gems.. I have all the roughs of the original version of "Take It easy" by the Eagles, found on a tape we bought for re-use." Is this possible??? Some of it might be possible, but ALL those songs had those multi's on them? Hard to take in. If so, that would mean it's the people selling the tapes off that have made the mistake. And quite frankly, it's their own fault, if it's true. Hmm...thoughts on this? Adam.For a start, the Queen multitrack files are obviously copies of the digital transfers - the physical tapes won't have featured in these being traded online. Studio's throwing away 2" tape? As if! It's not exactly a cheap medium to record on and the studio's don't own the tapes, whoever is financing the recording sessions do. |
| Adam Baboolal 09.03.2008 17:11 |
I don't know why the link isn't working, but I can't seem to get it to work. Just search that forum for Queen and it will surface. NegC: Don't know where you got the idea that studios don't chuck old tape cause they do. For whatever reason it may be, i.e. too old for further use or simply to make room for new stock. It happens. I thought the BBC fiasco taught us that some things aren't sacred. However, we're all pretty much 100% that BoRhap is a copy of the digital transfers. That tape will NEVER be thrown out because it's a priceless value item. Digital transfer files makes sense because it's use has been widespread and can't have been safe from prying eyes at all times... BUT - where did Brighton Rock come from? Or how about Get Down Make Love? I'm not saying these were on discarded tapes, but it explains other non-Queen tracks floating about at the moment. But I guess it can't be ruled out that tapes exist... Adam. |
| Mr Mercury 09.03.2008 19:02 |
Cheers Adam. Should have thought about that in the first place. DOH!! |
| poopchute 11.03.2008 03:38 |
Here is the link for the article...I highly suspect that this is where the Bohemian Rhap and Killer Queen tracks came from... link |
| Deacon Fan 11.03.2008 18:07 |
I finally got into that bloody newsgroup myself and got the Def Leppard tracks. As helpful as I was with the other files, nobody ever offered me links for those, so I guess I will continue that tradition and share them with close friends only ;) Seeing the original .nfo files for all of the songs, it seems the poster specifically asked that people not go spreading the news at forums and such, so perhaps we've all blown our chance to get Stone Cold Crazy and anything else they might have laying around. Was fun while it lasted though. |
| AnywayWindBlows 11.03.2008 18:45 |
J7 wrote: I finally got into that bloody newsgroup myself and got the Def Leppard tracks. As helpful as I was with the other files, nobody ever offered me links for those, so I guess I will continue that tradition and share them with close friends only ;)Question, how would we contact you? |
| Deacon Fan 12.03.2008 08:58 |
AnywayWindBlows wrote:That seems like a good point for *here*, however I was mainly referring to my help & requests at that other forum, where they have private messaging ;)J7 wrote: I finally got into that bloody newsgroup myself and got the Def Leppard tracks. As helpful as I was with the other files, nobody ever offered me links for those, so I guess I will continue that tradition and share them with close friends only ;)Question, how would we contact you? But there was in fact a very prominent figure in this whole thing who posts here, who even told me he was uploading them, and then stopped replying. :) |
| JetBeetle 15.06.2008 17:43 |
Man, I so want the Def Leppard tracks but it looks like I missed the boat. Someone ANYONE please email me! I'll be your servant |
| YourValentine 01.07.2008 09:28 |
Again: Please do not post any multi tracks here. EMI will hunt down any source they can find, so please do not post any links to multitracks by Queen or any other band on this board. |
| poopchute 01.12.2011 15:27 |
really? I dont remember Brian May contacting me...[img=/images/smiley/msn/shades_smile.gif][/img] |