| Queen Archivist 19.05.2008 19:49 |
Dear all the lovely QZ-ers. And the gits too (mustn't forget them)... I note with more than a little intrigue, and bewilderment (I suppose you'd call it) this comment on my recent THE LAST TIME thread... "Alex dear, if you compare the lack of Queen products to other artists, please try to find an artist who has made LESS of an effort." I have seen comments of this nature before on QZ, and it always baffles me. Why? Well, because, in no particular order... 1. Myself and VERY MANY other Queen fans have been collecting Queen 'product' for 30 years or more, yes THIRTY YEARS, three entire decades, and STILL we do not have all there is, nor even close to it. Because there is SO MUCH to find. It's never ending. 2. My sitting room and office at home is FILLED with Queen CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs, books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges, videos, cassettes, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, BUT STILL there is never enough room, so I've also filled my attic and garage area. 3. Like many other fans/collectors I know, having now filled my own home with Queen 'stuff', I've recently lumbered my mum with copious boxes to store for me. 4. In the book i am currently working on... Queen memorabilia, we have in excess of 430 different projects to cover, with more and more and more coming to our attention all the time. 12 entire pages on the NOTW album 'might' just be enough if we cram it all in... the 400 items we have to show JUST for that one album... one album of approx 80 that need to be represented. This gives you a hint of the sheer scale of this thing. 5. We hoped to cover everything in 320 pages, but this week I realise it cannot be done in less than 360... not PROPERLY anyway. So VASTLY VAST is the collection we're trying to illustrate. 6. Other than the BEATLES, I have never seen such a mammoth and gigantic array of 'product' all pertaining to one artist, as I know to exist in the Queen world. 7. It is my estimation that there are between 7-9,000 Queen 'products' that 'could' in theory feature in the aforementioned book. I certainly have photos pertaining to over 7,000 different items. 3-4,000 I downloaded from the net over the past decade... which you too, Tero, can see if you go looking. 8. So, when you say, "please try to find an artist who has made LESS of an effort" I am incredulous, because it is my considered opinion that EVERY SINGLE ARTIST on planet Earth, except the Beatles (and probably Elvis, Abba, Rolling Stones, Bowie, Dylan and a couple of others) has actually done exactly that, Tero.... several million artists past and present have ALL "made LESS of an effort." It is nearly impossible to make MORE effort than Queen, in fact. 9. I know several people whose collections of Queen stuff has cost them tens of thousands of pounds, possibly over 100 grand (in UK lolly)... tons of stuff everywhere you look. Moreover, their collecting of thousand of items has cost them their marriage or house. Such stories are not uncommon. I therefore conclude that this comment (and others like it)... "Alex dear, if you compare the lack of Queen products to other artists, please try to find an artist who has made LESS of an effort." is TOTALLY and COMPREHENSIVELY without foundation or sense, or fore-thought. It is completely ludicrous and ill-considered on all levels and is the opinion of a person that evidently knows nothing about the massive depth of product to have emerged in the name of Queen since 1971. Tero, my dear.... stop being so very very silly and ill-informed. Look at all the Queen sites, especially Queenconcerts.com and Queenmuseum, and see how voluminous and varied the MASS of Queen releases is, and also realise that Queen has relea |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 19.05.2008 20:43 |
Queen Archivist wrote: ... 3. Like many other fans/collectors I know, having now filled my own home with Queen 'stuff', I've recently lumbered my mum with copious boxes to store for me. ...LOL, same here, Greg. Poor old ladies... :) Cheers, Ogre- |
| Yara 19.05.2008 21:08 |
I totally, completely, absolutely agree. Though I'd only add that, apart from the official releases, which I didn't get enough of yet, by no means, I enjoy listening to the concerts and albums with care and relaxed, there's also a huge unofficial high-quality archive build by dedicated fans which is a great witness to the fans' respect and love for the band and their committment at preserving the band's history and going out of their way to make this all available in the best possible quality. So, I think that we have tons of Queen material, official and unofficial, and I THANK YOU ALL, GREG AND ALSO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE - Tapers, collectors, people who study Queen's history and music and dedicate their time to dragging people into Queen's music - WHO HAVE BEEN DOING SUCH A GREAT WORK. LOVE YOU QUEENZONERS! THANKS GREG! Love you Briiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! lol |
| Yara 19.05.2008 23:45 |
AH, and I still think that Hammersmith Odeon '79 is the greatest Queen concert ever! :-)) Though I know it's beyond repair and it wouldn't be a good DVD release. And, of course, we all have already watched it and listened to it. So my point is: there's already a lot of Queen material out there, official and unofficial, in great quality! Thank you all. Greg and Queenzoners. |
| inu-liger 20.05.2008 02:41 |
-Nevermind- |
| cmi 20.05.2008 02:49 |
Greg, One year ago, when we discussed content of Queen Live archive, You have promised 70's live concert on DVD will be released this spring. Does anything from Queen (not Q+PR) will be released this year? |
| Holly2003 20.05.2008 02:55 |
I need a Queen 'We Will Rock You - The Musical" waistcoat for my chimpanzeee. How long am I going to have to wait for this QueenProductions? |
| john bodega 20.05.2008 03:00 |
Queen Archivist wrote: 2. My sitting room and office at home is FILLED with Queen CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs, books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges, videos, cassettes, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, BUT STILL there is never enough room, so I've also filled my attic and garage area.Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? |
| Fenderek 20.05.2008 03:30 |
This is a thing Greg- not everybody is intrested in memorabilia, robots, pens, toothbrushes and stuff like that. It's not even about vinyls- which OI collect myself. But this is a stuff that has been released BEFORE- nad it costs more and more and more... I think the discussion yoo are reffering to was about NEW releases- or the fact that we seem to get more "re-releases" than anything new. Bonuses on Montreal DVD were supposed to be FANTASTIC- so good we didn't get Saturday Night Show... In the end it turned ouit to be Live Aid- sth most of us already had, forking out quite few pounds when it was released as the whole thing- Live Aid triple DVD... Anniversary ANATO? Montreal yet again? No sight of Box Sets? In terms of demos Queen is probably the LEAST represented band out there- most artists add their demos and rare edits to album re-issues... we got some crappy mixes with Hollywood Records re-issues (apart from 1 or 2 gems). And so on and so on... BBB sessions... gigs from 70s... you DO know the list Greg- it's probably the stuff YOU would love them to release too. And that's what this discussion was all about- about making an effort with NEW releases... I also have boxes and boxes of vinyls- but that's an absolutely different subject... You will see probably 1,700-1,800 Queen items in the book I'm working on, and believe me that is NOT all of it... it's only the best of the best; the tip of the iceberg when you consider that's probably only a quarter or a fifth of it. But most of us were talking about MUSIC- to be perfectly honest for MUSIC FANS that's really the thing that matters... |
| Queenman!! 20.05.2008 04:15 |
Greg.. I like your idea of making and publishing a book about Queen memorabilia. Now my main question; Will there be a list of recordings that are in the archive on tape? So audio and videomasters? |
| Freddie May 20.05.2008 05:43 |
Greg, you must be joking : 7000-9000 "queen" products, ok, but how many WORTHWILE products (no queen mousepad or clock that no-one cares about)? I'm sure queenzoners complain about the lack of original queen releases (in the musical sense) : ok we've got some live cd's and dvd's recently but still nothing from the seventies : how do you explain that ? |
| on my way up 20.05.2008 06:41 |
The memorablia book is great and I will buy it because it is interesting to see all that stuff. So, well done! BUT, with new releases we mean a release of Queen live in the seventies(or several for that matter), a box set from the BBC session, a box(or several for that matter) with unreleased stuff(freddie's box was indeed FANTASTIC, and freddie did relatively little outside Queen so a Queen box should be even better). When I'm at my local shop I see boxes from Springsteen(several), Dylan, Michael Jackson, The Who, the Police,...(all major artists except Queen) Greg, in your book you write several Crazy tour shows were recorded. We all know Freddie's voice was in the best shape ever during that tour. Why not make a great 1979 release with one of those shows and lots of other stuff from Live Killers tour(would be an awesome set). |
| cmsdrums 20.05.2008 08:28 |
Fenderek wrote: This is a thing Greg- not everybody is intrested in memorabilia, robots, pens, toothbrushes and stuff like that. It's not even about vinyls- which OI collect myself. But this is a stuff that has been released BEFORE- nad it costs more and more and more... I think the discussion yoo are reffering to was about NEW releases- or the fact that we seem to get more "re-releases" than anything new. Bonuses on Montreal DVD were supposed to be FANTASTIC- so good we didn't get Saturday Night Show... In the end it turned ouit to be Live Aid- sth most of us already had, forking out quite few pounds when it was released as the whole thing- Live Aid triple DVD... Anniversary ANATO? Montreal yet again? No sight of Box Sets? In terms of demos Queen is probably the LEAST represented band out there- most artists add their demos and rare edits to album re-issues... we got some crappy mixes with Hollywood Records re-issues (apart from 1 or 2 gems). And so on and so on... BBB sessions... gigs from 70s... you DO know the list Greg- it's probably the stuff YOU would love them to release too. And that's what this discussion was all about- about making an effort with NEW releases... I also have boxes and boxes of vinyls- but that's an absolutely different subject... You will see probably 1,700-1,800 Queen items in the book I'm working on, and believe me that is NOT all of it... it's only the best of the best; the tip of the iceberg when you consider that's probably only a quarter or a fifth of it.But most of us were talking about MUSIC- to be perfectly honest for MUSIC FANS that's really the thing that matters... Absolutely agree - the main reference to 'product' is the MUSIC, not phone cards, beer mats, badges etc... It is simply frustrating to know that there are demos, unreleased tracks, live gigs etc.. in the archives that may never see the light of day. It is simply fact (not an unsubstantiated attack on QPL for no reason)that many 'lesser' artists have released far more interesting, rare, better presented rare stuff than Queen have. :( |
| Serry... 20.05.2008 10:53 |
Release of 'something from 70s' is a long-time idée fixe of almost all Queen fans though they probably have heard most of their recorded gigs from that era (or at least the most significant ones). You all awating for bonus stuff on Disk 2. |
| pittrek 20.05.2008 11:16 |
I don't give a f**k about bullsh*t like "memorabilia" : books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges,- Queen are / were a ROCK BAND ! Which means that we expect MUSIC. CDs, DVDs, even LPs or Blue-Rays. Is it THAT hard to understand ? Queen productions have really wonderful collection of live videos - why are they hiding them instead of releasing them and making money of them ? I see absolutely NO logic in this. The last at least interesting Queen product was Queen Rocks (I'm not talking about Freddie's box, it's good but it's not Queen). Another at least slightly interesting release was Milton Keynes DVD, but that's all. When will we finally get the promised singles box set ? When will we finally get the promised demos & rarities box set ? When will we finally see some NEW concert on DVD ? When will we get proper DVD releases of at least Rainbow 74, Hammersmith 75, Hyde Park 76, Earls Court 77, Paris 79, Hammersmith 79, South America 81, Japan 75/82/85 ? When will we get the promised BBC sessions ? The only thing what is QP doing is PROMISING. They (incl. you) promise an interesting product, and it gets either cancelled, or changes into a crap like GH3 or Queen Rock Montreal. THIS is what people are complaining about. And it's weird that somebody has to tell it to the OFFICIAL Queen archivist. Sorry if I'm too harsh Greg but you are the only employee of QP with who we can communicate. I know you're not a part of the decision making process, but PLEASE either tell your boss(es) what the "normal" fans want or don't start topics like this one |
| Micrówave 20.05.2008 12:14 |
Zebonka12 wrote:So Greg must have absolutely pristine oral hygiene.Queen Archivist wrote: 2. My sitting room and office at home is FILLED with Queen CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs, books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges, videos, cassettes, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, BUT STILL there is never enough room, so I've also filled my attic and garage area.Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? What are you planning on doing with all those toothbrushes, Greg? That's what I wanna know. Screw the DVD releases and box sets, how many toothbrushes do you HAVE to have until it's enough? |
| Jjeroen 20.05.2008 12:18 |
What to add? It's true, Greg, when people moan in here about this. We don't want new PRODUCT! As you say yourself, there is PRODUCT enough!! We want new MUSIC!! (as a part of that product) And despite of a lot of new PRODUCT Queen released over the past years, there was barely ANY new MUSIC. Though, yes, I do agree that some of the recent DVD's included one or two nice things that we (even the avid video collector) had not seen before. And to be honest... also in relation to those convention-recordings of your sessions; The most new MUSIC we heard for the past years has been 'delivered' by bootleggers. If we all thought or knew that there was nothing left in the vaults, I guess we would be more fine with the situation. But when you play those tracks at conventions, it tells people what great stuff is still out there. We are being 'told' that there are great volumes of great unheard gems in the vaults or out there. Of course people get more hungry then! It's like showing people a juicy steak. You even let us smell the lucious smell of the steak. Are you surprised that we all want to BITE?! With all respect, cheers |
| coops 20.05.2008 12:18 |
I patch up sick people in an ER, so know next to nothing about the work and costs invilved in putting an album together. What I don't understand is, Queen (and all bands I guess) have a lot of material that will never see the light of day. The rest will, but will be slowly released over a long period of time. Why not make the never to be released material available as downloads, that can be purchased. Hell, I would pay the going cd rate for a good version of say, Hyde Park. I know that some people will distrubute this illegaly once available, but that happens anyway. Most hard core fans will buy it. |
| inu-liger 20.05.2008 12:49 |
Sorry Greg, but I'll have to side with the chaps here on this one. Queen to me is about the music and the videos that go with it sometimes. I really could care less about memorabilia unless it's autographed by one of the Queen guys (closest I have atm is my misprinted ROTC CD booklet autographed by Paul Rodgers :) ) I'm really getting tired of all these broken promises and double standards regarding supposed upcoming Queen releases. Brian himself said that the extras on QRM were going to be "very exciting". What did we get? Live Aid...... ....um, right. It was convenient for me anyways, cos I couldn't be arsed to shell out over $40 for the Live Aid boxset just for Queen, but that wouldn't be the case for a lot of other Queen fans. Don't take this as criticism on your part, Greg. It's just Queen Productions in general, as well as Brian, who are really failing and cheaping out us true fans. Nearly everything Queen in the last few years has become a joke. |
| thunderbolt 31742 20.05.2008 12:50 |
Greg, this has kind of been said already, but I suspect the reason some QZ'ers are becoming hostile is that we finally got word of a new Queen live release, got all worked up about it...and then found out it was another Montreal '81. Word broke that another Queen product was headed to DVD soon...and it's looking like it'll be Budapest. Meanwhile, great '70s gigs like Houston, the Rainbow, Earl's Court, and Hammy '75 and '79 sit in the archives. If the story about Hammy '79 suffering from an acute case of missing multitracks are true, I can see why that one hasn't made it out yet (although that's the one I'd most like to ses released, honestly). Earl's Court, ok, microphone problems. But why not put Rainbow and Hammy '75 together in a two-disc "Early Queen" set? Is there a concern that anything released without Crazy Little Thing, WWRY, WATC, and the full Bo Rhap would sink? Not an attack, just a question. Maybe there's a concern on the band's part that a hugely significant '70s release might draw attention away from the upcoming Q+PR album. If so, that's also understandable, but be aware that the longer you wait to put out new videos, live CDs, and the rumored box sets, the more disenchanted some fans will become. I'm not one of those. I've only been a fan for about three years now, and I've barely scratched the surface. I'll stick around through a few more re-releases because they're new to me. Others, however, may not be so understanding. I think that's the root of their problem, honestly, is the fact that we know what's in your video locker, we know there's a boatload of stuff in your audio locker, and re-releases in anticipation of the new album are all you can muster? |
| The Real Wizard 20.05.2008 12:58 |
inu-liger wrote: stuffCould you please check your QZ email? |
| Darren1977 20.05.2008 13:35 |
Pittrek, you are spot on mate. Greg will not answer your questions because he probably does not know the answers. If the band were interested in their fans they would be sending out archive release updates and what projects they are working on etc., but no we have the new tour/album/dvd/tootbrush maybe to look forward to. I guess a book of all those different Queen releated items would be nice, but i would prefer if the band concentrated their energies on concert dvd's and the elusive box sets which are going on as long as the Chinese Democracy album. I have been a fan of the band for over 20 years and i have collected a huge number of singles/lps/ etc., but i would love to hear and watch the unreleased stuff and a lot of the concerts from the seventies. I guess most of us will have to rely on Youtube and Dave R Fullers page for more rare tracks. Fair enough they would probably need a huge team of people to work on all the proposed ideas they have, but if they could only let us know what they intend to release next, would be great. |
| Fenderek 20.05.2008 13:46 |
To put it simply- we don't care about toothbrushes, mirrors and all this stuff. Some people do- but most of us are not fans of dental hygiene or ways of attaching crappy children drawings to the fridge but of ROCK MUSIC. We're talking about PRODUCT- and we mean NEW music. Simple as that. We haven't got one truly exciting, incredible release in few years now. The problem is- the longer it takes- the higher people's expectations become. With every Montreal / Anniversary ANATO etc it is going to become even more difficult for band to satisfy the hard core fanbase- simply because we have to wait REALLY long time to get sth absolutely exciting, something new... But than again- do tehy REALLY care about the hard core fanbase? Seriously, do they? Not that they have to- absolutely not! But than no-one should be surprised that bootlegs are THAT popular... we can hear a demo or an unreleased gig- or buy a toothbrush. I mean really- what do you think most of us will chose? |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:13 |
Fenderek.... my comments are in CAP LETTERS... I THINK YOU MAKE A FAIR POINT, BUT IT'S RATHER UNFAIR, AND ACTUALLY, NOT ACCURATE. THIS I SAY BECAUSE I THINK I HAVE 30 OR 40 NEW PRODUCTS HERE FROM THE PAST 2 YEARS, FROM USA, UK, EUROPE, JAPAN (ESPECIALLY)....AND IT'S ALL MUSIC. CDS MOSTLY. PLUS SOME DVDS AND VINYL BOXES FOR ON FIRE AT BOWL, AND MONTREAL... DID YOU NOT GET THEM??!! This is a thing Greg- not everybody is intrested in memorabilia, robots, pens, toothbrushes and stuff like that. AS YOU CAN SEE IN MY ORIGINAL POINT, I ALSO STATE... AND I QUOTE MYSELF BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO HAVE IGNORED IT... "My sitting room and office at home is FILLED with Queen CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs," IN MY MIND, FENDEREK, "CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs" ARE MUSIC. YOU'RE NOT MAKING SENSE. MOST OF MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT QUEEN PUT OUT FAR FAR MORE MUSIC BASED PRODUCT THAN NEARLY EVERY OTHER ARTIST IN THE WORLD. AND IT'S TRUE, THEY DO. I WASN'T MEANING TOOTH BRUSHES AND PENS AND BADGES BY THAT... AS I WROTE. It's not even about vinyls- which OI collect myself. But this is a stuff that has been released BEFORE- nad it costs more and more and more... I think the discussion yoo are reffering to was about NEW releases- or the fact that we seem to get more "re-releases" than anything new. Bonuses on Montreal DVD were supposed to be FANTASTIC- so good we didn't get Saturday Night Show... In the end it turned ouit to be Live Aid- sth most of us already had, forking out quite few pounds when it was released as the whole thing- Live Aid triple DVD... Anniversary ANATO? Montreal yet again? No sight of Box Sets? In terms of demos Queen is probably the LEAST represented band out there- most artists add their demos and rare edits to album re-issues... we got some crappy mixes with Hollywood Records re-issues (apart from 1 or 2 gems). And so on and so on... BBB sessions... gigs from 70s... you DO know the list Greg- it's probably the stuff YOU would love them to release too. And that's what this discussion was all about- about making an effort with NEW releases... I also have boxes and boxes of vinyls- but that's an absolutely different subject... I HEAR YOU ON THIS. I DO. I AGREE TO A POINT. BUT YOU'RE MAKING A SEPARATE POINT HERE CHUMMY PAL FRIEND MATE. SCRUTINIZING THE CONTENT OF WHAT GETS RELEASED IS ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER. ALL I WAS REACTING TO WAS THE SUGGESTION THAT EVERY OTHER ARTIST PUTS OUT MORE PRODUCT THAN QUEEN, WHEN CLEARLY THATS COMPLETELY UNTRUE. WHETHER YOU/ME/HIM/HER LIKES THE PRODUCT OR NOT, OR IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, WAS NOT MY POINT. IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT QUEEN HAVE PUT OUT A VAST WEALTH OF PRODUCT. You will see probably 1,700-1,800 Queen items in the book I'm working on, and believe me that is NOT all of it... it's only the best of the best; the tip of the iceberg when you consider that's probably only a quarter or a fifth of it. But most of us were talking about MUSIC- to be perfectly honest for MUSIC FANS that's really the thing that matters... WITH RESPECT, YOU SHOULD HAVE READ MY POINT MORE CLOSELY. I REPEAT, IN MY BOOK, FENDEREK, "CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs" IS MUSIC AND IS NOT PENS OR BADGES OR DENTAL APPLIANCES. |
| pittrek 20.05.2008 15:19 |
Yes Greg, you're right, you listed ALSO music - but re-prints, remasters, new compilations etc. aren't really exciting for most of the people here |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:22 |
Zebonka12 said... Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? GB: NOT YOU, ZEBONKA, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A QUEEN FAN. BUT REAL QUEEN FANS LOVE THIS STUFF - BECAUSE THEY LOVE QUEEN... THAT'S HOW THEY CAME TO BE ON THIS SITE WITH THEIR COMMON INTEREST. YOU ARE STILL A DICK-HEAD I'M AFRAID. BUT DO NOT LOSE HEART, WE'RE NONE OF US PERFECT. |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:24 |
Queenman!! wrote: Greg.. I like your idea of making and publishing a book about Queen memorabilia. Now my main question; Will there be a list of recordings that are in the archive on tape? So audio and videomasters?No there won't, because such a thing has nothing to do with this book. This is purely memorabilia not Queen In The Studio. |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:26 |
Serry... wrote: Release of 'something from 70s' is a long-time idée fixe of almost all Queen fans though they probably have heard most of their recorded gigs from that era (or at least the most significant ones). You all awating for bonus stuff on Disk 2.We did seriously consider a long time idée fixe, but none of us knew what it was, so we went home instead! Was that wrong? |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:30 |
pittrek wrote: I don't give a f**k about bullsh*t like "memorabilia" :Sorry, but this is excessively and whole-heartedly boring. Would anyone else bother to reply to this??? And it's not exactly a friendly tone, is it Mrs Pittrek!!!!!books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges,- Queen are / were a ROCK BAND ! Which means that we expect MUSIC. CDs, DVDs, even LPs or Blue-Rays. Is it THAT hard to understand ? Queen productions have really wonderful collection of live videos - why are they hiding them instead of releasing them and making money of them ? I see absolutely NO logic in this. The last at least interesting Queen product was Queen Rocks (I'm not talking about Freddie's box, it's good but it's not Queen). Another at least slightly interesting release was Milton Keynes DVD, but that's all. When will we finally get the promised singles box set ? When will we finally get the promised demos & rarities box set ? When will we finally see some NEW concert on DVD ? When will we get proper DVD releases of at least Rainbow 74, Hammersmith 75, Hyde Park 76, Earls Court 77, Paris 79, Hammersmith 79, South America 81, Japan 75/82/85 ? When will we get the promised BBC sessions ? The only thing what is QP doing is PROMISING. They (incl. you) promise an interesting product, and it gets either cancelled, or changes into a crap like GH3 or Queen Rock Montreal. THIS is what people are complaining about. And it's weird that somebody has to tell it to the OFFICIAL Queen archivist. Sorry if I'm too harsh Greg but you are the only employee of QP with who we can communicate. I know you're not a part of the decision making process, but PLEASE either tell your boss(es) what the "normal" fans want or don't start topics like this one |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:33 |
coops wrote: I patch up sick people in an ER, so know next to nothing about the work and costs invilved in putting an album together. What I don't understand is, Queen (and all bands I guess) have a lot of material that will never see the light of day. The rest will, but will be slowly released over a long period of time. Why not make the never to be released material available as downloads, that can be purchased. Hell, I would pay the going cd rate for a good version of say, Hyde Park. I know that some people will distrubute this illegaly once available, but that happens anyway. Most hard core fans will buy it.Dear Coops. I have just fallen over in the garden and cut my hand open. It's an ugly scene (no nasty jokes please). Can you help me please? There is much blood! |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:35 |
Micrówave wrote:This is rude and filthy talk.Zebonka12 wrote:So Greg must have absolutely pristine oral hygiene. What are you planning on doing with all those toothbrushes, Greg? That's what I wanna know. Screw the DVD releases and box sets, how many toothbrushes do you HAVE to have until it's enough?Queen Archivist wrote: 2. My sitting room and office at home is FILLED with Queen CDs, LPs, 7" and 12" singles, CDs, books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges, videos, cassettes, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, BUT STILL there is never enough room, so I've also filled my attic and garage area.Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:36 |
Sir GHI take it you mean my queen_archives email????? Is there an email aspect to QZ?? |
| pittrek 20.05.2008 15:39 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Sorry, but this is excessively and whole-heartedly boring. Would anyone else bother to reply to this??? And it's not exactly a friendly tone, is it Mrs Pittrek!!!!!1) I'm still a mr., I wasn't on the operation yet :-) 2) Boring ? Maybe. But what makes you think I was expecting an answer ? It was a simple message - most of the fans want new music, audio or video, simply something they haven't heard or seen yet. 3) Friendly tone - sorry if you feel it that way. Please read my last line again - my complaints were not directed to your person, but to your employers |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:42 |
DARREN1977 wrote: Pittrek, you are spot on mate. Greg will not answer your questions because he probably does not know the answers. If the band were interested in their fans they would be sending out archive release updates and what projects they are working on etc., but no we have the new tour/album/dvd/tootbrush maybe to look forward to. I guess a book of all those different Queen releated items would be nice, but i would prefer if the band concentrated their energies on concert dvd's and the elusive box sets which are going on as long as the Chinese Democracy album. I have been a fan of the band for over 20 years and i have collected a huge number of singles/lps/ etc., but i would love to hear and watch the unreleased stuff and a lot of the concerts from the seventies. I guess most of us will have to rely on Youtube and Dave R Fullers page for more rare tracks. Fair enough they would probably need a huge team of people to work on all the proposed ideas they have, but if they could only let us know what they intend to release next, would be great.DARREN1977, I have clashed with you before. You are just a confrontational person looking for an argument. You have little Queen knowledge and an annoying way about you, which I know has irritated OTHER QZ-ers too... who also find you boring and tedious. You would agree with anyone, if it meant disagreeing with me. You'd tell Osama Bin Laden he was "spot on" too, because you can't think for yourself. You must be be so very dull in life. "If the band were interested in their fans".......... So VERY boring and tedious, and childish, as you always are. "I guess a book of all those different Queen releated items would be nice, but i would prefer if the band concentrated their energies on"......... so UTTERLY predictable in every respect, Darren, as usual. DO YOUR OWN THINKING. SOMETHING ORIGINAL PLEASE. Can you do 'original'? Jesus, you're tedious!! |
| Queen Archivist 20.05.2008 15:51 |
ThunderboltWell said Thunderbolt. You might be new to Queen, but you speak more sense than a lot of the turkeys on here - like Darren1977 and Pittrek, who would pick and criticise and moan and winge and bore us all to death even if they both won £8,000,000 on the lottery. Pittrek: "Oh no, it's all in £50 bills. I need it in Euros. They should have put the money in blue boxes, not red boxes. I don't like red boxes, I only like blue ones, bla bla bla...." Darren1977: "The lottery people should have used old notes from the archive, to make me a multi millionaire, but they used new notes, and I don't have enough room to put it all. What do they expect me to do with all that money??? bla bla bla........" |
| pittrek 20.05.2008 15:58 |
Greg, you must be really bored, but you're funny :) |
| Negative Creep 20.05.2008 15:58 |
If you look in any UK record shop, it appears there is a lack of Queen product - in print. Music wise - all there is is the back catalogue that hasn't been updated since 1994 and the 2 recent live albums. And instead of a a massive boxset, which would seem to be more about packaging than music, wouldn't it be better to re-release the albums with a bonus disc each of bonus material? Is creating new stereo mixes of all the albums (like The Doors have recently done) so they sound as good as possible on CD a possibility? |
| Wiley 20.05.2008 16:36 |
Hi Greg, hope you are doing all right. Just my 2 cents and a question here. First of all, I am with the vast majority that would like new live Audio/Video releases from the 70's. A scary thought went into my head some time ago. With the band wanting to release their live videos with the best audio/video quality possible (which is great), I imagine they would prefer to re-release gigs like Montreal or Budapest on BluRay or whatever new format comes before releasing other concerts. This scares me because this means concerts like Earl's Court 77 and Hammersmith 79 will NEVER be released because the recording quality is less than perfect. Also, I am interested in knowing if you have worked on a live 70's set for Queen that has been shelved. If that's the case, which era? Without breaking your confidentiality clauses, can you provide some insight (vague references) into other projects you would like to push ahead or do you usually just compile specifically what they ask you to for future releases? Sorry if this is a bit confusing. Your response will be greatly appreciated. |
| Micrówave 20.05.2008 17:15 |
Queen Archivist wrote:No, good sir, you simply avoided the question/point, just as you have with this thread that you start.Micrówave wrote: What are you planning on doing with all those toothbrushes, Greg?This is rude and filthy talk. You say there's all kinds of QUEEN PRODUCT out there, so much that you can't have it all! (Where would you put it? -Steven Wright) Who Wants It All? Yes, Freddie, but certainly not me. In fact, if you took a poll of queenzoners as to what they would rather have: A) A new vinyl release called "Best Shots - 15 Golden Greats" featuring album releases B) A 10" John Deacon action figure with 3 different basses. C) A French CD Single of Seaside Rendezvous D) Budapest DVD I think MOST would take D. Most likely to select "A": Greg Brooks, Brian May, Sir GH, etc. Most likely to select "B": Zebonka. And then he'd quickly desicrate it. Most likely to select "C": Treasure Moment, Andreas_Mercury, Flopamajawee... proving once again, you can't trust the French. We want something, ummm, NEW? I bought Montreal for Live Aid. I'd rather sit thru 90 minutes of We Will Recycle You than the entire 4CD box set. |
| The Real Wizard 20.05.2008 17:49 |
Micrówave wrote: Most likely to select "A": Greg Brooks, Brian May, Sir GH, etc.Elite grouping you've put me in there... I'm flattered. But put me down for one of D, please. |
| Penetration_Guru 20.05.2008 17:55 |
Since we're all sodding off on tangents and cherry picking parts of each others posts to reply to.... Can I say that I'm looking forward to this book, and hope that consideration is given to an edition with a CD/DVD of further (zoomable) images, as this really will be the one chance to see some of this stuff. |
| dsmeer 20.05.2008 17:57 |
Hi Greg & Queen Fans, I've mentioned this before but everyone just ignored it or manybe thought that I was/am very stupid: THERE is a band which does really a great deal for their fans 1. Making downloads avaiable through a website; some concerts are for free and some you have to pay for. Not only from the recent tours but also from the older tours (1980s) 2. They also offer FAN-CLUBMEMBERS every few years to buy a concert DVD (or VHS a few years ago). THIS band is not QUEEN (I guess you are not supprised) , but it is METALLICA. OFCOURSE QUEEEN IS A BUSINESS but it would be nice to give something to real FANS, it doesn't have to be for free. And YES Queen fans have been promised great things over the last 16 years, but making more and more money is more important then pleasing the fans that already have spend a lot of their hard earned money on Queen stuff. And for something else; why mention that someone is a bad trader/seller of queen stuff and say that you should not buy anything from that guy (not me btw) an d buy part of his collection when he is selling it? But after all Greg YOU are not to blame your just do "something with the archive". Let's just forget about the RARE box sets and be happy what is available. |
| inu-liger 20.05.2008 21:25 |
Queen Archivist wrote:Greg, he meant me. Not you.Sir GHI take it you mean my queen_archives email????? Is there an email aspect to QZ?? Chillax :) |
| Erin 20.05.2008 21:59 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Can I say that I'm looking forward to this book, and hope that consideration is given to an edition with a CD/DVD of further (zoomable) images, as this really will be the one chance to see some of this stuff.Yeah, I'm really looking forward to it, as well. The memorabilia has always been of interest to me. And no, I don't own the toothbrush, people. |
| Charlie Brown 20.05.2008 23:50 |
Speaking of new Queen product. Yesterday on i Tunes a new album was released titled A Kind Of Magic: Queen Tribute by The Studio Sound Ensemble. I don't know if its any good but it is a new Queen related product. |
| Serry... 21.05.2008 00:26 |
Queen Archivist wrote: We did seriously consider a long time idée fixe, but none of us knew what it was, so we went home instead! Was that wrong?'An idea that dominates the mind; a fixed idea; an obsession' = release of something from the 70s which won't satisfy Queen fans anyway, IMHO. |
| Fenderek 21.05.2008 03:19 |
Erin wrote: And no, I don't own the toothbrush, people.That's bad for your teeth, Erin... ;) |
| Jamaleni 21.05.2008 03:25 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Zebonka12 said... Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? GB: NOT YOU, ZEBONKA, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A QUEEN FAN. BUT REAL QUEEN FANS LOVE THIS STUFF - BECAUSE THEY LOVE QUEEN... THAT'S HOW THEY CAME TO BE ON THIS SITE WITH THEIR COMMON INTEREST. YOU ARE STILL A DICK-HEAD I'M AFRAID. BUT DO NOT LOSE HEART, WE'RE NONE OF US PERFECT.Well, now I really don't know what to say.... I suppose that I didn't understand you correctly, because what I understand is that you think that all people who doesn't care about tootbrushes, and similar products aren't a real Queen fans? Well if that's the case, then I'm not a Queen fan, and really don't know why I spend so much money on all those CD and DVDs that I bought.... And to say a thing that many other says, release a DVDs with concerts from 70's, and for God's sake, give us a GVH3 so that we can have a complete collection of videos.... |
| Roger's Beard 21.05.2008 04:23 |
Jjeroen wrote: It's like showing people a juicy steak. You even let us smell the lucious smell of the steak. Are you surprised that we all want to BITE?!A Bite? A BITE?? I want the entire flippin' cow!!! |
| Bad Seed 21.05.2008 07:44 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Zebonka12 said... Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? GB: NOT YOU, ZEBONKA, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A QUEEN FAN. BUT REAL QUEEN FANS LOVE THIS STUFF - BECAUSE THEY LOVE QUEEN... THAT'S HOW THEY CAME TO BE ON THIS SITE WITH THEIR COMMON INTEREST. YOU ARE STILL A DICK-HEAD I'M AFRAID. BUT DO NOT LOSE HEART, WE'RE NONE OF US PERFECT.I cant actually believe what I've just read! I think I am now beginning to understand whats been happening with QP over the last 10 years or so. |
| cmsdrums 21.05.2008 08:22 |
Greg- it's a shame that you refer to the wealth of Queen music released in the form of 7", 12" singles and LPs. We KNOW this; we have all these too, but in the huge majority we're talking 20 - 30 years ago that these came out!!! With the exception of the live LPs (2 or three over the last few years to complement the DVD and CD releases), the singles are OLD releases, but you talk as if these are exciting new stuff still coming out. I think the point from this is that it is the CONTENT that people are moaning about, not specifically the format or volume of copies available - I could go out tomorrow and buy 500 copies of the new new WWRY/WATC foreign single release and then say that I've got loads of new Queen single releases, but it doesn't really compete with a CD of demos, a 70's DVD release etc...does it? I KNOW that you don't have the say in what comes out, but hopefully you can see our point and that you won't keep arguing so adamantly that there is plenty of 'new' releases when it's all of old material just being rehashed? Cheers |
| Micrówave 21.05.2008 11:17 |
Sir GH wrote:Heck, I figured you already had All Of The Above!Micrówave wrote: Most likely to select "A": Greg Brooks, Brian May, Sir GH, etc.Elite grouping you've put me in there... I'm flattered. But put me down for one of D, please. |
| Queen Archivist 21.05.2008 17:15 |
cmsdrums wrote: Greg- it's a shame that you refer to the wealth of Queen music released in the form of 7", 12" singles and LPs. We KNOW this; we have all these too, but in the huge majority we're talking 20 - 30 years ago that these came out!!! With the exception of the live LPs (2 or three over the last few years to complement the DVD and CD releases), the singles are OLD releases, but you talk as if these are exciting new stuff still coming out. I think the point from this is that it is the CONTENT that people are moaning about, not specifically the format or volume of copies available - I could go out tomorrow and buy 500 copies of the new new WWRY/WATC foreign single release and then say that I've got loads of new Queen single releases, but it doesn't really compete with a CD of demos, a 70's DVD release etc...does it? I KNOW that you don't have the say in what comes out, but hopefully you can see our point and that you won't keep arguing so adamantly that there is plenty of 'new' releases when it's all of old material just being rehashed? CheersYou could NOT have missed the point MORE if you tried. What you said has nothing to do with my main points. You think that I think 25 copies of the SAME product equates to LOTS of new Queen product. That is as wrong as it's possible to be. Read my initial posting again, carefully, properly, and hopefully you'll realise that what you have stated misses the point completely. Did you do that deliberately?! |
| Queen Archivist 21.05.2008 17:16 |
Jamaleni wrote:That is correct; you DID NOT understand me.Queen Archivist wrote: Zebonka12 said... Isn't it all re-releases and compilations and toothbrushes, though? Who would want all of that crap? GB: NOT YOU, ZEBONKA, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A QUEEN FAN. BUT REAL QUEEN FANS LOVE THIS STUFF - BECAUSE THEY LOVE QUEEN... THAT'S HOW THEY CAME TO BE ON THIS SITE WITH THEIR COMMON INTEREST. YOU ARE STILL A DICK-HEAD I'M AFRAID. BUT DO NOT LOSE HEART, WE'RE NONE OF US PERFECT.Well, now I really don't know what to say.... I suppose that I didn't understand you correctly, because what I understand is that you think that all people who doesn't care about tootbrushes, and similar products aren't a real Queen fans? Well if that's the case, then I'm not a Queen fan, and really don't know why I spend so much money on all those CD and DVDs that I bought.... And to say a thing that many other says, release a DVDs with concerts from 70's, and for God's sake, give us a GVH3 so that we can have a complete collection of videos.... |
| The Real Wizard 21.05.2008 19:17 |
Micrówave wrote: Heck, I figured you already had All Of The Above!Nah, not at all. The live stuff is what I'm mainly interested in. Queen Archivist wrote: BUT REAL QUEEN FANS LOVE THIS STUFF - BECAUSE THEY LOVE QUEEN... THAT'S HOW THEY CAME TO BE ON THIS SITE WITH THEIR COMMON INTEREST."Real fans" are the ones who date back to the 70s, who saw the band back then, and followed them until the day Freddie died, and beyond - for the music. And for those who are younger, the real fans are people who simply love the music and want to hear new music, even if it's a recording of a 30-year-old concert, regardless of quality. That is what the common interest is in - the music. Most of these people couldn't care less about memorabilia, let alone a catalogue of thousands of pieces of memorabilia, most of which they'll never own themselves. Sure, the book will make some fans happy, but we need to realistically look at the bigger picture. Queen's career as a live band is not well-represented in music stores around the world. There are three superb 80s DVDs from Queen Productions, but the band's first ten years on stage are virtually unknown to the general public - the era that is most important to North American fans of the band, particularly. Let's note that the short career of Jimi Hendrix has produced four DVDs: Monterrey 67, Woodstock 69, Berkeley 70, and Isle of Wight 70 - not to mention five other audio live albums with mostly different material. The Queen vaults surely must contain material in equal or better quality to those Hendrix releases that were mostly recorded in the 60s. And then there is the Zeppelin DVD set, the Genesis boxes, fantastic Springsteen and Yes re-releases, etc. There is very little from Queen in comparison. And finally, the presence of older Queen material on DVD will not diminish curiosity of or slow down the sales of the new QPR record. It will all come down to how well the new record is marketed. |
| luthorn 22.05.2008 01:06 |
Greg, are you suffering from anxiety of some sort, you seem so angry and pugnacious. I recommend pills: prozac is standard, but now they have a new PRODUCT: wellbutrin, no side effects they say, so, yes, you will get an erection. I am with the less PRODCUT more MUSIC side of the argument. I don't really need Queen condoms, I don;t use them, anyway. I want to be like Fred. Back to the MUSIC. I understand that Brian wanted to be an astro-physicyst, so he measures time in billions of years. Well, I won't be here that long. Hence, any chance we can get Queen+Fred MUSIC in the next 20 years or so??? |
| Darren1977 22.05.2008 05:14 |
Little Queen knowledge, you don't know much yourself mate. Because if you had any fucking idea, you would not be slating long time fans and new ones constantly with your fucking know it all and sarcastic comments. As you are so pally with Dr. May and company why don't you get himself to come on this board and answer some questions about when or if we will ever see ANY UNRELEASED TRACKS.Will not happen. I will post what i want on this board, and am entitled to my opinion. Anybdy else would laugh it off, if you read my post i was not slating you personally! |
| gnomo 22.05.2008 05:27 |
luthorn wrote: I am with the less PRODUCT more MUSIC side of the argument.Me too, FWLIW... |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.05.2008 05:39 |
I can't understand Greg coming here and stirring things up to be honest. As he's an employee and not a director of QPL, he has zero say in what gets released. I do understand that as an employee he is certainly not going to go against the company line, which is good sense on his part. But please, Greg, don't patronize us with comments about all the great Queen releases. As you frequent this board enough to have your finger on the pulse on what you call "Moanzone", you know that all but the Stepford fans think that the last 5 to 10 years of Queen product has been shit. Nobody wants another repackaged Greatest Hits album, they want something of substance, which as others have pointed out is something from first album to about NOTW for a live release, or a decent box set. I realize that to Jim Beach, Brian and Roger, Queen fans are now people who know the singles but nothing else in the catalogue, but fuck me, Queen used to be the consummate risk takers. Read Brian's radio interview on his site about Brighton Rock. and how daring it was. THAT was Queen. Opening their potential make or break album with a 2 plus minute guitar solo dead in the middle. Follow up subseuqent albums with operatic, gospel, and waltz tinged singles, then follow that up with the lead track after your biggest commercial album being virtually non-English, and the single having a bicycle bell interlude and having a slew of different time signatures. Queen were artists, and if you liked their music, you were going to have to come after them as they weren't going to court the mainstream. Now they're conservative busineesmen whose every decision is driven by maximum return on minimum investment. It's truly ironic that the musical is devoid for the most part of Queen's greatest musical moments. But then again, who wants to hear White Queen or Long Away when you can heat WWRY or Radio Ga Ga for the millinth time. |
| on my way up 22.05.2008 06:58 |
Sir GHI completely agree with you and Jimi Hendrix is indeed a very good example. Even Jeff Buckley who had only 1 album during his life has better live representation. Live at Olympia is what he considered his best show. Live at sin-e is a fantastic 2 disc set with lots of great and unique stuff and then there's a DVD from chicago and another live album. If you compare that with the seventies output by Queen you'll see it's a huge difference:-). They toured during about 8 years to promote all these seventies albums and all we have is Live Killers. that's not a good representation of Queen in the seventies. And that's truly a pity. Maybe there's not much in the archive from those days but there must be something worthy of a release from the period 73-78. Imagine this: a set with 4 shows from the seventies!(shows that are not available on bootleg). I think many Queen and music fans alike will truly appreciate that. When I go to other fora(with people that are not specifically Queen fans) I always notice that people prefer the earlier stuff and then I want to tell them songs like White man, liar, it's late, if you can't beat them, ogre battle, white queen,... sounded great on stage but there's no product I can advise them to buy( simply because there's nothing available on the market). |
| forever 22.05.2008 07:05 |
I agree that there are lots of great stuff out there. And re-releasing items is ok when you get something extra or different, such as the mini vinyls. I thought that Rock Montreal was good but only because I got it on Bluray, which is great. But there were bits missing which were on the vinyl and cd I also got, so apart from the hd picture and sound, nothing new. Except live aid which wasn't in hd and wasn't even as good a picture quality as the live aid box set. Anyway I will always buy new Queen stuff(not QPR), but we would like some new stuff please, like Greatest Video Hits 3 without Paul Rodgers stuff, and preferrably before I retire in 45 years! Thanks |
| Micrówave 22.05.2008 10:50 |
dsmeer wrote: THIS band is not QUEEN (I guess you are not supprised) , but it is METALLICA.They had maybe 4 really good albums and a "load" of crap the rest of the way. Hardly the same calibur. And Men Without Hats offer a fan club, downloads, etc... so we can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind. |
| Erin 22.05.2008 11:00 |
gnomo wrote:I don't think anyone is on the less music side. ;-) I've given up hoping for 70's releases and archive box sets. If it happens, I will be ecstatic. If it doesn't, I won't lose sleep.luthorn wrote: I am with the less PRODUCT more MUSIC side of the argument.Me too, FWLIW... |
| dsmeer 22.05.2008 11:46 |
Micrówave wrote:It was just to show our friend Greg that there are bands that sell diverent concerts etc.dsmeer wrote: THIS band is not QUEEN (I guess you are not supprised) , but it is METALLICA.They had maybe 4 really good albums and a "load" of crap the rest of the way. Hardly the same calibur. And Men Without Hats offer a fan club, downloads, etc... so we can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind. I never said that Tallica is better then Queen, and every artist makes a crap album during their carreer. BTW nice to discus this topic with Greg, always starting a discussion and then leaving. I'll stop writing now and rush to the local supermarket to get a bottle of the new Queen shapoo |
| luthorn 22.05.2008 12:20 |
DARREN1977 wrote: Little Queen knowledge, you don't know much yourself mate. Because if you had any fucking idea, you would not be slating long time fans and new ones constantly with your fucking know it all and sarcastic comments. As you are so pally with Dr. May and company why don't you get himself to come on this board and answer some questions about when or if we will ever see ANY UNRELEASED TRACKS.Will not happen. I will post what i want on this board, and am entitled to my opinion. Anybdy else would laugh it off, if you read my post i was not slating you personally!Sure, no doubt. I'm not interested in Queen lipstick or a special edition bathrobe. I'm sure the unused condom collection is huge in the PRODUCT section. All I want is more guitar, some vocals and drums. It does not have to be in 5.1 stereo, super, duper, hyper state. I just want to hear it. I was in the 7th heaven when Live at the Bowl came out. More of that music please. However, unlike the universe, my time is finite, so I'd prefer to listen to it all in this life span. I hope Dr. May will understand. He's all about the music, anyway. |
| cmsdrums 22.05.2008 16:26 |
luthorn wrote:DARREN1977 wrote: All I want is more guitar, some vocals and drums.Just to warn you it'll sound a bit crap without bass guitar!! :-) |
| Negative Creep 22.05.2008 17:35 |
forever wrote: Except live aid which wasn't in hd and wasn't even as good a picture quality as the live aid box set.This is because QPL use in-house amateurs who don't actually know what they're doing - namely Justin "Jack of all trades, master of none" Shirley Smith. When they start employing professionals we'll see some quality product. Until then we'll have to put up with muddy sounding mixes and videos that look like they've had the top layer of image scraped off (due to poor attempts at trying to clean up the image) and the aspect ratio ruined. |
| Yara 22.05.2008 19:37 |
I just don't agree with the criticisms of the Rock Montreal release. It was hugely improved. Both on DVD and Blu-Ray. We have a Blu-Ray player here at school, only one though, sadly, that students contributed each one to buy, and we love it. I brought Rock Montreal and, it's serious, people got simply freaked out. People who never enjoyed Queen or didn't know Queen began to really enjoy it because the sheer power of the audio, the quality of the image and the amazing performance are absolutely irresistible. It was a great move by Brian, I guess, releasing this one in such good quality. It's beautiful, beautiful to watch and listen to. There are some Queen fans here now. Just a few, but, hey, that's great! And they had been deeply impressed by the concert. So...I mean, it was a good move. I disagree with people who say that it was "just another re-release of the montreal gig". I mean, the guys did a very good work on it and I did have the previous version and the difference in quality between them is not just significant, it's HUGE, it's another concert alltogether, and it DOES MATTER to youngsters, that's for sure, because we have grown up accostumed to other kind of technology and we expect things like these. And, of course, it's not only youngsters. Long-term Queen fans I know also got very enthusiastic about it, it was a whole new experience for them watching the concert in that quality. Sorry, but people do care about it. They care whether the image is good, the sound is impressive, and so on. They care. I mean, I LOVE HAMMY '79, It's my favorite Queen concert, I wished I had every single info and version of it available out there, and I'd obviouslly find it great if the guys decided to release it. But even though the concert is great, guys, if in the end of the day the sound and video quality are not that sound, it doesn't appeal to young or simply new audiences. I have been learning this throughout the last years with releases by many bands. I think it's absolutely OK to release Hammersmith '79, but I guess that the guys should have in mind that, in doing so, they are appealing to an already well-established Queen fan base. Even so, if it's not improved and the comments are not helpful or interesting, people won't buy it - notice will spread that it's better to stick to the unofficial. So, I'd love to see it released, but just like Rock Montreal: comments throughout - and comments about Hammersmith 79 would be great! - great sound and great image, and so on. Freddie, by the way, is just...yummmmmm....very, I mean, attractive on this concert. [yara fainting...] |
| Tero 23.05.2008 00:09 |
Yara wrote: But even though the concert is great, guys, if in the end of the day the sound and video quality are not that sound, it doesn't appeal to young or simply new audiences.I just have to disagree with this statement. If the content means absolutely nothing in comparison with the picture quality, I might as well agree with Greg and start collecting toothbrushes. People simply don't expect "perfect" picture quality. We don't expect black and white movies to be coloured just to appeal to the youngest audience. We don't expect all the video material from the late 70's / early 80's to be thrown away just because it has a "horrible" picture quality (a la Another One Bites The Dust). The majority of the potential buyers can still remember that there is nothing you can do about it, and have learned to live with it. The majority of potential buyers are still aware of the limitations of the original technology, and can accept them. In 10 years time things will be a lot different, and that's why it would be better to relese the "inferior" material right now. ost importantly, I have to believe that people are still buying music videos for the combination of picture and sound, not just for one or the other the other. Again, that might change with the "I-pod generation", but they won't be the target audience for another ten or twenty years! |
| john bodega 23.05.2008 02:07 |
Just finished watching the Beatles Anthology. 5 DVDs. What is it, 10 hours, 11?? I just want to hand the thing to Queen and say "HERE. DO THIS. DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS". Couldn't be any more obvious what they should do. There really isn't any excuse; 'oh, it's hard work, we can't just pull it out of thin air'. No shit. Took years to make the Beatles one, so get cracking before I fucking die, for fucks sake. |
| gnomo 23.05.2008 06:12 |
Erin wrote:... IMVHO one at least seems to be slightly leaning towards that side - or at least not to be too aware of "sides" ... :-Pgnomo wrote:I don't think anyone is on the less music side.luthorn wrote: I am with the less PRODUCT more MUSIC side of the argument.Me too, FWLIW... |
| Micrówave 23.05.2008 11:23 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I never ever PROMISE anything. I merely hint or suggest and, usually to QZ's great frustration, I always then cover myself by saying there are no guarantees of thisSo everything you say is just a complete waste of time. Well, thanks for finally owning up to that Greg, most of us realized this by now. |
| Jeroen 23.05.2008 11:53 |
Jaja... Yet another valuable discussion. |
| Holly2003 23.05.2008 11:59 |
Tero wrote: People simply don't expect "perfect" picture quality. We don't expect black and white movies to be coloured just to appeal to the youngest audience. We don't expect all the video material from the late 70's / early 80's to be thrown away just because it has a "horrible" picture quality (a la Another One Bites The Dust). The majority of the potential buyers can still remember that there is nothing you can do about it, and have learned to live with it. The majority of potential buyers are still aware of the limitations of the original technology, and can accept them. In 10 years time things will be a lot different, and that's why it would be better to relese the "inferior" material right now. ost importantly, I have to believe that people are still buying music videos for the combination of picture and sound, not just for one or the other the other. Again, that might change with the "I-pod generation", but they won't be the target audience for another ten or twenty years!Great post. I've said this before: people don't throw out their old home videos because the picture quality isn't as good as today. And Queen Productions (cash only please, no refunds) would do well to take heed of your last point. |
| Benn 23.05.2008 12:18 |
Holly, re: >>>Great post. I've said this before: people don't throw out their old home videos because the picture quality isn't as good as today. And Queen Productions (cash only please, no refunds) would do well to take heed of your last point. Absolutely, and, the most important thing they need to remember is, as time goes speeding by, the numbers of people that actually give a shit about the "original" band will drop as people die. The target audience of collectors and those interested enough to buy rarities sets and DVDs of historic shows is dwindling - it amazez me how they can;t see this and get stuff to market that is of interest to these people whilst they are still here to buy it. Sure, there's always a market for the tat like toothbrushes, t-shirts and flimsy jewelery - it's the 80/20 piece around flooding the market that will always generate sales. You're less likely to worry about spending £5 on something than you are £50 and QPL need to attack that market. But, they seem to be incredibly blinkered as to what it is they will allow people to purchase. On one hand they tell us that quality control determines that certain archive material can not or will not be released, whilst on the other, they flood the market with trinkets and tat with a low price point. Greg, it's quality and not quantity that people want. |
| Yara 23.05.2008 17:54 |
Exaclty. I absolutely agree with myself. Hahaha. No, people out there pay a lot of attention to video and sound quality when it comes to music. Well, movies, those old movies, even if remastered, you can buy for peanuts in any store here, there's almost zero demand for it, let's face it. You know, if Brian want lose money for the sake of Queen fans, or some Queen fans, great. That'd be great. But he'd lose money, because he'll spend a good deal enhancing the quality of these concerts, the results would not be that good, and, of course, one single word in Amazon that it's not that different from the unofficial versions that circulate out there is enough for a lot of people not to buy it - fans, non-fans and even the many fans of the well-established Queen fan base. My friend was a taper - though he doesn't share, just show to a few people, he treasures it for sentimental reasons and so on, I don't condemn him, of course - is addicted to Queen. We were talking about that. He won't buy any 70's stuff which is already out there. And he's right: it'll not be a huge improve, and unless the extras are really sound, there's no reason to release it other than pleasing Queen fans - it'll please some Queen fans, but it'll be a commercial backlash. And I think the guys prefer to treasure that in some way mythical view of Queen's early years, it's clever. They know a lot of people, myself included, get hooked up by the band and start buying the official stuff after they watch or download these things on the web. And, yes, no point in releasing an anthology because the guys are still alive, playing and the band still tours. An anthology-like project would be great later, not now. The Stones, remember, and also Bob Dylan, most of the documentaries and anthologies about them were made by other people interested in it - like the movie about the recording of Beggar's Banquet or the one by Scorcese about Dylan. And the Stones are interested in releasing their new live material in great quality. The guys gave up on improving "Still Life", "Hyde Park", and so on, and it's right. There's no point anymore. The times, they are a-changing. lol |
| luthorn 23.05.2008 18:34 |
Instead of the Bootleg downloads on queenonline, an idea that did not go very far, I propose Queen should offer sound board recordings instead. I believe many concerts were recorded at the sound board. this ides won;t get very far, but dreams r dreams. |
| Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 23:11 |
I think they should release Greatest Video Hits III, and also add videos on it with un-used footage. I remember watching something about Queen on youtube... and it was during the release of 'The Works' and the show Queen were on had a video of 'Hammer To Fall' and a couple of the scenes in the video featured different angles of Freddie! |
| Tero 24.05.2008 04:01 |
Yara wrote: the Stones are interested in releasing their new live material in great quality. The guys gave up on improving "Still Life", "Hyde Park", and so on, and it's right. There's no point anymore.That's because the Stones are still an actual band, and they can go on tour to record new material. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Queen doesn't have that opportunity anymore after Freddie's death? Yara wrote: (the rest of the message)Don't take this the wrong way (is there a right way?), but what you've written seems to be exactly what Brian May thinks, and the reason for most of the discontent with the Queen fans. "We have to have releases up to today's standards, or nobody will buy them" "Every release must be in superhigh-definition and 18.7 surround sound or nobody will want it" "Every product must sell millions of copies or it isn't worth releasing it" "We just can't release any anthology material while we're still alive (and it won't be in good enough quality when we're dead!)" |
| FriedChicken 24.05.2008 06:57 |
Bands and artists like The Who, Peter Gabriel and Genesis contacted Encore to record every show of the concert and release it on cd. The fans could buy a show of their choice and it would be send to them. These cd's all had the same artwork (except the venue and date ofcourse). This is a great idea and Queen should do this as well. But ofcourse, I know this will never happen as Queen are control freaks who never give control to other companies. It sucks to be a Queen fan |
| Jeroen 24.05.2008 07:05 |
^add Radiohead and Pearl Jam |
| cmsdrums 24.05.2008 10:34 |
Tero wrote:I completely agree. In fact the argument could be put that today's generation are LESS bothered by the sound and/or picture quality because they are used to downloading third generation copies of stuff, and then burning it themselves or watching it on tiny little ipod screens. In addition, they are more than happy with mp3 and the like, which are not as good sound quality wise as the original 30 year old vinyl versions!!!Yara wrote: But even though the concert is great, guys, if in the end of the day the sound and video quality are not that sound, it doesn't appeal to young or simply new audiences.I just have to disagree with this statement. If the content means absolutely nothing in comparison with the picture quality, I might as well agree with Greg and start collecting toothbrushes. People simply don't expect "perfect" picture quality. We don't expect black and white movies to be coloured just to appeal to the youngest audience. We don't expect all the video material from the late 70's / early 80's to be thrown away just because it has a "horrible" picture quality (a la Another One Bites The Dust). The majority of the potential buyers can still remember that there is nothing you can do about it, and have learned to live with it. The majority of potential buyers are still aware of the limitations of the original technology, and can accept them. In 10 years time things will be a lot different, and that's why it would be better to relese the "inferior" material right now. ost importantly, I have to believe that people are still buying music videos for the combination of picture and sound, not just for one or the other the other. Again, that might change with the "I-pod generation", but they won't be the target audience for another ten or twenty years! |
| Negative Creep 24.05.2008 12:11 |
Yara wrote: You know, if Brian want lose money for the sake of Queen fans, or some Queen fans, great. That'd be great. But he'd lose money, because he'll spend a good deal enhancing the quality of these concerts, the results would not be that good, and, of course, one single word in Amazon that it's not that different from the unofficial versions that circulate out there is enough for a lot of people not to buy it - fans, non-fans and even the many fans of the well-established Queen fan base.There is no live DVD the band could release that would LOSE them money. Their international fanbase is far too big. They would have no reason to release a DVD that was of the same quality of any bootlegs in circulation - what are you going on about? No one is going to expect high definiton from something that was recorded in the 70's either - this is a nonsense arguement that is often brought up on these forums. The fact these gigs were not recorded on film has no bearing the saleability of them - Milton Keynes and Wembley are of no better quality than any of the 70's gigs in the archives. |
| Yara 24.05.2008 13:42 |
If you guys say so, I rest my case. You know it better than me, for sure. If that's so, I can only shout (!) one thing: LET HAMMY' 79 COME!!!!! YEAAAAAAAAHRRRRRRROOWWRREAA! Hahaha. I love this gig. :op |
| kingogre 24.05.2008 14:23 |
Something I would really like to see is remastered versions of at least the 70s albums. Maybe Queen and Live Killers could also do with a bit of remixing. Queen were always a "big" band soundwise therefore its somewhat strange that the albums havent been upgraded soundwise. The early albums would really benefit from this and it would be nice to have drastically improved Queen (I). Songs from some of the incomplete live shows that were mentioned in another thread could possible be used as bonus tracks maybe along with B-sides and choice demos, outtakes. Round it of with a nice booklet with period photos and some liner notes. A lot of classic bands have done this during the last few years with very nice results. I can imagine though that in this digital age QPL would be hesitant to spend a lot of money in creating this kind of product until they see what the market is like for non-download music in a few years. |
| Yara 24.05.2008 14:28 |
kingogre wrote: Something I would really like to see is remastered versions of at least the 70s albums. Maybe Queen and Live Killers could also do with a bit of remixing. Queen were always a "big" band soundwise therefore its somewhat strange that the albums havent been upgraded soundwise. The early albums would really benefit from this and it would be nice to have drastically improved Queen (I). Songs from some of the incomplete live shows that were mentioned in another thread could possible be used as bonus tracks maybe along with B-sides and choice demos, outtakes. Round it of with a nice booklet with period photos and some liner notes. A lot of classic bands have done this during the last few years with very nice results. I can imagine though that in this digital age QPL would be hesitant to spend a lot of money in creating this kind of product until they see what the market is like for non-download music in a few years.I loved the anniversary edition of "Night At the Opera". It sounds absolutely incredible in dts. Yes, I agree with you, they could release them, in fact, in those super audio cds, like, very high quality, very good remasterings - like, Queen II! Queen II would be great. Not trampling with the recording, but making its characteristics more pronounced, because Queen's style is beginning to take shape there. Yeah! That'd be cool too. My pocket doesn't think so (lol), but as far as the music is concerned, it's cool. Na, it's a good idea, this. And the Hammy'79. And the... Hahahaha. :-) |
| cmsdrums 24.05.2008 16:07 |
kingogre wrote: Something I would really like to see is remastered versions of at least the 70s albums. Maybe Queen and Live Killers could also do with a bit of remixing. Queen were always a "big" band soundwise therefore its somewhat strange that the albums havent been upgraded soundwise. The early albums would really benefit from this and it would be nice to have drastically improved Queen (I). Songs from some of the incomplete live shows that were mentioned in another thread could possible be used as bonus tracks maybe along with B-sides and choice demos, outtakes. Round it of with a nice booklet with period photos and some liner notes. A lot of classic bands have done this during the last few years with very nice results. I can imagine though that in this digital age QPL would be hesitant to spend a lot of money in creating this kind of product until they see what the market is like for non-download music in a few years.I don't mean to be rude at all, but are you kidding?!?? There have been so, so many remasters of all the albums over the years that we are swamped with them. Doing another lot, just to eek out a bit of extra middle or tweak the bottom end a tad seems realy pointless. |
| Rick 24.05.2008 18:31 |
pittrek wrote: I don't give a f**k about bullsh*t like "memorabilia" :Very well said and agreeing with you the full 100%books, mags, programs, tour passes, posters, t-shirts, promo items, books, badges,- Queen are / were a ROCK BAND ! Which means that we expect MUSIC. CDs, DVDs, even LPs or Blue-Rays. Is it THAT hard to understand ? Queen productions have really wonderful collection of live videos - why are they hiding them instead of releasing them and making money of them ? I see absolutely NO logic in this. The last at least interesting Queen product was Queen Rocks (I'm not talking about Freddie's box, it's good but it's not Queen). Another at least slightly interesting release was Milton Keynes DVD, but that's all. When will we finally get the promised singles box set ? When will we finally get the promised demos & rarities box set ? When will we finally see some NEW concert on DVD ? When will we get proper DVD releases of at least Rainbow 74, Hammersmith 75, Hyde Park 76, Earls Court 77, Paris 79, Hammersmith 79, South America 81, Japan 75/82/85 ? When will we get the promised BBC sessions ? The only thing what is QP doing is PROMISING. They (incl. you) promise an interesting product, and it gets either cancelled, or changes into a crap like GH3 or Queen Rock Montreal. THIS is what people are complaining about. And it's weird that somebody has to tell it to the OFFICIAL Queen archivist. Sorry if I'm too harsh Greg but you are the only employee of QP with who we can communicate. I know you're not a part of the decision making process, but PLEASE either tell your boss(es) what the "normal" fans want or don't start topics like this one The last proper release in my opinion was the full Milton Keynes concert. Too bad the extras sucked...oh well, we can't expect everything from QP, now can we? The reason pittrek, why 70s shows aren't released, is because of the lack of hits. Take the Rainbow or Hyde Park show f.e. People only buy Queen with songs like WWRY, WATC and IWTBF. It's all about money-making. Nothing more, nothing less... Too bad Queen had their best period in the 70s. Really, I so want those complete concerts, but the chance that Freddie returns on planet Earth in a Superman-suit is way bigger! Besides the people at QP are too lazy. Not to mention all the promises they made, as you point out earlier. I don't take Greggieboy seriously and I never will. He's just another attentionseeker who likes to be in the spotlights now and then. I'm so sorry I didn't fall for it. Oh and Greg: I don't give a shit about your 'Queen-collection'. If you want to annoy us with your nonsense, at least take a bit of effort. |
| kingogre 25.05.2008 02:54 |
cmsdrums wrote:Im not really an expert like some of you guys so pardon if I say something obvious. I was more referring to that the versions generally available in stores today are rather old and dont really sound that good compared to what is possible today.kingogre wrote: Something I would really like to see is remastered versions of at least the 70s albums. Maybe Queen and Live Killers could also do with a bit of remixing. Queen were always a "big" band soundwise therefore its somewhat strange that the albums havent been upgraded soundwise. The early albums would really benefit from this and it would be nice to have drastically improved Queen (I). Songs from some of the incomplete live shows that were mentioned in another thread could possible be used as bonus tracks maybe along with B-sides and choice demos, outtakes. Round it of with a nice booklet with period photos and some liner notes. A lot of classic bands have done this during the last few years with very nice results. I can imagine though that in this digital age QPL would be hesitant to spend a lot of money in creating this kind of product until they see what the market is like for non-download music in a few years.I don't mean to be rude at all, but are you kidding?!?? There have been so, so many remasters of all the albums over the years that we are swamped with them. Doing another lot, just to eek out a bit of extra middle or tweak the bottom end a tad seems realy pointless. For example the Who, the Kinks and the Byrds have replaced their backcatalogue with remastered editions with bonus tracks and booklets. Bonus tracks are not necessary but it would still be nice to have better sounding versions of at least the early albums in a better packaging. |
| Negative Creep 25.05.2008 09:19 |
Rick wrote: The reason pittrek, why 70s shows aren't released, is because of the lack of hits. Take the Rainbow or Hyde Park show f.e. People only buy Queen with songs like WWRY, WATC and IWTBF.You know that for a fact do you?! Based on what? This might be QPL's reasons, but it's essentially bollocks. A DVD of Hammersmith 75 and Rainbow 74 would sell just as well as Milton Keynes, so would Hyde Park. People seem to forget that Queen are actually still massive and have a huge following who aren't just interested in the bands later hits. |
| Fenderek 25.05.2008 10:17 |
kingogre wrote: For example the Who, the Kinks and the Byrds have replaced their backcatalogue with remastered editions with bonus tracks and booklets. Bonus tracks are not necessary but it would still be nice to have better sounding versions of at least the early albums in a better packaging.There already ARE Queen albums, wanderfully remastered- look for japanesse mini vinyls, stunningly packaged; especially 70s records sound awesome, IMO of course. BUT- having said that- bonus tracks are MORE than necessary. Almost all other bands do that- Marillion, Porcupine Tree, Deep Purple... Huge bands and those smaller ones. But no Queen- no... |
| kingogre 25.05.2008 11:42 |
Yeah, Ive got two of those mini-vinyls. I wasnt really aware that they were remastered. Like I said Im far from an expert.;) I also saw that there are some spanish editions coming out. My point was that these are not the ones generally available, rather import versions. But if there already are remastered versions then there would be rather easy to use the sound of these and make a new packaging with liner notes, period photos, reprinted paper cuttings and so on and add some bonus tracks. Not necessarily something for the hard-core fans but a nice product to sell to the general or new fans. |
| Benn 27.05.2008 06:49 |
KingOgre, re: >>But if there already are remastered versions then there would be rather easy to use the sound of these and make a new packaging with liner notes, period photos, reprinted paper cuttings and so on and add some bonus tracks. Not necessarily something for the hard-core fans but a nice product to sell to the general or new fans. Absolutely, but then QPL wouldn't want to seem likt they are re-releasing the same material yet again with only a small incentive to buy, would they? No, seriously, this is EXACTLY what they could / should do in the absence of any box sets. Look at the Deluxe versions of The Who's albums - wonderfully packaged with liner notes, period ephemera (where applicable) and copious bonus tracks. Some of the mastering leaves a little to be desired but then the majority of the music is JUST as you would expect it to be - perfect. Then look at Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, Free, The Byrds, Janis Joplin etc - all have had their re-masters issued with multiple bonus tracks across a single disc. Used to add to and enhance what is already there. A bit of forward thinking and giving something new and interesting whilst keeping the original music vital and alive. Something that just will not ever happen with Queen's music. The sad thing is that, given the media's historic reluctance to have anything poditive to say about Queen, I honestly believe that this is exactly the right time to get the band's music back out there in full again - just in time for the tour to kick off with Q&PR and to have the original albums re-evaluated. SURELY this is plainly obvious for even the most blinkered of record company executives to see? |
| john bodega 27.05.2008 07:41 |
Benn wrote: Look at the Deluxe versions of The Who's albums - wonderfully packaged with liner notes, period ephemera (where applicable) and copious bonus tracks. Some of the mastering leaves a little to be desired but then the majority of the music is JUST as you would expect it to be - perfect. |
| kingogre 27.05.2008 07:45 |
Yes, I completely agree with you. With the tour kicking in is probably the best time theyll have to rerelease the old albums. Today the generally available hollywood versions are substandard in both sound and packaging. What the Who and the Byrds and the other bands you mention aswell have done is really what I would like Queen to do with the backcatalogue. Bonus tracks, remastered sound up to todays standard and a booklet wih liner notes, comments on each track and pictures. And this is just my opinion, but Im not really sure a box set is the best way to release the demos and outtakes. With, what I expect from what has been leaked, to be very little substantial material but rather early workouts of songs or instrumental overdubs it might be an interesting one time listen but ultimately tiresome over several discs. Maybe it would work better as a compliment, ie bonus tracks, to what in the end became the finished product. |
| Benn 27.05.2008 09:23 |
KingOgre, ......and, perhaps this is exactly the crux of the matter and what JSS has been quick to point out a number of times. The cupboard is, more than likely, extremely bare where out takes are concerned. What Greg has played at the various conventions is likely to be the best of what is in the cupboard and what has leaked is what there is, save for the odd alternate version etc. If you look at what has come out as box sets for other bands like The Who, The Buffalo Springfield, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Beach Boys etc, there are / were plenty of un-released recordings taht were simply left off of albums or not considered good enough for single releases. Some of these band's engineers / producers were far more dilligent in terms of the material that they kept in the archives and were, possible, more able to be profligate in the use of the tapes at the time; we all know that Queen were on a limited budget up until ANATO, so re-using expensive tape was at a premium and, subsequently, a great deal of material may never have even made it past the first playing. It's entirely possible that QPL now feel that, after the 1992 remasters (UK), Hollywood remasters (US) and Jap mini-lp remasters, there is absolutely no room for the original albums to be re-re-re-mastered. And, given the presumed lack of material available, there is not enough to justify a box set release - would the ego stretch to a simple, stand-alone 2-cd collection of rarities / out-takes? I don't think so. |
| Tero 27.05.2008 10:10 |
Benn wrote: And, given the presumed lack of material available, there is not enough to justify a box set release - would the ego stretch to a simple, stand-alone 2-cd collection of rarities / out-takes? I don't think so.If they simply don't have any archive material to justify a box set, why not come out and say so? What are they gaining by dangling the carrot in front of us, and then then handing out yesterdays leftovers? If there is only enough material for a double disc set (all the tracks leaked out so far), why not market it as " archives volume 1", in case they ever find more tapes? It wouldn't be the first time such a marketing ploy as used. ;) Maybe Brian and Roger's egos just couldn't handle the fact that even a Queen outtake cd would outsell anything they have ever done without Freddie? |
| dsmeer 27.05.2008 10:19 |
Just a quick question Did Roger or Brain lock the door to the archive and did they forgot that Greg was still in there? Or does he like to start a discussion and when it does not suit him he just leaves without saying so? |
| Benn 27.05.2008 11:36 |
Tero, re: >>If they simply don't have any archive material to justify a box set, why not come out and say so? Because that would be an admission of defeat - the fact that so many fans are on tenterhooks waiting for this to happen is good business for them after all. Just like waiting for the second encore that you really know isn't going to happen, but if you wait just that bit longer, it just might...... >>What are they gaining by dangling the carrot in front of us, and then then handing out yesterdays leftovers? In fairness there is no carrott. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been anything official stating that a box set has ever been / was ever being worked on - although I may be wrong. All I'm aware of is that it was mooted through the fan club around 1990 and then further discussed by Greg as time has gone on in Record Collector, the QFC magazine, at Conventions and ere in the forums. So, with the best will in the world, QPL haven't ever promised anything..... How clever they are eh? :-) |
| Benn 27.05.2008 11:42 |
Dsmeer, re: >>Or does he like to start a discussion and when it does not suit him he just leaves without saying so? These forums are a place to visit every so often, as I'm sure you do. Greg comes here as and when he likes which is his wont. As annoying and frustrating as he is / can be at times, he owes us absolutely nothing and can come and go as he pleases. I'm sure that when he next visits, he'll post / respond where necessary. As usual. |
| kingogre 27.05.2008 11:45 |
I think the 60's bands had a different kind of work method than many 70's bands like Queen. They worked fast in the studio, finished lots of tracks and then released them pretty much as the manager/record company chose. Some wrote and recorded demos for other artists aswell. And of course albums wasnt the number one priority but rather a complement to singles and EP's. They had a lot more output and so there are a lot more to work with when it comes to box sets and even bonus tracks. People like Jimi Hendrix probably never left his house without a guitar, sometimes spending whole days jamming with musician friends in studio. Queen on the other hand it looks like hardly finished more than a handful tracks that werent released on an album and probably most of the songs that werent finished never went beyond a demo or a quick run-through. And we all know in what state of completion those demos are. Then of course there is the reuse of tapes you mentioned. So there might not be that much interesting stuff in the vaults, and what there is sure isnt very different from what has been leaked. No unreleased songs just overdubs, demos and incomplete outtakes. Lets not forget that they pretty much took what could be used and then some for Made in Heaven |
| Negative Creep 27.05.2008 12:00 |
Benn wrote: The cupboard is, more than likely, extremely bare where out takes are concerned. What Greg has played at the various conventions is likely to be the best of what is in the cupboard and what has leaked is what there is, save for the odd alternate version etc.I seriously doubt they'd air the most interesting archive material for a handful of fans at the conventions. I would have thought they'd be playing the least interesting stuff there to be honest. And I somehow doubt that the archives are as bare as some people on here wish to believe. You could say they won't release any decent live DVDs because the archives are empty - this isn't true either. If anything, there's too much material to release - yet we probably won't see any gigs that haven't already been released in some form. They don't want to release a BBC collection either - whilst the material is there. QPL are just not interested in releasing brand new product. There are so many avenues in which they could get their archive material out and they just don't fucking care. |
| Aquillas 27.05.2008 12:05 |
kingogre wrote: I So there might not be that much interesting stuff in the vaultsI think there is. Here is an old but interesting interview with Mr. Brooks. His answers are all in capital letters. --- Is there a more complete version of 'I Guess We're Falling Out' in the archives than the one doing the rounds at the minute? I THINK SO Does Love Kills exist as a Queen version? GOOD QUESTION. BUT THAT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF GEM WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP SECRET, FOR THE BOXED SETS. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND. I REALLY CAN’T AND DON’T WANT TO SPOIL THE IMPACT OF SUDDENLY LETTING THINGS LIKE THAT OUT OF THE ARCHIVE BAG. WHEN AND IF THEY EMERGE, THEY WILL HOPEFULLY BE A FABULOUS SURPRISE TO EVERYONE, SO YOU DON’T WANT SOME BIG-GOBBED ARCHIVIST GIVING YOU ALL THE DETAILS NOW. Roger's version of INNUENDO- true or false? YES. TRUE. "ASSASSIN"- does it exist? YES. Do Queen have any songs that are practically finished (not demos) yet still haven't seen the light of day? YES Any unused stuff from Montreaux'91 session? KIND OF. Is Queen's version of "Freedom Train" (Innuendo session) different to what we can hear on Roger's "Happiness?" YES I THINK SO. 1-Do you think that Queen will do a new album with some Freddie's unreleased stuff in the future? SOME OTHER SONGS MAYBE, BUT NOT AN ENTIRE LP. BUT WHO KNOWS? Which, if any, of Queen's demos do you think that if re-worked or remixed could be worthy of a single release? Do you think it'd happen if such a track was found to be right? THERE ARE ITEMS IN THE ARCHIVE THAT COULD BE REVISTED AND PUT OUT, WHICH WOULD BE STAGGERING IN MY OPINION. STUFF FROM THE INNUENDO, MIRACLE, WORKS AND HOT SPACE SESSIONS MAINLY SPRINGS TO MIND Do you think Queen will ever have another number one single (I mean Queen not Queen+)? YES I DO. I AM CONVINCED OF IT. MORE THAN ONE. --- |
| kingogre 27.05.2008 12:34 |
That intervíew sounds promising :) and no one is happier than me if there is a lot of unreleased finished songs in the archive. Im still sceptical though considering what has been leaked so far and what great lengths they went to find material for Made in Heaven. My general experience with bands unreleased tracks is that what there is usually known to the fans also. But lets hope for the best. :) Right now Im waiting for the new album though. |
| Queen-Obsessed 27.05.2008 12:45 |
cmsdrums wrote:I have to disagree, I do own an ipod, and I do listen to my music on it, but I greatly prefer being able to go home and listen to Queen through a decent sound system and NOT in mp3 format. We may be okay with listening to mp3's because they are what we are given the option of conveniently taking with us, but we still enjoy the originals much more.Tero wrote:I completely agree. In fact the argument could be put that today's generation are LESS bothered by the sound and/or picture quality because they are used to downloading third generation copies of stuff, and then burning it themselves or watching it on tiny little ipod screens. In addition, they are more than happy with mp3 and the like, which are not as good sound quality wise as the original 30 year old vinyl versions!!!Yara wrote: But even though the concert is great, guys, if in the end of the day the sound and video quality are not that sound, it doesn't appeal to young or simply new audiences.I just have to disagree with this statement. If the content means absolutely nothing in comparison with the picture quality, I might as well agree with Greg and start collecting toothbrushes. People simply don't expect "perfect" picture quality. We don't expect black and white movies to be coloured just to appeal to the youngest audience. We don't expect all the video material from the late 70's / early 80's to be thrown away just because it has a "horrible" picture quality (a la Another One Bites The Dust). The majority of the potential buyers can still remember that there is nothing you can do about it, and have learned to live with it. The majority of potential buyers are still aware of the limitations of the original technology, and can accept them. In 10 years time things will be a lot different, and that's why it would be better to relese the "inferior" material right now. ost importantly, I have to believe that people are still buying music videos for the combination of picture and sound, not just for one or the other the other. Again, that might change with the "I-pod generation", but they won't be the target audience for another ten or twenty years! Cheers, Sarah =) |
| Micrówave 27.05.2008 13:16 |
kingogre wrote: Lets not forget that they pretty much took what could be used and then some for Made in HeavenYes, I wonder why people don't touch that issue a bit more. If there was so much great stuff still out there, why wasn't it used? Why did we have to recycle old Freddie songs and a Miracle B-Side? Was "Assassin" or "Face It Alone" just so crappy that it was set aside, yet again? A Queen version of Love Kills? Wow! Could it be as exciting as the Queen version of Made In Heaven, cause that wasn't all that. A Gem? Please. A Gem is something precious, without flaws. Maybe Queen has some old "Coal" that could be used in a pinch, but why don't we just close that book? |
| john bodega 27.05.2008 13:36 |
Those Greg Brooks quotes have been around for some time. Could be that we've already heard the stuff he's talking about, or maybe he's just an optimist. I would love to see if he still stands by what he said there, of course. I never turn down the chance to hear new stuff, even if it is 'doo dah dah' into a tape recorder. Hell, I listened to "Sleepy Blues" at least once before losing it. |
| Yara 27.05.2008 14:24 |
QUEEN OBSESSED wrote:YEAH! lolcmsdrums wrote:I have to disagree, I do own an ipod, and I do listen to my music on it, but I greatly prefer being able to go home and listen to Queen through a decent sound system and NOT in mp3 format. We may be okay with listening to mp3's because they are what we are given the option of conveniently taking with us, but we still enjoy the originals much more. Cheers, Sarah =)Tero wrote:I completely agree. In fact the argument could be put that today's generation are LESS bothered by the sound and/or picture quality because they are used to downloading third generation copies of stuff, and then burning it themselves or watching it on tiny little ipod screens. In addition, they are more than happy with mp3 and the like, which are not as good sound quality wise as the original 30 year old vinyl versions!!!Yara wrote: But even though the concert is great, guys, if in the end of the day the sound and video quality are not that sound, it doesn't appeal to young or simply new audiences.I just have to disagree with this statement. If the content means absolutely nothing in comparison with the picture quality, I might as well agree with Greg and start collecting toothbrushes. People simply don't expect "perfect" picture quality. We don't expect black and white movies to be coloured just to appeal to the youngest audience. We don't expect all the video material from the late 70's / early 80's to be thrown away just because it has a "horrible" picture quality (a la Another One Bites The Dust). The majority of the potential buyers can still remember that there is nothing you can do about it, and have learned to live with it. The majority of potential buyers are still aware of the limitations of the original technology, and can accept them. In 10 years time things will be a lot different, and that's why it would be better to relese the "inferior" material right now. ost importantly, I have to believe that people are still buying music videos for the combination of picture and sound, not just for one or the other the other. Again, that might change with the "I-pod generation", but they won't be the target audience for another ten or twenty years! |
| Yara 27.05.2008 14:25 |
Now it's time for our REVENGE. :-) lol |
| pittrek 27.05.2008 14:37 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Those Greg Brooks quotes have been around for some time. Could be that we've already heard the stuff he's talking about, or maybe he's just an optimist. I would love to see if he still stands by what he said there, of course. I never turn down the chance to hear new stuff, even if it is 'doo dah dah' into a tape recorder. Hell, I listened to "Sleepy Blues" at least once before losing it.Sleepy Blues is cool :-) Well it's more a "Drunk Blues", but it's still fun to listen, just not too often :-) |
| New Opposition 29.05.2008 03:07 |
Assassin in fact did not exist. |
| inu-liger 29.05.2008 03:11 |
Aquillas wrote:Gotta love his sarcasm :Dkingogre wrote: I So there might not be that much interesting stuff in the vaultsI think there is. Here is an old but interesting interview with Mr. Brooks. His answers are all in capital letters. --- Is there a more complete version of 'I Guess We're Falling Out' in the archives than the one doing the rounds at the minute? I THINK SO Does Love Kills exist as a Queen version? GOOD QUESTION. BUT THAT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF GEM WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP SECRET, FOR THE BOXED SETS. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND. I REALLY CAN’T AND DON’T WANT TO SPOIL THE IMPACT OF SUDDENLY LETTING THINGS LIKE THAT OUT OF THE ARCHIVE BAG. WHEN AND IF THEY EMERGE, THEY WILL HOPEFULLY BE A FABULOUS SURPRISE TO EVERYONE, SO YOU DON’T WANT SOME BIG-GOBBED ARCHIVIST GIVING YOU ALL THE DETAILS NOW. Roger's version of INNUENDO- true or false? YES. TRUE. "ASSASSIN"- does it exist? YES. Do Queen have any songs that are practically finished (not demos) yet still haven't seen the light of day? YES Any unused stuff from Montreaux'91 session? KIND OF. Is Queen's version of "Freedom Train" (Innuendo session) different to what we can hear on Roger's "Happiness?" YES I THINK SO. 1-Do you think that Queen will do a new album with some Freddie's unreleased stuff in the future? SOME OTHER SONGS MAYBE, BUT NOT AN ENTIRE LP. BUT WHO KNOWS? Which, if any, of Queen's demos do you think that if re-worked or remixed could be worthy of a single release? Do you think it'd happen if such a track was found to be right? THERE ARE ITEMS IN THE ARCHIVE THAT COULD BE REVISTED AND PUT OUT, WHICH WOULD BE STAGGERING IN MY OPINION. STUFF FROM THE INNUENDO, MIRACLE, WORKS AND HOT SPACE SESSIONS MAINLY SPRINGS TO MIND Do you think Queen will ever have another number one single (I mean Queen not Queen+)? YES I DO. I AM CONVINCED OF IT. MORE THAN ONE. --- |
| Benn 29.05.2008 06:31 |
Negative Creep, re: >>I seriously doubt they'd air the most interesting archive material for a handful of fans at the conventions. I would have thought they'd be playing the least interesting stuff there to be honest. But these people are the MOST interested Queen fans, surely. These are the people that book ANNUALLY to go to the conventions and keep the dream alive. As much as I think they're wasting their time and that the fan club serves absolutely no purpose what so ever, QPL have these people in the palm of their hand. GB has been "good enough" to give these guy a glimpse at what is there and, surely, given his need to be accepted by the "devoted", he's provided them with the best they can expect to hear. >>And I somehow doubt that the archives are as bare as some people on here wish to believe. I've seen no evidence to prove otherwise, so will stick with my assumption until proved wrong. >>You could say they won't release any decent live DVDs because the archives are empty - this isn't true either. If anything, there's too much material to release Did you see GB's definitive list of what exists in the live archive? I have nno reason to believe that he was / is holding anything back there. He did a great job in delivering on his promise to put rumor to bed on what could "potentially" be released. And what we learned was that there is pretty much bugger all of interest other than what we already knew to be there. >>They don't want to release a BBC collection either - whilst the material is there. QPL are just not interested in releasing brand new product. There are so many avenues in which they could get their archive material out and they just don't fucking care. I agree - they have become complacent given the nature of the "standard" Queen fan. This is the type of person who will buy ANYTHING with the Queen name attached to it and think they are getting value. QPL attack that market because it's easy. People like us here are more difficult to please and, therefore, QPL don't bother to invest any time or money in appeasing us. |
| The Fonz 06.06.2008 04:19 |
Hi guys. What's going on in this thread? |
| Donna13 06.06.2008 08:30 |
The Fonz wrote: Hi guys. What's going on in this thread?Oooh. Not much. Hmm. Let's see. Well, Greg explained that he has boxes and boxes of Queen stuff at his house, filling up the many rooms that he is not using, such as the attic, the sitting room, etc. This includes lots of music and stuff like banners and tee shirts. He has so many boxes that his mother has now volunteered to store some of it at her house. Then, Greg fell down in the garden and hurt his hand (he probably fell over some recently delivered boxes but he didn't explain, so I am just imagining that part). Then the fans had many posts regarding their desire for more original Queen music to be released, such as the music that we might not know of yet that might be in the archives. Some fans are also worried they will not live to see the day of the release of the "box set" (which will maybe include an interesting amount of rarities and B sides). Many fans believe that Greg is their only hope of "reaching" the band with this request for more music. |
| Darren1977 06.06.2008 13:29 |
Well said Donna! |
| paulosham 07.06.2008 09:01 |
I just like the music. |
| Rick 09.06.2008 04:48 |
Just release the London '78 shows or at least one of them. Enough hits, cool setlist and maybe their best tour ever? |
| The Real Wizard 09.06.2008 11:42 |
Rick wrote: Just release the London '78 shows or at least one of them. Enough hits, cool setlist and maybe their best tour ever?Man, will I ever second that. Hopefully the tapes have been preserved. |
| pittrek 09.06.2008 12:26 |
Hammersmith Odeon 79 - perfect performance, perfect setlist, would be a logical 2CD + 2 DVD release for me, but I will die on cancer before it happends |
| ok.computer 10.06.2008 13:45 |
This is unBELIEVABLE. How many times does this man have to post about this rubbish, and all the time, the window of opportunity to release meaningful musical product shrinks and shrinks and shrinks? The fan base to ensure that the obscure and live material that we crave is diminishing with each year that drifts past. Hurry up, for God's sakes... There's only 30 years left before I retire. I'd like to be unrestrained by a wheelchair when the box-sets arrive. FFS. GET OFF THIS BOARD AND GET THE DAMN WORK DONE! |