| Tero 11.07.2008 16:39 |
An English band we all love and admire is going to release a box set of their career from 1970-1975 this fall. Included will be all the studio albums remastered as well as remixed in surround sound, and a cd of b-sides and unreleased demos. The accompanying dvds will feature over three hours of interviews with all the members, and four television specials (over 2 hours) of concert footage... The only downside for some people is that this is a Genesis release, not a Queen release. link |
| Winter Land Man 11.07.2008 17:49 |
An okay band, but we don't all love and admire them. |
| victor fleitas 11.07.2008 18:55 |
Ahhh... I almost passed out when I realized that it was genesis, and not queen... mmm... I hate You! |
| Mustapha_Ibrahim 11.07.2008 18:57 |
Jacob Britt wrote: An okay band, but we don't all love and admire them."Okay band"? Genesis? You are 21, you still have plenty of time to get there ;-) |
| Mustapha_Ibrahim 11.07.2008 19:10 |
Tero, you still missed an important point. This is their THIRD box set and it follows another series of box-sets 10 years ago and those had only rarities and unreleased material. Genesis are very kind to their fans. They dry their pockets with all these expensive releases, but each one is carefully analyzed and filled with extras and treats. There's already another topic for When In Rome (is this a Genesis convention at a Queen forum? ;-) ) and that is just another example. It is an expensive set of dvd's but hell, they are well produced. The concert is amazing and the extras are delightful. And then you have a third disc with a 3 hour documentary about the insecurities of 3 Rock N' Roll legends. There is, however, one major complaint that can't be overlooked. The sound for the albums of the past two box sets has been literally butchered by Nick Davis. He removed parts in some songs (the guitar solo in Misunderstanding for example) and overcompressed the sound in a way that it is painful to the ears. Shame on you Mr. Davis. The worst is that the man in charge - Tony Banks - seems to like the overcompression on the old songs. Unfortunately Mike and Phil don't seem to be bothered either. Let's see if Peter's input to this last batch has been positive. |
| Winter Land Man 11.07.2008 20:34 |
Mustapha_Ibrahim wrote:I'm a fan of a lot of bands, thousands in fact. I'm not a typical 21 year old. I'm not a young person who goes out and just buys Greatest Hits. I don't even download music off of limewire. My top favorite bands are Queen, The Beach Boys, J. Geils Band, My Chemical Romance, Bryan Adams, Twisted Sister, Led Zepplin, Smash Mouth... I've got a wide range of tastes. Genesis just doesn't stick in my head, nor does it inspire me in any way.Jacob Britt wrote: An okay band, but we don't all love and admire them."Okay band"? Genesis? You are 21, you still have plenty of time to get there ;-) |
| onevsion 11.07.2008 21:10 |
Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion |
| Tero 12.07.2008 04:03 |
Mustapha_Ibrahim wrote: Tero, you still missed an important point. This is their THIRD box set and it follows another series of box-sets 10 years ago and those had only rarities and unreleased material.Nah, I deliberately ignored that point in order to confuse people. It's also posted in the wrong section of that board for that precise reason. You see, there are still people out there who think Queen are treating their fans well with their (re-)releases. ;) (As for Nick Davis "butchering" the albums... There are about ten people out of the thousands of members on the Genesis forum who agree with that sentiment.) |
| Pim Derks 12.07.2008 04:55 |
I like the new 2007 mixes. Especially on albums like Wind & Wuthering and Trick of the Tail the new mixes sound a lot better than the old 1994 remasters IMO. |
| mooghead 12.07.2008 05:35 |
Queen - Serious Discussion Board. Think on. |
| Cwazy little thing 12.07.2008 10:24 |
mooghead wrote: Queen - Serious Discussion Board. Think on.Given how poor the average Queen topics have been in here lately, I dont even care if people want to talk Genesis for a bit! I count myself lucky if theres two new topics a week that arent boring or pointless in here at the moment. |
| Mustapha_Ibrahim 12.07.2008 11:42 |
Fair enough, I see we have different views on the remasters. Well, it's true that some songs do take advantage of the new mixes, but overall the sound is too loud; I find myself rubbing my ears at the end of the album... Not to mention what was done with Misunderstanding, one of my favourite songs... Anyway, dubious decisions aside, we can see in all these releases a concern about the hardcore fans, with all the promos, live footage and new interviews for each album. I have to say I am quite excited about the extras for this new batch. Popshop? Bataclan? Shepperton? Maybe some new Lamb live footage? We'll see in a very short time. |
| Bo Alex 12.07.2008 11:42 |
I don't think this is a good news for every Queen fan. I respect Genesis, but I don't care about this. I wait for a Queen release lke this. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.07.2008 11:47 |
Jacob Britt wrote:Judging from your list, your taste is not as "wide" as you claim it to be, IMHO. You only list rock bands, of various kinds, that is true, but still...no jazz, classical, folk, country, world, avant-garde, funk, soul, etc.Mustapha_Ibrahim wrote:I'm a fan of a lot of bands, thousands in fact. I'm not a typical 21 year old. I'm not a young person who goes out and just buys Greatest Hits. I don't even download music off of limewire. My top favorite bands are Queen, The Beach Boys, J. Geils Band, My Chemical Romance, Bryan Adams, Twisted Sister, Led Zepplin, Smash Mouth... I've got a wide range of tastes. Genesis just doesn't stick in my head, nor does it inspire me in any way.Jacob Britt wrote: An okay band, but we don't all love and admire them."Okay band"? Genesis? You are 21, you still have plenty of time to get there ;-) |
| Tero 12.07.2008 14:18 |
Bo Alex wrote: I don't think this is a good news for every Queen fan. I respect Genesis, but I don't care about this. I wait for a Queen release lke this.That is actually why I started this topic. ;) Other bands are doing releases like this, while the remains of Queen treat their fans as nothing more than a necessary evil who should get as little as possible. |
| Lester Burnham 12.07.2008 15:10 |
I could've sworn I wrote something about this a while ago (not the same exact thing, of course), but I can't seem to do a search for it, and the old board seems to be missing, so I can't search that way. Anyway, I agree that Queen should do something like this for their fans. Considering the only accessible remasters are either the 1991 Hollywood Records ones (with terrible remixes and a dearth of worthwhile bonus tracks) or the 1993/1994 EMI remasters, I do believe that Queen should do something similar for their fans. An easy way to do this would be to split the 15 studio albums into groups of threes (so box 1 would be Queen through ADATR, box 2 NOTW through Hot Space, and box 3 The Works through Made In Heaven), have one disc be a CD remaster and a second disc be a DVD-A or SACD version, and each disc can have a bonus disc of additional stuff (B-sides, extended versions, rarities, etc.). Maybe even a second bonus disc of BBC sessions for the first 2 boxes, and the third box can have stuff that spills over from the first disc of rarities on that set. On the DVD side of each disc, have corresponding music videos, TV footage, and new interviews with Brian and Roger (doubtful John would want to join in), and studio and managerial people involved in the production of each album. Shame they'll never do this, though. Obviously, they'd still rather trot out yet another compilation of songs we've all heard before than to give their album discography the care and attention it deserves. Ah well, we can dream, can't we? |
| Claudio_CQI 12.07.2008 17:25 |
I love Genss too, but I wonder this thread is in the "Serious Discussion" section... |
| Winter Land Man 12.07.2008 19:21 |
Nope. Not a big fan of country. But I listen to a lot of Michael Buble, Baltimora, Hound Dog Taylor, Wham!, Don Henley, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, MC Hammer, Ray Parker Jr., Britney Spears, Dashboard Confessional, Dan Hartman, Lenny Kravitz, Nirvana, Supertramp, Slade, Yanni (love his work), Jethro Tull, etc. I probably have 200 different LP's of different artists. Same with CDs... including country artists but I'm not a country fan. I've got probably 300 45s of different groups/bands/artists, and a ton of CD and cassette singles I've even got Will Smith and ICP but I don't care for those two that much. But it doesn't mean I don't listen. When I get an album, I listen through the whole thing. Especially LPs... it's like magical to me, and inspiring. I've probably got a few Genesis LPs, maybe even some singles. If you want an honest opinion of mine on Genesis, I prefer Phil Collin's singing more than Peter Gabriel's. I enjoy their song 'That's All' quite a bit. I do however love Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill" There's probably like 25 different rock bands that I constantly listen to, and Genesis isn't on that list, because I find their music boring. It doesn't grip. It's just my ears listening, if others love Genesis, that's great and wonderful, but I don't think everyone on this forum, myself including, loves Genesis. That was the point of my reply. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.07.2008 06:41 |
Fair enough; so essentially, you're an all-round ROCK fan, which is far from a narrow taste, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a very wide area of musical interest: rock is only one way of treating western tonal music, which is only one way of treating equal division of the octave, which is only one way of treating aural physics, etc. |
| john bodega 25.07.2008 16:25 |
As long as it's not Nickleback, I'm grateful. I hope they go the way of Buddy Holly before they have enough 'songs' to make a box set out of. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.07.2008 16:46 |
Zebonka12 wrote: As long as it's not Nickleback, I'm grateful. I hope they go the way of Buddy Holly before they have enough 'songs' to make a box set out of.Kung Fu Master Zebonka: "Boys, we have tried everything; the way of the swallow, the way of the lion, the way of the dandelion and the way of the yellow-bellied sap sucker. You are hopeless. I am very sorry, but only one path now remains: the Way of Buddy Holly" Nickleback (in out of tune unison): "Uhhh..what is the way of Buddy Holly?" Zebonka (draws pistol from loincloth): You will soon know, my young apprentices... |
| Adam Baboolal 25.07.2008 20:01 |
Say this was a Queen release - the fans would lambast it for making you buy the albums again! Don't deny it cause there are many posts about this very idea. |
| inu-liger 26.07.2008 00:18 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Say this was a Queen release - the fans would lambast it for making you buy the albums again! Don't deny it cause there are many posts about this very idea.Yeah. To be fair, I wouldn't want to double-dip on the albums unless they get High Def 5.1 remixes put out, with extra bonus content. |
| Adam Baboolal 26.07.2008 04:55 |
I'd like dvd-a remixes too. Just need to wait for the thieves of the multi's to give them back. =) |
| Tero 26.07.2008 06:27 |
inu-liger wrote:People will complain about everything, that's a fact. Is that a good enough reason to actually give them valid reasons to complain? :PAdam Baboolal wrote: Say this was a Queen release - the fans would lambast it for making you buy the albums again! Don't deny it cause there are many posts about this very idea.Yeah. To be fair, I wouldn't want to double-dip on the albums unless they get High Def 5.1 remixes put out, with extra bonus content. The record sales of "classic" artists have been decreasing for the past 15 years, and it's no wonder really as there aren't as many new fans coming in as there are old ones leaving. The industry's response to this is repackaging the same material over and over again with as little effort as possible (lp -> cd -> box set of cds -> remastered cd -> cd with bonus tracks -> deluxe edition cd -> cd with bonus dvd -> cd and a surround sound version -> box set of cds and a surround sound version -> etc.) with just enough of an incentive to sell the same material again and again to the same people. So what should a band do? Make a good release that satisfies 90% of the audience, or a mediocre release that satisfies 50% of the audience? I'm sure the accountant will recommend choice #2 (the "Queen release"), while most artists and fans would go for choice #1. |
| kingogre 26.07.2008 11:42 |
Tero wrote:Im just wondering what figures you have for the decrease in sale of classic artists since Ive read countless times that classic rock-artists are among the most downloaded from sites like iTunes etc. Maybe you mean only newly released albums? That might be partially correct but not generally so as there are several examples of classic artists releasing big-sellers during the last few years.inu-liger wrote:People will complain about everything, that's a fact. Is that a good enough reason to actually give them valid reasons to complain? :P The record sales of "classic" artists have been decreasing for the past 15 years, and it's no wonder really as there aren't as many new fans coming in as there are old ones leaving. The industry's response to this is repackaging the same material over and over again with as little effort as possible (lp -> cd -> box set of cds -> remastered cd -> cd with bonus tracks -> deluxe edition cd -> cd with bonus dvd -> cd and a surround sound version -> box set of cds and a surround sound version -> etc.) with just enough of an incentive to sell the same material again and again to the same people. So what should a band do? Make a good release that satisfies 90% of the audience, or a mediocre release that satisfies 50% of the audience? I'm sure the accountant will recommend choice #2 (the "Queen release"), while most artists and fans would go for choice #1.Adam Baboolal wrote: Say this was a Queen release - the fans would lambast it for making you buy the albums again! Don't deny it cause there are many posts about this very idea.Yeah. To be fair, I wouldn't want to double-dip on the albums unless they get High Def 5.1 remixes put out, with extra bonus content. In the case of many older artists with disappointing sales I must say though that this is somewhat "unfair" as many release excellent albums that for some reason dont get the attention they should, many times even among their fans. When it comes to tours though the highest grossing are almost completely older artists. |
| Tero 26.07.2008 12:02 |
kingogre wrote: Im just wondering what figures you have for the decrease in sale of classic artists since Ive read countless times that classic rock-artists are among the most downloaded from sites like iTunes etc. Maybe you mean only newly released albums? That might be partially correct but not generally so as there are several examples of classic artists releasing big-sellers during the last few years. In the case of many older artists with disappointing sales I must say though that this is somewhat "unfair" as many release excellent albums that for some reason dont get the attention they should, many times even among their fans. When it comes to tours though the highest grossing are almost completely older artists.Sadly I don't have the album by album sales figures, as the record companies aren't too happy to publish them. What I am basing this theory is merely conjecture. The record companies keep reporting dwindling record sales. The top years for record sales were in the early 90's when people were replacing the lp collections. The pace of re-re-re-re-re-releases is becoming more and more rapid each year. The fact that most groups make their money by touring instead of by selling albums. All these together point to what I wrote. At least in my opinion. ;) |
| kingogre 26.07.2008 12:41 |
I think that no doubt many veteran artists have found it hard to have big-sellers. Many times unfair when the albums are excellent. I still think that it would be possible to have a big-seller with the right marketing and use of new techniques. I read an interesting interview with a local researcher at my university who claimed that record sales today are at about the same level as during the early years of the "record boom" in the 90s. However they are still decreasing. He said that to some extent the decline in sales reported by record companies is because they have accepted the sales from the highest years as what should be the standard. Still a record today is not as profitable as it used to be, whereas tours still are for at least the major artists. |
| Tero 26.07.2008 15:48 |
kingogre wrote: I think that no doubt many veteran artists have found it hard to have big-sellers. Many times unfair when the albums are excellent. I still think that it would be possible to have a big-seller with the right marketing and use of new techniques.Of course it's possible to have big sellers with new albums as well, but the old ones don't really need the advertisement... In all simplicity, that is the industry's problem. They want to have maximum profits with minimum effort. kingogre wrote: Still a record today is not as profitable as it used to be, whereas tours still are for at least the major artists.A record from the 1970's is by default just as profitable to the artist as a record from the 2000's. They will still get the same percentage of the sales. But this is where the "industry vs. artistry" argument kicks in. Does a band release something of artistic value for its fans (and very little commercial profit), or will it release something of commercial value to the record company (and of very little artistic value)? |
| The Fairy King 26.07.2008 16:17 |
Choo Choo wrote:Here's your friggin medal.Mustapha_Ibrahim wrote:I'm a fan of a lot of bands, thousands in fact. I'm not a typical 21 year old. I'm not a young person who goes out and just buys Greatest Hits. I don't even download music off of limewire. My top favorite bands are Queen, The Beach Boys, J. Geils Band, My Chemical Romance, Bryan Adams, Twisted Sister, Led Zepplin, Smash Mouth... I've got a wide range of tastes. Genesis just doesn't stick in my head, nor does it inspire me in any way.Jacob Britt wrote: An okay band, but we don't all love and admire them."Okay band"? Genesis? You are 21, you still have plenty of time to get there ;-) link |
| Winter Land Man 26.07.2008 16:36 |
Here's your *!!*friggin*!!* medal. linkThat's a nice medal! I'm happy with it. Do you have a friggin problem with me, sir? You asked me a question earlier about the other display photo I had up, if it was me, and it was. Did you have a "friggin" problem with it, sir? Sir? Sir? Sir? Sir? Sir? |
| Negative Creep 26.07.2008 17:10 |
Tero wrote: Does a band release something of artistic value for its fans (and very little commercial profit), or will it release something of commercial value to the record company (and of very little artistic value)?That suggests that anything "Queen" released that would be of interest to their actual fanbase would be of little commerical profit - absolute tosh! At the end of the the day, the most profitable way of releasing unreleased archive material is via bonus discs of the existing albums (which in themselves could be remixed or remastered). I don't personally see any proble with that format. Does anyone really want another boxset the size of the Freddie one? I wonder how often people actually listen to their Freddie Mercury boxsets - the packaging is a joke. |
| Tero 27.07.2008 11:17 |
Negative Creep wrote: At the end of the the day, the most profitable way of releasing unreleased archive material is via bonus discs of the existing albums (which in themselves could be remixed or remastered).The #1 most profitable release the band can make is a direct reissue of anything previously released. The #2 most profitable release they can make is a recycled package of previously existing material (compilation, live album/video that is already sitting in its basic edited form in their archive) Any archive release (whether it's a box set or individual album release) doesn't come in until #3 on the list. And this is the "creative release" by default, as it includes sifting through the material, picking out the best bits, putting them in a sequence etc. Sure, it's not a creative process on par to recording the ANATO album, but it still requires about 20 times more effort than something like Rock Montreal. I believe that was my point. :P |
| boca 05.09.2008 10:44 |
victor fleitas wrote: Ahhh... I almost passed out when I realized that it was genesis, and not queen... mmm... I hate You!me too haha, it was suspicios when i read "english band", and not Queen...haha, good one |
| Micrówave 05.09.2008 11:30 |
A violation has occured and Jake needs to be reprimanded. You cannot enter a thread on Queen or Genesis and mention artists such as:
Jake? wrote: But I listen to a lot of: Mariah Carey (EXTREME VIOLATION) Whitney Houston (EXTREME VIOLATION) MC Hammer (EXTREME VIOLATION) Britney Spears (EXTREME VIOLATION) Dashboard Confessional Dan Hartman Yanni (EXTREME VIOLATION)And no, we don't want to hear about the time you went to a Lisa Lisa & The Cult Jam concert. |