| Walter B. 30.10.2010 08:54 |
Queen go to Island 16:13 | Friday October 22, 2010 Island Records will be home to the Queen back catalogue from January 2011, after EMI’s deal with band expires at the end of the year. Island parent company Universal was widely known to be the new home for the band’s iconic back catalogue for the world outside the US. However, the band have now for the first time appeared on the Island schedule, with the entire back catalogue scheduled for digital release on January 3, while Greatest Hits 1 and 2 are set for a full release on the same day. Queen’s Greatest Hits is the biggest-selling album of all time in the UK with more than 5m sales. Island is expected to reveal its plans for the catalogue shortly but it will have the perfect platform, with 2011 the 20th anniversary of singer Freddie Mercury’s death and the 40th anniversary of the band’s formation. In addition, 2011 will see a biopic of the life of Mercury go into production starring Sacha Baron Cohen. HMV music manager John Hirst says Queen recordings are “among the crown jewels of our industry's back catalogue”. “The band's albums continue to sell consistently well in reasonable quantities - both to domestic fans and overseas visitors, and it's also the type of catalogue that will pick up very quickly and go back into the charts every time people are reminded of the timeless appeal of the music,” he adds. “With some notable anniversaries coming up, not to mention a high-profile Freddie Mercury film biopic, there's every reason to believe that, with a new home, the catalogue can enjoy a renewed lease of life, and connect with a whole new generation of fans." (source: MusicWeek) |
| Holly2003 30.10.2010 09:23 |
I suspect if these offered any more than just a reissue of what's gone before this press release might've mentioned it. After all, the inclusion of b-sides, rarities or even live tracks are a major selling point when recycling old products. Therefore i think we can assume this is 'same old, same old' from Queen and once again, very disappointing from them. The lowest common denominator rule applies: least possible effort for maximum possible profit. Still maybe there'll be a spurious 'remastering' done (i.e. making the cd a little louder than previous ones). Can't wait :( |
| pittrek 30.10.2010 10:41 |
Let me guess - they will be without any bonus material, terribly loud, with no booklets and no promotion ? Or will they be perfectly remastered, with a 100 page booklet full of never-seen-before photos, bonus CD full of remixes, and bonus DVD with all existing videos from that albums, with 5.1 DTS mix and 1 live concert ? |
| rhyeking 30.10.2010 11:31 |
More than likely, they'll be somewhere in the middle and people will still complain, "Why couldn't they include [X]? What were they thinking? Queen Productions HATES us! Let us compose strongly-worded emails to Brian to demonstrate our lack of pleasure, whereby he will understand the soul-crushing plight of the modern Queen fan! " |
| GinjaNinja 30.10.2010 12:02 |
This is an ad from the We Will Rock You Berlin programme. link Can anyone understand German :P |
| pittrek 30.10.2010 12:08 |
From January 2011 MANY (viele = many, and NOT ALL) Queen albums will appear in "neuauflage" (new edition ??? sorry I don't know this word) with material which was not released till now That actually sounds interesting |
| GinjaNinja 30.10.2010 12:23 |
Yes "neuauflage" means new reissue/edition. Interesting that they put many, though this may just mean that they aren't reissuing the live albums and some of the compilations yet/at all. Notice the absence of Live Killers, Live Magic etc. |
| LuckyRocks 30.10.2010 12:54 |
Here we go guys... I'm from Germany! Translation: From January 2011 onwards many Queen - albums will be released as new editions with previously unpublished material Sorry if the translation is not that perfect... but I think all of you can now understand what's meant! LuckyRocks :-) By the way - I'm a little curious what will be released! Hope they won't pass the possibility to release something great this time! |
| Wilki Amieva 30.10.2010 13:44 |
New liner notes with unpublished photos. 2001 remasters. |
| Benn 30.10.2010 14:37 |
Island have a decent track record where re-issues are concerned, however, and this is a massive caveat for them, Queen are new to Island Records and, essentially, the albums are only re-issues in OUR minds because we have the catalogue unmpteen times already. Island haven't ever had Queen material before and this is almost certain to be a straight issue of the catalogue probably in three phases as per the initial UK Digital Remasters. I would think that they WILL invest in a re-mix / re-master in order for the new products to sonically knock the socks off of what is already available though as it's in Universal's interest to *get it right*. We're then pretty certain to get back to waiting on QPL for Universal to be allowed to issue a rarities set when they feel it's right to do so. But, equally, we might just get the sorprise of our lives and Univeral have demanded from QPL access to everyting and we get an immediate tranche of expanded / Deluxe editions of the Queen catalogue. .......and I've seen an elephant fly! |
| Holly2003 30.10.2010 14:48 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: New liner notes with unpublished photos. 2001 remasters. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I suspect that's right. If the German press release mentions "previously unpublished material", that suggests written material rather than sonic. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 30.10.2010 16:23 |
I wonder what this will mean for Americans...Hollywood still is the Record company (I'm assuming). Hope Hollywood releases the new versions. Semms like we Americans always get the short end of the stick when it comes to Queen : ( |
| the dude 1366 30.10.2010 17:35 |
They will likely be remastered LOUD. Don't let it fool you and sell the old ones. Google the "Loudness War" if you aren't aware |
| YourValentine 31.10.2010 04:01 |
Unpublished material means unreleased sound, not just liner notes. It does not mean rare demos and outtakes. It only means we do not get the anthology and are coaxed into buying the albums all over again by adding some unreleased sound on the albums. I totally agree that new "remasters" are much too often just "up-noised" remixes, see "Absolute Greatest Hits". It is good that groups like The Beatles still have respect for their own work and do not follow the trend. My money will be on such quality products in the future. Comedian and producer Rhys Thomas has written the liner notes and works on the 40 year documentary as written on his homepage: "He is currently writing the sleeve notes for all 15 "Queen Albums" which are being re-released next year plus working on a Queen documentary to mark the 40th Anniversary". link I am really curious what happens to GVH3 - will it be just dumped or will the new record company start all over and re-release a new Video series? |
| Adam Baboolal 31.10.2010 07:05 |
First up, that Beatles comment makes me laugh :P Obviously a joke because, as anyone familiar with the Beatles back catalogue knows, they've been sitting in a pretty sorry state for 20-something years on CD. It took them far too long to release it properly. Of course, Queen have been quite the opposite, releasing quite a few mastering's to the extreme. Secondly, unpublished material can mean anything. It doesn't mean one or the other, so, we'll just have to wait and see. And finally, my only hope is that the entire catalogue is done by the guy who remastered the ANATO album back in 2005. That was a nice one. Oh btw, I always find a greatest hits type disc (Absolute Greatest) mastering a bit tricky to decide over. Usually because all the songs come from different sources and have to be mastered to sound somehow similar. It's a tough job and one which can divide opinion too easily, I think. So, my hope is for a really excellent remaster. And someday, maybe, a shiny "HD" offering in the form of a super-duper audio disc format, rather than CD or MP3. |
| Holly2003 31.10.2010 08:11 |
Books, newspapers, journals etc are normally 'published', whereas cds, records etc are usually 'released'. But, we'll have to wait to see for certain. |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.10.2010 08:49 |
Wilki Amieva wrote: New liner notes with unpublished photos. 2001 remasters. ==== Yes, likely. |
| YourValentine 31.10.2010 09:37 |
"bisher unveröffentlichtes Material" means previously unreleased sound material - definitely not some photos or new liner notes. You can trust my command of the German language with that. |
| The Real Wizard 31.10.2010 09:55 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:
First up, that Beatles comment makes me laugh :P Obviously a joke because, as anyone familiar with the Beatles back catalogue knows, they've been sitting in a pretty sorry state for 20-something years on CD. It took them far too long to release it properly.Properly? The new remasters are crap. At the very most, there is a 1% difference in the sound quality from the 1988 versions. |
| YourValentine 31.10.2010 10:06 |
I think the Beatles remasters are excellent. I have the Stereo box and the Mono box, they are both great. If the new Queen CDs should be such as good I would not mind if any unreleased material is on them or not. It's obviously all a matter of taste. |
| Holly2003 31.10.2010 11:22 |
YourValentine wrote: "bisher unveröffentlichtes Material" means previously unreleased sound material - definitely not some photos or new liner notes. You can trust my command of the German language with that. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, obviously something was lost in the original translation. That's a lot more promising. As long as it's not a bonus interview CD ... |
| Pim Derks 31.10.2010 12:20 |
If they package the whole back-catalogue in beautiful digipacks with extensive booklets (like thte Beatles did) I'd be very happy. I just hope they properly remix everything. I don't care about the original mix of the debut-album or stuff like Innuendo - I just want it to sound as good as possible. Or maybe include the original mix and a 40th anniversary mix or something. |
| GinjaNinja 31.10.2010 12:25 |
I doubt they'll be remixed from the multitracks. I've heard that they are being remastered by Bob Ludwig. Our best chance of getting a new mix of the songs is if they release DVD-Audio versions of the albums. I now only listen to that version of The Game, as the sound is so much clearer. Fingers crossed! |
| Adam Baboolal 31.10.2010 12:27 |
I agree with YV, the new beatles remasters are really nice. Most tracks are sounding rather lush and sweet now thanks to a really in-depth testing of how to get it sounding as good as the acclaimed vinyl masterings of years gone by. I guess it shows that some folk hear things rather differently, going by Sir GH's comment. When I compared the old 88 remasters with the newer 2009 remasters, I was rather taken aback at how they'd changed. Sometimes quite radically. It's worth remembering that George Martin was brought in for the mastering process back in 88 and he admitted he got it wrong. This was due to his age and the amount of high end he had added. Sad but true. |
| GT 31.10.2010 12:41 |
They will all be worth waiting for.....roll on 2011. |
| pittrek 31.10.2010 12:46 |
GT wrote: They will all be worth waiting for.....roll on 2011.Welcome back, Gary. I seriously HOPE you're right but after the single boxes I remain sceptical. But I would LOVE to be wrong |
| Erin 31.10.2010 18:11 |
"Previously unreleased sound material" eh? Sounds interesting... I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of it. Now, if Queen could just ditch Hollywood Records.. |
| brians wig 31.10.2010 19:31 |
"Digital release"? Doesn't that mean download rather than a physical copy? I'm sorry, but unless i can have something tangible in my hands, they ain't getting my money again. |
| rhyeking 31.10.2010 19:57 |
Holly2003 wrote: Books, newspapers, journals etc are normally 'published', whereas cds, records etc are usually 'released'. But, we'll have to wait to see for certain. *********** Actually, in the music industry, all songs and music are published. From Wikipedia: "A simple view, in the music industry, is that a music publisher (or publishing company) is responsible for ensuring the songwriters and composers receive payment when theircompositions are used commercially." That was first sentence. Here's the rest of the article: link Hope this helps. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 31.10.2010 20:27 |
Surprising amount of developments in the Queen world after a pretty barren spell with the movie, the new book ("Is this the real life"which is supposed to be superb), the Freddie tribute single, the move to Universal etc. Seems like 2011 may be a banner year for Queen. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.11.2010 07:11 |
YourValentine wrote: "bisher unveröffentlichtes Material" means previously unreleased sound material - definitely not some photos or new liner notes. You can trust my command of the German language with that. ===== I am fully aware of the fact that you are a native speaker, but "unveröffentliches Material" is the literal equivalent of the English "unreleased material(s)" (the plural would depend on what is referred to), the Dutch "niet eerder uitgebracht materiaal", and the French "material(s) inédit" (see English). I happen to have a native speaker of German in the house with me right now, and she agrees that you cannot derive the nature of said "Material" from the above sentence alone. Sleevenotes can be, and have been, referred to as "Material" in the past. |
| The Real Wizard 01.11.2010 07:19 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:
When I compared the old 88 remasters with the newer 2009 remasters, I was rather taken aback at how they'd changed. Sometimes quite radically.I've heard Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and Abbey Road... and there is no difference in the actual sound. There were incredibly minor imperfections in the sound removed here and there, and Abbey Road went through some hiss reduction. But it's the same bad stereo mixes (hard left and right), and the EQ has barely been changed (if at all). I compared the two versions side by side in a professional studio environment. If you turn up the volume of the 1988 versions, the sound is virtually identical. The only major change from 1988 to 2009 is this volume increase to about 150% - which merely makes the remasters the next instalment in the loudness war... but with pretty artwork. The 1999 version of Yellow Submarine was an incredible improvement - new EQ, new stereo mixes (making virtually all parts sound more clear and full), and a bit of compression (which I could have done without, but it doesn't harm the sound). This is how the 2009 remasters should have been done. To me it's the biggest loss in the history of modern popular music that The Beatles' catalogue was not given the treatment it deserves. I'm curious.. what exactly blew your socks off? |
| GratefulFan 01.11.2010 07:38 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: YourValentine wrote: "bisher unveröffentlichtes Material" means previously unreleased sound material - definitely not some photos or new liner notes. You can trust my command of the German language with that. ===== I am fully aware of the fact that you are a native speaker, but "unveröffentliches Material" is the literal equivalent of the English "unreleased material(s)" (the plural would depend on what is referred to), the Dutch "niet eerder uitgebracht materiaal", and the French "material(s) inédit" (see English). I happen to have a native speaker of German in the house with me right now, and she agrees that you cannot derive the nature of said "Material" from the above sentence alone. Sleevenotes can be, and have been, referred to as "Material" in the past. ======================= Holy crap. The latin word for material is 'materia'. Did like every country in the world get around to that word at 5:00 on a Friday and just say 'Screw it. We'll just go with materia....l. Done. Now who's buying the drinks?' |
| MercurialFreddie 01.11.2010 07:48 |
I guess it will all be clear at the day of the release. Let's hope that they did learned something (QPL) |
| gregorsamsa 01.11.2010 08:02 |
Never heard of the planned (?) FM tribute single. Anyone could enlight me? |
| Vali 01.11.2010 08:08 |
GT wrote: They will all be worth waiting for.....roll on 2011. //////////////////////// I soooo want to believe you, Gary :) |
| pittrek 01.11.2010 08:17 |
brians wig wrote: "Digital release"? Doesn't that mean download rather than a physical copy? I'm sorry, but unless i can have something tangible in my hands, they ain't getting my money again.Oops, I only now noticed it. I hope that they don't seriously think that somebody will buy mp3s :-( |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 01.11.2010 11:18 |
gregorsamsa wrote: Never heard of the planned (?) FM tribute single. Anyone could enlight me? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No One But You (1997)? :) Nah, I am in the dark here, as well. Anybody? Cheers, Ogre- |
| Erin 01.11.2010 11:19 |
Oh, if it's just downloads, I won't be buying them, either. Surely, everything would have a physical release, at some point, you would think. |
| GinjaNinja 01.11.2010 11:26 |
As far as I know, they will all be getting a physical release, in several batches throughout 2011. This digital release will just be to get the albums out there so Universal can start making money from them. The rumoured bonus material may or may not be included in the digital release, but if it is to be included it will definitely be on the physical release, be it a deluxe version with (an) extra disc(s) or a single disc version with a couple of bonus tracks tagged on the end. |
| Dan C. 01.11.2010 17:00 |
Erin wrote: "Previously unreleased sound material" eh? Sounds interesting... I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of it. Now, if Queen could just ditch Hollywood Records.. =================================== This, this, this so fucking this. I find the prospect of unreleased stuff to be very exciting! |
| Sheer Brass Neck 01.11.2010 17:58 |
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote: gregorsamsa wrote: Never heard of the planned (?) FM tribute single. Anyone could enlight me? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No One But You (1997)? :) Nah, I am in the dark here, as well. Anybody? Cheers, Ogre- Nah, not sure if any truth but apparently there is a release coming this month. Heard it from a friend of a friend but supposed to be some validity to it, not sure if from the Queen camp (doubtful) or others. Will dig a little more see what's up with it. |
| AlexRocks 01.11.2010 21:15 |
Actually...the 40th anniversary is 2013...right? When the first studio l.p. was released? I mean the Beatles (if this is a standard of comparision) don't celebrate their anniversary when they formed but when their first recording came out...single or l.p. or what have you. I actually have started to take the opinion that they should wait until their fiftieth anniversary before they really release a ton of the archives...who cares about a fortieth anniversary?! How absured...then again maybe I'm just wrong...I think it might be worth the wait personally and work out better for them and the catelog. |
| rhyeking 01.11.2010 23:58 |
I think Queen has always marked 1971 as their beginning, basically when John joined in February (despite forming after Smile in 1970). 1981's Greatest Hits was the ten-year mark and 1991's Greatest Hits II was the twenty-year mark. I guess they couldn't wait for 2001 for the thirty-year mark (1999's GHIII). Rush, for example, had its R30 Tour (the 30th Anniversary) in 2004. 1974 was the year Neil Peart joined, after the band (with drummer John Rutsey) had already been around a few years and had a non-album single and a debut album. |
| mike hunt 02.11.2010 01:15 |
AlexRocks wrote: Actually...the 40th anniversary is 2013...right? When the first studio l.p. was released? I mean the Beatles (if this is a standard of comparision) don't celebrate their anniversary when they formed but when their first recording came out...single or l.p. or what have you. I actually have started to take the opinion that they should wait until their fiftieth anniversary before they really release a ton of the archives...who cares about a fortieth anniversary?! How absured...then again maybe I'm just wrong...I think it might be worth the wait personally and work out better for them and the catelog. another 10 years for anything good?...now that would be absured. |
| brians wig 02.11.2010 04:59 |
AlexRocks wrote: Actually...the 40th anniversary is 2013...right? When the first studio l.p. was released? I mean the Beatles (if this is a standard of comparision) don't celebrate their anniversary when they formed but when their first recording came out...single or l.p. or what have you. I actually have started to take the opinion that they should wait until their fiftieth anniversary before they really release a ton of the archives...who cares about a fortieth anniversary?! How absured...then again maybe I'm just wrong...I think it might be worth the wait personally and work out better for them and the catelog. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I might be dead in 10 years - many Queen fans will be and many have already passed, so forgive me when I shout you down and ask you not to put ideas into QPL'S head..... |
| Voice of Reason 2018 02.11.2010 07:15 |
I had always assumed that the first Universal releases would just be regular releases so record shops could get stock when the EMI ones run out. |
| KevoM 02.11.2010 07:53 |
GinjaNinja wrote: I doubt they'll be remixed from the multitracks. I've heard that they are being remastered by Bob Ludwig. Our best chance of getting a new mix of the songs is if they release DVD-Audio versions of the albums. I now only listen to that version of The Game, as the sound is so much clearer. Fingers crossed! I think you'll fond 'Pure Audio Blu Ray' is the latest format for High res/5.1 audio. DVD Audio and SACD, good as they were are now preety much obsolete (I think there ares still teh odd SACD release). But it's unlikely QP will release anything on this exciting new blu ray format as it won't sell to the masses (the 'mp3 generation)/ Plu They're (QP) are so far behind the times I doubt they've even heard of this new format. |
| Erin 02.11.2010 10:33 |
KevoM wrote: But it's unlikely QP will release anything on this exciting new blu ray format as it won't sell to the masses (the 'mp3 generation)/ Plu They're (QP) are so far behind the times I doubt they've even heard of this new format. --------------------------- When Brian was questioned about Live In Ukraine not being released on blu-ray, he said, "I think the general feeling is that Blu-Ray, in spite of beating its adversary Hi Def, is not catching on as well as was expected." Ummm....yeah. That was in '09, so hopefully he's changed his mind about blu-ray now, though. |
| rhyeking 02.11.2010 12:45 |
Even George Lucas resisted the DVD format back when The Phantom Menace came out. Remember, the only way to get the widescreen edition of the movie, with the documentary, was to get the VHS boxed set? The box had the mini Art Of The Phantom Menace book, a set of frames from the film (literally three or four frames of image...what were we supposed to do with those, exactly? Collect them all and splice together the whole movie?) and the Widescreen Edition VHS. What a spectacular joke that product was, but we all bought it because we wanted the widescreen version. I think Blu-Ray is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. The prices are creeping towards reasonable and getting a BR player doesn't mean buying all our (DVD) movies again, as they play both formats (most of the time). |
| AlexRocks 02.11.2010 17:45 |
That's hysterical. How could a format be declared dead when only three or four recording artists have used it? What there is Neil Young with his "Archives", Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers with their live box set anthology, and maybe Nine Inch Nails that have used Blu-Ray as an audio format (which should have film stuff as well...). I don't know... |
