| rhyeking 07.02.2011 12:20 |
When the official Deluxe Editions were announced for the first 5 albums, in another thread I pointed out that "Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)" appears on the "A Night At The Opera" disc and is dated on this edition as from "June 1975." I decided to make this its own thread, and so as not to retread, here are the important points brought up in that discussion: The "Long Lost Re-take," until now, has been associated with the Queen 1 recording session, between June and November of 1972. The "Long Lost Re-Take" also goes by the name "Long Lost Original Version" on the Crown Jewels Promo CD single, whose liner notes say: "Here is a collector's edition sampler of all versions, including the rediscovered original version, of Queen's first single 'Keep Yourself Alive.'" Further, in a 1983 interview for BBC Radio One, Brian said the following: "Brian May: The first recording of it ever was in De Lane Lea when we did it ourselves and I’ve still got that recording and I think it’s very good and has something which the single never had. But THEY pressurised us very strongly to redo all the tracks and we redid ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ with Roy and it was pretty awful, actually. I thought it was terrible and I was very unhappy about it and I thought the De Lane Lea one was better and I eventually managed to persuade Roy that it was better as well. So, we went back in and did it again in a way that was a bit more true to the original. But there is no way that you can ever really repeat something. I have this great belief that the magic of the moment can never be recaptured and, although we ended up with something that was technically in the playing and perhaps even in the recording a bit better than the De Lane Lea thing. I still think that the De Lane Lea one had that certain sort of magic, so I was never really happy. As it turned out no one else was ever really happy either and we kept remixing it. We thought that it’s the mix that’s wrong, we kept remixing and there must have been, at least, seven or eight different mixes by different groups of people. Eventually we went in and did a mix with Mike Stone, our engineer, and that’s the one that we were in the end happiest with. That’s the one we put out." My understanding is that the De Lane Demo was obviously recorded first, but that Roy Thomas Baker had them record KYA for the album and that version was what is now called the "Long Lost Re-Take." But the band didn't like it and recorded the song again, and mixed it seven or eight times. Mike Stone's mix was the best and that became the album and single version. This theory suits the facts as given. I also postulate that the now-promoted "June 1975" date for the "Long Lost Re-Take" is a mistake, that the date ought to read: "June 1972." Some circumstantial support for this is the fact that "Mad The Swine" on the Queen 1 Deluxe Edition is given as "June 1972," which by all other accounts is correct. I further speculated that the 1972-recorded "Long Lost Re-take" might have been later planned for a 1975 US single release, to capitalize on their growing popularity, but at some point the LLRT was changed to the standard US Single Edit, which DID see a July 1975 release. The responses to my posts were of the "I can't believe such a mistake could be made" variety, or "you could be mistaken and this is either another version or the LLRT we all know WAS recorded in 1975." Defense of the former comes from the fact that it's a pretty whopping mistake if that's the case. Defense of the latter comes from the belief that if the first RTB version (recorded after the DLL Demo) was so bad, Brian never would've let it out ever. My thoughts are that Queen Productions and related releases do contain honest to goodness mistakes. It happens. As to Brian never wanting the RTB version released, well, the interview was in 1983 and the LLRT only officially appeared on the Hollywood Records Queen 1 re-issue in 1991, so maybe Brian mellowed in 8 years. He DOES endorse the LLRT as it appears on the HR Queen 1 release, quoted in the liner notes: "This is a complete re-make of 'Keep Yourself Alive.' This version never surfaced anywhere. It contains many new ideas and quirks, as well as reproductions of some of the old ones." Now, some new info has surfaced. Here is a quote from the press release for the forthcoming 'Stormtrooper In Stilettos" 7" single: "Featuring two tracks recorded in the early 70’s, ‘Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Retake)’ (the original version taken from ‘Queen’) and ‘Stone Cold Crazy’ (from ‘Sheer Heart Attack’), the single is released to coincide with the exhibition ‘Stormtroopers in Stilettos’ which runs at Old Truman Brewery on Brick Lane in London for two weeks from Friday 25th February 2010." ...and... " ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ was the first single Queen ever released back in 1973 and is now poignantly released on their 40th Anniversary. This is the only Queen single that ever failed to chart in the UK mainly because Radio One rejected it claiming it took long to get going! This new 2011 remaster is a long-lost retake of the track recorded in 1975 for a USA single that never saw the light of day. The original version is taken from Queen’s debut album, Dave Grohl’s favourite album of all time." So now it appears, if this same "Long Lost Re-Take" as found on the 1991 HR Queen 1 re-issue and the Crown Jewels promo, that Queen Productions' official position is that it dates from 1975 as an unreleased (at the time) US single. Questions now are: Is QP compounding a mistake by promoting it as fact? I'm not calling anyone a liar, but mistaken facts do get repeated, even from official sources. Is QP 100% correct? If so, the "Long Lost Re-Take" we know and love IS from 1975 and we should adjust notes and collections accordingly. Is this newly-toted "Long Lost Re-Take" the same as the track by the same name which appears on the 1991 HR Queen 1 and Crown Jewels Promo CD single? We'll have to wait and hear. If 'yes,' the earlier 2 questions apply. If 'no,' then this is yet another recording of the song, genuinely from 1975. If the HR Q1 LLRT aka CJ LLOV are indeed from 1975, the Roy Thomas Baker Version first recorded for the album and rejected by the band is still in the vault, unheard by many. Thoughts? |
| GratefulFan 07.02.2011 14:10 |
I may be missing something, but why do we need to wait to hear? The songs that will be released are already posted online via the stormtroopersinstilettos site. Aren't they? http://soundcloud.com/purplepr |
| rhyeking 07.02.2011 14:36 |
Are they? Are we certain those are lifted for the Deluxe Edition Remasters? EDIT: Just listened to the tracks posted, so if those are the tracks to appear on single and in the case of KYA, on the Deluxe Ed. "Opera," tt would appear they are in fact claiming that the "Long Lost Re-Take" previously issued on the 1991 HR Queen 1 Remaster and the Crown Jewels Promo is from 1975. I still think, given the available evidence, that it's up for debate as to whether it was *recorded* in 1975 or 1972. |
| GratefulFan 07.02.2011 14:46 |
It certainly seems to imply so: http://www.stormtroopersinstilettos.com/new-single-release/ |
| GratefulFan 07.02.2011 15:12 |
The updated press release posted by GT in the other thread is a little bit abstruse as well. It first references the songs (and specifically the re-take as well) as being recorded in the 'early 1970's', then later makes the 1975 claim. It would not be typical to refer to mid decade as the 'early 1970's', but not entirely inaccurate either. One would think it shouldn't be this hard to have these kind of facts with some level of clarity. |
| rhyeking 07.02.2011 15:37 |
Agreed. And that's why I rarely take official sources at face value with something like this. If I hear something or read something from an official source that appears inconsistent with other information, I investigate as best I can, part of which involves getting the thoughts of other Queen fans on here. As noted, another official release, the Crown Jewels Promo CD single seems to flatly contradict the claim of the LLRT being from 1975, while directing us to believe it's the Long Lost Original Version, both in title and liner notes. We basically have two claims (it was from 1972 and it was from 1975) and one must be wrong. |
| Nordico 08.02.2011 05:24 |
Below a comment I did post earlier in the annoucement about the "deluxe" albums: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The fact that Hollywood records did release Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Retake) wasn't a big suprise for me, since Brian already talked about it in a interview I read long way back in 1978. So I digged in my archive an this is what I found...since it is in Dutch I give a small translation: The interview was taken by Kees Baars (Dutch DJ and pop journalist) for Muziekkrant Oor in between the 2 concerts at the Ahoy 19/20 april 1978 and was published 14 june 1978. Translation: First Brian talks about Queen II, that it is the most important Queen album for him and he would like to re-recorded it....but there many reasons to do it not. Than he says "Last Year" we have re- recorded Keep Yourself Alive for the American market, but due to the fact that "We are the champions" was a big sucess, we have left it on the shelf. Maybe we will release it sometime or put it on an album because it is a pretty good take which strenght me the idea that the production of the first album wasn't good. I don't know how serious we need to take the words "Last Year" which means that KYA was re-recorded in 1977... but I think Brian was wrong or was misunderstood. In the RAR you can't find the complete interview (In Dutch :-( ) and the snippet were here talks about KYA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Sebastian 08.02.2011 05:41 |
The plot thickens. |
| Nordico 08.02.2011 05:46 |
Below a comment I did post earlier in the annoucement about the "deluxe" albums: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The fact that Hollywood records did release Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Retake) wasn't a big suprise for me, since Brian already talked about it in a interview I read long way back in 1978. So I digged in my archive an this is what I found...since it is in Dutch I give a small translation: The interview was taken by Kees Baars (Dutch DJ and pop journalist) for Muziekkrant Oor in between the 2 concerts at the Ahoy 19/20 april 1978 and was published 14 june 1978. Translation: First Brian talks about Queen II, that it is the most important Queen album for him and he would like to re-recorded it....but there many reasons to do it not. Than he says "Last Year" we have re- recorded Keep Yourself Alive for the American market, but due to the fact that "We are the champions" was a big sucess, we have left it on the shelf. Maybe we will release it sometime or put it on an album because it is a pretty good take which strenght me the idea that the production of the first album wasn't good. I don't know how serious we need to take the words "Last Year" which means that KYA was re-recorded in 1977... but I think Brian was wrong or was misunderstood. In the RAR you can't find the complete interview (In Dutch :-( ) and the snippet were here talks about KYA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| cmsdrums 08.02.2011 07:16 |
rhyeking wrote: As noted, another official release, the Crown Jewels Promo CD single seems to flatly contradict the claim of the LLRT being from 1975, while directing us to believe it's the Long Lost Original Version, both in title and liner notes. We basically have two claims (it was from 1972 and it was from 1975) and one must be wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That just about summarises it exactly. If the two versions (Crown Jewels version and this new 'Deluxe' ANATO version) are in fact the same, we need to have definitive proof (studio logs, photos etc..) to say whether it is 1972 or 1975. The fact is, whichever it is, someone at some point has cocked up. My personal opinion is that it's 1972 , purely after asking myself the question as to why would they re-record an old, very basic song when they had already moved onto writing material like Seaside Rendevous, Bo Rhap, The Prohets Song etc... etc (without even considering the leap from Queen to Queen II and SHA)? |
| Sebastian 08.02.2011 08:57 |
> That just about summarises it exactly. Not quite: we've got three claims now: '72, '75 and '77. Two of them are wrong (or maybe all three). > My personal opinion is that it's 1972 , purely after asking myself the question as to why would they re-record an old, very basic song The reason's already been explained: they'd become more popular (in fact, IIRC, the first two albums reached their chart peak in '75), and wanted to give that song another try in the States. Going back to basics was not rare for the band: remember News of the World? Even the two 'golden' albums have some basic material in them (e.g. I'm in Love with My Car, Long Away). > when they had already moved onto writing material like Seaside Rendevous, Bo Rhap, The Prohets Song etc... etc Maybe they hadn't moved onto that yet. They could've recorded it in January '75, February '75, March '75, April '75, May '75, June '75, July '75, early to mid August '75... 'A Night at the Opera' sessions began on the year's 236th day. If the song comes from '75, there's a 64.38% chance they recorded it BEFORE Bo Rhap, Prophet's Song, etc. had even been demo'd. |
| rhyeking 08.02.2011 10:15 |
I'm fascinated by the 1978 Dutch interview. The plot does indeed thicken. So, to summarize, here is the 'evidence' for each position (not all of which is hard proof, some is circumstantial): In favour of it being recorded in 1972: - the 1983 BBC Radio One interview has Brian identify three different recordings associated with "Queen 1", two of which we are 100% certain about: 1)The De Lane Lea Demo, 2) Roy Thomas Baker Version, 3) standard Album Version. - the Crown Jewels Promo CD Single specifically cited the "Long Lost Re-Take" as the "Long Lost Original Version" twice, on its sleeve and its liner notes. - The date of "June 1975" has no other precedence for having the band recording. "Opera" sessions proper did not begin until August that year. - "June 1972" does fit with the period they were recording the first album. In favour of 1975: - Current Deluxe Edition sleeve listings and promotional material, including for the 'Stormtrooper In Stilettos' 7" single. - There was in fact a US-only 1975 re-issue of the US Single Edit (the edit of the album version) in July of that year, which fits the timeline when accounting for a last-minute change from the LLRT (planned for June) to the US Edit (released in July). - The 1991 Hollywood Records "Queen 1" re-issue has Brian calling the LLRT "a complete remake." - The 1978 Dutch interview indicates (date not withstanding) that the band did record a newer version of KYA well after the first album sessions, but says it never got released. We don't know when the interview was given, so a combination of Brian being vague ("last year") and the time between the interview being given and subsequently printed could have been many months, not to mention the interview may have been printed in early 1978, been given mid-1977, referring to "last year" is just a mistake (touring takes it toll and Brian could be mistaken) and Brian is only off by a year. Like I said, not everything here is hard evidence. It's easy (and perhaps misleading) to speculate too much and some statements from the sources could be up for multiple interpretations. Until further evidence arises, it's a matter of how much weight we put on each piece of evidence. I'd be very interested in an independent analysis of the sound and instruments used in the recording of the LLRT to see if it fits the "sound" of a particular era of Queen. We may also get in-depth details about where and when the LLRT was recorded in the liner notes of the Deluxe Editions. |
| Sebastian 08.02.2011 10:23 |
> - the 1983 BBC Radio One interview has Brian identify three different recordings associated with "Queen 1" TBF, considering Brian's flawed memory, that could've also been a mistake to begin with. > "Opera" sessions proper did not begin until August that year. True, but it wouldn't be the first or last time the band had an off (or 'bastard') session for a single ... single (A- or B-Side), rather than the album: See What a Fool (February 1974, long after the Queen II album and long before SHA), Under Pressure, Thank God It's Christmas... > I'd be very interested in an independent analysis of the sound and instruments used in the recording of the LLRT to see if it fits the "sound" of a particular era of Queen. That's indeed a very interesting project and a wonderful idea. |
| rhyeking 08.02.2011 11:10 |
The February 1974 date for "See What A Fool I've Been" doesn't, I believe, refer to the recording date, but to the release date: February 23rd, 1974. I'm sure SWAFIB was recorded in August of 1973 along with the rest of the Queen II album. Also, by many accounts, the Queen II album was delayed for various reasons (the oil crisis, the fact that Queen 1 was still fairly new...) and the band originally wanted it out in the end of 1973. I do see your point about one-off recording sessions. Examples like: "God Save The Queen" recorded October 27th, 1974, not for any album (Sheer Heart attack was long finished), but as a closing live anthem for the band. And "Thank God It's Christmas" which was recorded in the summer of 1984, long after The Works was completed (January 1984). Speaking of GSTQ and KYA, the US-only re-issue single of KYA in 1975 has the original version of "God Save The Queen" on it, which does not feature the fade in as heard later on the album. Also, in July of 1975, when the single came out, "God Save The Queen" was (at the time) a new non-album Queen track ("Opera" was still months away from being recorded). I find that fascinating. |
| Dave2843 08.02.2011 15:05 |
Hi All Just thought i would add my two pennies worth ! I listened to the LLR of KYA and noticed Freddie changed the lyrics at the end of the track to "get it get it get it boy keep yourself alive" I have listened to all the versions of KYA i have (live and studio) and the same lyrics seem to appear late 1975, for example Freddie does not sing them in Japan may 75 but he sings them London dec 75 ! You guys may have more live recordings that can be checked. Im sure they were not sung 73-74, so maybe he changed the lyric in the Retake then decided to sing it live too. Hope this helps cheers Dave |
| Sebastian 08.02.2011 15:26 |
Very good point. Great info. |
| Wiley 08.02.2011 16:20 |
I think Dave may be onto something here. I remember listening to the Long Lost Retake and noticing those lyrics at the end, which Freddie used to sing live in the widely available versions I knew back then (LK, WWRY). It made sense, being a retake, that it had additional ideas and lyrics not available in the studio version. I guess everybody just assumed that the retake had been recorded after the album version but BEFORE Queen I was released, as opposed to almost 3 years later. Hopefully someone can comment on the Instruments used and the overall sound of the LLRT recording and we can conclude something. |
| rhyeking 08.02.2011 17:20 |
Indeed, a very good catch. I took a moment to explore this development, listening to the various known versions I own and here's what I can add: 1) De Lane Lea Demo (1971): Starts with acoustic guitar, adds Red Special at 8 seconds and the main riff at about 11 seconds, adds percussion at 18 seconds and full drums at 24 seconds. Basically, it starts with guitar and layers the elements one at a time at the start leading into the first verse. 2) Album Version (Mike Stone Mix - June 1972): Starts with one layer of Red Special, instead of the DLL acoustic; at 8 seconds, the next layer appears, providing the main riff at 11 seconds (same as the DLL Demo); percussion counts in at 14 seconds (approximately the same as the DLL Demo); at 24 seconds, the drums kick in (again, the same as the DLL Demo). 3) BBC Version #1 (February 5th, 1973): Follows a similar structure as the Album Version, but with a few differences. It starts with one layer of guitar, then at 8 seconds *both* the second guitar and the percussion layer onto it. At 11 seconds, the main riff appears, as standard. At 17 seconds, the tapping percussion is replaced with a high-hat (about the time the percussion would normally appear for the first time). At 24 second, the drums kick in. Despite the difference in percussive layering, this recording follows the same structure as established in the DLL Demo. 4) BBC Version #2 (July 25th, 1973): Is exactly the same backing track as BBC Version #1, which the exception of a third (new) layer of guitar added throughout and new vocals by Freddie. 5) Shitkickers Version (Recorded live at The Rainbow Theatre March 31st, 1974): Starts with guitar (one layer) and percussive beat-keeping standard to the usual structure. Since it's live, without overdubs, the subtle layering is absent, but as noted, the structure is pretty much the same: guitar, percussion, riff, drums... 6) Xmas Eve Version (Recorded live at the Hammersmith Odeon, Dec. 24th, 1975): As noted by the other poster, here we see a relatively significant change. The song starts with the heavy bass drum marking time, pounding in the song before the guitar comes in via some cool feedback, similar now to the "Long Lost Re-Take" intro. Also, as noted by the previous poster, the "Get it, get it, get it, boy! Keep yourself alive!" appears here, where it is absent from the previous versions. Normally, it's variations on "All you people, keep yourself alive!" 7) Earls Court Version (Recorded live at Earls Court, June 6th, 1977: Heavy bass drum + percussive intro, with some flares from Roger. Here, Brian seems to start a bit before Roger, but Roger comes in quickly and heavily. The "Get it, get it, get it, boy! Keep yourself alive!" ends the song. 8) Houston Version (Recorded live at The Summit, Dec. 11, 1977):Heavy bass drum + percussive intro, with some flares from Roger. Previously (DLL, Album and BBC) it was guitars and more guitars until the drums kicked in later. Lastly, the "Get it, get it, get it, boy! Keep yourself alive!" ends the song. 9) Live Killers Version (1979): Heavy bass drum + percussive intro, following the altered structure seen in the Xmas Eve Version of drums leading the way and guitar following suit. "Get it, get it, get it, boy! Keep yourself alive!" ends the song. 10) Montreal Version (Nov 24th, 1981): This is a bit different because it starts with a sampling of "Sex Show" (an unreleased track from the Hot Space sessions, according to Brian in the Queen Rock Montreal commentary). However, after Brian changes keys into KYA, it follows the heavy drums + percussion + guitar intro. The song is not finished (leading instead into Roger and Brian's respective solos), so we don't hear the full ending. So, what does it all mean? Well, in 1975 thereabouts we see a marked change in the intro to "Keep Yourself Alive," where it seems to reflect the "Long Lost Re-Take" approach, and the ending line ("Get it, get it...") appears and stays as the finale of the song (at least when performed in its entirety). Is this conclusive? No, but it's certainly compelling. I was always open to the idea, but now I'm very much coming to believe there may be validity to the LLRT being from 1975. |
| IanR 09.02.2011 03:47 |
Here's a quick OCR and Google translation of that Dutch interview: Recently Netherlands eerisvereerd again with a two-day visit of the world band Queen. The previous visit was not even a year ago and the statement seems justified that the band led by Freddie Mercury made entirely in our cozy swamp delta in the ne. Last year you could get another chapter Ciriiii-Queen of the vicissitudes of the four reading, recorded from the beautiful mouth of Fred. Therefore it seemed to me this time nice am the other major driver in eheel a hat word to Paten, guitarist wish me dihah> passed it, ran it any wonder ivan the part of Fred, which does not seem to understand why I do not had chosen for him. That characterizes at least the real wheel. May was prepared immediately tu speak to me and was very soon .. •, that he is still a simple, modest, friendly and above tall boy remained. This balance was made between the two concerts. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Q: You are quite often lately, h2? " A: Yes, the second kcer within one year. We feel that Europe the last two years has become very important to us. There are so many records worldwide and we have so many fans that we really should be, I think It's always very nice to play in Europe. Many people think that we are here for years at the top, but that is not so. The album A Night At The Opera hceft time it sold well, but it might as well be a fluke. The Races A Day by Ar and News of the World have our toilet positic tremendous popular sup-dig reinforced, not only in Europe mau (especially in America where we najatir a tour uitertit guceetivolle gedatin Itebben. The situatle is at the moment so, that News of the World by far the best selling album. Even in France, where in the past we have little to fry arrived, has that record quite sold during this tour hehhe we first France in the tour schedule with them. There We are all four very happy, because it is more central bevcstiging that our music on the right track. Many more people believe in us today. " COMBI-HIT Q: Hei took a long time for you a solid foot in the door got in America. A: "Yes, it's been a slow development. It is simply very difficult to truly there among the established names to penetrate. There are many groups in America while we still ko-men from abroad too. It takes a lot of time and effort to do the entire American audience, and as you will understand we have our commitments elsewhere. Our final breakthrough is closely related to the fact that the single "We Are 77te Cltampions with on the other hand, We Will Rock You, two A-sides is a big hit and was thereby News of the World was running great. But I must tell it to, that Europe is in fact the area is difficult to conquer. This is sometimes underestimated, I think. " Q: Domestically, things get a little less, I'm told. A: "That's right. In England it is still A! ORDER At Opera our rhe hest-selling album. WC wool have many fans, but the last eighteen years much has happened in the field of music in England and that has surely worked as a barrier for many groups. Of course it is jam-mer, but I do not worry about it. It'll be back. I hope. " Q: And what about all those rumors about the breakup of Queen? A: "All nonsense and nonsense. The English press was busy again. Look, like hundreds of other groups we have such bad experiences with the English press, that we no more interviews with them. And because she wanted to write about us, but they think everything is so negative and preferably also possible. There is simply no truth at all. You should never believe what you read in the English music magazines. " Q: Are there might be plans in the solo band? A: "Not really .. We all four hebbeb sometimes the idea of being a solo album would like to make, but first we have the z6 pressure, there is no time for one-way, and second, the musical situation within the group 16, we all four have a full ownership. Everyone writes his own songs, submits it to the others and then choose whether applicable things .... MTzItten for a ifigf! SISPeremOftli gene. Of course we all four songs, which so far always been rejected by four of us, but that can up-tion instead of a solo album maybe in the future following a best-album Queen appear. " Q: Why you never write songs together? A: "We simply have our way of working. Each takes his share, but it is true that every song by all groups is _gearrangeerd so it will: as a Queen song recognizable. We each have very different ideas about music, you should know and it's rarely happened that we really have written a song together-am. Songs like "Stone Cold Crazy Liar, and come the closest to. I myself do not consider it possible that in future we will still be writing together. " Q: But the individual contributions have far-caused a large variation in music. A: "Yes, that's true and I think that's very good. For example, I never could write songs sank von Roger DLE. variation by which we are a grimt% language audience. No disadvantage IR structure. eng corpse people have certain pre-approved numbers or regret it, but yes, you can not please everyone, " Q: Maybe if you would compose together. A: "Maybe, but it could also be that nobody likes us more. As we do now we are very satisfied." EMOTIONAL PLM, Q: Do you sometimes. the early days of Queen? A: 'Certainly. The first few years we've been through so much. We were already busy with a number of songs, and we were able to make the first album. Those disturbances, the songs and so although we t'oen not as good as it could play and studio technique also was not at such a high level, it is a spon-neous representation of x% ate when in us alive. And then came the second album and I'm really proud of. We have limited agents can extract so much that for me a milestone in my career has become. Queen II is my main Queen album and it is also the only home that I sometimes turn. It is a very emotional and I would record him best sometimes ppnielyv.f Lom, vill gri Q: My hebje blessing. A: "Well, of course there are plenty of reasons not to do it. . However, last year the song Keep Yourself Allve in a new version included one, which was intended as a single for the U.S. market, but since We Are The Champions went so well, we only board up the miss. Maybe we will take the picture off or sometimes we put it on an album. It's become a very good performance 'and it has strengthened me in my mind that the production of' first album is actually not very well. " Q: Do not you think you from Sheer Heart Attack konsessies have done great favor to the general public? A: Thhhh .... No, not really. Veór Sheer / Kart Attack in fact we had no audience, and when we Killer Queen Sheer! Kart Attack have received considerable response, we started writing for this audience. We've never got-you-targeting the general public and I do not think we'll mersjele-music. Our audience is just really big, and it is soon associated mud kommendes I think that iilot sr konsessilot liebben done. Look, MI Queen II pete again we could loose some album coming up, so & Sheer Art Attack was a new step in our development. We do not know in advance that that record would be a success? Because it was the case, we decided from that moment for our audience to write and that is our particular appreciated. We still do what we want, not what the public wants. " Q: But I heard recently that Freddie was quite taken by the rule-the disco craze. A: "Is that so? I do not know. He likes the Bee Gees pretty good, I think, but I think it is also called ear-dig: Maybe we also do a disco number, you never know. But if that happens, we do it because we enjoy it and not because it is popular at the moment happened. " Q: This is clearly working hard to designate. A: "Yes, you'll have me believe." GEORGE FORMBY Q: Tell me abou |
| IanR 09.02.2011 03:53 |
GEORGE FORMBY Q: Tell me about your musical background and preferences. A: "I love a lot of forties and fifties jazz and blues and I also think the twenties and thirties cabaret-style music, where Freddie dot on as k. nice. Someone Oliágorsc0 "milsrispiterrewemets-on, what he did in his day was very special. And now .- Oh, I can not listen to music as often as I would like. I think Kansas, for example, a good band: stick- the musicians, well thought out music. and some good guys too. Wc have in the past, I do agree with them but I'm very happy for them that it is now "going so well, even in Europe. 0 yes, I just them to record an album of note-Donegan Lonnic worked: the great hero of my youth. That was a lovely experience, because I knew all his music and I felt very honored mc. " Q: What was that to do with the solo single from Roger? A: "Roger felt very frustrated at a given moment. The band then had some business difficulties with John Reid, our former manager and Roger wanted to record some for themselves. It was not initially intended that the picture would be released, but there were several people at a very good song von den, and when he has to talk and yet leave an opinion. " Q: Lloe did you know? A: "Prlititi. I find such things eng tired L011111-MI, 11 Llop, E, 111 bid. IIIIIII: 11 KHP tocii mutje just heals and eventually left a good influence on him sound. " Q: Finally, there are already 201 konArete plan. • • s regarding the next album? A: "Yes and no. We go straight after Lure record and this time before we go to France. As for the compositions is still unknown, we do have loose ideee: n, but there is no song komplect written. This is the sludio though. About these ideas, I can not sentence-nigs say let his idea and only. " ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– After leaving the interview Brian May gallop to the Keukenhof, break it in two and half hours to walk around and up to eight flower bulbs to buy for his garden. Front where a nice idea, but I betwij-bright if he will ever come true. His wife, she with extra attention 'care. A nice guy, is Brian May. Kees Baars |
| kozlorf 09.02.2011 06:37 |
It is my first post on this forum, but being a long time Queen fan and somehow interested in recording/production techniques I find this particular topic - and the approach of analysing the way the long lost retake was recorded - pretty much interesting. First of all, I am strongly convinced that the retake couldn't have been recorded during the Queen I or Queen II sessions. The drum sound on those two albums is much more dull, esp. the snare-drum (I had a quick run through all the tracks and the only exceptions here were The Night Comes Down - for obvious reasons - and somehow The Loser In The End) - while the lost retake brings up a much more fresh drum sound. I might be guessing here, but I also think that these two albums had the drumset recorded with a limited number of microphones, while the lost retake seems to have each drum being given a separate mike - it's pretty apparent in the solo. However the same impression comes up when listening to Brighton Rock, so this trace ends up here. (actually, the impression of this retake sounding much "newer" than the Queen I record has for me been already a strong contradiction to the information that it was recorded in ca. 1972 when I first heard it from the Hollywood remaster years ago) My personal feeling is that what Brian said in the Dutch interview should be considered a main path one should follow. I would actually be surprised if the lost retake was recorded during or after the Night At The Opera sessions. My first thought was that the guys could have recorded it during the News Of The World session given the fact that they were making and producing it by themselves, and having the studio all for themselves for doing such off-shot stuff. And - on contrary - even if they were given the opportunity to use the studio freely during the ANATO sessions already, recording a new take of an old song wasn't really what was expected from them at that time. But later I found the bass sound on NOTW rather thick and prominent, while the bass in lost retake is rather quiet hidden, so here came my doubts that it was recorded during NOTW sessions. I have started comparing the sound of some particular songs to the lost retake, and the closest I found was actually White Man from ADATR. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has been mistaken now while releasing the 40 Anniv. issues and putting the retake on ANATO rather than ADATR. Also, since Brian's interview has been done during the NOTW tour, him saying "last year" could mean ADATR too. The lost retake also seems to be a thing done in one hour just for fun (like a studio warm-up before sessions). |
| Djdownsy 09.02.2011 08:25 |
You have a very good point, but what you are forgetting is that, production-wise, LLRT sounds very similar to 'Mad The Swine', particularly the snare, which, as you pointed out, is much duller on 'I' &'II'. However, if you listen to 'SHA' and 'ANATO', which is where the claims for conception of this recording lie, the drum production is completely different, also, guitar wise, the LLRT doesn't have the same 'phased sound' present on 'SHA', 'ANATO', or even 'Queen II', I don't think these fellas had perfected that sound yet. On such a breathless night is this, upon my brow, the lightest kiss, i walk alone. |
| kozlorf 09.02.2011 09:13 |
Well indeed, Mad The Swine as we know it also seems to have a brighter and fresher sound that I and II - but my guess is that it is mostly because the mix we know was done in 1991, and it actually seems that David Richards has put there as much as possible to make it sound good. Actually, the same thing may be with the LLRT - the proper mix could have been done in early 90ties as well, since it's when the track surfaced. But still, when I listen to Mad The Swine and consider the snare drum as the main referrence, I think it's the same kind of dull sound as on Queen I only remixed and brightened - while LLRT still sounds much fresher. On the other hand, I would conider the Silver Salmon recording as also having the fresh and bright drum sound similar to LLRT - so indeed that would either make my previous considerations pointless - or... maybe Silver Salmon recording is also not that old as we have thought? ;) |
| Benn 09.02.2011 10:11 |
I can't really believe that they would bother to re-record KYA in 1975. What band in their right mind would bother to re-record a track for official release that, by 1975, had already been around for 4 years? And, given that the band were successful in the charts by then both in the UK AND the USA, why would they risk ridicule by re-issueing a song that failed? All this sounds to me like another complete and utter fuck up by the bods at QPL who haven't bothered to properly check their facts. |
| Sebastian 09.02.2011 10:17 |
> What band in their right mind would bother to re-record a track Many, many, many of them. > by 1975, had already been around for 4 years? Not really. For the public, it'd only been around for 2. > And, given that the band were successful in the charts by then both in the UK AND the USA, why would they risk ridicule by re-issueing a song that failed? I order not to have it fail again. Bowie scored No 1 in the UK with the re-issue of Space Oddity around the same time. |
| rhyeking 09.02.2011 22:14 |
It's fairly common for bands and artists to re-record and re-release older tracks, especially if they either failed before or were hugely successful. Or if the band wants to try something different with the song. And we're not talking bands with one-hit wonders trying to milk their one great song. Bowie (multiple times), Peter Gabriel, U2, Barenaked Ladies, Mike Oldfield, Pet Shop Boys...the list goes on and on....they've all done it. |
| Benn 10.02.2011 01:13 |
Sebastian, re: >> What band in their right mind would bother to re-record a track >Many, many, many of them. Clearly, then, those with no decent new material or those who were uncertain that their "current" material would sell then...... Either way, it smacks, to me, of laziness. When The Who re-released "Substitute" in 1976, they didn't need to bother re-recording it - they were absolutely confident that the originally recorded (10 year old) version could still cut the mustard in the climate of the time. >> by 1975, had already been around for 4 years? >Not really. For the public, it'd only been around for 2. Wrong. The public had been exposed to it in the live set for a good 4 years and certainly by 1975, the song had become stale. |
| kozlorf 10.02.2011 02:50 |
The other "uncommon" thing in the lost retake are the "keep on the bright side" lyrics just by the end of the song. This might be a very weak path to follow, but what comes to my head is: 1. Does such lyrics appear on any other know version of the song? 2. (since my native language is not English this might be somehow silly, but:) Did this quote exist in common English language before it was somehow popularised by either Star Wars and Monty Python in second half of the 70ties? |
| Sebastian 10.02.2011 06:07 |
> Clearly, then, those with no decent new material or those who were uncertain that their "current" material would sell then...... Not really. There are loads and loads of reasons besides (or in place of) laziness or lack of faith. Brian was often vocal about Keep Yourself Alive never having the magic he felt it should have had; by the time they recorded it for the first album, they were stuck to working downtime and being assigned whoever was engineering and producing that particular day (i.e. who'd been booked by another act for a session that got cut short). It's completely reasonable that, once they had freedom and enough resources to do it properly, they gave it another go. It's also fair considering they obviously liked the song (and with good reason) and probably wanted to get it done the way they wanted. It's NOT lazy or mediocre to do that. > When The Who re-released "Substitute" in 1976, they didn't need to bother re-recording it - they were absolutely confident that the originally recorded (10 year old) version could still cut the mustard in the climate of the time. The Who already had enough control by the time they hit Olympic Studios in early '66 for that particular song. Pete was producing it, and even Keith's stoned performance was perfect for what they needed. They were pleased with it, so there was no reason to re-record it. For that same reason, Queen probably wouldn't re-record Bo Rhap in 1980 (that they had more money, a studio of their own and 48-track technology as opposed to 24-), as they'd gotten it right the first time. But Keep Yourself Alive was another story: they were a new act, working downtime (something along the lines of 'hey, Bowie left early, come and record a little until the cleaners come!'). Drums in particular were a nightmare for them, as they hadn't got enough time to set them up properly, and often had to stick with the studios' own kit (which in music terms is like dating a girl who, literally, gets touched by anyone and everyone), the studios' then miniature drum booth (the antithesis of Roger's big and deep sound at the time), etc. They were pressured by the record company to finish it soon and the Mike Stone mix became the 'next best thing', but still not what they wanted. There's nothing wrong with trying to capture (as opposed to re-capture, because it wasn't there in the first place) the magic they wanted. > The public had been exposed to it in the live set for a good 4 years and certainly by 1975, the song had become stale. Back then, live sets meant very little to the record buying population. Pre-You Tube, pre-heaps of bootlegs, those songs (and others like Hangman or Stone Cold Crazy [played live four years before being released]) were only known (i.e. heard once or twice, not enough for them to learn the lyrics by heart) to the few hundreds or couple thousands who had attended the concerts. For the remaining 99.99% of the record-buying population, a song became public when it was officially released and/or broadcast on the radio. And by that definition, for 99.99% of the public, Keep Yourself Alive did not exist until July 1973. |
| rhyeking 12.02.2011 22:27 |
I wouldn't necessarily call every case of re-recording a song "laziness." Certainly some bands and artists are milking the success of a particular track., no question, but other artists sometimes feel that perhaps an earlier recording didn't convey what they felt the song should. Or, the meaning for the song changed for them and they want to reflect this new point of view in an updated recording. Or, they just like the song and are having a go at some new ideas. If the artists' overall output is sufficient in diversity, quality and longevity, I don't see anything wrong with the occasional look back to re-record older material. It seems, if the LLRT does date from 1975, that Queen were still unhappy with the original version and still though they had a potential hit on their hands. Somewhere along the line, they (or Elektra Records) changed their minds and stuck with the original. Who knows, the re-recording could've been a huge hit in the States. |
| Soundfreak 13.02.2011 04:35 |
Maybe they were a bit inspired by "The Sweet". In 1974 they had recorded "Fox on the Run" for an album in a quite rough version. The record company saw the potential of this song and advised them to re-record that track and add a synthesizer and more harmonies. And it became one of their biggest hits also in the US. So maybe that's what they also tried but finally they noticed that the re-recording wasn't that different. And with all the financial and contract- trouble they focussed on recording "A night at the Opera", which by then - according to some interview - could have been their last album.... Anyway, we can speculate a lot, but as long as no one really knows when this retake was recorded, it's just a guess.... |
| rhyeking 13.02.2011 12:00 |
That's why my hope is that the Deluxe Edition's liner notes reveal more details, such as the studio used, the exact dates in June and the engineers present. |
| rhyeking 17.03.2011 17:44 |
Sorry to repeat from the Opera Review thread, but I figured for archive purposes, let's tie up the loose ends on this dedicated thread, so anyone looking this in the future will have the most complete picture. The Deluxe Edition of A Night At The Opera didn't have the treasure trove of information I was hoping for, but it did have a good detail about this track: "Keep Yourself Alive" Long Lost Re-Take was engineered by Gary Lyons and produced by Roy Thomas Baker. This is important because Gary Lyons is not on record as having any involvement with the debut album. He did do additional engineering on Opera, meaning he was part of the tech staff for Queen's studio work in 1975. (Thanks to Soundfreak for that detail) Also revealed at the Stormtrooper In Stilettos exhibit, the box containing the master tape for the Long Lost Re-take (and the edited Short Lost Re-Take) carries a date of 2/7/75 = July 2nd, 1975. (Thanks to GinjaNinja for spotting that detail) Comparing this to the other information, such as the "June, 1975" date proclaimed on the Deluxe Opera sleeve, it fits that the LLRT was recorded at the end of June and likely mastered and/or mixed on July 2nd, 1975. This version was not used that month for the US single, as the original US Single Edit was instead re-issued in July, 1975. This means that greater evidence now points to the Long Lost Re-Take being recorded at the end of June, 1975, and having been mastered and/or mixed July 2nd, 1975, then shelved until 1991. Questions we're left with include: Is there still a first, unused, unheard Roy Thomas Baker recording of "Keep Yourself Alive" sitting in the vault? This recording would have come after the De Lane Lea Demo and before the Album Version (the Mike Stone mix). Do the seven or eight unused, pre-Stone mixes of the Album Version still exist or would Queen or Trident have scrapped them after Stone's mix was finalized? How could the Crown Jewels producers make the mistake of claiming the LLRT as the "Original Version"? It seems they might have made the same mistake I did, assuming the LLRT was the lost 1st, unused RTB recording. Thanks to everyone for helping clear that up. We'll keep an eye out for future details. |
| The Real Wizard 17.03.2011 18:09 |
rhyeking wrote: Do the seven or eight unused, pre-Stone mixes of the Album Version still exist or would Queen or Trident have scrapped them after Stone's mix was finalized? ============= That I would like to know myself.. Excellent work compiling all that information, Rhyeking. |
| rhyeking 17.03.2011 18:27 |
Thanks, SirGH! |
| Sebastian 17.03.2011 21:36 |
I think it's settled that (i.e. we can be 99.99% sure about) the re-take comes from June 1975, considering: * Brian's cited comment from the Dutch mag. * Liner notes (2011 ones, that is). * Lyons' involvement. * Arrangement. * Lyrical changes. * Track sheet. The Jewels info may have simply been a case of whoever wrote them putting 1 and 1 together and getting 3. Wouldn't be the first or last time such thing happens. |
| rhyeking 18.03.2011 00:04 |
Summary of Facts & Evidence regarding "Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)" December, 1971 (Post Edited) Queen record five demo tracks at De Lane Lea Studios, including “Keep Yourself Alive”. These tracks are recorded by Louie Austin. 1st Recording: De Lane Lea Demo June, 1972 Queen are asked by Roy Thomas Baker to re-record their five demo tracks (from De Lane Lea studios) for the album. “Keep Yourself Alive” would prove among the toughest, as the first version recorded for the album does not live up to the band’s standards. Not satisfied, the band re-record the song and try to get it closer to the De Lane Lea sound. This 2nd version is re-mixed a reported seven or eight times, before engineer Mike Stone mixes it as best he can to the band’s satisfaction. This becomes the official album version and mix, as well as their first single. 2nd Recording: Unused 1st Roy Thomas Baker Version 3rd Recording: 7 or 8 rejected pre-Stone mixes, plus Mike Stone’s Album Mix February 5, 1973 Queen record their first BBC session at Langham I Studio, including “Keep Yourself Alive”. 4th Recording: 1st BBC Version July 6, 1973 Queen release the 7” single “Keep Yourself Alive” in the UK. This is the Mike Stone Album Mix. July 13, 1973 Queen is released in the UK, including the “Keep Yourself Alive” Album Mix. July 25, 1973 Queen record their second BBC session at Langham I Studio, including “Keep Yourself Alive”. This version re-uses the 1st BBC Version’s backing track and adds new vocals. 5th Recording: 2nd BBC Version October, 1973 Elektra releases the 7” single “Keep Yourself Alive” in the US. This version is an edit of the Album Mix: “Keep Yourself Alive (US Single Edit)” 1971 to 1975 Played live, “Keep Yourself Alive” follows the structure first recorded on the De Lane Lea Demo, that of beginning with the guitar, then percussion, then the riff and then the drums. Late-June,1975 According to the sleeve and promotional material for the 2011 Deluxe Edition of “A Night At The Opera,” Queen record a new version of “Keep Yourself Alive” for a planned US single release. This recording, produced by Roy Thomas Baker and engineered by Gary Lyons, will later be named the “Long Lost Re-Take” and “Lost Lost Original Version”. July 2nd, 1975 At the Stormtrooper In Stilettos exhibit, the box containing the Long Lost Re-Take master tape is dated 2/7/75 and is likely the mixing and/or mastering date for the recording. An edit of this version is also made, the so-called "Short Lost Re-Take". July, 1975 The planned US single release of the Long Lost Re-Take is cancelled and replaced with a re-issue of the US Single Edit. August to November, 1975 Gary Lyons provides additional engineering for Queen’s work during the sessions for “A Night At The Opera.” This is Lyons' only documented work with Queen on an album of theirs to this point. 1975 to 1981 Queen alters live performances of “Keep Yourself Alive” to what more closely resembles the Long Lost Re-Take. The opening now begins with the drums, followed by the guitar, then the riff. The ending now features the new lyric “Get it, get it, get it, boy, keep yourself alive!” This new live version can be heard on the Dec. 24th, 1975 Hammersmith Odeon concert through to the 1979 Live Killers recording, as well as the Queen Rock Montreal, Nov. 24/25th, 1981 concert, though there the ending is absent as the song segued into the percussion solo. June, 1991 Hollywood Records re-issues Queen’s first 13 studio albums, including bonus tracks on each. The debut album includes the Long Lost Re-Take, the first example of this name for this recording. A liner note by Brian has him call this recording a complete re-working of the song, with both new and old ideas. 1998 A promo CD single is issued for the forthcoming Crown Jewels in the US, it contains the following: “Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)” * “Keep Yourself Alive (1st BBC Version) “Keep Yourself Alive (Live Killers)” “Keep Yourself Alive (Album Version – Unremastered)” “Keep Yourself Alive (Album Version – 1998 Remastered Version)” * The “Long Lost Re-Take” here is identified as the “Long Lost Original Version” and the liner notes incorrectly claims it’s the Unused 1st Roy Thomas Baker Version, which contradicts other evidence that the Long Lost Re-Take was recorded in 1975. Feb. 27th, 2011 To promote the Stormtrooper In Stilettos Queen Exhibit, the band releases a 7” and Digital single of “Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)” (with the B-side of “Stone Cold Crazy”). March 15th, 2011 The Deluxe Edition of “A Night At The Opera” is released in the UK, featuring the Long Lost Re-Take, with the sleeve listing it as being from June, 1975, produced by Roy Thomas Baker and engineered by Gary Lyons. In conclusion, unless new, compelling evidence surfaces to cause us to re-evaluate the facts, it’s safe to say at this point that the recording of “Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)” is indeed from late June, 1975, and was mastered and/or mixed July 2nd, 1975. Questions arising: Does the 1st Roy Thomas Baker Version exist? Brian claims it was terrible, so it's possible it was scrapped or recorded over, possibly by the next version, the one that became the Album Mix. It's equally possible it's sitting in a vault somewhere. Do the seven or eight unused, pre-Stone mixes of the 2nd album-recording still exist? It's also possible these too were scrapped or recorded over, though it's just as possible some or all are in the vaults too. |
| The Real Wizard 18.03.2011 10:28 |
Looks good to me! Except perhaps for one thing - as far as I know, the De Lane Lea demos were recorded in September 1971.... most likely on the 18th. |
| rhyeking 18.03.2011 10:55 |
(scratching my head in mild confusion) I have that September 18th, 1971, date in my notes as well, SirGH, and believed that to be the date, but the announcement on QueenOnline.com for the Deluxe Ed. bonus tracks lists the following: Bonus Tracks 1. Keep Yourself Alive (De Lane Lea Demo, December 1971) 2. The Night Comes Down (De Lane Lea Demo, December 1971 3. Great King Rat (De Lane Lea Demo, December 1971) 4. Jesus (De Lane Lea Demo, December 1971) 5. Liar (De Lane Lea Demo, December 1971) 6. Mad The Swine (June 1972) I made an additional note to myself to look into this, and attempted to, but it seems there's no further info one way or the other. Now that the DEs are out, perhaps someone with the Queen 1 set can look at the liner notes and tell us if there are more or fewer details there. When compiling the summary last night, I thought about it and decided to go with the official date, taking it at face value, over the September 18th date, which I only read about on these Forums. What exactly do we know of the of the Sept. 18th date, can anyone clarify the source? Also, some of my other notes indicate Brian was in Tenerife, working on his thesis, from September to October that year. It's still possible he did so after September 18th, however. Thoughts? |
| ferdy 18.03.2011 13:12 |
rhyeking wrote: Summary of Facts & Evidence regarding "Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)" December, 1971 Queen record five demo tracks at De Lane Lea Studios, including “Keep Yourself Alive”. These tracks are produced by Louie Austin. 1st Recording: De Lane Lea Demo June, 1972 Queen are asked by Roy Thomas Baker to re-record their five demo tracks (from De Lane Lea studios) for the album. “Keep Yourself Alive” would prove among the toughest, as the first version recorded for the album does not live up to the band’s standards. Not satisfied, the band re-record the song and try to get it closer to the De Lane Lea sound. This 2nd version is re-mixed a reported seven or eight times, before engineer Mike Stone mixes it as best he can to the band’s satisfaction. This becomes the official album version and mix, as well as their first single. 2nd Recording: Unused 1st Roy Thomas Baker Version 3rd Recording: 7 or 8 rejected pre-Stone mixes, plus Mike Stone’s Album Mix February 5, 1973 Queen record their first BBC session at Langham I Studio, including “Keep Yourself Alive”. 4th Recording: 1st BBC Version July 6, 1973 Queen release the 7” single “Keep Yourself Alive” in the UK. This is the Mike Stone Album Mix. July 13, 1973 Queen is released in the UK, including the “Keep Yourself Alive” Album Mix. July 25, 1973 Queen record their second BBC session at Langham I Studio, including “Keep Yourself Alive”. This version re-uses the 1st BBC Version’s backing track and adds new vocals. 5th Recording: 2nd BBC Version October, 1973 Elektra releases the 7” single “Keep Yourself Alive” in the US. This version is an edit of the Album Mix: “Keep Yourself Alive (US Single Edit)” 1971 to 1975 Played live, “Keep Yourself Alive” follows the structure first recorded on the De Lane Lea Demo, that of beginning with the guitar, then percussion, then the riff and then the drums. Late-June,1975 According to the sleeve and promotional material for the 2011 Deluxe Edition of “A Night At The Opera,” Queen record a new version of “Keep Yourself Alive” for a planned US single release. This recording, produced by Roy Thomas Baker and engineered by Gary Lyons, will later be named the “Long Lost Re-Take” and “Lost Lost Original Version”. July 2nd, 1975 At the Stormtrooper In Stilettos exhibit, the box containing the Long Lost Re-Take master tape is dated 2/7/75 and is likely the mixing and/or mastering date for the recording. An edit of this version is also made, the so-called "Short Lost Re-Take". July, 1975 The planned US single release of the Long Lost Re-Take is cancelled and replaced with a re-issue of the US Single Edit. August to November, 1975 Gary Lyons provides additional engineering for Queen’s work during the sessions for “A Night At The Opera.” This is Lyons' only documented work with Queen on an album of theirs to this point. 1975 to 1981 Queen alters live performances of “Keep Yourself Alive” to what more closely resembles the Long Lost Re-Take. The opening now begins with the drums, followed by the guitar, then the riff. The ending now features the new lyric “Get it, get it, get it, boy, keep yourself alive!” This new live version can be heard on the Dec. 24th, 1975 Hammersmith Odeon concert through to the 1979 Live Killers recording, as well as the Queen Rock Montreal, Nov. 24/25th, 1981 concert, though there the ending is absent as the song segued into the percussion solo. June, 1991 Hollywood Records re-issues Queen’s first 13 studio albums, including bonus tracks on each. The debut album includes the Long Lost Re-Take, the first example of this name for this recording. A liner note by Brian has him call this recording a complete re-working of the song, with both new and old ideas. 1998 A promo CD single is issued for the forthcoming Crown Jewels in the US, it contains the following: “Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)” * “Keep Yourself Alive (1st BBC Version) “Keep Yourself Alive (Live Killers)” “Keep Yourself Alive (Album Version – Unremastered)” “Keep Yourself Alive (Album Version – 1998 Remastered Version)” * The “Long Lost Re-Take” here is identified as the “Long Lost Original Version” and the liner notes incorrectly claims it’s the Unused 1st Roy Thomas Baker Version, which contradicts other evidence that the Long Lost Re-Take was recorded in 1975. Feb. 27th, 2011 To promote the Stormtrooper In Stilettos Queen Exhibit, the band releases a 7” and Digital single of “Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)” (with the B-side of “Stone Cold Crazy”). March 15th, 2011 The Deluxe Edition of “A Night At The Opera” is released in the UK, featuring the Long Lost Re-Take, with the sleeve listing it as being from June, 1975, produced by Roy Thomas Baker and engineered by Gary Lyons. In conclusion, unless new, compelling evidence surfaces to cause us to re-evaluate the facts, it’s safe to say at this point that the recording of “Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take)” is indeed from late June, 1975, and was mastered and/or mixed July 2nd, 1975. Questions arising: Does the 1st Roy Thomas Baker Version exist? Brian claims it was terrible, so it's possible it was scrapped or recorded over, possibly by the next version, the one that became the Album Mix. It's equally possible it's sitting in a vault somewhere. Do the seven or eight unused, pre-Stone mixes of the 2nd album-recording still exist? It's also possible these too were scrapped or recorded over, though it's just as possible some or all are in the vaults too. another fact to add at this excellent KYA review. The single was due to be released June 15th.. I have recently discovered a demo single proving that. check this link: link This was immediately pulled out cause still not happy with mix .. this is what I've been told from the journalist who I got this copy from who did some publicy for EMI back in 73 |
| Sebastian 18.03.2011 14:19 |
Besides the whole September/December thing, there's a slight mistake on the previous long (and very useful) message: > These tracks are produced by Louie Austin. I'm almost entirely sure it's Louis (pronounced 'Louie', just one more to the list of misspelt names on the liner notes of that album), and he did not produce, he was the in-house engineer (not the same thing). Credits are clear there 'Night Comes Down recorded by Louie (sic) Austin.' Likewise, the Flash Gordon orchestra was recorded by Eric Tomlinson, but produced by May/Mack. |
| rhyeking 18.03.2011 14:38 |
My old 1973 US edition of Queen (1) credits him as Louie Austin. As does the 1991 Hollywood Records re-issue. I'm sure Louis is his proper first name, but I stuck with his published credit in this case. And yes, it does say recorded, not produced. I misread my own note. Sorry. |
| Sebastian 18.03.2011 23:43 |
They also say Ted Sharpe (it's Sharp), Dave Siddel (it's Siddle) and Deacon John. |
| rhyeking 19.03.2011 01:05 |
And Mike Oldfield is usually addressed as "Michael" by his friends and family. One album is even credited "Michael Oldfield" (that would be his last Virgin Records album, Heaven's Open). Josh Macrae is alternately credited as "Josh Macrae" and "Joshua J. Macrae." John Williams is credited as "Johnny Williams" on Lost In Space (and is called "Johnny" by his friends, watch any interview with George Lucas or Steven Speilberg). Inconsistencies abound in this industry. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, believe me, but Louie is not a typo or spelling mistake. It's a legit name. No offense, but I'm keeping it as listed on the sleeve. Besides, he's pretty inconsequential to the article. |
| Sebastian 19.03.2011 06:38 |
Some cases ARE spelling mistakes. John Williams can be Jack or Johnny, not Jon. Brian May can be Bri, not Bryan. Freddie Mercury can be Fred or Frederick, not Fredy. And so on. |
| rhyeking 19.03.2011 10:35 |
Some cases are mistakes, I agree. I just don't think "Louie" among them in this specific instance. My worry in changing it would also be that we're assuming the informality is incorrect, because we're assuming he doesn't prefer that spelling, at least on his recording credits. We're proposing changing the official credit because we presume it's a mistake. There's no evidence that "Louie" isn't among his monikers, personal or professional. |
| Sebastian 19.03.2011 13:36 |
Yes, of course, and you've got all the right to keep that spelling if you feel like it. I only wanted to clear up that these things allow certain freedom but it doesn't mean any name can be spelt as anybody wants to. Now, whether L. Austin's case is the former or latter, it's (for the moment) subjective. I guess we're on the same page there. |
| rhyeking 20.03.2011 16:03 |
I agree, it's a vaild point, but short of being an actual, identifiable mistake (like if it had been "Ray Baker" instead of Roy...), I'm comfortable leaving it as it appears on the sleeve. |
| strangefrontier 21.03.2011 14:47 |
Coming back to the original thread, I found an interview with Roger from Record Mirror, 24th May 1975, with an interesting comment! How about a single, Is there any chance of one before the album? "No, I don't think so, because we don't write singles as such. In America they're going to put Keep Yourself Alive out again, because we weren't well-known when it first came out there.'' Do you think it's a good idea? "Hmm, I have my doubts about it." |
| SongJohn 28.03.2011 22:52 |
This is interesting - just heard this for the first time today. At first I thought wow...this sounds awfully clear for '72-'73.....And then after reading a post mentioning '75 as the recording date, I immediately knew that it must be. I'm surprised more folks didn't catch these nuances. For one thing, Rogers snare is pretty much tuned the same way it's tuned on all of "night at the opera"...Freddies voice sounds like "night at the opera" recordings too. Plus, the first queen album has a very "classic" wooly sort of fuzzy sound about it (which I like) that A night at the opera is missing. No doubt that "opera" has a classic sound...but the sound on that record is a little more cleaned up (even when compared to other recordings from '73 honestly)....you can tell the sound is still very much vintage '70s....but interestly, the little "quirks" and colorations of the early '70s recordings are beginning to disappear. Why? Technique sure, but I honestly think it has more of a technological basis. Tape manufacturing process changes, sort of like film. I mean look at film photos from '69 and then a picture from '85. Totally different. John link |
| malicedoom 22.04.2015 09:22 |
Adding to this thread late rather than start my own. I've always wondered about this. I thought they re-recorded it so they could re-release it after they finally 'hit it big' after A Night At The Opera. What caught me strange is... they NEVER USED IT. They just re-released the originally released single, and I far prefer the 'Long Lost Re-Take'. Never made any sense to me. |
| Viper 22.04.2015 09:46 |
Long Lost Re-Take is by far better than any other studium recording of the song! |
| brENsKi 22.04.2015 11:16 |
Viper wrote: Long Lost Re-Take is by far better than any other studium recording of the song!studium? is that a studio that's so big it's got its own stadium inside? or a stadium with it's own studio? :-) |
| Viper 22.04.2015 11:36 |
the 1st one! |
| The King Of Rhye 22.04.2015 16:23 |
I thought it was something like "Wumbley Studium" :P |
| The Ghost of Lester Burnham 22.04.2015 17:37 |
malicedoom wrote: Adding to this thread late rather than start my own. I've always wondered about this. I thought they re-recorded it so they could re-release it after they finally 'hit it big' after A Night At The Opera. What caught me strange is... they NEVER USED IT. They just re-released the originally released single, and I far prefer the 'Long Lost Re-Take'. Never made any sense to me.I believe it had something to do with the legal wranglings with Trident at the time. And the song was recorded in late June '75, so it was to be after they hit it big with Sheer Heart Attack. Pedantic, yeah, but hey. |
| tomchristie22 22.04.2015 18:32 |
The fact that another distinct 1972 version of KYA has since circulated is further evidence for the 'Long Lost Retake' being a 1975 recording, yes? The fact that Freddie sings 'Get, get, get it, boy' on the outro of said retake is strong evidence in itself, I think. He never did that live until the Night at the Opera tour. It's not hard evidence, but it's enough to convince me. |
| malicedoom 23.04.2015 08:38 |
The Ghost of Lester Burnham wrote: I believe it had something to do with the legal wranglings with Trident at the time. And the song was recorded in late June '75, so it was to be after they hit it big with Sheer Heart Attack. Pedantic, yeah, but hey.Ah, OK. Now it finally makes sense. What still doesn't is why, even then, it didn't chart anywhere. Such a great song. |
| The Real Wizard 24.04.2015 19:54 |
The Ghost of Lester Burnham wrote: And the song was recorded in late June '75The tape box is labeled July 2, 1975. Or is that the day the mix was completed !? |
| The Ghost of Lester Burnham 25.04.2015 18:25 |
The Real Wizard wrote:That's what I was assuming. (Also, I couldn't remember the exact date off the top of my head...!)The Ghost of Lester Burnham wrote: And the song was recorded in late June '75The tape box is labeled July 2, 1975. Or is that the day the mix was completed !? |
| Oscar J 25.04.2015 19:06 |
Still doesn't beat the De Lane Lea version... |
