| ct0409 21.07.2011 16:02 |
Does anyone else feel a little cheated? We are expected to buy the CDs again (after having bought the remasters a few years back) and are treated to only a few bonustracks that mostly are..well, not so impressive. Instrumental remixes, really? At least have the decency and put everything from that era on the disc and give some value for the money! (For example: where is Hangman?) This wasn't for the fans! Don't Brian and Roger have a say in what gets done with their legacy? Or do they no loger care? |
| mooghead 21.07.2011 16:40 |
Not worthy of a response.... |
| Your Fairy King 21.07.2011 16:42 |
ct0409 wrote: Does anyone else feel a little cheated? We are expected to buy the CDs again (after having bought the remasters a few years back) and are treated to only a few bonustracks that mostly are..well, not so impressive. Instrumental remixes, really? At least have the decency and put everything from that era on the disc and give some value for the money! (For example: where is Hangman?) This wasn't for the fans! Don't Brian and Roger have a say in what gets done with their legacy? Or do they no loger care? I feel cheated for several reasons. I bought most of the original albums on vinyl, cassette, and the Hollywood Records remasters 20 years ago, which, if done properly, I wouldn't have to replace. Also, here in the US not only do we have to wait an additional three months, but we also have to pay $16 USD for the two CD set. Not choice here to buy a single disc. I agree this wasn't for the fans. QPL has exhibited much contempt for fans over the years, and this is further proof. Putting previously released live tracks as bonuses is a joke. These reissues are intended to snag new listeners....but from the sales of the first 5 on Amazon US, that isn't happening. We need BBC complete and we need the oft-named 70s bootlegs out in remastered form. One has only to look to the recent Pink Floyd immersion discs to realize how this should have been done. |
| Russian Headlong 21.07.2011 19:49 |
its at least the 3rd time these albums have been remastered (EMI and Hollywood previously) and it does appear that mainly the bonus tracks on universal are a disappointment with so many tracks being live versions which are already on existing releases. Sure stuff like Feelings, Feelings are good but it does stink of a rip off. I have some of the Holywood releases like ADATR and The Works which have decent remixes or some awful ones in the case of bicycle race and rick rubins wwry. I think most fans would prefer an antholgy of alt versions and unreleased stuff, for example an album of the BBC 77 stuff would have been better but why buy the albums yet again? if you really want the bonus tracks just download em off i tunes. As for Deep Cuts these are a waste of time too like absolute greatest. To be honest, after NOTW Queen didnt produce an album which I enjoy from start to finish without skipping at least two or three songs. |
| Saint Jiub 21.07.2011 20:21 |
I feel somewhat ripped off, and I will feel more ripped off when I buy the 2nd box of 5 albums, as the cost has gone up almost 15% ($10) versus the first box set. I am hoping the cost will drop below $75 before the Sept 13th release day. Oh well, Queen guessed the price of my soul. |
| rhyeking 21.07.2011 21:29 |
I don't feel ripped off at all, mainly because I never feel particularly entitled. I bought the 1991 HR remasters back in the day because they came out just as I got into Queen. They sounded good and and aside from a few of the infamous HR glitches, I believe they sound pretty good. Sure, we could (and have) debate the merits of the various remasters, but I have no complaints about the quality of these. That was 20 years ago and I felt I may as well update the remasters with the 2011 editions and get the bonus tracks. I'm not too interested in the live tracks from Wembley, Montreal and Milton Keynes, but whatever, I guess they're trying advertise the live albums. However, that's the seasoned fan in me talking. These releases seem to try to balance an appeal to both new and old fans, but naturally your mileage may vary on how successful they are. My lack of feeling entitled allows me to pick and chose those releases I want to pay for. If the 2011 remasters didn't have bonus tracks, I might not have bought them. Were Queen buying my fandom? No. There was an incentive added and I choose to take advantage of it. I didn't buy the Singles Collections mainly because of the price tag and the track selection. Nor did I buy each remasters series as it came out. Do I wish for more unreleased material? Heck yeah, but I don't feel betrayed when it remains unreleased. |
| john bodega 22.07.2011 00:02 |
I don't really have to explain this, but it's not a rip-off. When you look at something - for argument's sake, these reissues - you do a quick mental calculation of how much you want it vs. whether or not you think it is priced decently. If you buy it, you've accepted the price of the thing, and it is your fault for buying it. Or, you think it's too expensive, and you don't buy it - therefore you keep your money and no one has ripped you off. There really isn't any such thing as a rip-off. Take it or leave it, and if you're too cheap - just download the cunting thing .... |
| master marathon runner 22.07.2011 00:12 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't really have to explain this, but it's not a rip-off. When you look at something - for argument's sake, these reissues - you do a quick mental calculation of how much you want it vs. whether or not you think it is priced decently. If you buy it, you've accepted the price of the thing, and it is your fault for buying it. Or, you think it's too expensive, and you don't buy it - therefore you keep your money and no one has ripped you off. There really isn't any such thing as a rip-off. Take it or leave it, and if you're too cheap - just download the cunting thing .... ----------------- .......... Exactly. . master marathon runner |
| pittrek 22.07.2011 00:49 |
I bought the re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-releases ONLY for the bonus discs. I didn't even listen to the most of the main discs ( I listened only to Queen 2, Opera and Jazz) and I don't plan to listen to them in the near future. But I must say that the songs / albums which I DID listen to are way too loud for me, so I'm keeping my EMI + Japan remasters |
| ct0409 22.07.2011 01:09 |
It is not the price mainly that angers me (though 21 Euros is quite a lot), but the sheer lack of consideration when putting those new editions out: Why not give a more appropriate Bonus-Content. Who cares for an Instrumental Remix when songs like Hangman are not included? Live tracks are a nice edition, but putting on only 10 min instead of an hour is just cheating, considering they have 100 cds worth of quality recordings in the vault. That leads to the real question: When will the real interesting stuff finally be released? |
| jondickens1 22.07.2011 01:59 |
What frustrates me is the fact this is supposed to be Queen's 40th Anniversary this year,and so far all we have to show for the 'celebrations' is an exibition called Stormtroopers in Stilettos and a re re re release of material that is already available.Its 7 months into the year now.Where are the 'Many surprises' we were promised???????????? |
| rhyeking 22.07.2011 03:02 |
They're probably aiming at the Christmas market if there are big-ticket items planned. As to the issue of re-re-re-re-issues, I think the complaints how many there were get a bit overblown. Each was aimed at a different market and territory: 1991 Hollywood Records (US) Queen to The Miracle 1994 EMI Digital Master Series (UK) Queen to The Works 1998 Crown Jewels (Hollywood Records - US) Queen to The Game 2004 EMI-Japan Mini-LP replicas (Japan) Queen to Made In Heaven 2011 Universal & Hollywood Records (Worldwide) Queen to Made In Heaven And that's not accounting for the one-offs like 30th Anniversary Edition of Opera and the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs CDs. Queen and Queen Productions are not directly responsible for all these. The record companies, working individually, commission the remasters for sale in their respective territories, as per their licensing with QPL. They agree to promote the band and do so according to those terms. The key to understanding why there were 5 sets in 20 years is that the territories do not often cross-pollinate their releases at the management level, or sometimes even at the distributor level, making it hard for one territory to import from another. And that can vary from store to store. And the record companies depend on that in order to make their release the primary sale item. If anything, QPL and Queen themselves are doing the world a favour by standardizing the current releases and making them available worldwide through Universal. The company out of step now is Hollywood Records, ironically, because they are not currently carrying Deep Cuts 1 and the 2011 remaster of Greatest Hits 1. I can't explain the absence of DC1, but GH1 not getting a US release probably has to do with HR still issuing the red GH and GH-WWRY Edition, not to mention Absolute Greatest, Stone Cold Classics, Classic Queen and The A To Z Of Queen. If that's the case, I think HR has reached a point where it needs to seriously re-think the many Hits and Best Of collections it markets. Until now, I was fine with the choices, and still am in theory (give casual fans a few items to pick from, for sure), but if it actually precludes us from getting a release we want domestically, there's a problem. |
| Pingfah 22.07.2011 04:22 |
I don't feel ripped off at all, because I haven't wasted my money on the things. |
| jeffuk49 22.07.2011 04:24 |
As a life long Queen fan I've learnt never expect suprises. However I have seen a few quotes that Roger and Brian are planning to play some live shows???? if it happens would be great but if not it wouldnt be a suprised as it seems to be the run of the mill over the last few years rumour after rumour, such and such is gonna play a few dates with his soul brother (RT and Taylor Hawkins), solo albums etc. Then we get PR raising his head again (kerchiiiing) |
| pittrek 22.07.2011 06:28 |
rhyeking - the Japanese vinyl replicas were released in 2001. The 2004 edition has the same audio content, but it comes in standard CD cases |
| dysan 22.07.2011 07:08 |
The only problem with the reissues are they are trying to cater for everyone and truely serving no one. A real shame, but I've been very happy with them. The combined bonus material is a stunning anthology. |
| smilebrian 22.07.2011 08:49 |
It is a rip off when you consider ANATO being identical to the 2005 (apart from a small cleaning of bo rhap). To me, that is dishonest to all those 2005 ANATO owners. The remastering is still not definitive, bonus material is patchy. If I was in the greatest band of all time and had plenty of spare time and didn't need cash, I'd take care to make sure my legacy was released the best it could be. But then again, plenty of badgers and foxes might die in the process. |
| Voice of Reason 2018 22.07.2011 09:50 |
Do I think they are a rip-off? Probably. I haven't bought any of them because, I guess, I don't really want them. |
| rhyeking 22.07.2011 10:31 |
pittrek wrote: rhyeking - the Japanese vinyl replicas were released in 2001. The 2004 edition has the same audio content, but it comes in standard CD cases ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Isn't it the other way around? I own the Greatest Hits 1 from the EMI-Toshiba 'Queen Digital Remasters' series, dated on the CD as 2001 and on the sleeve as '01-11-21' (November 21st, 2001). I don't own any of the mini-LPs, but when I look them up they consistently are advertised as 2004 releases, including Amazon Japan: link and the Queen Vault: link |
| Dr Zoidberg 22.07.2011 11:22 |
A genuine "rip-off" happens when something is advertised as one thing, inducing you to buy it, and when you get it, you find out its less than what it was promised to be. That's a real "rip-off". If you spend money on something knowing exactly what you're getting and you don't like it, that's not a "rip-off" - that's buyer's remorse and that's your fault. If you are disappointed that something isn't what you wished it were before you ever buy it, and yet you still buy it solely for the sake of being able to say you were "ripped-off", you're mental or childishly irrational. If you don't like the looks of something and use rational decision making and don't buy it, you haven't been "ripped-off" because you're not out anything. A lot of you who cry "rip-off" are incorrectly using the word as a shorthand way of saying "I want more unreleased Queen material I have never had access to before and no one's putting it in a shop for me to buy and its making me mad" - and that's fine, but don't call it a "rip-off", because it isn't. |
| brENsKi 22.07.2011 11:24 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't really have to explain this, but it's not a rip-off. When you look at something - for argument's sake, these reissues - you do a quick mental calculation of how much you want it vs. whether or not you think it is priced decently. If you buy it, you've accepted the price of the thing, and it is your fault for buying it. Or, you think it's too expensive, and you don't buy it - therefore you keep your money and no one has ripped you off. There really isn't any such thing as a rip-off. Take it or leave it, and if you're too cheap - just download the cunting thing .... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ the only justification you would have for feeling "ripped off" is if they took your credit card details and the first time you actually saw what you got and how much it cost was when the goods arrived with a credit card receipt...that would be a rip off they didnt do that....so nobody was ripped off you can call it lots of things, "missed opportunity" "let down" "disappointment" "anti-climax" etc...but all of these things refer to the meotional or logical reaction to the announcement of the detail, rather than the process of purchasing it..... so no....for anyone anywhere....this is NOT a rip off |
| rhyeking 22.07.2011 11:42 |
Zebonka, Dr. Zoiberg and Brenski nail it right on the head. |
| mike hunt 22.07.2011 11:48 |
No, not a rip off....if you don't like the product, don't buy it...i didn't buy them....simple as that! |
| ct0409 22.07.2011 15:42 |
Okay - maybe I used a wrong word (rip off instead of disappointment). I am not a native speaker. It is simply disappointing to see another chance to reveal the teased tons of unreleased material gone to waste. I am surprised that many here do not seem to care that we may never hear genuine stuff from the vault, and instead are treated to those half-ready bonus EPs. |
| brENsKi 22.07.2011 16:09 |
ct0409 wrote: Okay - maybe I used a wrong word (rip off instead of disappointment). I am not a native speaker. It is simply disappointing to see another chance to reveal the teased tons of unreleased material gone to waste. I am surprised that many here do not seem to care that we may never hear genuine stuff from the vault, and instead are treated to those half-ready bonus EPs. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ as i said above - initial response could be "disappointed" but surely not now - weeks later? if you are still disappointed, the you need to get a life...ffs - get over it......once you have been a queen fan a while you will get used to this kind of stuff.... for me...NOTHING they do, no matter how disappointing it is initially, EVER surprises me.....cos one thing is - QPL are completely consistent......never make any kind of effort and who says we don't care? i htink you just become desensitised and immune to QPL's lack of iniitiative |
| Back2TheLight 22.07.2011 17:51 |
rhyeking wrote: Zebonka, Dr. Zoiberg and Brenski nail it right on the head. Couldn't agree more...I on the other hand, like the remasters...compared to the HR versions I was used to, they sounded really good...I think alot of people expected these remasters to be 5.1 digital surround 'you're in the studio as they are recording it' kind of audio. That's not gonna happen...sorry! Expectations are much too high! I live in the US, and I'm sitting here bitching ONLY about the fact that the other new remasters that came out everywhere else, are NOT available in the US and Canada. None of you know (ok, maybe GT and a handful of others) exactly what else is about to come out...sit back and be surprised, and at the end of it if all of a sudden your 'Hangman' didn't come out on CD in 5.1 perfection audio...oh fucking well! No one got ripped off...I think alot of people have forgotten the word of 'THANKS'! K, rant over with... |
| jamster1111 22.07.2011 20:26 |
mooghead wrote: Not worthy of a response.... Definitely worthy of a response! Thank you ct0409 as i've wanted to point this out a long time ago. This is obviously not for the fans but for the money. Like you said, the whole thing is for us to buy all the albums again because they reel us in with some shitty bonus tracks. Even if you believe they actually DID do this for the fans, you gotta admit they could have done a WAY better job with the bonus tracks. |
| cmsdrums 23.07.2011 07:57 |
It was a genuine rip off as such, in that for ages in advance they were promised to be 'deluxe editions' when, based on the standard recognised interpretation of that, they were nothing of the sort. So much so that they even dropped the 'deluxe' definition after the first batch. Having said that, it was only a rip off of our expectations because the track listings were still known before we handed over any money.Dr Zoidberg wrote: A genuine "rip-off" happens when something is advertised as one thing, inducing you to buy it, and when you get it, you find out its less than what it was promised to be. That's a real "rip-off". If you spend money on something knowing exactly what you're getting and you don't like it, that's not a "rip-off" - that's buyer's remorse and that's your fault. If you are disappointed that something isn't what you wished it were before you ever buy it, and yet you still buy it solely for the sake of being able to say you were "ripped-off", you're mental or childishly irrational. If you don't like the looks of something and use rational decision making and don't buy it, you haven't been "ripped-off" because you're not out anything. A lot of you who cry "rip-off" are incorrectly using the word as a shorthand way of saying "I want more unreleased Queen material I have never had access to before and no one's putting it in a shop for me to buy and its making me mad" - and that's fine, but don't call it a "rip-off", because it isn't. |
| The Real Wizard 23.07.2011 10:37 |
^ what he said. |
| jamster1111 23.07.2011 13:12 |
cmsdrums wrote: It was a genuine rip off as such, in that for ages in advance they were promised to be 'deluxe editions' when, based on the standard recognised interpretation of that, they were nothing of the sort. So much so that they even dropped the 'deluxe' definition after the first batch. Having said that, it was only a rip off of our expectations because the track listings were still known before we handed over any money.Dr Zoidberg wrote: A genuine "rip-off" happens when something is advertised as one thing, inducing you to buy it, and when you get it, you find out its less than what it was promised to be. That's a real "rip-off". If you spend money on something knowing exactly what you're getting and you don't like it, that's not a "rip-off" - that's buyer's remorse and that's your fault. If you are disappointed that something isn't what you wished it were before you ever buy it, and yet you still buy it solely for the sake of being able to say you were "ripped-off", you're mental or childishly irrational. If you don't like the looks of something and use rational decision making and don't buy it, you haven't been "ripped-off" because you're not out anything. A lot of you who cry "rip-off" are incorrectly using the word as a shorthand way of saying "I want more unreleased Queen material I have never had access to before and no one's putting it in a shop for me to buy and its making me mad" - and that's fine, but don't call it a "rip-off", because it isn't. I think most people mean it was a "rip-off" in the sense that it wasn't what they expected. Yes it was great that they were able to include SOME good bonus tracks and videos but that was only some especially when they had the opportunity to include much better stuff and instead they just stuck in there stuff that was already released like Rock Montreal and Bowl tracks. And this is the main reason why I didn't spend a single dime on it. Why should I? If they release something totally new like a 70's live release, yes, then I'd buy it in a second. Hell, I'd even be willing to spend extra for it! |
| philip storey 23.07.2011 14:34 |
So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really. |
| The Real Wizard 23.07.2011 17:08 |
philip storey wrote: So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really. ==================== What exactly are you hoping for? For about 15 years, Queen fans have been begging to hear some new music, and here it is ... and people are still complaining. What kind of Queen fan are you if you aren't interested in studio outtakes and unreleased songs from the 77-80 period? |
| dowens 23.07.2011 19:56 |
I agree Sir GH. People are pretty ridiculous when it comes to the remasters. I have LOVED 2011 as a Queen fan. I am in the US and have ordered all of the remasters (except Flash Gordon) and it's like getting all of the albums again brand new. The only real Queen album release I experienced was "Made in Heaven," so this has been awesome! Sure, I think the Live stuff from Wembley, Montreal, and at the Bowl shouldn't have been placed on these EP's (even though the live version of "Save Me" from Montreal is incredible!), I appreciate the stuff included on the Bonus EP's. I bet the last batch will have the best remasters. Anyone who thinks these remasters are crap and say keep the HR versions are...not smart. IMO. It's night and day different. |
| tcc 23.07.2011 20:01 |
I think the Flash Gordon bonus disc is the most entertaining so far. I really enjoyed hearing the piano playing in the Football Fight (without synths). The Kiss (early take) and The Hero (Oct 1980 revisited) are also great. For me the Flash Gordon bonus tracks are the most played as compared to the other bonus discs. |
| mike hunt 23.07.2011 22:43 |
Sir GH wrote: philip storey wrote: So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really. ==================== What exactly are you hoping for? For about 15 years, Queen fans have been begging to hear some new music, and here it is ... and people are still complaining. What kind of Queen fan are you if you aren't interested in studio outtakes and unreleased songs from the 77-80 period? The bonus material isn't that bad....Dreamer's ball is nice, but not worth buying all the albums again to hear those few gems. Thank god for Youtube. |
| philip storey 24.07.2011 03:37 |
I am a massive Queen fan thank you very much,like most of you i have spent a hell of a lot over the years on Vinyl,Casettes,Cds,Concerts etc.I would have just hoped for something a little more juicy than Love Of My Life from Live Killers,Fat Bottomed Girls [Single Mix] and so on.If you are happy with whats on offer thats great,i will still buy the next bunch of Remasters anyway.Cheers! |
| TyphoonTip 25.07.2011 07:43 |
The word 'remaster' has been tainted over the last 20 years. No doubt people have felt burned in the past, when they've bought something that's sold on the premise that it sounds 'better than ever before', only to find that it's had the bejesus compressed out of it, and basically sounds like shit. ....And so people torrent. And with Queen's sordid history of remasters, rightly so! If you like it, buy it, if it sounds like shit, at least you didn't waste your cash. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 26.07.2011 15:32 |
i have to agree it dose feel like a bit of a rip off, especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster. and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take |
| brENsKi 27.07.2011 11:29 |
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: i have to agree it dose feel like a bit of a rip off, especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster. and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ but it's not a rip off. a rip-off is where something is sold as soemthing it isn't....you can look at the cd case, and read the track listings BEFORE you buy...so you make a decision already aware of what you are getting for your £12...therefore...it's NOT a rip-off |
| TyphoonTip 28.07.2011 07:46 |
brENsKi wrote: lifetimefanofqueen wrote: i have to agree it dose feel like a bit of a rip off, especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster. and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ but it's not a rip off. a rip-off is where something is sold as soemthing it isn't....you can look at the cd case, and read the track listings BEFORE you buy...so you make a decision already aware of what you are getting for your £12...therefore...it's NOT a rip-off ________________________________ Unfortunately the CD case doesn't have a sticker saying 'Compressed and Hard Limited'. You have to buy it to find out it sounds like shit. |
| rhyeking 28.07.2011 08:13 |
They sound fine to me. You could accuse those of us who don't hear what you hear of being cloth-eared, but I think the more of an expert one becomes on a subject, the more rigid (consciously or unconsciously) their standards becomes. I work in theatre and I freely admit I'm the worst person to go see a play with, because even as I'm watching the play, I'm thinking about the staging, the lighting, the sound, spotting bad shutter-cuts on the set and looking around wondering which type of lighting instruments they're using. Once you know how it is created, you can't unsee (or unhear) the flaws. Lack of experience allows for the mind to filter those things out a lot of the time. |
| TyphoonTip 28.07.2011 08:34 |
rhyeking wrote: They sound fine to me. You could accuse those of us who don't hear what you hear of being cloth-eared, but I think the more of an expert one becomes on a subject, the more rigid (consciously or unconsciously) their standards becomes. I work in theatre and I freely admit I'm the worst person to go see a play with, because even as I'm watching the play, I'm thinking about the staging, the lighting, the sound, spotting bad shutter-cuts on the set and looking around wondering which type of lighting instruments they're using. Once you know how it is created, you can't unsee (or unhear) the flaws. Lack of experience allows for the mind to filter those things out a lot of the time. ______________________________ I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. But I'm just mounting the case that one could justifiably feel ripped off if they bought the CDs expecting them to sound better than ever (that's how they've been marketed), when there's a noticeable loss of dynamics (to those who place importance in those things). Now you could argue that, to the average listener, they sound fine, and I don't have an issue with that. However to send out blanket messages saying they have never sounded better, I think is a little disingenuous. Particularly in an environment where the 'Loud Wars', have gotten a lot of press over the last few years. Hell, Ludwig himself has repeatedly said how he thinks albums should be mastered (without comp and heavy limiting), but will often get over-ridden by those employing him. So it's therefore not unreasonable to think that even the guy who mastered these CDs may not think they're that good. Having said that, I don't think they're completely terrible. In fact I quite like QII and Flash. But aside from those 2 (so far), there are much better versions floating around out there. And I suspect, along with Ludwig, they know it. |