| Vocal harmony 11.12.2014 10:33 |
Through out the 70's Queen were accused of being pompous overblown, indulgent the list goes on, but it occurred to me today that unlike many big 70's bands they never made a double studio album, yet the art work gate fold sleeves etc would often suggest more than a single album. |
| brENsKi 11.12.2014 11:29 |
perhaps queen missed a trick here? glaring omission and all that but the Doubles i have i consider some of those artists' best works Physical Graffiti Goodbye Yellow Brick Road Layla & Assorted Other Love Songs All Things Must Pass (i know it's a triple) Out Of The Blue The Wall The Beatles (white album) |
| BETA215 11.12.2014 11:31 |
Well, The Game and The Miracle almost were double sided albums. |
| MercurialFreddie 11.12.2014 13:29 |
Some time ago, one person claiming to be close to the band in the 80's stated here on queenzone that two versions of The Game were recorded. So if it's true then you can say that The Game is a double album. |
| cmsdrums 11.12.2014 14:58 |
Not two versions of The Game, but that it was truly intended as a double? One pretty much what we got - a new stripped down Queen - and the second with songs much more intricate and in the vein of 'old' Queen. |
| *goodco* 11.12.2014 15:57 |
as to 'The Game'....pretend that the demos for 'Flash' and NOTW and Jazz and a few other tracks are added, and there you are. 'The Hero' certainly would have been a good finale to that album There was SO much solo material being worked on, as well as leftovers, that it would have made for a superb 'The Works' double LP. 'WE' would have loved it. But after HS, sales would have been abysmal. |
| AlbaNo1 11.12.2014 16:24 |
Pity A Day at the Races/Night At Opera wasnt a double. |
| aion 11.12.2014 16:45 |
The Game a double album? It's such a short disc that it's barely a single album! Queen never really had any extra songs in their recording sessions because their policy was to finish the first 10 or so songs they came up with and then release the album, that's it. |
| brENsKi 11.12.2014 17:01 |
AlbaNo1 wrote: Pity A Day at the Races/Night At Opera wasnt a double.yes, woulda been fantastic. but maybe neither would've been the special pieces of work they are had they been combined |
| The Real Wizard 11.12.2014 23:27 |
aion wrote: The Game a double album? It's such a short disc that it's barely a single album! Queen never really had any extra songs in their recording sessions because their policy was to finish the first 10 or so songs they came up with and then release the album, that's it.That may have been the case through A Day At The Races, but there are recordings of unreleased tracks from most of the album sessions after that. Sometimes things were just tossed for one reason or another. |
| aion 12.12.2014 04:13 |
Only some very early 'doodla-daa' demos which were abandoned when they decided which 10 song ideas would be developed for the album. There were ever only one or two occasions when they developed further a song that wasn't released at the time; Too Much Love Will Kill You comes to mind, but nothing else. In the AKOM sessions for example, they didn't work on anything else but the 8 tracks which would be put on the album. |
| geoagustín 12.12.2014 08:32 |
For The Miracle Queen made 33 tracks. Those tracks are finished. They are not demos. Brian said that in several interviews. You can also hear it in the Breakthru video interview. |
| Vocal harmony 12.12.2014 08:45 |
geoagustín wrote: For The Miracle Queen made 33 tracks. Those tracks are finished. They are not demos. Brian said that in several interviews. You can also hear it in the Breakthru video interview.I'm sure BM was talking about songs that had been written, rather than recorded and mixed as finished tracks. It's a huge number of songs to invest time in knowing most wouldn't be used. I'm sure some of those songs appeared later on Inuendo. |
| MercurialFreddie 12.12.2014 09:18 |
It's amazing how everybody (incl. myself) pretends to be Queen Archivist when it comes to discussion just like this thread. Only he knows for sure what was discarded and what live and studio unreleased material is in their archives. Everything else is pure speculation and rumours. Claiming that there doesn't exist a single track that wasn't released is as reasonable as claiming that there are tons and tons of unreleased material. We only got officially video list of the recorded gigs, provided by Queen Archivist. And still, that list is today partially reliable as from the moment it was posted here, they (QPL) found more tapes. @aion: Wasn't You're the Only One released on FM solo box a demo from AKOM sessions ? If so, then maybe there are more demos from that session which - bearing in mind recent invitation for Orbit to work on more unreleased material - may see the light of the day. |
| Vocal harmony 12.12.2014 09:47 |
Yes but having demos of some songs is vastly different from having 30 plus songs recorded and ready for release which is what some people believe that comment implies. |
| geoagustín 12.12.2014 10:17 |
I know that all that 33 tracks were not finished. But there were more than demos. The version that we all know about "I Guess We Are Falling Out", its not the last version of it. Its an early version. When Brian came to Argentina he said that Freddie left 8 tracks for the last sessions (MIH). How many really get to Made in Heaven? Of course there are not tons of unreleased finished tracks. But i'm more that sure that they might do another studio album. |
| gerry 12.12.2014 11:25 |
yes it would nice to assume there are left over tracks from all the studio albums, and many of these would be in Brian, Johns and Rogers personal home recording collections. Queen releasing double studio albums just would not be right and not a very commercial thing to do. Queen wanted the fans to be hungry for the albums so more than likely a single album was just enough to tease the most ardent Queen fan! |
| brENsKi 12.12.2014 11:55 |
but this ^^^ is not a reason to NOT make a double. your statement
gerry wrote:Queen wanted the fans to be hungry for the albums so more than likely a single album was just enough to tease the most ardent Queen fan!is only conjecture and nothing more, and by consequence no more accurate than someone saying they didn't release a double because 1] "they got bored with the recording process and wanted to leave the studio" or 2] "they hated each other's gut after six months locked up together writing and recording" or 3] "the remaining tracks simply weren't interesting enough to all four of them to continue working on" the truth is probably a combination of all three. and in all likelihood mainly "3" - as this is backed up by the number of "queen tracks" that ended up on solo projects - ie only one of them wanted to keep the tracks gerry wrote:Queen releasing double studio albums just would not be right and not a very commercial thing to do.!have to disagree with this statement 100%. sometimes you need to think before making these kind of globalised statements. look at the sales figures below and tell me there was no market for a queen double Physical Graffiti - 600,000 (UK), 8,000,000 (USA) Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - 350,000 (UK) 8,000,000 (USA) All Things Must Pass (i know it's a triple) - 300,000 (UK), 6,000,000 (USA) Out Of The Blue - 300,000 (UK), 1,000,000 (USA) The Wall - 1,000,000 (UK), 23,000,000 (USA) The Beatles (white album) - 300,000 (UK), 9,500,000 (USA) by comparison queen's biggest selling original studio album is The Game - 300,000 (UK), 4,000,000 (USA) add to that the fact that ALL of the above doubles compare favourably with those artists biggest selling works, and you must see that there is nothing financially or business negative about a double album if the material is good and it's in the right point in a band's career. ps - YOU do realise that "ardent" fans would buy almost anything - someone who is ardent is devoted to almost anything produced - so in theory they'd lap up anything available |
| gerry 12.12.2014 12:48 |
You are forgetting i am an ardent Queen fan and i do not buy anything these days, because sadly its about making money not music anymore. Queen Forever is proof of this, and quite frankly i would not pay £15.99 just because it has i new song and 2 songs re-worked! Again Brian and Roger have told lies to the fans to make them buy this limp collection. Queen were never a double album band so writing down all your sales figures is a waste of time, all groups are different and so you do not have an argument here. Live Killers was a double album but flopped as far as the fans were concerned! |
| tomchristie22 12.12.2014 14:46 |
gerry wrote: You are forgetting i am an ardent Queen fan and i do not buy anything these days, because sadly its about making money not music anymore.No, you're an ardent fan of the original lineup - you not buying recent stuff doesn't prove anything. I'm sure you still buy releases that pertain to 1971-1991. Or are you going to claim you didn't buy the Rainbow? |
| gooddrills 12.12.2014 15:38 |
It's been documented that Queen worked on Heaven For Everyone and Love Making Love during the Magic sessions. Just saying |
| brENsKi 12.12.2014 16:53 |
gerry wrote:You are forgetting i am an ardent Queen fan and i do not buy anything these days, because sadly its about making money not music anymore.!no you're not. you're and "ardent queen 1971-1991 fan" - there's a huge difference ...as you've not been a fan of anything since 1991. gerry wrote:Queen were never a double album band so writing down all your sales figures is a waste of time, all groups are different and so you do not have an argument here.more crap? you always manage to outdo your own stupidity don't you? the sales figures prove that bands YOU SAY were smaller than queen managed to have double-albums that outsold queen's most successful original album. that is proof that the double album concept has no detriment to sales - quality is what matters. one other thing: ELO - out of the blue - running time 75:43 Zep - physical graffiti - 82:15 elton - GYBR - 76:12 pink floyd - the wall - queen - made in heaven - 87:49 spot the difference? the last one is the only single album gerry wrote:Live Killers was a double album but flopped as far as the fans were concerned!did it really? well enough fans bought LKs didn't they? Live Killers - UK sales 380,000 / USA sales - 2,500,000 - highest UK chart position no3. Hot Space - UK 100,000 / USA 500,000 - highest Uk position no4 ^^^ the album you love so much didn't perform as well as the live album you don't like and claim flopped with the fans. before you spout garbage in future, try checking the actual facts you cannot speak for the 280,000 UK fans that bought LK that fucked Hot Space off...and certainly not with the 2,000,000 USA fans who bought LK instead of Hotspace. you're either playing very clever mind games on this site, or you are the most moronic imbecile to ever sit in front of a keyboard. i'm certain it's the latter. |
| gerry 13.12.2014 04:04 |
Brenski: why do you think you are always right and everybody else is wrong? Live Killers was recieved by disappointed fans regardless of your sales figures, and you are very petty just because Live Killers reached no3 in the charts and Hot Space no4 so what? your the one who yet again has insulted me, so i think you need to appologise instead of hiding behind your comp and playing the petulant child that you are. Once again i will say my opinions are personal and if you do not like them, think about what folk on here think about yours. I do not tolerate bullies in any shape or form, so pack it in and grow up matey. |
| brENsKi 13.12.2014 04:44 |
you are an idiot. ^^^ and clearly one who's completely unable to read and comprehend what you are seing on your computer screen.
FYI - i didn't just refer to chart positions - i quoted ACTUAL SALES FIGURES
Live Killers - which you globally generalised (again) by saying:
gerry wrote:Live Killers was a double album but flopped as far as the fans were concerned!was NOT a flop with fans - it sold as much as at least half of queen's other studio albums. by your reckoning that makes half of queen's albums "flops with fans" - don't you see your logic is flawed? secondly, YOU can speak for yourself alone - unless YOU produce ACTUAL FACTS to back up your theories. I produced facts to back up what i said...now where's YOUR PROOF that Live Killers flopped with fans? you say: gerry wrote:Once again i will say my opinions are personal and if you do not like them, think about what folk on here think about yours.but the quote above re "LK being a flop" is not an opinion - YOU are making a statement. nowhere do you say "i think" or "in my opinion". if it's ONLY YOUR opinion .try saying so |
| gerry 13.12.2014 05:03 |
Tut tut tut you are one angry fucker! i really pity you, and how dare you shout at me with capital letters may i add! "Live Killers" was a disappointment with the fans because of how it sounded and produced, even Roger Taylor said this in many interviews, so stick that up your arse Brenski. I do not give a toss what you think, because you are one arrogant sick mother fucker! Try learning to be well mannered and not with your head up your arse. |
| aion 13.12.2014 05:47 |
MercurialFreddie wrote: It's amazing how everybody (incl. myself) pretends to be Queen Archivist when it comes to discussion just like this thread. Only he knows for sure what was discarded and what live and studio unreleased material is in their archives. Everything else is pure speculation and rumours. Claiming that there doesn't exist a single track that wasn't released is as reasonable as claiming that there are tons and tons of unreleased material. We only got officially video list of the recorded gigs, provided by Queen Archivist. And still, that list is today partially reliable as from the moment it was posted here, they (QPL) found more tapes. @aion: Wasn't You're the Only One released on FM solo box a demo from AKOM sessions ? If so, then maybe there are more demos from that session which - bearing in mind recent invitation for Orbit to work on more unreleased material - may see the light of the day.Time and time again people on this board get their hopes up for unreleased songs, but it's all just wishful thinking. We do know Queen's method of working and to put it bluntly, it was to release albums with as little effort as possible (as far as the amount of songs goes - obviously the songs that they did finalize were meticulously produced). They never released non-album singles, they didn't bother to make non-album B-side tracks. In the 80s their albums had only 9 or 10 songs though they could have spent as much time in the studio as they wanted. Greg Brooks surely knows that the archives are very thin. |
| brENsKi 13.12.2014 06:00 |
gerry wrote: Tut tut tut you are one angry fucker! i really pity you, and how dare you shout at me with capital letters may i add! "Live Killers" was a disappointment with the fans because of how it sounded and produced, even Roger Taylor said this in many interviews, so stick that up your arse Brenski. I do not give a toss what you think, because you are one arrogant sick mother fucker! Try learning to be well mannered and not with your head up your arse.you DO realise that CAPS are also used in the typewritten word for emphasis..there is NO shouting or rudeness in my last post. Gerry try and understand that regardless of what ANY INDIVIDUAL says - Roger Taylor, Gerry or even Angela Merkel - it is still only the opinion of ONE PERSON. that does not constitute EVERYONE. an album almost goes platinum in the Uk and double platinum in the USA is NOT a flop. if it were, what would that make YOUR beloved Hot Space - which only sold a fifth as many copies...and Freddie felt the need to apologise for at Milton Keynes? You do realise now that you've got so fekkin ridiculously stupid on here that if YOU said that the sky was Blue and the grass was Green...everyone on Qzone would still feel compelled to look outside to check for sure. this was a really interesting conversation until YOU ruined it again by wading in and spouting your usual utter shacts. |
| gerry 13.12.2014 06:12 |
Ah no rudeness eh? so why did you call me these names for then below: Brenski wrote: "you're either playing very clever mind games on this site, or you are the most moronic imbecile to ever sit in front of a keyboard. i'm certain it's the latter" Well that is the just of it, its nothing i say, you just have something personal against me, I sometimes wonder why i waste my time replying back to your attention seeking replies. oh yes your just winding me up i had forgotten that. lets just leave things here yeah, and you can go and jog on and have a pop at someone else. So your not content to seriously listen to what Roger says about Live Killers but your own opinion is more worthy yeah? priceless and as per you are always right master Brenski. |
| brENsKi 13.12.2014 06:44 |
"Jerry" - by John Mellancamp (absolutely spot on) Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon He's right outside of my window He acts like a madman from time to time I hope he brings it to a crescendo soon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry rides his skateboard down the street He's thirty-seven years old with six children He sees the world through a ten year old boy's eyes He doesn't even notice that it's raining outside Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon But sometimes he cries He wants me to console him But I know that he's lying About everything he's told me Man in the moon Man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Says, he's prepared to suffer the consequences What is his penalty for his immaturity? Will he be cast into eternal darkness? Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Jerry's yelling at the man in the moon Man in the moon Man in the moon Man in the moon Man in the moon |
| matt z 13.12.2014 07:22 |
LIVE KILLERS INSPIRED ME TO PLAY MUSIC! !!! I'M AN ARDENT SUPPORTER OF BRENSKI and will state for the record that their playful spirit was INVALUABLE in considering the future releases from QPL. Beautiful. Just beautiful. . Acknowledge where you came from! It's important! !! |
| Jimmy Dean 13.12.2014 07:27 |
i always thought - had they been recorded in the same sessions - News Of The World & Jazz could have been a double album... but when listening to each album, clearly the production is very different, so it may not be apparent... but you can easily fit songs on either album side by side. However, doing so would have diluted News Of The World which, in my opinion, is perfect as it is. |
| Vocal harmony 13.12.2014 07:43 |
Hate to point this out Gerry, but Live Killers has nothing to do with this thread, it's about studio albums. Had Queen ever produced a double album, like those brENsKi listed I don't think the sales figures would be any different than those achieve. |
| brENsKi 13.12.2014 08:09 |
bingo !!! ^^ this. thank you - wonder why his Gerryacity couldn't see this in the point i made. |
| brENsKi 13.12.2014 08:11 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: i always thought - had they been recorded in the same sessions - News Of The World & Jazz could have been a double album... but when listening to each album, clearly the production is very different, so it may not be apparent... but you can easily fit songs on either album side by side. However, doing so would have diluted News Of The World which, in my opinion, is perfect as it is.great point. with some minor production tweaks here and there at least 2/3 of Jazz and NOTW are interchangeable. |
| gerry 13.12.2014 09:04 |
Brenski: you are a loony, but there again everyone on here knows that! Still i am sure you will be back on the ward monday morning! enjoy your weekend feeble one. |
| gerry 13.12.2014 09:10 |
Vocal Harmony: Yes i know this discussion is about studio albums but i was just pointing out that Queen only released double albums when they were "live" ones. i.e "Live Killers" & "Live Magic" but as usual Brenski complicates the matter and causes rows, and this makes the topic fly off in a different direction. I will just ignore the retarded fool in future. |
| MercurialFreddie 13.12.2014 10:35 |
aion wrote:MercurialFreddie wrote: It's amazing how everybody (incl. myself) pretends to be Queen Archivist when it comes to discussion just like this thread. Only he knows for sure what was discarded and what live and studio unreleased material is in their archives. Everything else is pure speculation and rumours. Claiming that there doesn't exist a single track that wasn't released is as reasonable as claiming that there are tons and tons of unreleased material. We only got officially video list of the recorded gigs, provided by Queen Archivist. And still, that list is today partially reliable as from the moment it was posted here, they (QPL) found more tapes. @aion: Wasn't You're the Only One released on FM solo box a demo from AKOM sessions ? If so, then maybe there are more demos from that session which - bearing in mind recent invitation for Orbit to work on more unreleased material - may see the light of the day.Time and time again people on this board get their hopes up for unreleased songs, but it's all just wishful thinking. We do know Queen's method of working and to put it bluntly, it was to release albums with as little effort as possible (as far as the amount of songs goes - obviously the songs that they did finalize were meticulously produced). They never released non-album singles, they didn't bother to make non-album B-side tracks. In the 80s their albums had only 9 or 10 songs though they could have spent as much time in the studio as they wanted. Greg Brooks surely knows that the archives are very thin. If that would be true, we wouldn't get Let Me In Your Heart Again with FM on vocals and what's more the majority of solo tracks wouldn't have originated during Queen recording sessions. The sole fact that more songs were made during those sessions proves that it wasn't just about getting 10 songs and leaving the studio for party. |
| philip storey 13.12.2014 10:49 |
Er the last time i looked in the CD case Live Magic was a single Album! You obviously meant Live at Wembley was a double live release. Live Magic i always thought was poor,with the sound quality and horrible edited songs.I hardly ever play LM ,just got it for my collection. |
| seagull 14.12.2014 04:51 |
The Miracle - double album. The Miracle double album was considered for release. I recall reading this as a quote from Brian May, most likely in the fan club magazine from that same era. The Miracle Extended may have been the title and it was considered as a follow-up to 'The Miracle' with extended versions of songs. Hence it spanned two albums. They never specified extended versions of every song, so it was never made entirely clear what the final track listing would have been. Andy |
| The King Of Rhye 14.12.2014 08:56 |
gerry wrote: You are forgetting i am an ardent Queen fan and i do not buy anything these days, because sadly its about making money not music anymore. Queen Forever is proof of this, and quite frankly i would not pay £15.99 just because it has i new song and 2 songs re-worked! Again Brian and Roger have told lies to the fans to make them buy this limp collection. Queen were never a double album band so writing down all your sales figures is a waste of time, all groups are different and so you do not have an argument here. Live Killers was a double album but flopped as far as the fans were concerned!How could we forget you're an 'ardent Queen fan', when you remind everyone of it at every opportunity? And what exactly is a 'double album band'? A band that has released a double album? Well, I suppose they dont qualify then....unless you mean something like they were more pop-oriented than other bands (ie Zep, Floyd, etc) that did.... But then again the Beatles and Elton John had double albums as well......... |
| The King Of Rhye 14.12.2014 08:58 |
seagull wrote: The Miracle - double album. The Miracle double album was considered for release. I recall reading this as a quote from Brian May, most likely in the fan club magazine from that same era. The Miracle Extended may have been the title and it was considered as a follow-up to 'The Miracle' with extended versions of songs. Hence it spanned two albums. They never specified extended versions of every song, so it was never made entirely clear what the final track listing would have been. AndyI remember reading that as well...........it was going to be called Another Miracle, I thought.... |
| BETA215 14.12.2014 12:18 |
Well, if from those times, songs like Too Much Love Will Kill You -released in Made In Heaven-, I Guess We're Falling Out, Stealin' (12 min. version of the B-Side), Hijack My Heart (B-Side), My Life Has Been Saved (B-Side) -and 'reworked' in Made In Heaven-, Face It Alone -earlier demo than the Innuendo one-, A New Life Is Born -which was mixed with Breakthru-, Dog With A Bone -which was originated like a Convention gift-, Hang On In There (B-Side), Robbery or Self Made Man were made... . I think that that could fill a album! ... 11 songs. More than The Game. ... And if I add some extras? ... Face It There (Shitty remix by Giorgio Mororder) 'Stealin' (Dubstep remix by George Lucas) Hijack My Love (Remix and backing vocals by Adam Lambert) Too Much Love Will Kill You (Freddie's Tribute Live Demo) [2014 Remaster, ... with long-lost guitars] {*cough*over*cough*dubs*cough} Ha! New release! Better than Forever? |
| seagull 15.12.2014 04:14 |
Another Miracle...yes, I think you're right. cheers :) |
| Martin Packer 15.12.2014 05:37 |
Or "Another Miracle" could have been misdirection. Since 1991 I always felt there was quite a bit of misdirection 1989 onwards. |
| br5946 04.04.2015 09:47 |
Opera and Races are fab on their own, but as a double release it would've been truly glorious and something else entirely. I think if the band had some money in their pockets instead of being broke and thought 'hey, let's go all-out since Killer Queen was such a smash', it could've happened. If you use the single edits of Tie Your Mother Down and Teo Torriatte when compiling Races, and then add that result straight in front of Opera, the length is 84:39. Kind of makes me wish that 90-minute burnable CDs existed. |
| brENsKi 04.04.2015 11:29 |
br5946 wrote: Opera and Races are fab on their own, but as a double release it would've been truly glorious and something else entirely. I think if the band had some money in their pockets instead of being broke and thought 'hey, let's go all-out since Killer Queen was such a smash', it could've happened. If you use the single edits of Tie Your Mother Down and Teo Torriatte when compiling Races, and then add that result straight in front of Opera, the length is 84:39. Kind of makes me wish that 90-minute burnable CDs existed.yeah. i used to have some blank 99-min cd-r s years ago - but not seen any for sale in some time...but then hey=presto!! google produced this: link all you need now is cd burning s'ware that'll burn 99-minutes |
| Sebastian 05.04.2015 08:09 |
Wasn't Live Killers a double album anyway? And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album. |
| brENsKi 06.04.2015 03:31 |
Sebastian wrote: Wasn't Live Killers a double album anyway? And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album. as were (as it turns out) most "classic" live albums shameful eh? and you'd have thought that the amount of "studio" time devoted to LK that Freddie might have redone that awful "drunk sounding" DSMN ad-lib "dohn schtopp me, dohn schtopp me, dohn schtopp me - caaan, dohn schtopp me, dohn schtopp - ehh-ehh-ehh" in fact, it transpires that on one of my favourite Live albums "Live and Dangerous" - the only truly live thing is the crowd noise |
| ggo1 06.04.2015 11:00 |
Yeah, basically any live album with merit has been overdubbed or retouched. But I don't mind as long as it sounds live and represents the live sound the band were trying for. "Live and Dangerous" is probably one of the best live albums out there. And I really like Live Killers, I've never had a problem with it. (Both Doubles, so still vaguely on topic) |
| mooghead 06.04.2015 11:59 |
I HATE DSMN on Live Killers, it's terrible. |
| Holly2003 06.04.2015 12:01 |
ggo1 wrote: Yeah, basically any live album with merit has been overdubbed or retouched. But I don't mind as long as it sounds live and represents the live sound the band were trying for. "Live and Dangerous" is probably one of the best live albums out there. And I really like Live Killers, I've never had a problem with it. (Both Doubles, so still vaguely on topic)Any live band in any genre? Folk music? The Dubliners? Planxty? Paul Brady? Andy Irvine? You are on firmer ground when talking about rock music by major bands. That said, If You Want Blood by AC/DC is a great live album and I don't think it has been retouched (but I could be wrong). |
| ggo1 06.04.2015 18:36 |
I was meaning Rock, even if there are no vocal or guitar overdubs, they generally contain a mix of different nights. |
| cmsdrums 07.04.2015 04:52 |
The British rock band Thunder have never overdubbed a single thing on any of their countless live releases - very admirable. |
| TomP63 07.04.2015 05:54 |
Cmsdrums, you are so very true in your remark, there is a bulk live albums from Thunder outthere, and none of them have overdubs, just the raw deal. But there are more artists and band who have released the so-called live albums, as true live albums, John Waite did, David Gogo did it twice, Humble Pie did, Rory Gallagher as a matter of fact, it is an huge list. But on the subject Live Killers, by the time the album was released I for one didn't know that it was an album with overdubs. The sleeve says, recorded at various venues in Europe. In 1979 it was for me a KILLER album, and truly it still is for me! Tom Be nice in your replies guy's, today it is my birthday wink wink..... |
| ggo1 07.04.2015 08:14 |
@holly2003 If you Want Blood... (All supposition... but detailed investigation...) link (I have no idea how to do the soandso said in a box reply that everyone else seems to use. I've only been on the site for about ten years.) Apologies for taking this even further off topic. |
| Fireplace 07.04.2015 18:17 |
ggo1 wrote: @holly2003 If you Want Blood... (All supposition... but detailed investigation...) link (I have no idea how to do the soandso said in a box reply that everyone else seems to use. I've only been on the site for about ten years.) Apologies for taking this even further off topic.Use the icon with the quote marks top right of the message you wish to respond to. C'mon, even I can do it! |
| Holly2003 08.04.2015 09:34 |
Yep, definitely something fishy about Whole Lotta Rosie backing track there.
ggo1 wrote: @holly2003 If you Want Blood... (All supposition... but detailed investigation...) link (I have no idea how to do the soandso said in a box reply that everyone else seems to use. I've only been on the site for about ten years.) Apologies for taking this even further off topic. |
| ggo1 08.04.2015 11:32 |
Fireplace wrote:Holy crap... all these years on the site and I never knew this. I feel really dumb now.ggo1 wrote: (I have no idea how to do the soandso said in a box reply that everyone else seems to use. I've only been on the site for about ten years.)Use the icon with the quote marks top right of the message you wish to respond to. C'mon, even I can do it! |
| fly 15.04.2015 05:32 |
O pity they haven't done the double album in the 70's. And don't forget the doubles like: Tommy (1969) Quadrophenia (1973) I could listen Quadrophenia just because of the drums. Keith Moon the best drummer in my eyes. Would love to have something like that by the mighty Queen. Is this wrilly truth about the Game album, almost was the double album.!!! They should released it now as a double.... There are so many re re releases of other artists, either studio or live albums. I remember in the late 90's I started to collect the WHO discography. Since then, their bes talbums like Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia, Live AT Leeds where re re released at least three or even more times... So yes queen pruduction, release some double format album. Either the one as expanded that was originaly one sided or something totaly new! I'll give you the money. |
| brENsKi 15.04.2015 07:27 |
fly wrote: Is this wrilly truth about the Game album, almost was the double album.!!! .not really. after all - time-wise it's very short as SINGLE albums go...the extra tracks probably wouldn't take it over the 1hr duration |
| Vocal harmony 15.04.2015 08:40 |
Sebastian wrote: Wasn't Live Killers a double album anyway? And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album.Ok using Sebastian's piece of logic . . . . . It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album, part live part studio. However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's. Thanks for this view on the subject. |
| cmsdrums 15.04.2015 09:49 |
Vocal harmony wrote:I know that Sebastian is quick to pull others up on general statements, so I'd like to see what his definition of "a lot" is with regard to studio overdubs on Live Killers! Is is 10%, (which couldn't really be considered a lot), is is 25% (getting there, but still meanign 75% is genuinely live), is it 50% or over..etc..??Sebastian wrote: Wasn't Live Killers a double album anyway? And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album.Ok using Sebastian's piece of logic . . . . . It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album, part live part studio. However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's. Thanks for this view on the subject. I understand that Live Killers has lots of different concerts included, but with genuine live takes from different gigs spliced together to give the overall impression of one performance. To me these aren't "done in the studio". Whilst I'm happy to accept that SOME of the tracks do indeed feature studio performed overdubs, I would be suprised if the actual number/percentage of overdubs is "A LOT" (and especially when compared to its contemporary live albums which are openly known,and admitted to by the artists, to contain large numbers of studio corrections). |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 15.04.2015 20:27 |
I remember to read they though or Brian, better said, for a second to publish a double album with ANATO and ADATR....but as always, who knows! His memory is not very good. |
| Sebastian 15.04.2015 22:59 |
Vocal harmony wrote: It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album.I disagree. 'Best of' is entirely subjective. To me, for instance, it's not 'best of' if it hasn't got 'Good Company', 'Teo Torriatte', 'All Dead, All Dead', 'Somebody to Love', 'Lily of the Valley', 'You and I' or 'Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll', which it doesn't. Vocal harmony wrote: However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's.The thread is about a double studio album, not about something falling into the 'classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's' (which would be worth defining for the purpose of this topic). Vocal harmony wrote: Thanks for this view on the subject.My pleasure. cmsdrums wrote: I know that Sebastian is quick to pull others up on general statements, so I'd like to see what his definition of "a lot" is with regard to studio overdubs on Live Killers!Good question. I suppose, if you claim your album to be a live one, a single bar done in the studio is 'a lot.' That's indeed a subjective measurement, as there's no clear-cut definition of what 'a lot' really is. cmsdrums wrote: Is is 10%, (which couldn't really be considered a lot)Of course it could. A lot of people have bought Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' (myself included). But that 'a lot' is 'just' around 60 million people, which is less than 0.00001% of the current world population. If we add up all people who died between the album's release and now, then you get that the amount of people who could've bought the album but didn't far, far, far, far, far outnumbers those who did. Still, 'a lot' of people bought the album. cmsdrums wrote: I would be suprised if the actual number/percentage of overdubs is "A LOT"Again, it's a subjective measure. Had I said, for instance, 'a hundred overdubs', then that could be rated right or wrong. When it comes to 'a lot', well, it's subjective. cmsdrums wrote: especially when compared to its contemporary live albums which are openly known,and admitted to by the artists, to contain large numbers of studio corrections.But that's also largely subjective, not that there's anything wrong with that. It is interesting, though: we could define 'a lot' according to how far it is from the standard deviation since, arguably, the amount of live albums who have more studio overdubs than 'Live Killers' far outnumbers the amount of albums who have less. Theoretically. Apocalipsis_Darko wrote: Brian ... His memory is not very good.To be fair, I think it is. He's made mistakes from time to time, of course, and his witness statement shouldn't always be taken at face value, certainly. But it doesn't mean his memory's not very good. The amount of people whose memory is better than Brian's is probably 'a lot' less than the amount of people whose memory is worse than Brian's. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 16.04.2015 02:33 |
I mean, his memory without comparing with other people. In the Queen context. No pilláis ni una. |
| Sebastian 16.04.2015 05:46 |
Apocalipsis_Darko wrote: I mean, his memory without comparing with other people. In the Queen context.It's also good in that context. The amount of things he remembers about Queen is far, far, far larger than the amount of things he forgets. For every mistake he's made (e.g., saying 'Love of My Life' was on 'Sheer Heart Attack') he's made scores of true statements. |
| Vocal harmony 16.04.2015 07:12 |
Sebastian wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: It's a best of (not greatest hits) type of album.I disagree. 'Best of' is entirely subjective. To me, for instance, it's not 'best of' if it hasn't got 'Good Company', 'Teo Torriatte', 'All Dead, All Dead', 'Somebody to Love', 'Lily of the Valley', 'You and I' or 'Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll', which it doesn't.Vocal harmony wrote: However it still doesn't fall into the classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's.The thread is about a double studio album, not about something falling into the 'classic double studio album format which was popular in the 70's' (which would be worth defining for the purpose of |
| Sebastian 16.04.2015 08:13 |
Vocal harmony wrote: Re read the subject heading and original post.I have. So? Vocal harmony wrote: "Double Studio Album" and the use of the 70's twice kind of indicate what it's about. In fact Live Killers doesn't belong in this thread, does it?It does, considering it's a double album, it was partly done in the studio and it's from the 70's. All three qualifying factors are there. Vocal harmony wrote: Now you, by your own classification of the album don't view it as a true live album, it must therefore be viewed as a compilation album sourced from and based upon live recordings.It's not a matter of 'must', but yeah. To that, you can add that it's double and it's from the 70's, and part of it was done in the studio, therefore fulfilling all the requirements you previously mentioned. Vocal harmony wrote: by your measure of what's right or wrong it isn't a best of either.Not 'right' or 'wrong', but 'best' and 'not best'. Or, more accurately, 'including all best songs' and 'not including all best songs'. It's not the same. Vocal harmony wrote: As for your comment that there are a lot of studio over dubs on it, there are not, well not according to Crystal.The definition of 'a lot' is subjective. For an album claiming to be live, a single one may be considered 'a lot.' Vocal harmony wrote: A point worth thinking aboutIndeed. See my reply above. Vocal harmony wrote: if it was "worked on" why didn't they re touch the backing vocals which are in keeping with most bootleg recordings!Because the fact they added studio overdubs doesn't mean that *everything* was in the studio. |
| cmsdrums 16.04.2015 12:25 |
On Seb's argument of Live Killers being classified as a studio one because of some studio work, I'm now calling out Innuendo and Flash Gordon as live albums - it's been confirmed that large parts were recorded 'live' by the band together, and people (engineers, producers, possibly others) were also there so they had an audience too!! ?? I'm also suprised that none has waded in yet to say it was actually a single album, based on it being issued overseas as an edited down single edition!!! Back on topic, I'm suprised they didn't release a double album back in the 70s; they were prolific (can you imagine a sequence of six albums in five years of the quality of 'Queen' through to 'News of The World now?!!); I was always frustrated buying the vinyls for several albums and seeing gatefold sleeves but only one disc!! |
| Rick 16.04.2015 13:13 |
Seb, always the smartass. |
| Sebastian 16.04.2015 19:22 |
cmsdrums wrote: On Seb's argument of Live Killers being classified as a studio one because of some studio workTo be fair, I didn't classify it as such, I just pointed out that it was double and it had been partly done in the studio. cmsdrums wrote: I'm now calling out Innuendo and Flash Gordon as live albumsQuite a few others as well. cmsdrums wrote: large parts were recorded 'live' by the band togetherAnother case of a term being vaguely defined, as what some would consider 'large' wouldn't necessarily be the same to everyone. cmsdrums wrote: Back on topic, I'm suprised they didn't release a double album back in the 70sThey probably assumed they'd have another chance later on. Rick wrote: Seb, always the smartass.No, not really. Not 'always', not a 'smartass' and, above all, not 'the.' |
| Vocal harmony 17.04.2015 07:35 |
cmsdrums wrote: On Seb's argument of Live Killers being classified as a studio one because of some studio work, I'm now calling out Innuendo and Flash Gordon as live albums - it's been confirmed that large parts were recorded 'live' by the band together, and people (engineers, producers, possibly others) were also there so they had an audience too!! ?? I'm also suprised that none has waded in yet to say it was actually a single album, based on it being issued overseas as an edited down single edition!!! Back on topic, I'm suprised they didn't release a double album back in the 70s; they were prolific (can you imagine a sequence of six albums in five years of the quality of 'Queen' through to 'News of The World now?!!); I was always frustrated buying the vinyls for several albums and seeing gatefold sleeves but only one disc!!Agreed! The sleeves often hinted at more than a single disc. And yeah Innuendo is a great live album! As for Live Killers and it's none live album classification because of the studio work carried out on it, this must now be true of most live recording because most have been remixes in a studio before mastering for release. Sebastian's ever evolving view and argument must mean that the term Live Album is redundant because of the use of recording studios in their development from recording to release. |
| fly 17.04.2015 07:40 |
Even punk bands like Clash released double and even triple albums: London Calling (1979) Sandinista (1980) |
| Martin Packer 17.04.2015 08:22 |
But Clash were doing something other than artistic with the double and triple ideas. I personally count London Calling and Sandinista! as almost perfect, with the possibility that there's a little padding in Sandinista! But they were trying to give an extreme form of value. I think London Calling was £5.99 and Sandinista! £6.99 at a time when doubles and triples cost a lot more than that ordinarily. But then Combat Rock (a single) is where I think they lost the plot. And we could really use Joe Strummer (RIP) right now. |
| Sebastian 17.04.2015 09:49 |
Vocal harmony wrote: As for Live Killers and it's none live album classification because of the studio work carried out on it.To be fair, I didn't say it wasn't a live album. It can easily be both, and it partially is. Life is not black and white, and it's not a greyscale either; there are millions of colours, and not being able to see the FIR or the UV doesn't mean they don't exist. Vocal harmony wrote: this must now be true of most live recording because most have been remixes in a studio before mastering for release.Remixing and mastering are not the same as recording. Vocal harmony wrote: Sebastian's ever evolving view and argument must mean that the term Live Album is redundant because of the use of recording studios in their development from recording to release.No, that's not what I meant. If believing so, however, makes you happy, go ahead. |
| Oscar J 17.04.2015 10:38 |
Wow, this was a tedious read. So you start with naming Live Killers a double studio album, and then tie yourself up in knots trying to justify it. It is what it is - a collection of live performances with studio overdubs over it, just like Rock Montreal, Queen at Wembley, the Bowl and so on. These have always been regarded as live albums, and that won't change because you keep splitting hairs over it and cut peoples post into fragments so that they're out of context and easier to shoot down. If you were actually able to see the world in millions of colours, you'd be able to weigh the different factors against each other properly and probably come to the conclusion that Live Killers is best regarded as a live album. Instead you start with a seemingly completely unnuanced comment, i.e. a "flamebait": "And a lot of it was done in the studio, so it's a double studio album." and then, once people start questioning you, you start relativising and marking peoples words until it's all become a nondiscussion. The point of all this? Being able to put Live Killers as a studio album in one of your many lists? |
| tomchristie22 17.04.2015 10:52 |
It's a live album, or else it'd be called Studio Killers ;) |
| tomchristie22 17.04.2015 10:55 |
A tangent which I believe is more than interesting than the discussion at the moment: Was the Live Killers title supposed to be a reference to Killer Queen? It's the only thing I can think of which would make the album's title somewhat logical in the band's canon to that point. Otherwise, they just pulled it out of nowhere - perhaps felt the Killers label aptly described their visual and aural 'assault' in live performances. |
| Sebastian 17.04.2015 12:33 |
Oscar J wrote: Wow, this was a tedious read.Then why do you read it? Am I so important in your life? Oscar J wrote: then tie yourself up in knots trying to justify it.Not really. I offered my reasons for having made that comment, which I still stand by. Oscar J wrote: It is what it is - a collection of live performances with studio overdubs over it, just like Rock Montreal, Queen at Wembley, the Bowl and so on.Yes, I'm not denying that and haven't done so either. Oscar J wrote: These have always been regarded as live albumsAnd that's entirely accurate. I'm not denying that and haven't done so either. I didn't say 'they're not live albums,' I said that since a lot of LK was done in the studio, it could be considered a double studio album. It doesn't mean it can't be (primarily) a live album. Life's not black and white, and it's not a greyscale either; there are millions of colours, and not being able to see the FIR or the UV doesn't mean they don't exist. Oscar J wrote: that won't change because you keep splitting hairs over itI'm not trying to change anything. I offered my point of view, and I still stand by it. I'm not starting a crusade to switch the definition of 'live album' or to put 'Live Killers' in the studio albums shelves (for those who have their CD's, LP's, etc., organised as such). I simply said that it could be considered, according to certain definition, a double-studio album. That was all. It's other people who've given that comment more weight. Oscar J wrote: cut peoples post into fragments so that they're out of context and easier to shoot down.No, that's not the reason why I cut posts into fragments. I do it so it's clearer which part I'm replying to. I've no intention of shooting down anything or anyone. Oscar J wrote: If you were actually able to see the world in millions of coloursI am, as are hundreds of millions of people. Oscar J wrote: you'd be able to weigh the different factors against each other properly and probably come to the conclusion that Live Killers is best regarded as a live album.Except that I haven't at all said that I don't regard it as a live album. I regard is as a live album, and also I think it could be classed as a studio album if we were to adhere to its exact definition. I did not say 'it's exclusively and strictly a studio double-album.' Other people have put words in my mouth (well, my keyboard, to be accurate), but I haven't denied LK is a live album. I've only said, again, that it could be considered a double studio album in the sense that a lot of it was done in the studio. Oscar J wrote: Instead you start with a seemingly completely unnuanced comment, i.e. a "flamebait"It wasn't meant to be flamebait. But if it were, then it's not my problem if other people reply to it instead of ignoring it. Oscar J wrote: once people start questioning you, you start relativising and marking peoples words until it's all become a nondiscussion.I've no problem in people questioning me, I've got nothing to hide. If it annoys you so much, why do you keep reading something you regard so tedious? Am I so important in your life? Oscar J wrote: The point of all this? Being able to put Live Killers as a studio album in one of your many lists?No, the point was offering a way in which it could be classed as a double studio album. Everything else was out of other people giving the comment a lot of importance. At the end of the day, if I wanted to put LK as a studio album in one of my many lists, I could do it without posting it here. I don't need anybody's permission anyway. Just like you don't need to bother reading my so-called tedious posts, let alone replying to them. If you choose to do it, go ahead. |
| Oscar J 17.04.2015 13:23 |
Sebastian wrote: Then why do you read it? Am I so important in your life?Ah, classic. In an indirect way I suppose you are. Queen is important in my life, and you are, from what I've understood a well-regarded and influential member of it's fanbase. Though I don't see why it's relevant why I chose to post. Sebastian wrote:You do realise how perfectly you just confirmed my point, right?Oscar J wrote: cut peoples post into fragments so that they're out of context and easier to shoot down.No, that's not the reason why I cut posts into fragments. I do it so it's clearer which part I'm replying to. I've no intention of shooting down anything or anyone.Oscar J wrote: If you were actually able to see the world in millions of coloursI am, as are hundreds of millions of people. |
| Sebastian 17.04.2015 20:50 |
It's relevant in the sense I don't see the point in reading something you regard tedious and involving someone with whose perspective and approach you seem to strongly disagree. |
| Oscar J 18.04.2015 05:00 |
Discussions between people who agree on everything are rarely fruitful. Interesting how you just avoided the second part of my comment there, by the way. |
| Sebastian 18.04.2015 17:01 |
Oscar J wrote: Discussions between people who agree on everything are rarely fruitful.True, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily productive to discuss with people you so strongly disagree with. Oscar J wrote: Interesting how you just avoided the second part of my comment there, by the way.I avoided it because I haven't got anything else to say on the matter. To me, my comment about not being colourblind has nothing to do with trying to shoot you or your opinion or your post down; to you, it apparently does. Neither I'm going (or willing to try to) persuade you to agree with me, not will you be able to convince me to think like you. |
| Vocal harmony 19.04.2015 06:49 |
Sebastian wrote: It's relevant in the sense I don't see the point in reading something you regard tedious and involving someone with whose perspective and approach you seem to strongly disagree.It's only when you've read something that you are in a position to decide whether it's exciting, tedious or what ever else. You can't form an opinion on something you haven't read, can you? Being as this is a forum anyone is well within their rights to answer a post as they see fit. As long as they're not disrespectful. I understand the tedious comment, and agree with it in part, because you did start off claiming that A LOT of Live Killers was recorded in a studio, for which you have no real proof, you then back tracked in an attempt to justify the comment. Saying "a lot" is subjective seems to give you the freedom to claim as little as a single vocal or guitar overdub is a lot. So by your own reckoning you will never have the wrong opinion or the view that other peoples opinions when not agreeing with yours could have a valued point. |
| Sebastian 19.04.2015 09:02 |
Vocal harmony wrote: It's only when you've read something that you are in a position to decide whether it's exciting, tedious or what ever else.You don't need to, however, go through all of it. For instance, I can watch five minutes of an episode of a television programme, decide it's not really the kind of thing I like and change the channel, switch the telly off, close the window (if watching it on a computer) or any other option; there's no need to go through all the series just to finally decide 'oh, it was tedious.' Vocal harmony wrote: You can't form an opinion on something you haven't read, can you?Of course you can. It might be premature to do so, but of course you can. Vocal harmony wrote: Being as this is a forum anyone is well within their rights to answer a post as they see fit.Of course and, as such, as I answered as I saw fit, questioning the usefulness or uselessness of reading what was perceived as tedious. Vocal harmony wrote: for which you have no real proofI didn't claim I had proof. Vocal harmony wrote: Saying "a lot" is subjectiveIt is. Vocal harmony wrote: seems to give you the freedom to claim as little as a single vocal or guitar overdub is a lot.Yeah, according to some perspectives, that's a lot. According to other views (which are neither less nor more valuable than any alternative), 'a lot' should be accounted for in terms of percentage or in terms of standard deviation or in terms of how many overdubs other people tend to have. And all of that is absolutely fine. Vocal harmony wrote: So by your own reckoning you will never have the wrong opinionI've been wrong many times and I've been happy to admit it. I've also been right many times and I've been happy to stand by it. Vocal harmony wrote: other peoples opinions when not agreeing with yours could have a valued point.Other people's opinions when not agreeing with mine have many times had a valued point, and I've been happy to acknowledge it. Other people's opinions, regardless of whether they agree or not with mine, can be and have also been misleading, and I've been happy to point it out whenever I've noticed. |