The Real Wizard 17.02.2017 16:53 |
A thought... As valid as it was for the band to have criticized Trident for sitting on the debut album for about 18 months, in the end that actually helped them. The one track to do anything commercially was Keep Yourself Alive, which they'd re-recorded in late 72 or early 73. Had the album come out in 72, this version of KYA is what would've been heard: On this 1972 acetate the entire album is intact - same track listing, same mix - except for KYA. But they weren't happy with it, so they redid the track at some point, first heard on the first BBC session in Feb 73. And since that's the one that ended up being played on the radio and then seen on the Old Grey Whistle Test (the album version is pretty much the same thing with a different lead vocal), in hindsight it's actually a good thing that the first version didn't come out. It was way more primitive, and the song might not have impressed anyone, and the entire history of Queen might not exist as it does. One of those 20/20 hindsight type moments. Thoughts? |
matt z 17.02.2017 17:09 |
^THIS |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners 17.02.2017 17:56 |
Great topic, and as with all statements (especially "the sky is blue"), everyone has a different opinion (LOL). Surely the sound quallity is obviously debatable (due to the acetate source). But... as someone who personally never really loved this song to begin with (GASP!) I honestly don't know if any version of it would have been a bigger hit. Not being snarky, and I want to like it... just being honest. So I think there are a whole bunch of things to like about the acetate version for me. My laundry list: To me, Freddie's vocals sound more animated/spontaneous/fresher. I also really like the blended use of guitars, acoustic with electric. I prefer what seems like a shortened intro (it always seemed too long to me on the LP, losing steam before the vox). I think there's interesting detail in the guitar work which is more audible between 1:21-1:31, e.g. and I like that better than the LP. Some of the orchestrated guitar voicing from 2:37-2:50 is more clearly heard - more like real, singable contrapuntal melodies... more satisfying & impressive both. Production-wise, even the kind of simple echo/reverb they used gives it a more live sound (in its day it would have gone uncriticized, I'm sure). The Queen LP version always sounded too "dry" to me (and this song is what I think of when they talk about how they were told "we'll fix it in the mix" but that didn't work out, and later discovered they liked a blend of the different reverbs & ambient miking to create space in the sound for later LPs). While this mix may be imperfect, I have to say I love the performance, the clarity, and I think it has strengths the LP version does not. I wouldn't get hyperbolic and say it blows the other away, but, by a nose, I think I might prefer the acetate version?!?! Thanks for tipping us to it, TRW - I actually didn't know about it... |
waunakonor 17.02.2017 21:09 |
I had no idea this was the case. Very interesting. I kind of like the more prominent bass in this mix. The acoustic guitar in the bridge is also an interesting addition. I'm not sure if this would have had a significant effect on Queen's career though. Didn't the song get very little radio play anyway? |
dysan 18.02.2017 01:38 |
I'm not sure it's that vastly different to make huge historical changes to their early days, I think it's more of a question of if the album came out earlier what would Queen II have sounded like / what different commercial decisions would they have made. I think this version fits better sonically with the rest of the album so that's always pleased me - who knows, the rerecording might have been made for a single release anyway. I wonder if they would've made the '75 rerecording too? |
Holly2003 18.02.2017 06:45 |
Is this the version Brian said was the best and they were never able to catch that vibe again? Or was there an earlier recorded version? |
AlbaNo1 18.02.2017 07:44 |
waunakonor wrote: I had no idea this was the case. Very interesting. I kind of like the more prominent bass in this mix. The acoustic guitar in the bridge is also an interesting addition. I'm not sure if this would have had a significant effect on Queen's career though. Didn't the song get very little radio play anyway?Totally agree. Bass is well cool and the acoustic bit is nice too. Had Queen come out a little rawer initially it may have eased the critical opposition to them. Was there not a perception that they were almost too polished ,and a little bit old, for a new band. |
dysan 18.02.2017 14:44 |
Who knows, maybe the chorus coming in 3 seconds earlier than the later version might have made the BBC selection panel playlist it. I'm joking, of course. |
waunakonor 18.02.2017 16:31 |
Holly2003 wrote: Is this the version Brian said was the best and they were never able to catch that vibe again? Or was there an earlier recorded version?Pretty sure the one with the magical vibe was the original De Lane Lea demo. They weren't happy with this version. |
Elektra 18.02.2017 17:54 |
Acetate Version so much better! thankyou |
Vali 19.02.2017 03:01 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: To me, Freddie's vocals sound more animated/spontaneous/fresher. I also really like the blended use of guitars, acoustic with electric. I prefer what seems like a shortened intro (it always seemed too long to me on the LP, losing steam before the vox). I think there's interesting detail in the guitar work which is more audible between 1:21-1:31, e.g. and I like that better than the LP. Some of the orchestrated guitar voicing from 2:37-2:50 is more clearly heard - more like real, singable contrapuntal melodies... more satisfying & impressive both. Production-wise, even the kind of simple echo/reverb they used gives it a more live sound (in its day it would have gone uncriticized, I'm sure) (...) While this mix may be imperfect, I have to say I love the performance, the clarity, and I think it has strengths the LP version does not. I wouldn't get hyperbolic and say it blows the other away, but, by a nose, I think I might prefer the acetate version?!?!Can't express my thoughts better than this! |
Negative Creep 19.02.2017 07:07 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It was way more primitive, and the song might not have impressed anyone, and the entire history of Queen might not exist as it does. One of those 20/20 hindsight type moments. Thoughts?But it didn't really impress anyone did it - it failed to chart. For the few that did like it - I somehow doubt a different recording would have made a difference. |
The Real Wizard 19.02.2017 14:18 |
Nice thread, folks. I'll chime in again.. There's a tendency to prefer the new one because we've heard the old one thousands of times. Newer is always shinier, so we have fresh ears for it, and we're excited to hear things simply because they're different. I've seen hardcore fans of bands enjoy the worst shite of studio outtakes purely because it's not the overplayed big hit song yet again. It's kind of hard to remain objective, never mind when it's pure gold like this. We can only wonder which version people would've liked more in 1973 if given the choice, but there were only a very few people who were actually given that choice - and they chose to redo it. They thought the rest of the album was fine, despite being 18 months old, but this one song just wasn't good enough to them. I do like the acoustic guitar in the mix, so it kind of serves as a bridge between the De Lane Lea version and the final studio version. And it's nice to hear the guitar solo at this stage, but it's just a phase in Brian's development as an arranger. He's a bit more sparse, and his tone isn't nearly as thick, which helps in hearing the clarity of each guitar. But there's a reason why he's known for things like Killer Queen and All Dead All Dead - because if it was 3 guitars or 13, it was cohesive. He had found his voice. He wasn't quite there in 1972. Mercury's vocal is also underdeveloped compared to the debut album version. He was growing as a singer by the day. Compare the album version to the 1975 retake - he's in another league by then ! But it still is nice to hear him at this stage. It's an incremental step in his growth. There's almost a charm in the innocence. But he probably sounds more "spontaneous" because he was only given a few takes - let's not forget the circumstances in which the album was recorded. They didn't have huge blocks of studio time. They just got in whenever they got called. I ultimately find that the imperfections of the acetate version trump out the few new and refreshing bits. The worst bit is the sloppy edit before the drum solo at 2:11. I can totally picture a young Brian wanting to completely redo the song if only for that. It's true, Keep Yourself Alive was a flop and didn't get much radio airplay. But what we *can* say is that it was the first song on their first album, and this was the first exposure to Queen for countless people. The radio was irrelevant to most album buyers in the early to mid 70s, so it was kind of silly for me to even mention it. Albums became popular because of word of mouth. They amounted to about 80% of music sales in 1973. With that in mind - there is no formula or algorithm for success, so who's to say how much differently people would've reacted to the band with a much less polished version of the first thing they heard? Indeed, Queen were eventually destroyed in the press for being too polished, but that wasn't until 1976 or so. I don't think there are any reviews of the first album accusing it of being over-produced. I certainly will compromise and say that the acetate version fits with the overall vibe of the album. After all, we now know the version of KYA we've heard for over 40 years was recorded long after the rest of the album. Hearing this earlier version of the song in this stage of their development (and with all the extra reverb) makes sense in the context of the rest of it, so I'll definitely give it that. It's a nice snapshot of where they were. |
dysan 19.02.2017 15:55 |
I hear ya. I listened to it and pictured myself listening to the debut album for the first time back in the mid 80s in my lounge with huge headphones on. In that context it took me right back - hence my comment that it fitted better with the rest of the album. Is this the same version as that really distorted share a couple of years back? |
The Real Wizard 20.02.2017 00:45 |
dysan wrote: I hear ya. I listened to it and pictured myself listening to the debut album for the first time back in the mid 80s in my lounge with huge headphones on. In that context it took me right back - hence my comment that it fitted better with the rest of the album. Is this the same version as that really distorted share a couple of years back?Yup, that's the one. |
Sebastian 20.02.2017 08:19 |
Time to nitpick again n_n
The Real Wizard wrote: But what we *can* say is that it was the first song on their first album, and this was the first exposure to Queen for countless people.It sounds poetic but I'd quibble it's not too realistic... a few thousand people heard, let alone bought, the first single and album. The hundreds of millions who have been exposed to Queen may have first heard something else and then (some of us) explored their roots, including the debut album. The 'Queen' LP failed to have significant sales and only reached its first 60,000 local shipments on the 1st of November 1974 ... it makes sense to think that those new buyers had been drawn into Queen because of the 'Killer Queen / Flick of the Wrist' single and news of the band's upcoming British tour, which means their first exposure to Queen was definitely not 'Keep Yourself Alive.' It was certified gold (which at the time meant 100,000 shipments in Britain) on the First of May 1976, which again means the further 40,000 sales (between November 1974 and April 1976 - a year and a half) were more likely to have been a result of people being exposed first via 'Killer Queen' or 'Bo Rhap' (or, album-wise, 'Sheer Heart Attack' or 'A Night at the Opera') rather than the debut. Same for America: the first album completed its first million shipments there on the 29th of March 1977 (soon after the 'Races Tour' had had its American and Canadian dates). We can strongly suspect a large percentage of that million had been exposed to Queen first via 'Bo Rhap', 'Best Friend' or 'Somebody to Love' or after attending a gig, and then decided to explore earlier material. For countless people, the existence of Queen was only discovered after they'd released three or four albums, and they only heard KYA (plus other songs such as 'Liar') in retrospect. For everyone of the few thousands who heard the debut album back in Summer '73, there are millions who only found out about it way later. |
The Real Wizard 20.02.2017 11:48 |
Sebastian wrote: Time to nitpick again n_nI can further quibble and add that "countless" is an indeterminate number ;)The Real Wizard wrote: But what we *can* say is that it was the first song on their first album, and this was the first exposure to Queen for countless people.It sounds poetic but I'd quibble it's not too realistic... The first album sold better in the US than the UK in 1973, and it was a huge hit in Japan (where it was called "Queen One") - the first country to give Queen the rock star treatment. Seven Seas Of Rhye was not a hit in the US, but plenty of people went to the shows on that first tour and knew Keep Yourself Alive and Liar. They received a standing ovation after playing the former in Providence, as an opening act - the tape's there to prove it. So methinks my point stands. |
mike hunt 20.02.2017 16:04 |
Queen1 rules! I really don't care if it was commercially a failure, or they didn't find their signature sound yet. The bottom line is the songs are great, and its raw and heavy. Plenty of people still consider it their favorite to this day. Talyor Hawkins says its his favorie album of all time. Its in my top 5 for sure. I wouldn't change Keep yourself Alive, it's good the way it is. |
rocknrolllover 22.02.2017 03:02 |
mike hunt wrote: Queen1 rules! I really don't care if it was commercially a failure, or they didn't find their signature sound yet. The bottom line is the songs are great, and its raw and heavy. Plenty of people still consider it their favorite to this day. Talyor Hawkins says its his favorie album of all time. Its in my top 5 for sure. I wouldn't change Keep yourself Alive, it's good the way it is.I can not help agree with your words. I like any version of this song and it doesn't matter who author. |
rocknrolllover 22.02.2017 03:03 |
The Real Wizard wrote: A thought... As valid as it was for the band to have criticized Trident for sitting on the debut album for about 18 months, in the end that actually helped them. The one track to do anything commercially was Keep Yourself Alive, which they'd re-recorded in late 72 or early 73. Had the album come out in 72, this version of KYA is what would've been heard: link On this 1972 acetate the entire album is intact - same track listing, same mix - except for KYA. But they weren't happy with it, so they redid the track at some point, first heard on the first BBC session in Feb 73. And since that's the one that ended up being played on the radio and then seen on the Old Grey Whistle Test (the album version is pretty much the same thing with a different lead vocal), in hindsight it's actually a good thing that the first version didn't come out. It was way more primitive, and the song might not have impressed anyone, and the entire history of Queen might not exist as it does. One of those 20/20 hindsight type moments. Thoughts?Nice find. Thank you. Nice version. |
Benn Kempster 22.02.2017 05:33 |
My tuppenceworth on this one. KYA always sounded restrained to me on record. Whether its from De Lane Lea, the BBC sessions, the original album / single, this acetate (which I picked up from our man Fuller's place.......), or the horrific 1975 re-take (what on EARTH were they thinking?), something about it just seems to not be quite right. They have all the ingredients here for a complete and UTTER smash hit in 1973 but it did nothing for the band at all. Perhaps Queen simply just did not know what they had in the palm of their hands at the time. KYA seems to try to squeeze about a million things in at one time and, at the same time, loses all of the spontaneity of a young band hitting the studio early in their career. maybe there was a point at which they should have perhaps considered forgetting all about guitar and vocal harmonies and just gone in and THRASHED out a couple of live-in-the-studio takes; would that have given us a better feel? The song is vital and its theme just smacks of excitement and drive and passion. The overall tempo screams for it to be replayed time and time again (thank god for the CD and not having to return the stylus to the beginning every three and a half minutes. Given John Peel's trumpeting of the band so early, its clear that he believed this track had something in it, but after subsequently citing "Teenage Kicks" as the greatest single of all time, is it possible that KYA *COULD* have gained this accolade in 1973 and kept it for the rest of time? The fact that the re-take happened in 1975 proves, to me, that there was NEVER a point at which they were at all happy with the song but did know that it really should have been something to reckon with. For me, it doesn't need a drum solo and it doesn't need the call and response lyric in the the middle as all the song's momentum is lost. I'd like to have the time to maybe do an edit of the song to remove those elements and then evaluate it; how would that then compare to the running time of "Teenage Kicks"? But, sadly, after so long and being so familiar with those elements in place, it would just sound, frankly, wierd. Maybe a project for the future............. My overall preference is the acetate version as it just sounds more raw, fresh and less worked on than any of the other versions. |
Holly2003 22.02.2017 06:11 |
The Livekillers version is my favourite. Montreal is good too. Probably, all they needed to do back in 1973 was increase the tempo and (as said above) record it in one or two takes in the studio to get back the freshness. |
Oscar J 22.02.2017 16:43 |
De Lea Lane is the best one. But overall not really a great song, and I actually think Brian's solo is a weak spot in it. |
IanR 22.02.2017 22:38 |
Why is the re-take 'horrific'? It may not be the definitive version, but as a performance it's by far the closest to the feel of the live version, IMHO. |
Martin Packer 23.02.2017 05:32 |
I rather LIKE the complexity of KYA as delivered on the album, including the drum solo and the C&R. To each his own. |
Benn Kempster 23.02.2017 05:50 |
IanR, re: >Why is the re-take 'horrific'? It may not be the definitive version, but as a performance it's by far the closest to the feel of the live version, IMHO. Its even more over produced and forced than the album / single version. For my money the band and RTB were really clutching at straws to develop a single that would appeal to the US market and had nothing other than historical material to fall back on to make that happen. There was nothing that came out of the ANATO album sessions that would fit the bill, so their only recourse was to resort back to KYA. Artistically, that's a pretty poor decision making process for a band that was still trying to properly break through. |
Sebastian 23.02.2017 09:37 |
Benn Kempster wrote: There was nothing that came out of the ANATO album sessions that would fit the bill, so their only recourse was to resort back to KYA.In fact, the ANATO sessions hadn't started yet. The re-take predates them by one or two months. |
Benn Kempster 23.02.2017 11:48 |
Sebastian, re: >The re-take predates them by one or two months. Thanks for putting me right on that. Interesting, so the decision was taken to do that BEFORE embarking on ANY new ideas....... An even more baffling decision. |
Sebastian 23.02.2017 11:56 |
Back then, they still hadn't signed with John Reid. One of the potential managers they were seeing (probably Zep's) suggested they toured America in the summer. It makes sense, then, that they thought a re-make of their debut single would be a nice release there, as some sort of placeholder before they did the album. As it turns out, they ended up re-releasing their debut single instead and postponing the tour in order to record the album, as John Reid told them to go to the studio and create a masterpiece while he dealt with the monetary aspect. So they went to Surrey for a few weeks, then to Wales, then back to London... and the rest is history. |
luthorn 25.02.2017 15:38 |
It reminds me of Blondie 'Heart of Glass' story when the band was told to work on the song until they get the sound right. And they worked a lot to please producers, who saw a lot of potential there but had a feeling the band can do better. I wonder if Queen story was similar: play it one thousand times until you get it right. |
dysan 26.02.2017 03:24 |
It is strange they cast the net so far back to KYA for the US single. Perhaps they had noted it's position as a concert favorite - something that IMO never made sense with any studio versions. |
Vocal harmony 26.02.2017 10:29 |
dysan wrote: It is strange they cast the net so far back to KYA for the US single. Perhaps they had noted it's position as a concert favorite - something that IMO never made sense with any studio versions.Back then without the instant access point of the Internet, the only real way to gauge what fans thought of songs was by the reaction at gigs. Keep Yourself Alive was certainly well liked, at the time. |
dysan 26.02.2017 12:01 |
What there was no internet????? |
Sebastian 26.02.2017 15:09 |
In fact, there was (then called inter-networking, which is what eventually gave rise to the term), but it was still in early stages and used satellite connexion rather than the high-speed instant access we've got now. Moreover, it was, then, only accessible to a few dozen scientists, tops, who would probably have other interests besides which song by a (still relatively unknown) rock band was more effective when performed at small venues in a handful of places. |
dysan 27.02.2017 03:41 |
So, in fact, there wasn't. |