AudioSynthesis 28.12.2018 00:32 |
Hello all, just a brief question. It's rumoured that Mad The Swine is supposed to open with "I've been here before...", but on the 2011 remaster, and the 1991 Hollywood remaster it just starts with "been here before". It sounds like a bit has been cut off, but I can't be too sure... Is this 'rumour' just a rumour, or is there a version of the track out there with this opening? If so, would anyone be so kind as to share it - even just the first 5 seconds would do... I'd like to get to the bottom of this once and for all! Many thanks in advance, and best wishes for the new year. |
Lamebert whoehahaha 28.12.2018 09:12 |
Damn, you really got nothing to do in your life, when you’re worrying if the words “I’ve” have been included or not in an obscure Queen song from almost 50 years ago. |
Lamebert whoehahaha 28.12.2018 09:15 |
I shall give you a good example of an activity that gives way more satisfaction: I’m going to take a good shit now. |
FriedChicken 28.12.2018 09:22 |
You're absolutely right. The 'I've' was cut It was originally the plan to have Mad The Swine on the album, right after Great King Rat as a segue. The latter song ends with a drumsolo and the last hit of the drum fell together with the word 'I've' as an anacrusis to Mad The Swine. At one point after the master stereo mixes were made the song was cut from the album but the drumsolo still had the 'Ive' at the end. So they had to fade out the drumsolo at the end of GKR as well as fade in and cut the beginning of MTS to remove the drum hit and as collateral damage, the 'I've'. I guess for the 1991 release they used the original stereo master, in stead of going back to the multitrack (if it still existed) |
FriedChicken 28.12.2018 09:22 |
You're absolutely right. The 'I've' was cut It was originally the plan to have Mad The Swine on the album, right after Great King Rat as a segue. The latter song ends with a drumsolo and the last hit of the drum fell together with the word 'I've' as an anacrusis to Mad The Swine. At one point after the master stereo mixes were made the song was cut from the album but the drumsolo still had the 'Ive' at the end. So they had to fade out the drumsolo at the end of GKR as well as fade in and cut the beginning of MTS to remove the drum hit and as collateral damage, the 'I've'. I guess for the 1991 release they used the original stereo master, in stead of going back to the multitrack (if it still existed) |
Golden Salmon 28.12.2018 12:04 |
To add to that, there's a version around with that added "I've", but it's fake. |
Negative Creep 28.12.2018 14:33 |
Except no one has heard the supposed version seagued with Great King Rat. For something that is actually so uninteresting, why has it never been bootlegged? And FriedChicken, you write like you know this stuff as fact - but you're just repeateding the story told by the person who claims to have it. The released version has the acoustic guitar line come in slightly before the vocal and yet there's no vocal line going over that bit of guitar, making it unlikely they "had" to remove anything. So they either did remix it, merely mixed out that the first line as it was so quiet and they didn't clock it or the whole story has been made up. Also, if there's any truth to the story they must have therefore recorded the 2 songs as a piece (which seems odd, that there are no other segues on the album and what a strange choice to have drums go over a quiet acoustic intro) as a sequenced album master from that time period would have been the individual song stereo masters literally taped together into a huge reel - which they would obviously have been able to seperate unless they only had a higher generation/non-master tape. So they'd have had to have lost the multitracks, the multiple mixdown tapes and the original album master to have to resort to trimming the intro. Whatever. |
dysan 29.12.2018 09:43 |
The story makes sense to me - if they cut it at the last minute fading out GKR using the final sequenced master is a realistic solution, especially for a band with no profile and weight to demand the production is held up. My only doubt is that the drums fading on GKR works so well it's difficult to believe that wasn't a planned feature. The lengths of both sides of the record is extremely lopsided suggesting a track has been cut from side 1 (side 2 is 4 minutes longer - with 2 more tracks than side 1 even considering the last minute addition of SSOR..) Adding MTS at that point on the album is odd too just before MFK. The missing 'I've' is good evidence though. Timing-wise, the acoustic seems to start naturally on the 'been', but could still mean 'I've' overlapped the last signal from GKR. Or indeed, whatever song it was trimmed from. Then there's the 1991 version. If they fixed the issue with it, weird they didn't locate the master if they still had it unless they just overdubbed the stereo master (which makes sense with the phasing done on the whole mix rather than individual parts). Strange too that the stereo channels were reversed on the 2011 issue. Perhaps more down to Hollywood Records bodging. The outro of the song seems to be a natural ending rather than faded or tidied for release. I CAN imagine it working nicely blending into the start of MFK. Either way, it's a terrible song IMO - raised up to almost legendary status by it's deletion from the record. Had it been on the album I'm sure it would feature regularly in Worst Queen Songs polls. Would be great to have some clarity on all this. |
Ted Sallis 29.12.2018 15:35 |
1st post! It's been discussed elsewhere how MTS sounds so 'pristine' for a song recorded in 1972, especially when compared to the songs on Queen's 1st album. As has also been discussed, this is more than likely due to the song having been (re)mixed in the early 90's for inclusion on the Hollywood Records reissue of Queen's debut album. Ted |
Ted Sallis 29.12.2018 15:39 |
^^ Oops I meant to also post that I'd like to hear MTS in it's original form, prior to the early 90's (re)mixing of the song. Ted |
dysan 29.12.2018 16:04 |
Welcome. That's what I mean - if it was truly 'remixed' then it wouldn't be missing the first 'I've'. If indeed it had it in the first place. |
cmi 29.12.2018 19:34 |
I don't believe in this myth. Song was remixed by David Richards in 1991 from original multitracks. |
dysan 29.12.2018 21:34 |
Didn't the original 1991 b-side version fade in? |
cmi 30.12.2018 07:29 |
No |
dysan 30.12.2018 08:40 |
The Hollywood version then? I guess if the fade version is the first one you hear, you get suspicious :) Which begs the question, if the outro was left 'raw', weird they cropped a count in which would've solved the issue. Then I guess if there wasn't a count in, it makes sense it sounds like Freddie sounds unnatural coming in like he did. I do like these theoretical audio archaeology threads. |
cmi 31.12.2018 19:48 |
Fade-in intro was on weird 'Queen In Nuce' bootleg. |
dysan 31.12.2018 20:53 |
I'll take your word for it but I only ever had it on official releases. Can I ask someone if Queen 1 on Hollywood got a reissue correcting it's flaws like a few of the other titles did? |
Saint Jiub 01.01.2019 01:46 |
Although SHA and NotW had flaws initially, I am fairly certain that Hollywood did not have any issues with Q1. |
dysan 01.01.2019 09:18 |
And The Miracle |
dysan 01.01.2019 09:24 |
Didn't GKR have an error on the Hollywood version? I might be confusing my masterings. |
Saint Jiub 01.01.2019 18:13 |
dysan wrote: And The MiracleWhat was the issue with The Miracle? Was it wrong version of I Want It All or something else? Was it corrected later? |
Saint Jiub 01.01.2019 18:15 |
dysan wrote: Didn't GKR have an error on the Hollywood version? I might be confusing my masterings.That is news to me ... but given my "Miracle" mistake, I am not a very reliable source. |
dysan 01.01.2019 19:02 |
Yeah I Want It All. I'm sure it was rectified. Usually I'm all over this sort of thing but, you know, New Years Day and all.. :D |
inu-liger 02.01.2019 06:55 |
dysan wrote: Yeah I Want It All. I'm sure it was rectified. Usually I'm all over this sort of thing but, you know, New Years Day and all.. :DThe 2011 remasters finally rectified it, yes. |
inu-liger 02.01.2019 06:58 |
Saint Jiub wrote:Not an "error" per se, like many of the other HR '91 mistakes. Queen Vault has an entry explaining this one:dysan wrote: Didn't GKR have an error on the Hollywood version? I might be confusing my masterings.That is news to me ... but given my "Miracle" mistake, I am not a very reliable source. http://www.queenvault.com/queen1.html "For any new release, the best available source is preferable. EMI did not know where the first generation stereo master tapes were stored, so the 1986 and 1988 CD releases of Queen CD's used production masters for their source. The production masters were stored at Abbey Road and easily obtainable. Production masters were tapes created for the cutting of the original vinyl records. The process, as Brian May explained in an issue of the Fan Club Magazine, is as follows; the stereo master tapes of each track were taped together and all recorded onto one long production master tape. That production master tape would be the easiest way to cut to vinyl. The quality, however, would be one generation removed from the stereo master of each individual track. These production masters were used for the very first Queen CD releases, which explains their "hissy" sound. In 1990, Queen retrieved their original stereo master tapes and found some had been lost or damaged over time. Some tracks from Queen I, Flash Gordon, and Live Killers had some damage. When it came time for Eddy Schreyer to remaster the album for Hollywood Records' 1991 release, the best source was preferable. Great King Rat from the first generation stereo master-mix had a tape dropout three minutes into the song, which would have been very noticable. Since the first generation master-mix of Great King Rat was not available, the next best thing was used; a first generation source from a mix close to the final version. As a result, a preliminary mix of Great King Rat was used for Schreyer's Queen remaster. The performance is the same as the album version, but the mix is different. This preliminary mix is unbalanced; there are silences in the left channel on half of the guitar intro and in the right channel during the acoustic break in the middle. Also of note, later releases of Queen do have the real album version of Great King Rat from the "best available sources." The real album version that appears on the 2001 and 2011 remasters is from a safety copy, which is not ideal, but is cleaned up using current noise reduction technology. Also of note, Schreyer's remaster was also used for the 1994 Digital Master Series" |
dysan 02.01.2019 07:59 |
Yes that's correct. More an error in judgement than an error :) Lesson learnt: Alway nick your masters after a session. |
paulprenter 08.01.2019 18:39 |
Does a disco version of Mad The Swine exist? |