| MinorKey 23.09.2019 20:19 |
Hello everyone, I have been following this forum for several years now, but I have never posted here. I don't really know why - somehow I never felt the need. Sorry that my very first post is of the lamenting kind, but if this article is really something to go by, I guess we'll probably never see a proper release of Hyde Park: link The relevant paragraph: "The whole show was filmed, and Roger stated in the Official Queen Fan Club Magazine in the Autumn edition of 1976 that “there should be a film of the Hyde Park show on TV soon”. However, just one song out of the entire eighty minutes show (“Sweet Lady”) was aired on the BBC’s The Old Grey Whistle Test. The song aired alongside an interview with Brian speaking to Bob Harris. Fortunately, over the years, the full pro-shot video has been leaked to fans and collectors albeit in a bad quality. The head of the Official Queen Fan Club Magazine, Jacky Smith said in 2001 that “the quality is very very bad, and they cannot 'rescue' it as it was filmed on 16mm and not stored properly.” It doesn’t help the fact that the footage was shot on video but stored on 16mm film. Despite this, several songs and excerpt of others have been shown on TV and in documentaries over the years in extremely good quality. But the chances of this concert getting fully released is deemed doubtful because it’s likely that a lot of this footage hasn’t survived." So, sorry again that this post is not more positive. It's just that I have been hoping that this would get properly released at some point, but after reading that article this seems extremely unlikely. I know that it's not the best thing to do, but I wanted to share my disappointment... |
| Chief Mouse 24.09.2019 09:58 |
Hi there! I believe it was something to do with the multitrack audio (it has already been discussed, others will elaborate) not the video (which I think they have the master video tapes of). Same thing with Hammersmith 1979. |
| Queenman!! 24.09.2019 10:28 |
Chief Mouse wrote: Hi there! I believe it was something to do with the multitrack audio (it has already been discussed, others will elaborate) not the video (which I think they have the master video tapes of). Same thing with Hammersmith 1979.--------------------- Weren't the mastertapes of Queen damaged? I thought they solved the problem because QP had acces to the BBC/Capitol Radio Transmission tapes a couple of years ago. |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 10:45 |
Hello and thank you, Chief Mouse. :-)
I have indeed noticed that similar discussions (mainly regarding video footage) seem to take place in multiple different threads.
It's sad that the article on Queen Online doesn't say something along the lines of "we have managed to find and restore the complete multitrack recordings and now for the very first time this staple concert in Queen history can be viewed and heard in its entire glory" instead, but oh well... Hopefully we haven't seen the end of new Queen live releases from the 70s with Hammersmith.
Chief Mouse wrote: Hi there! I believe it was something to do with the multitrack audio (it has already been discussed, others will elaborate) not the video (which I think they have the master video tapes of). Same thing with Hammersmith 1979. |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 10:55 |
Queenman!! wrote: Weren't the mastertapes of Queen damaged? I thought they solved the problem because QP had acces to the BBC/Capitol Radio Transmission tapes a couple of years ago.Regarding the audio part, do you think that having access to the radio transmission tapes (if they indeed do have them), would be good enough for a release? I mean, aren't those just a simple stereo mix of the show? If they aren't multitracks, I'd imagine that they are not too useful for anything other than bootleg quality. |
| aristide1 24.09.2019 12:25 |
Well, another spectator who likes to watch queenzone TV, like Toozeup who considers himself to be on this forum from 15 years but he has only 93 posts, because "there's occasionally some useful and interesting information posted, but I'm appalled by petty arguments and insults". If you've been a dormant "follower of this forum for several years" and the first words to say when you wake up are "...radio transmission tapes...simple stereo mix...multitracks..." then your brain had been damaged by prolonged stasis. Go back to sleep until arrival at destination. |
| Negative Creep 24.09.2019 12:50 |
MinorKey wrote: Regarding the audio part, do you think that having access to the radio transmission tapes (if they indeed do have them), would be good enough for a release? I mean, aren't those just a simple stereo mix of the show? If they aren't multitracks, I'd imagine that they are not too useful for anything other than bootleg quality.Um, no - that's a bit like saying all the Queen albums re-issued on CD using the original mixes are bootleg quality. It wouldn't be a rough unbalanced monitor mix - they would have had a professional outdoor live mix engineer mixing for broadcast. |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 13:18 |
Thanks for the warm welcome and pleased to meet you too. :-)
Glad to know that there still are such kind and nice people out there such as yourself, who explain things in a friendly manner so that one can understand things better, instead of making assumptions about people they don't know and acting like they themselves were a part of some kind of elite group that one can't even come close to, for whatever odd reason.
aristide1 wrote: Well, another spectator who likes to watch queenzone TV, like Toozeup who considers himself to be on this forum from 15 years but he has only 93 posts, because "there's occasionally some useful and interesting information posted, but I'm appalled by petty arguments and insults". If you've been a dormant "follower of this forum for several years" and the first words to say when you wake up are "...radio transmission tapes...simple stereo mix...multitracks..." then your brain had been damaged by prolonged stasis. Go back to sleep until arrival at destination. |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 13:50 |
Thanks for the reply.
I understand that it must have been mixed by a sound engineer back in the day. Otherwise it wouldn't even make sense as it wouldn't have been fit for broadcast. OK... Technically it could have been transmitted regardless of whether it was mixed properly or not, but it might not have been pleasing to the listener.
I was more curious to know whether there's a possibility that there are separate recordings of each instrument available somewhere, because that would make it possible to remix the entire audio as opposed to just polishing it up (like it would be if only the original mix was available)
Negative Creep wrote:MinorKey wrote: Regarding the audio part, do you think that having access to the radio transmission tapes (if they indeed do have them), would be good enough for a release? I mean, aren't those just a simple stereo mix of the show? If they aren't multitracks, I'd imagine that they are not too useful for anything other than bootleg quality.Um, no - that's a bit like saying all the Queen albums re-issued on CD using the original mixes are bootleg quality. It wouldn't be a rough unbalanced monitor mix - they would have had a professional outdoor live mix engineer mixing for broadcast. |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 14:24 |
For the record, I had to repost my answers as something went haywire the first time around. |
| dysan 24.09.2019 17:33 |
You'll get used to that. Welcome! |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 18:47 |
Thank you dysan. :D
Well, not that it is related to the topic of Queen, but I generally prefer oral communication, because you get to know the person you're talking to much better and apart from that I just find it more interesting and fun. My point is, I don't know how much time I'll be spending here, but than again time will tell. :-)
dysan wrote: You'll get used to that. Welcome! |
| dysan 24.09.2019 20:22 |
At least you've started a thread and come back to it to continue the discussion - others tend to post a weird question as their first post and then bugger off :) |
| MinorKey 24.09.2019 21:48 |
I suppose you are right, except it isn't much of a discussion - at least not a very fruitful one. Of course that part is largely my fault as there's really not all that much else to be said about this, I guess. So, in that sense I do get the eventual criticism - at least to a certain point.
I promise to start something more meaningful next time, such as a thread dedicated to the analysis of a specific piece of lyrics or somethin'. :-)
dysan wrote: At least you've started a thread and come back to it to continue the discussion - others tend to post a weird question as their first post and then bugger off :) |
| dysan 25.09.2019 06:12 |
Not at all. This was a good start keep it up :) |
| Star* 25.09.2019 15:41 |
Never will this concert get an official release because we would have had it by now if it was saleable . As for Queen Hammersmith 1979 there should be no excuse keeping that from the fans. |
| MinorKey 25.09.2019 17:02 |
If that really is the case with Hyde Park, it's a pity, but one can't have everything, I guess.
I think that it's only a matter of time until we get some new video release, and should that turn out to be Hammersmith 79, I certainly won't complain. :-) Releasing it 40 years after the show would definitely make sense. What's more, it would look good in the press release as well and so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for November as that seems to be the month most new Queen stuff tends to be released these years. :-) Than again, I'm just hoping and guessing...
Either way, it's great that after years of waiting we finally got quality stuff from the 70's in the form of Rainbow 74 and Hammersmith 75.
Miracle. wrote: Never will this concert get an official release because we would have had it by now if it was saleable . As for Queen Hammersmith 1979 there should be no excuse keeping that from the fans. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.09.2019 17:21 |
@MinorKey: It's common practice to write your reply *after* the text you quoted instead of before it. Not just for readability, but if a post ends with one of the QZ-tags like [ / Q U O T E ] it can sometimes cause a bit of a mess. |
| MinorKey 25.09.2019 18:26 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: @MinorKey: It's common practice to write your reply *after* the text you quoted instead of before it. Not just for readability, but if a post ends with one of the QZ-tags like [ / Q U O T E ] it can sometimes cause a bit of a mess.Thanks for letting me know. It makes sense. Honestly, I haven't thought of it as various forums sometimes have different rules or "local netiquettes", if you will. But of course, it's indeed pretty common practice and you are right. |
| aristide1 26.09.2019 16:44 |
So you are inactive on various forums, although it's hard to believe considering the feverish flood of meaningless words pouring out of you. I can't decide who is more pathetic, the precious specimen who "prefers oral communication and doesn't know how much time will be spending here", or the unconvincing welcoming committee who seem to compete for miss universe. |
| Chief Mouse 26.09.2019 16:59 |
aristide1 wrote: So you are inactive on various forums, although it's hard to believe considering the feverish flood of meaningless words pouring out of you. I can't decide who is more pathetic, the precious specimen who "prefers oral communication and doesn't know how much time will be spending here", or the unconvincing welcoming committee who seem to compete for miss universe.Why do you hate people? Who or what has bitten you so hard? My guess would be that you vent on this forum due to some sort of PTSD or something else that has caused you extreme bitterness in life. Still though, it comes across as pretty bad taste taking it on someone who has 10 posts here. |
| MinorKey 26.09.2019 19:20 |
aristide1 wrote: So you are inactive on various forums, although it's hard to believe considering the feverish flood of meaningless words pouring out of you. I can't decide who is more pathetic, the precious specimen who "prefers oral communication and doesn't know how much time will be spending here", or the unconvincing welcoming committee who seem to compete for miss universe.OK dude, whatever... You know what? I can't give you the thing you want most (namely a never ending exchange of messages full of insults and name calling that does not lead anywhere at all), but I can give you the second best thing you desire in the form of me unsubscribing from this thread and hereby promising you that I won't be coming here anymore after I post this. And as a bonus, you get to have the last say in our "argument". And to all the others: I know that I should just disregard posts of this nature, but honestly, life is too short and since it's evident that aristide1 must have been through some serious sh*t, I figured I'd give him what he wanted, if that makes him happier - although it's likely that it nor gives nor takes for him either way. :-( Than again, I must admit what's evident (namely the fact that he partly succeeded in his quest with me leaving), but to be honest, offline life is tough enough and I don't want to waste my attention on reading insults on an online forum that should theoretically be a means of relaxation (even if these posts can be ignored and are written by someone with legit reasons). At the same time these kinds of posts are great for training temper, so they definitely aren't useless, but I'm sure the net will give me plenty other opportunities for doing just that... :-) And besides, one member with 11 posts here or there. And finally, I know that the clear majority of the folks on this forum are absolutely reasonable and friendly people. So good bye and take care. I wish all the best to absolutely all of you. And sorry if my post sounds a tad melodramatic - that was not the intent. :-) P.S. Shoot me if I don't keep my promise. :-) |