QueenZone discussion #407815
Eponymous Queen or debut album.
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 11:40 |
EddieVanHalen: "I really wish we could have more topics like this one about hot space or other albums or songs". OK. Why not? It is a good idea and this is one of the main reasons why we are are here isn't it? so let's start at the beginning, with the Queen eponymous debut album. But, this is NOT a lecture... it is a dialogue. Feel free to contribute, feel free to disagree... if the following list is "over-sensitive" - what would you like me to do - censor it? All I ask is that we keep it civil and interesting, and I look forward to reading YOUR replies. Who knows - if successful, we may even move onto "Queen II"! 1971 Queen: Unreleased Live, Ewell Technical College 9th January 1971 Line-up: Farrokh Bulsara (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Barry Mitchell (bass). Supporting Kevin Ayers And The Whole World Band, Flying Fortress and Genesis. The entire set was recorded by Ken Testi on a Grundig tape recorder, but only the Rock ‘n Roll Medley remains. A flyer for this concert is briefly viewed in the official “Genesis - Archive” video Rock ‘n Roll Medley; Jailhouse Rock, Stupid Cupid, Bebop a Lula, Big Spender, Bama Lama Lama Loo Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, October 1971 – February 1972 (Edit: Lester Burnham... five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971 - Good shout Lester - but personally I think this would have taken longer considering that Queen were only allowed to use "downtime" - however the fact that it was recorded ABOUT this time is a great help). In The Beginning Bootleg CD Line-up: Farrokh Bulsara (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Deacon John (bass). Recorded September – October 1971/ January – February 1972. Recorded by Louie Austin. Keep Yourself Alive Night Comes Down Great King Rat Jesus Liar 1972 Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, October 1971 – February 1972 In The Beginning Bootleg CD Line-up: Farrokh Bulsara (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Deacon John (bass). Recorded September – October 1971/ January – February 1972. Recorded by Louie Austin. Keep Yourself Alive Night Comes Down Great King Rat Jesus Liar Al Stewart: Past, Present And Future Recorded 1972/ Released Nov 1973 UK 1973 LP Version CBS 32036 UK 1992 CD Version BGO BGO CD 155 US 1992 CD Version Rhino R2 71045 Produced by John Anthony (Smile, Queen), at Trident Studios. Old Admirals, Warren Harding, Soho (Needless To Say), Last Day Of June 1934, Post World War Two Blues, Roads To Moscow, Terminal Eyes, Nostradamus Roads To Moscow (As It Began p 66: Roger Meddows Taylor - Percussion two unspecified tracks - but "Roads To Moscow" since identified as one those) Eugene Wallace: Dangerous Recorded 1972/ Released 1975 UK 1975 LP Version EMI EMC 3067 Produced by Robin Geoffrey Cable (Nevermore, March Of The Black Queen), and Del Newman at Trident Studios. Reach Out And Touch Me, Red Light Lady, Kind Woman Kind, Lies, Lullaby, Killers, Children, Little Baby Mine, Dangerous Dangerous Roger Meddows Taylor Percussion on unspecified track (Believed to be Dangerous). Guest artists include Phil Chen, Phil Collins & Mike Moran. 1975 UK 7” Kind Woman Kind/ Dangerous (Trident SPSR 381) 1978 UK 7” To Love Somebody/ Loving You Was Sunshine (Airola ARO 129) = NO Queen Queen: Live Various Gigs 1972 Only a handful of live sets performed this year. No pre-1972 bootleg tapes exist. January Various London pub/clubs including the Peasantry Club, Chelsea 10th March Kings College Hospital 09th April Marquee Basingstoke College 01st November Forest Hill Hospital November Pleasantry Club 20th December Marquee Queen: Unreleased Live, King's College Hospital, London 10th March 1972 For Information only - does not exist Not recorded. Set list supplied from Miller’s Rock And Pop Memorabilia |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 11:40 |
1973 Queen Line-up: Freddie Mercury (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Deacon John (bass). Recorded June – Nov 1972. Released 13th July 1973. Produced by John Anthony, Roy Thomas Baker & Queen at Trident Studios, London, for Neptune Productions. Engineered by Roy Thomas Baker, Mike Stone, Ted Sharpe & Dave Hertschel. Night Comes Down recorded by Louie Austin. Keep Yourself Alive (8 different Takes/Versions: Brian May/Alexis Korner BBC Radio One 03rd April 1983) Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 US 7" 3:25 Edit Elektra E-45106-B (…Bites The Dust) Long Lost Re-take 4:05 Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 De Lane Lea Original Demo 3:40 In The Beginning: Miko QCD 01 Karaoke Instrumental Edit Japan Toshiba EMI TOLW - 3249.50 BBC 05.02.1973 (3:51) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 BBC 25.07.1973 (3:40) Freddie's Boys At The Beeb: Bulsara Records Intro Edit: 33” Total Guitar CD Magazine Starlicks Video Edit Starlicks Video Karaoke/CD Full Instrumental (3:38) Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc BBC Old Grey Whistle Test Best Of The Test: Windsong OGWT CD 1 Exposed Fake Mono Demo Exposed MC Alternative Trident Takes/Mixes Unreleased: Brian May Interview BBC Old Grey Whistle Test Reconstructed Video Unreleased: Home Video Promotional Video Greatest Flix I & II: Pioneer PLMPD 01171 Promotional Video (Brian's Mother's Coat) Version Unreleased: Home video BBC Old Grey Whistle Test Original Video Erased Doing All Right Doing All Right Smile De Lane Lea Studios 1968 Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 Smile Original Ghost of A Smile: CDP 1049 DD BBC 05.02.1973 (4:14) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 Buczko Queen/Smile Hybrid Duet 5:03 ISDN Download Trident Alternative Takes/Mixes Unreleased: Video 4:22 Extended Intro Champions Of The World: PLMPB 01141 Great King Rat Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 De Lane Lea Original Demo 6:02 In The Beginning: Miko QCD 01 BBC 03.12.1973 (6:01) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 Exposed Fake Mono Demo Exposed MC Undubbed Version Unreleased: Small Odd Ends Unreleased: My Fairy King Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 BBC 05.02.1973 (4:09) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 Exposed Fake Mono Demo Exposed MC Freddie Solo Piano Demo Unreleased: Liar Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 US 7" 3:01 Edit US Elektra EK 45884 De Lane Lea Original Demo 7:46 In The Beginning: Miko QCD 01 BBC 05.02.1973 (6:32) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 BBC 25.07.1973 (6:24) Freddie's Boys At The Beeb: Bulsara Records 1991 Luango & Hellman 6:25 Remix Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 1998 eYe Intro 1:24 Edit No 1 Electronic Arts DDE05501 101S 1998 eYe Intro 1:24 Edit No 2 Electronic Arts DDE05501 101S Intro Edit: 13” Total Guitar CD Magazine Starlicks Video Edit Starlicks Video Rough Demo Unreleased: Promotional Video Greatest Flix I & II: Pioneer PLMPD 01171 Night Comes Down Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 De Lane Lea Original Demo 4:19 In The Beginning: Miko QCD 01 1998 eYe Intro “45 Edit Electronic Arts DDE05501 101S Exposed Fake Mono Demo Exposed MC Original Trident Studios Version Unreleased: Modern Times Rock and Roll Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 1998 eYe Edit Electronic Arts DDE05501 101S Starlicks Video Edit Starlicks Video BBC 03.12.1973 (2:03) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 BBC 03.04.1974 (2:43) Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc eYe/CD Full Instrumental (1:47) Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc Rough Demo Unreleased: Son and Daughter Album Version Queen: EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 BBC 03.12.1973 (7:11) Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 BBC 25.07.1973 (5:54) Freddie's Boys At The Beeb: Bulsara Records Out-Take Version(s) Unreleased: J |
| Lester Burnham 20.10.2004 11:46 |
Excellent! As far as I know, the five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971 - I got this information from the fan club years ago when they used to not only update daily with worthwhile news, but also did the "on this day xx years ago". So, who knows if it actually took them one day to record five songs or not, but the September - October timespan sounds a little more accurate. EDIT: Extremely interesting, regarding the last few songs - I did not know that 'Mad The Swine' was going to be featured between 'Great King Rat' and 'My Fairy King'; I had it pegged as an ideal album closer in lieu of 'Seven Seas Of Rhye...'. Also, I was convinced that 'See What A Fool' was an outtake from the debut album, as it didn't seem like an ideal "Queen II" track. However, that's not saying it actually originates from the sessions from the first album, but it would make far more sense. To me, at least. |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 11:47 |
Queen: BBC Radio Session, 5th February 1973 – Queen At The Beeb Recorded 05.02.1973. Broadcast 15.02.1973. Studio Langham 1, John Peel Sounds Of The Seventies. Produced by Bernie Andrews, Engineered by John Etchells. Officially released 14th Dec 1989 as Queen At The Beeb, Band Of Joy BOJCD 001. Keep Yourself Alive, on 21 Years Of Alternative Radio One, CD Strange Fruit SFRCD 2000. My Fairy King Keep Yourself Alive Doin’ Alright Liar Queen: Unreleased BBC Radio Session, 25th July 1973 – Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Bootleg LP From The Beeb To Tokyo Bootleg CD Recorded 25.07.1973. Broadcast 13.08.1973. Studio Langham 1, Bob Harris Sounds Of The Seventies. Produced by Jeff Griffin. Engineered by Chris Lycett & John Etchells. Originally aired as a three-track session. Repeated 24.09.1973 (including a fourth, bonus track, Keep Yourself Alive). All pre 1980 BBC radio sessions officially erased. See What A Fool I’ve Been Smile: Royal Albert Hall 27th February 1969 Liar Son And Daughter (Keep Yourself Alive) Queen: Unreleased BBC Radio Session, Live Golders Green Hippodrome 13th September 1973 BBC Pop Spectacular Transcription Services 135600 – S Rogues And Scoundrels Bootleg LP Saturday Night’s All Right For Fighting Bootleg CD Cry Argentina Bootleg CD In Concert BBC Radio One. Broadcast 13th Sept 1973. Produced by Jeff Griffin, sound balance by John Etchells, leaping about Paul Deley. Available as BBC Pop Spectacular Transcription Services LP 135600 – S. (Rock ‘n Roll Medley cut from broadcast, LP transcription and bootleg discs). Procession, Father To Son, Son & Daughter, See What A Fool I've Been, Ogre Battle, Liar, Jailhouse Rock, Stupid Cupid, Bebop a Lula, Big Spender, Bama Lama Lama Loo Queen: BBC Radio Session, 3rd December 1973 – Queen At The Beeb Recorded 03.12.1973. Broadcast 06.12.1973. Studio Langham 1, John Peel Sounds Of The Seventies. Produced by Bernie Andrews. Engineered by Mike Franks & Nick Griffiths. Officially released 14th Dec 1989 as Queen At The Beeb, Band Of Joy BOJCD 001. Great King Rat Modern Times Rock ‘n Roll Son And Daughter Ogre Battle Al Stewart: Past, Present And Future Recorded 1972/ Released Nov 1973 UK 1973 LP Version CBS 32036 UK 1992 CD Version BGO BGO CD 155 US 1992 CD Version Rhino R2 71045 Produced by John Anthony (Smile, Queen), at Trident Studios. Old Admirals, Warren Harding, Soho (needless To Say), Last Day Of June 1934, Post World War Two Blues, Roads To Moscow, Terminal Eyes, Nostradamus Roads To Moscow (Roger Taylor Percussion. Roger can’t recall the tracks he plays on – but it was two tracks only) Roads To Moscow (As It Began p 66: Roger Meddows Taylor - Percussion two unspecified tracks - but "Roads To Moscow" since identified as one those) Queen: Unreleased Live Golders Green Hippodrome, 13th September 1973 (see above) Procession, Father To Son, Son & Daughter, See What A Fool I've Been, Ogre Battle, Liar, Jailhouse Rock, Stupid Cupid, Bebopa Lula, Big Spender, Bama Lama Lama Loo Queen: Unreleased Live Oxford, 20th November 73 Bama Lama Lama Lou Queen: Unreleased Live Town Hall, Birmingham, 27th November 1973 A Night At The Court Bootleg LP (Additional set info: Greg Brooks) Procession, Father To Son, Son & Daughter, Ogre Battle, See What A Fool I’ve Been, Great King Rat, Jailhouse Rock/Shake Rattle & Roll/Stupid Cupid/Jailhouse Rock (reprise), Hangman, Keep Yourself Alive, Liar, Big Spender, Bamalama Lamalou |
| juls 20.10.2004 11:51 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Excellent! As far as I know, the five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971 - I got this information from the fan club years ago when they used to not only update daily with worthwhile news, but also did the "on this day xx years ago". So, who knows if it actually took them one day to record five songs or not, but the September - October timespan sounds a little more accurate.correct, Lester, sounds accurate :) link |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 11:51 |
So remind me - where does "Circles" fit in - or does that come later? Plenty to discuss there I hope. As I said, keep it civil. It was written as a "serious piece" in the spirit of "community information". Remember, I too am receptive to positive constructive comments. |
| wstüssyb 20.10.2004 11:51 |
all I can say to some of this /drool |
| Lester Burnham 20.10.2004 11:55 |
I will second that "drool" and ask for a kleenex. Now, what's this about Circles, John? I'd never heard anything about that. |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 12:05 |
So remind me - where does "Circles" fit in - or does that come later? It was a very early Brain May collaboration - which only turned up about a year ago. I bought the CD but it was (in my opinion) disapointing. YV perhaps recalls better than I do - perhaps someone could ask her as I have lost her e-mail. (YV - what do you recall about "Circles" - and do you still have a link to the site?). Thanks - John xxx (Yes, that WAS grovelling!!!). |
| Lester Burnham 20.10.2004 12:07 |
Ha! Excuse me while I grab my bucket. EDIT: of course, that was a joke. I do have Barbara's email address somewhere, John, I'll pass it along to you. |
| Lester Burnham 20.10.2004 12:36 |
Bump, so that this remains fresh on Queenzoners minds. Hopefully spurring some debate or awe. |
| Shane Jazz 20.10.2004 13:13 |
A sincere thank you to Mr. Stuart. For about 90% of us Queenzoners, these kind of posts are the highlight of the board. I really appreciate it. |
| Chaka 20.10.2004 13:13 |
John, lest I be accused of "grovelling" I'd just like to thank you for sharing the information that most of us don't have access to, and for not letting the recent drama stop you from doing so. |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 13:32 |
"Stand Up And Fight" by "Quartz" You can read about this CD here: link The "Quartz" 1977 debut album "Stand Up And Fight" featured sessions including Brian May as guest guitarist on a track called "Circles" (which also featured Ozzy Osbourne on backing vocals). The track was not included on the eventual album release - but WAS later released as the B-side to the "Quartz" single - "Stoking The Fires Of Hell". Earlier this year (2004) Majestic Rock (US) re-issued the debut "Quartz" CD called "Stand Up And Fight" - including "Circles" as an extra track. So clearly this track has nothing to do with "Queen" until circa "News Of The World" period. The only reason I mentioned it above was becuase I could not recall from memory whether it was an early or late 1970's session track. I can now see that it does not slot into the "Queen" debut time-frame, and I apologise for any hopes raised - or for any ensuing confusion. As a postscript "Circles" is still commercially available - for those who may be interested. EDIT: YV has contributed later in this thread. link This site is certainly worth a visit, and also, I am now allowed to say that the track IS available in the hub. |
| Pim Derks 20.10.2004 13:37 |
[quote] Trident One-sided 10" acetates: Hangman Rock 'n roll (Jailhouse Rock) Jesus Keep Yourself Alive[/quote] Does this mean that a studio-version of Hangman exists? * drool * |
| CMG 20.10.2004 13:50 |
Stuart, interesting list again... What about an mp3 of something really rare you got please? I'm sure that sample of joy would get everybody crazy |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 14:00 |
Additional Thanks/contributions: I have edited the above accordingly to include this new information, so thanks for the help there. Rather than create a new seperate thread for each acknowledgement - I will highlight my "thanks" in here... and edit in here when needed. (So watch this space). Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, October 1971 – February 1972 (Edit: Lester Burnham... five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971 - Good shout Lester - but personally I think this would have taken longer considering that Queen were only allowed to use "downtime" - however the fact that it was recorded ABOUT this time is a great help). Any other thoughts about this one? |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 14:14 |
Pim Derks: Trident One-sided 10" acetates: Hangman Rock 'n roll (Jailhouse Rock) Jesus Keep Yourself Alive Does this mean that a studio-version of Hangman exists? Yes it does - but a copy has NOT been "found" by Greg or QP. These acetates were sold on the open market about 20 years ago. I think I need to explain here a little about acatete pressings. simply, acetates are "works of reference" recorded on disc, of a night's session in the studio. These tracks may (or may not be) recorded on master tape (EG Many Beatles acetates DO not exist as master recordings - and there is a great Beatles bootleg called - surprisingly enough - "Unreleased Acetates"!). These discs (depending on how many are cut) are usually retained by the band - or their producers/engineers etc. I have no idea of how many "Hangman" acetates were cut, but there is a world of difference between "can't be found - and - does not exist". Remember, I am writing what "I" KNOW about. The exciting thing for me is to find out about what I do NOT know about! |
| Adam Baboolal 20.10.2004 14:23 |
I can't be sure, but what do you think of Mad The Swine from the In Nuce cd? Excluding the reverse stereo of the Nuce track - surely there are differences between this mix and the official release. Ideas? Peace, Adam. |
| Lester Burnham 20.10.2004 14:26 |
John S Stuart wrote: Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, October 1971 – February 1972 (Edit: Lester Burnham... five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971 - Good shout Lester - but personally I think this would have taken longer considering that Queen were only allowed to use "downtime" - however the fact that it was recorded ABOUT this time is a great help). Any other thoughts about this one?Agreed, as the band were notorious for being perfectionists, so it's highly unlikely that it took them only one day to get five songs done - look how long it took them to get their first album out! So, sessions probably STARTED on this day, but probably extended into October. |
| Chaka 20.10.2004 14:27 |
a question, is or isn't the 1991 "Mad The Swine" release a remix, you have it listed as the US 1991 3:23 Remix, and then state the 1991 release is NOT a remix, I'm a bit confused about that. |
| YourValentine 20.10.2004 14:28 |
Circles was a Brian collaboration with Heavy Metal Band Quartz (produced by Tony Iommi). It never made it on the debut album (if you listen you know why) but instead it was released as a B-side. For the re-issue of the album, however, it was included. link |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 14:51 |
Chaka: 1991 "Mad The Swine" release a remix, you have it listed as the US 1991 3:23 Remix, and then state the 1991 release is NOT a remix, I'm a bit confused about that. It is confusing isn't it - it's all to do with the interpretation of "remixing". When "Mad The Swine" was first released in 1991, it was delivered as a "remix" on the Hollywood re-issues. (Same as "Seven Seas Of Rhye" and Rick Ruben's "We Will Rock You"). I am sure that "Mad The Swine" was "tweaked" (more to Roger's satisfaction - but I can not prove that - that is a guess), but I would argue more "remastered" than "remixed". Does that make sense? To dig myself into a deeper hole, I am sure that they could "lift the drums" or "lower the guitar" BUT (and here is the big bit) it was the original releasable take used - and it was "equallised" TRUE to the original cut. But before I am accused of "Blagging" are there any engineers who could help me out here - to get my meaning across in a more articulte fashion? Adam: I have NOT listened to the official "Mad The Swine" and the "In Nuce" versions in an academic "bench-test" sense. One is official - the other is a bootleg. That is all I know. But I set you a challenge. (This is a serious request!). Why don't you conduct a "bench-test" and return your findings back to this thread? I would be genuinely interested. I may be wrong - but I think the bootleg is the "untweaked" version - and the official release the "remixed" version - would that be correct? |
| Chaka 20.10.2004 15:09 |
ok I understand that; it's not that the original music was changed much (or at least not to the degree as the other Hollywood Records remixes), it's that the production (I guess particularly the drum sound was changed). |
| crowley 20.10.2004 15:22 |
From the Quen I rare stuff I only have got "In The Beginning" and spaking about "Circles" you mean the song by Brian May & Iommmi Quartz? |
| Lester Burnham 20.10.2004 15:27 |
It was already posted, try reading the thread. |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 15:55 |
Chaka: "...it's not that the original music was changed much.. it's... the production (I guess particularly the drum sound was changed)". Yes - exactly. That is what I meant to say. Some could argue that this is still a "remix" - but it was only "remixed" in the sense of production and equalisation (so essentially it is still the same track). However, the "Seven Seas Of Rhye - remix" is (again arguably) a totally diferent song from the original. That - is the extent of my knowledge - so perhaps Seb would be better to take over the answer from here. |
| Whisperer 20.10.2004 16:05 |
John S Stuart wrote: Pim Derks: Trident One-sided 10" acetates: Hangman Rock 'n roll (Jailhouse Rock) Jesus Keep Yourself Alive Does this mean that a studio-version of Hangman exists? Yes it does - but a copy has NOT been "found" by Greg or QP. These acetates were sold on the open market about 20 years ago. I think I need to explain here a little about acatete pressings. simply, acetates are "works of reference" recorded on disc, of a night's session in the studio. These tracks may (or may not be) recorded on master tape (EG Many Beatles acetates DO not exist as master recordings - and there is a great Beatles bootleg called - surprisingly enough - "Unreleased Acetates"!). These discs (depending on how many are cut) are usually retained by the band - or their producers/engineers etc. I have no idea of how many "Hangman" acetates were cut, but there is a world of difference between "can't be found - and - does not exist". Remember, I am writing what "I" KNOW about. The exciting thing for me is to find out about what I do NOT know about!Do you have the Hangman acetate? No, I'm not going to ask for an mp3, I'm not an idiot. I just want to find out if there is an acetate of that song that we know for sure isn't destroyed. |
| Martin Packer 20.10.2004 16:18 |
I just wonder what people thought of Queen the album when it first came out. I have to say it is of a far higher quality than any other debut album, even from those artists who had ever so much more help from producers. (Even with Queen I suspect the band made most of the decisions. Or gave the nominal producers a very good run for their money.) And to consider that it was made in less than ideal conditions is doubly impressive. For example Great King Rat would've been great played simply. As it was they took a lot of care with it and made it so much better. (I actually only came across Queen with Killer Queen, so I have no direct experience of them in 1973 when Queen came out.) |
| Chaka 20.10.2004 16:28 |
John S Stuart wrote: See What A Fool I’ve Been Smile: Royal Albert Hall 27th February 1969would I be correct in guessing this is a typo and the BBC Session track has nothing to do with a Smile live performance? |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 16:42 |
No - it is not a typo. It is a reference to the fact that the track HAD once BEEN a "Smile" song which was revived for the occassion. (Ofcourse - it is performed by Queen during the BBC session). Edit: The reason for the inclusion of that trivial piece of info was - that by the time fans were able to buy the track officially (it never appreared until "Queen II" - and only then as the "Seven Seas Of Rhye" B-side) it had already been a Brian May/Queen staple which had undergone many changes before final release. This "unreleased" BBC version (to my mind) is the bridge between the "Smile" and the "Queen II" variations. Queen: Unreleased BBC Radio Session, 25th July 1973 – Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Bootleg LP From The Beeb To Tokyo Bootleg CD Recorded 25.07.1973. Broadcast 13.08.1973. Studio Langham 1, Bob Harris Sounds Of The Seventies. Produced by Jeff Griffin. Engineered by Chris Lycett & John Etchells. Originally aired as a three-track session. Repeated 24.09.1973 (including a fourth, bonus track, Keep Yourself Alive). All pre 1980 BBC radio sessions officially erased. See What A Fool I’ve Been (Smile: Royal Albert Hall 27th February 1969) Liar Son And Daughter (Keep Yourself Alive) |
| juls 20.10.2004 18:04 |
Nice list, but what about the "Pre-Ordained" thingy? I have to admit, I have really no clue what it is all about - I have it here on CD, but it is a kind of compilation of Smile songs and some other weird songs in really bad bad quality. Is Pre-Ordained valid in the Queen catalogue? |
| Chaka 20.10.2004 18:07 |
Juls, Pre-Ordained is a mixture of the Smile songs and some Peter Straker songs that were produced by Freddie Mercury. I believe neither Freddie nor any other Queen members feature on these Straker recordings. John, thanks for clearing up that Smile reference |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 18:09 |
Chaka: No - it is not a typo. It is a reference to the fact that the track HAD once BEEN a "Smile" song which was revived for the occassion. (Ofcourse - it is performed by Queen during the BBC session). Edit: The reason for the inclusion of that trivial piece of info was - that by the time fans were able to buy the track officially (it never appreared until "Queen II" - and only then as the "Seven Seas Of Rhye" B-side) it had already been a Brian May/Queen staple which had undergone many changes before final release. This "unreleased" BBC version (to my mind) is the bridge between the "Smile" and the "Queen II" variations. What do you think? Queen: Unreleased BBC Radio Session, 25th July 1973 – Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Bootleg LP From The Beeb To Tokyo Bootleg CD Recorded 25.07.1973. Broadcast 13.08.1973. Studio Langham 1, Bob Harris Sounds Of The Seventies. Produced by Jeff Griffin. Engineered by Chris Lycett & John Etchells. Originally aired as a three-track session. Repeated 24.09.1973 (including a fourth, bonus track, Keep Yourself Alive). All pre 1980 BBC radio sessions officially erased. See What A Fool I’ve Been (Smile: Royal Albert Hall 27th February 1969) Liar Son And Daughter (Keep Yourself Alive) |
| juls 20.10.2004 18:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: It is confusing isn't it - it's all to do with the interpretation of "remixing".The main difference between remaster and remix: A remaster is a re-mix too, with the difference, that the original tapes are used and the sound is enhanced, according to the modern technologies. A remaster should sound like an imporved original record. With modern technology it is possible to clear the tracks, to lift and lower frequencies here and there, to achieve an official sound. A remix uses the original tapes too, but withthe main difference, that some parts from the original recordings are missing, or that other takes are used, or even - see the remixes on Hollywood - new beats, synths, samples etc. A remaster should never cut away something, which is audible in the original release. The best option is to have the engineer/producer who recorded the original tapes doing the remaster. Remasters are quite important nowadays,because our equipment changed over the last 20-30 years - drastically - remember vinyl, and with the modern way of remastering we can achieve a sound that is necessary for the equipment used today. The only problem is, that a remasters quality is always depending on the remastering engineer, and if he has no relation to the original recording, or the band, the sound itself, a remaster can be quite disappointing. |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 18:48 |
Juls: So my answer to Chaka's question - Hollywood's 1991 remix is a (by your definition) not a real-remix - but a remaster - is correct? This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that. So I didn't "blag" anyone after all! |
| juls 20.10.2004 19:47 |
John S Stuart wrote: Juls: So my answer to Chaka's question - Hollywood's 1991 remix is a (by your definition) not a real-remix - but a remaster - is correct? This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that. So I didn't "blag" anyone after all!Yes, correct. If they would have released it before, and then restored it for a release, it would have been called remaster. But I think there is no previously released version of this song, so it is not necessary to call it remix or remaster. They mastered it: restoring, transfer to digital device and mastering for CD purpose (quite sure with some EQ-ing here and there) If they had put on new tracks (what I don't know, and don't think) the word "remix" would fit better. |
| Adam Baboolal 20.10.2004 20:36 |
Here's some info on what mastering can be: link link link link link I'll take a listen to Mad The Swine tomorrow. Mastering is definitely involved with the officially released one considering it was attached as a bonus extra on the Hollywood albums. I wonder what the source of the Nuce track is... It doesn't have as much bass end as the official track. However, as someone said, a remix can simply be retouching levels and more importantly the effects used in the track can be changed. It'll be interesting to see whether tracks were mixed down onto tapes with the original effects from the final mix. Interesting because it's not usually a good idea unless everything sits well and it has been pre-planned, which it kinda was. Otherwise, it will be given an overhaul from the original tapes, without the effects present, and remixed with new effects that resemble the originals. I know, I know...what a palava! Peace, Adam. |
| Penis - Vagina 20.10.2004 21:46 |
The 1991 version of Mad The Swine, whatever mix it is, was first released in the UK as one of the B-sides to 'Headlong' on May 13. The Hollywood remaster of 'Queen' was released a month later on June 18. So if it was remixed, it certainly wasn't strictly Hollywood's idea nor should it be implied that Hollywood was responsible. What always intrigued me was the intro. It's obviously missing a little bit ("I've" is printed in the lyrics) and as I recall, the Nuce version loses even more by fading in. So did the intro get damaged, or was it originally part of a segue, or what? |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 22:12 |
=Jeffrey= (Just Keepin' it real), regardless of dates (that is so two-dimensional) "Mad The Swine" is correctly considered to be a Hollywood remaster because... From the original master tapes, safety copies (or dupilicate masters) are made. These duplicate masters are shipped all over the world. Therefore, the safety copy held by EMI (UK) and the safety copy held by Electra (USA) were identical. However, at that time (early 1960 - 1970's) the USA manufactured their discs slightly differently. (For example, Electra ADDITIONALLY EQ'd these safety copies - so this album - "Queen" - and the subsequent single releases - sound "flatter" than the UK version). When Queen moved to Hollywood, the "House Of Mouse" quite correctly demanded their own NEW safety copies. They wanted new masters, taken directly from master tapes, which they could digitally re-master for the new CD medium. No recycling of old safety copies for these cookies. So EMI (in their infinite wisdom) sent new masters over to to the USA by aeroplane and bodyguard. (Not armed obviously!). But to their surprise, EMI had sent the WRONG tapes. Not safety masters - but THE masters. Now Hollywood thought they hit the Jackpot. It was Hollywood who "banded" the new album tracks, and prepared the new remixed CD for release. A copy of the new (as yet unreleased CD -including additional tracks "Mad The Swine" and "Keep Yourself Alive - retake") was returned to the UK. Well, the proverbial hit the fan! Needless to say, there was nothing QP could do about it - as Hollywood had them by the goolies! (Queen had already signed permission to release the stuff - but here was additional stuff being issued they had not really reckoned on). As it was being released anyway (and as a compromise) it was decided to release the HOLLYWOOD version in the UK first. Now =Jeffrey=, my old pal, my old buddy - your thinking "what a load of old bullplop" (or words to that effect), but it gets better. This is WHY Queen Productions have LOST the Masters to "Your My Best Friend", and most of "The Game" (just to name a few) because 'tween 'plane out and 'plane back 'ome - they were NICKED! (Sorry - officially "lost in transit" - can't have anyone mis-quote me now). Infact, there are MORE rarities OUTSIDE QP, then there are inside because of all the thieving little toe-rags! Why do you think Brian had to advertise to get "The Game" masters returned? Do you think they were lost in the post, or misfiled by some dippity secretary? (That could as equally apply to a male or female assistant). No - it was because - Queen sent over the wrong tapes - and the wrong (master) tapes were "half-inched"! So you want proof - you live in the US? (No matter as some 'zoners do) It was all over the Press (that is the public domain to you and I). Now FairyDandy - please, please, please cut and paste this and send it to Greg - because (fanfare of trumpets: toot-a-toot-toot-toot-a-toot) There is NOTHING he can do about it because it is true! Game, set, and match! I enjoyed that one!!!!! (Dancing rain-dance of delight a-whoopin' and a hooping around the PC!!!) (Sorry - but after shouts of "get to your bed you old fool", and treading a circle out of our old carpet, Mr Stuart has been hauled to bed by his right ear. Normal service will resume in the morning - Mrs Stuart!) |
| Saint Jiub 20.10.2004 22:21 |
So releasing MtS was not planned by QP? The QP attitude of "withhold value from the customer" was alive even over 13 years ago? |
| Penis - Vagina 20.10.2004 23:03 |
That's fascinating stuff. I wonder if this helps explain why Hollywood had trouble getting single versions of some tracks, and apparently wasn't made aware of them. I've posted before about how they obviously didn't have single version masters for 'Flash', 'One Vision', 'Fat Bottomed Girls' and 'I Want to Break Free' which I actually got them to investigate and resulted in its inclusion on 'Greatest Hits'. I get the impression that Queen didn't provide them with the necessary info and masters for proper releases until they begged for them :-P Still curious about that intro... |
| Adam Baboolal 20.10.2004 23:17 |
Wait a mo... Are you saying that The Game masters were lost/stolen along with (somehow) YMBF? But you're talking about years and years ago because, obviously they had the masters returned for the Dvd-a releases...right? Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 20.10.2004 23:28 |
Adam Baboolal: (See I've figured the cut'n paste bit now!) NO adam. (Try to keep up - as I will type this v e r y s l o w l y). The Game DVDA was made up from new bits, recycled bits, old bits edited together. Mono bits remade into stereo etc. It was NOT made from THE master because (as you so correctly deduced) THE master was stolen about 13 years ago. Therefore it must have been remade from the existing SAFETY COPY!!!! I am really glad you have started watching "Murder She Wrote" because all this cloak and dagger stuff is really hard to keep up with isn't it! Dont you b*ggers ever go to bed? (Yes - yes in a minute... Ouch, ouch, watch what your doing with that rolling pin... OK... OK... I just wanted a round of applause that's all...) |
| Saint Jiub 20.10.2004 23:36 |
JSS - Tomorrow could you please provide some comment to my above questions regarding QP attempted stingyness regarding the KYA and MtS Hollywood bonus tracks? |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 00:03 |
Bullwinkle: "...could you please provide some comment... regarding QP attempted stingyness regarding the KYA and MtS Hollywood bonus tracks?" To be honest with you - I don't know, and I don't know how to answer. What I do know is that they were "accidently" released, therefore, if it were not for this fortunate mishap (it is my strong opinion) they would still not have seen the light of day. Whisperer: Sorry just seen your mail (don't know how I missed it). "Do you have the Hangman acetate?" - NO comment!!! |
| Saint Jiub 21.10.2004 00:07 |
thank you - now go to bed - Has the sun risen there yet? |
| The Real Wizard 21.10.2004 01:15 |
John S Stuart wrote: A flyer for this concert is briefly viewed in the official “Genesis - Archive” videoA technical note... it's a boxed set of audio recordings... very little video exists of early Genesis, unfortunately! |
| CMG 21.10.2004 05:14 |
Do you have the Hangman acetate? No, I'm not going to ask for an mp3, I'm not an idiot. I just want to find out if there is an acetate of that song that we know for sure isn't destroyed.
I don't think asking for an extremely rare mp3 would mean you are stupid. It just means you love their music so much that after getting everything you've been allowed to swap with other collectors, you'd love to listen to something that was never available for you to swap. I'm sure an mp3 of Hangman (studio take) would be seen as the biggest present in these days of Queen demos famine (will it be because of the WWRY musical?...well that's another story) |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 06:43 |
John S Stuart wrote: Bullwinkle: "...could you please provide some comment... regarding QP attempted stingyness regarding the KYA and MtS Hollywood bonus tracks?" To be honest with you - I don't know, and I don't know how to answer. What I do know is that they were "accidently" released, therefore, if it were not for this fortunate mishap (it is my strong opinion) they would still not have seen the light of day. Whisperer: Sorry just seen your mail (don't know how I missed it). "Do you have the Hangman acetate?" - NO comment!!!Well JSS I'm not going to ask you if you have the Hangman acetate, but do you know people that have the Hangman studio version, or let me put it this way, Do you believe that the Hangman studio version still exists, and will be on the boxset? I hope I'm not offending you with this question in any way, It's just out of curiosity. |
| Pim Derks 21.10.2004 06:45 |
"A technical note... it's a boxed set of audio recordings... very little video exists of early Genesis, unfortunately!" There is a lot more early video of Genesis than you think. Unfortunately no major stuff from THE LAMB tour exists. There is lots of stuff from 1973-1974: I've got a 50/60 mins recording of a 1973 gig in very good quality and there's lots of other stuff too, try looking at a Yahoogroups group called "gmDVD". There's a promo-video for the Archive 1967-1975 boxset, I think JSS was talking about that. The flyer is also used in the cd-boxset though. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 07:52 |
Whisperer/Cesar Madarro/EddieVanHalen: "Do you believe that the Hangman studio version still exists, and will be on the boxset"? I did not wish to go here - so it is my own fault, but seeing as this is going to become a FAQ. I hope you see this as a moral dilema. Over the past few days - some have given me a hard time. "Biggest dick on Queenzone", "Blaggard" -and that's just what the military term "friendly fire"! On the other hand, people want to know more. You tell me what I should do! Some say "keep quite!" - while others say "tell, tell!". Yes: Hangman studio 10" acetate exists. Yes, I do have a copy. No It will not appear on the boxset. (I hope that was not rude) |
| deleted user 21.10.2004 08:06 |
You're not rude mr. Stuart and though we'll never listen to many of your rare recordings, I'm infinitely grateful for all the infos you're providing!! I LOVE THIS MAN!! (was that far too much?) And I'm happy to know that "Hangman" exists as studio version, guess why... |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 08:23 |
John S Stuart wrote: Yes: Hangman studio 10" acetate exists. Yes, I do have a copy. No It will not appear on the boxset.Pray tell, why won't it be on the boxset? Peace, Adam. |
| deleted user 21.10.2004 08:33 |
"Pray tell, why won't it be on the boxset?" Pretty easy to answer: QP and GB (and even Brian May himself, from what I've been told) always said that a studio version of said song DOESN'T exist; so, unless they are lying and I don't think so, they don't own a single copy of it. And I guess no one is (rightly? I think so...) willing to donate/sell it to them. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 08:40 |
No-one willing to donate, eh? Hmm... Peace, Adam. |
| abobrikov 21.10.2004 08:49 |
Johnn S Stuart wrote:" ... Simply, acetates are "works of reference" recorded on disc, of a night's session in the studio... ". So does it mean that it's sort of live jam session, that they put on the tape to keep the ideas (sort of pre-takes)? |
| Fenderek 21.10.2004 08:59 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: No-one willing to donate, eh? Hmm... Peace, Adam.Well, I'm sure no-one got them for free, so why should someone "donate" them for free...? Even though I would love to hear that- well... |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 09:05 |
Adam Baboolal: Pray tell, why won't it be on the boxset? Adam what do you want me to say? First, stop insulting your own intelligence - work it out. But, if you are asking another question beyond the obvious, how about an old chinese proverb? "Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me". And please - less of the "No-one willing to donate, eh? Hmm..." holier than thou Innuendos. Life sucks - Deal with it! |
| Mr. Scully 21.10.2004 09:23 |
Is Hangman a proper studio version or just some kind of "rehearsal" that was done in one take in five minutes? |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 09:31 |
abobrikov/Mr Scully: "...acetates are "works of reference" recorded on disc, of a night's session in the studio... ". So does it mean that it's sort of live jam session, that they put on the tape to keep the ideas (sort of pre-takes)? Yes. They can be. Nowadays, it would be so easy to download such stuff onto mini-disc or iPod, but back in 1971/72, one of the easiest methods was to make a quick disc of the evenings work onto a "reference acetate", a thin metal disc covered in a thin coating of shellac plastic. They look like "real" 7"/10"/12" singles (or even LP's) but slightly thicker. Infact they are very fragile - and can be played only a few times. Remember also, bands like the "Beatles" essentially played "live" in the studio. So their first album was recorded in 5 - 6 hours! Similarly; As far as I know, the "Queen" De Lane Lea - Louie Austin version of "The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio. "Hangman" is the same as "The Night Comes Down", similar to the live version, very simple, very basic, but complete. It is a demo without any overdubs. Like "Mad The Swine" it would make a good "B" side. |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 09:58 |
OK thank you for your answer JSS. I can understand that you get irritated by us asking these questions, but for us it is very important to know that hangman actually does exist. And I also hope that this topic isn't going to turn out in a JSS FAQ, but I hope this will become a topic where people can share their knowledge. But because of the fact that you have so much knowledge JSS, I'll doubt if other people on this board will have much to add. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 10:18 |
EddieVanHalen: "I can understand that you get irritated by us asking these questions" No, I am not irritated at all. I feel that now is the time for the truth to come out. I do not agree with the "mushroom" policy that comes from QP (keep the fans in the dark and feed them bull....). This is NOT the Freemasons, or matters of "National Security". I have NOT signed an official secrets act, and as Freddie said, "It's just a bloody record". So why all the strongarm tactics? Afterall, what is the seriousness of our sin - a few dedicated fans chatting on a website - and that upsets "them"? I am very happy to answer questions, but let me make it clear. I have NO chip on my shoulder, and I am not bitter in anyway. (Life is too short). But I am fed-up to the back teeth with all (my own) pussy-footing around to avoid upsetting blank, nameless, insensitive faces. "...I hope this will become a topic where people can share their knowledge". That WAS my intention. This was meant to be a genuine thread on "Queen 1". I wanted to share my knowledge with you guys, and I see that as a two way street. (I acknowledge Lester's contribution - and I hope that between us all - we can come up with some sort of definitive picture). However, it soon became clear that this would not be so - unless I was totally honest. So there you have it. If WE want to discuss "Queen 1" - then we have to clear the decks and put all our cards on the table. That way, every one benefits. |
| abobrikov 21.10.2004 10:19 |
John S Stuart wrote: .... but a copy has NOT been "found" by Greg or QP. These acetates were sold on the open market about 20 years ago. You mean it was simply sold on music market along with other bootlegs? I wonder if its possible to find the same "acetates " post- Miracles albums on "the open market" ? :) |
| Sebastian 21.10.2004 10:22 |
As far as I know, the "Queen" De Lane Lea - Louie Austin version of "The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio.If it's a "live" performance then why there's double tracked acoustic guitar, triple tracked electric guitar, and double tracked harmonies? Moreover how could Fred sing lead and backing in a live performance? |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 10:25 |
EddieVanHalen: "...the fact that you have so much knowledge JSS, I'll doubt if other people on this board will have much to add". Respectfully, I disagree. We are discussing the Eponymous Queen album. Others can add whatever trivia they like. They may not know about "Hangman", but they may be able to add stuff about the Photographic effects of the cover, or that their father's ex-girl friend was actually a tea-lady at De Lane Lea. This is NOT a "Hangman" thread, it is a "Queen 1" thread - and as such ALL relevent comments are fair contributions. So good stuff! keep them coming! That's how I learn! |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 10:35 |
Don't get me wrong John, I'd keep it too. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't keep a copy and trade it to someone else (not QP). But then, I'd be real sneaky and pass another copy onto QP like the sneaky fucker I'd be if I was in that position! heheheheheee *Smug mode off* Hint-hint. I suppose I don't have to worry about trades, so perhaps it's easier for me to say that. But you said yourself, you don't get out there as much. Do you think there'll come a day when you'll sell it all and do a sneaky? But then, you do hold a grudge with 'them.' Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 10:36 |
Seb: Hello. How are you? Glad you could join in. I seriously look forward to your contributions. "If it's a "live" performance then why there's double tracked acoustic guitar, triple tracked electric guitar, and double tracked harmonies? Moreover how could Fred sing lead and backing in a live performance?" Good question Seb, but it all has to do with the semantics of language. Let's have another look at my previous statement. "The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio". See the key word here Seb is "E S S E N T I A L L Y" that means essentially I guess. (You know what it means - your just testing me right?) It means that the song was "virtually" completed in one live take. No edits. No cut 'n paste. No chopping of tapes. It was revisited later. (I think they are called overdubs - that is when you "over dub" onto an existing track). So do we want to get pedantic or what? You see "Bo Rap" for example was NEVER "essentially/virually" recorded live. It was lots of little bits stitched into a bigger song. But "The Night Comes Down" was recorded whole. It was recorded "live" (but in a studio without a crowd - that is why there are no fans screaming "Freddieeeee"). Then sometime later - a few hours - a few days - a few weeks - who knows - who cares - our loveable "Queenies" returned to the live track and over-dubbed. But you already knew that - didn't you? Hope this helps, but I am sure that you will find a way to discredit, or pull me up on some other "use of language" - I am such a "blaggard". Seb: You can add some really useful info here. Instead of "nit-picking" why not write some serious stuff about this LP - or better still - if you have done so already - why not paste some the links to your page? |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 10:53 |
Adam Baboolal: "But then, you do hold a grudge with 'them." "NO, No, no, no, no, no, no, - mama mia!" No. I hold NO grudges with anyone. I am sick to my stomach of scurrying about in the dark. Why should I be part of the "dark side" master Vader? Even in this 'zone, there are those who would have me gagged - why? Wherein is my crime? No, "tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may". I have great admiration for the GUYS. (Freddie, Brian, Roger and John). But in my opinion, all the rest are "bottom feeders". (Am I allowed to use that phrase... checking PC dictionary... ah yes, fish at the bottom of the food chain... phew...) "like the sneaky fucker I'd be if I was in that position!" Do you think... you'll sell it all and do a sneaky?" No Adam - that says far more about you - than it does of me. |
| Martin Packer 21.10.2004 10:54 |
So, given the shortness of studio time Queen had to make this album were touches like the "some-one" in MFK moving from one side to the other really difficult to do? Likewise the echoes on the handclaps in the intro to Liar. I know that even then there were left and right knobs on each track and you could make a track move by fiddling with them. I'm more interested in what kind of gargantuan feat it was to make touches like these, given the obvious studio time constraints. And how long does it take out of each session to prepare a studio, and to take the results away again afterwards? (I know that context switching is hard for me, but for them all this stop/start must've been murder.) |
| Mr Mercury 21.10.2004 10:55 |
I havent actually much to add to this topic (infact I've nothing at all) except to say that this has been one of the best topics in along time. Its been an eye opener as regards stuff that I did know about and stuff that I didnt. I had my suspicions that a studio version of Hangman did exist - even if it is on acetate. A massive thank you to all who posted here and long may it continue. Dave P.s Does anyone know what artist was using that same studio when Queen had to use their downtime? |
| onevsion 21.10.2004 10:56 |
JSS. Thank you very much for the information! Queen productions made mistakes and promised fans things they did not do. A good example of that is this article posted on queenzone: link But in the end, queen productions is also the company we, the fans, depend on. They have the power, money and music and they decide what will be released and what will not. I have mixed feelings about that. Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon are multimillionaires. They have earned millions of pounds because we ,the fans, bought their products. Queen will release 100 bootlegs in about a month time (for download) That's a good step in the right direction i think! Another good step was the wembley dvd. Like it or not, it DID include a rare rehearsal and footage of the other wembley date. On fire at the bowl is another great release.. with bonus material and rare unseen stuff. BUT...all those releases are commercial products put out to make money. Queen productions is a company and wants to make money.. they have a commercial interest in what will be released and what will not. A release like Houston '77 or the complete European Hot Space tour on DVD (it has been proffesionally filmed) is great but probably will never happen.. queen productions can't sell the complete european hot space tour on a big scale and make enough money out of it. Luckily every once in a while a rarity gets stolen and released on bootleg. I'm not happy about the fact that there are thiefs (they are criminals and i reject their behaviour and Queen productions should be more carefull and safety with their and other people's (like JSS) rare recordings!!) but at least the MUSIC is available...mixed feelings again. To end my post: i'm not a demanding fan who wants everything because i'm happy with every rarity that is released... but sometimes it frustrates me knowing that their is so much more great Queen stuff in the vaults or in the collection of private collectors that will probably never see the day of light (in some cases) |
| Saint Jiub 21.10.2004 10:59 |
John - would you be willing to sell the Hangman acetate to QP for what you paid 20 years ago? Of course, QP probably would not be willing to pay, as they were not willing to pay for Ghost of a Smile or the Montreal 81 concert. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 11:00 |
What do you mean you don't hold grudges? You said yourself on the previous page, "how about an old chinese proverb? 'Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me'" In reference to your first and last dealing with QP. I thought it was a fair question to ask you. And yes, the sneaky bit does say a lot, doesn't it? Hee hee! Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 11:24 |
Martin Packer: Honestly, I do not know. The best person to answer that sort of question would be Seb. Over to you Seb... I'll give the guy his due, if anyone in Queenzone could answer this, he could. Mr Mercury: Does anyone know what artist was using tha same studio when Queen had to use their downtime? I recall seeing a "Freddie Mercury Tribute" MTV interview in which David Bowie claimed that Queen shared his downtime. (That is Bowie had booked the studio and was priority - Queen were allowed to record when Bowie was absent or went home). |
| Chaka 21.10.2004 11:40 |
re: See What A Fool I've Been this song definetly went through vocal/lyrical changes between the BBC and B-Side versions. I think most live versions are closer to the BBC take. I remember that this song started as Smile's loose interpretation of "That's How I Feel" by Sonny Terry & Brownie McGhee. Of course Doing All Right and Polar Bear were also Smile songs (and possibly Silver Salmon?), Stone Cold Crazy (Hangman?) were reportedly reworked Wreckage tunes, I don't know if any other tracks had there origins pre-Queen re: Mad The Swine, we can agree that the sound might be different but in essence "the song remains the same" re: Bowie yes, David Bowie was the artist/one of the artists whom Queen shared studio time with--I THINK I remember someone (Brian?) being interviewed about running into Bowie coming up the stairs while Queen were going down, I might've gotten that mixed up but yes, Bowie was recording at Trident at that time, and I believe (though again, I could be wrong) that was also how Queen met photographer Mick Rock, who had been working with Bowie and Lou Reed. re: other songs Larry Lurex tracks - I believe Freddie (vocals), Brian (guitar solo), and Roger (percussion) appear on I Can Hear Music, and only Freddie on Goin' Back; I was going to ask about how the "Anthem Remix" differed from the UK 7" release, is this another "Mad The Swine" type remix or an essentially different version? Rock N Roll Medley - would this be similar to the live version, a Jailhouse Rock jam/a few lines of Stupid Cupid/Be Bop A Lula/Jamming back into Jailhouse. I would be interested to know what other (if any) covers Queen played in their earliest sets (not a question directed towards you, John, or anyone else--it's more of a rhetorical wondering as I doubt even Brian would remember). Liar - some lyrics (and music?) are reported to originate with Freddie's "Lover", which was performed by Wreckage and Sour Milk Sea, then apparently re-arranged by the Queen members, which Brian said was when Freddie established the "rule" that the lyricist would receive the credit for writing a song in the cases when the four members worked together. GB mentioned in Record Collector magazine that Liar is "a completely different animal" without vocals, which may be a hint that an instrumental version exists in the archives? Son And Daughter was I believe one of the first songs they played as a four-piece with John Deacon/Deacon John This album was also, I believe, Mike Stone's engineerial debut, he would go on to minor Queen fame as the "hey boy where'd you get it from" voice on Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy, and the assistant producer of NOTW There was also, from the "eponymous" era, at least one live performance of "All The Young Dudes" by Mott the Hoople with Brian, Freddie, and Roger singing backing vocals in the chorus, although I don't know if you were saving the "Mott The Hoople" tour for the possible future Queen II thread, John. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 14:42 |
Bullwinkle: would you be willing to sell the Hangman acetate to QP for what you paid 20 years ago? No. I would not sell anything to Queen Productions. Period. Adam: "What do you mean you don't hold grudges? You said yourself... 'Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me" But that's not holding a grudge. The English translation may be "Once bitten, twice shy". I mean if I got a speeding ticket on a stretch of road, I wouldn't hold a grudge against the road - that would be silly... however, I would be a bit more careful the next time I travelled down it. It may be "cautious" but it is not holding a grudge. |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 14:54 |
What I was wondering is if Dog with a bone would also be a song that already was created during these sessions, and didn't get finished so it was later on rerecorded for the fanclubmembers? The reason I'm asking this is because it shows ressemblance with Hangman, and also soundwise it could be from the same era, because the song itself is very basic and raw, so a bit typical for their early period. By the way does anybody here know Greg Brooks his emailadres? Could you be so kind to pass it on to me so I could ask him some questions? Thanks |
| Penis - Vagina 21.10.2004 14:57 |
John, while I'm not doubting 100% what you wrote about the masters being sent to Hollywood.. one thing doesn't make sense.. "The Game" which got lost or stolen wouldn't have been multitrack would it? The multitracks as I understand it, are not even the same tapes.. they are separate tapes with one or two songs each. Quite different from what Justin Shirley Smith refers to as 'flat 2 channel masters' which are pre-mixed and are what's used for remasters.. so even if they sent the first generation of those by mistake, it doesn't affect the multitracks.. and I'm not sure you're correct about The Game DVD-A being made up of different bits as a blanket statement. We know that certain things such as the different vocals for 'Coming Soon' were used because the originals are lost.. but that's one song's multitrack tape.. not affecting the whole album, which I do believe they had the multitracks for in most cases. link I can't believe a mistake as big as sending multiple multitrack tapes for each album could have been made. |
| Mr Mercury 21.10.2004 15:04 |
EddieVanHalen wrote: By the way does anybody here know Greg Brooks his emailadres? Could you be so kind to pass it on to me so I could ask him some questions? ThanksTheres a section on Queen Online link that you can ask him questions. To ask for someone to print his email address on this site might open old wounds and its one of the few rules on this site that you'd be inadvertently breaking. |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 15:17 |
Mr Mercury wrote:Ow ok sorry I didn't know that I was breaking rules.EddieVanHalen wrote: By the way does anybody here know Greg Brooks his emailadres? Could you be so kind to pass it on to me so I could ask him some questions? ThanksTheres a section on Queen Online link that you can ask him questions. To ask for someone to print his email address on this site might open old wounds and its one of the few rules on this site that you'd be inadvertently breaking. Sorry for that, it was not my intention to upset someone or break any rules. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 16:22 |
DF: "John, while I'm not doubting 100% what you wrote about the masters being sent to Hollywood.. I can't believe a mistake as big as sending multiple multitrack tapes for each album could have been made". Well, actually, ironically you are doubting - or else you would not have raised it. but hey - you know what I- don't really know what was stolen. They were stolen in the US - and as it is a county I have never yet visited, I think I have a cast iron alibi - don't you? Now, forget your trivialisation, and pedantic sword-fighting. It was the "Master tapes". Whether that was a collection of bits - multiple multitrack tapes for each album - or one big reel - I have no idea. Besides, it was the whole Queen catalogue, not just "The Game". So just wait for the call for bits of "A Day At The Races" to be returned when the next DVDA is to be remastered. Remember, the idea was to digitally REMASTER and REMAKE the CD's as CDs. (The UK CDs were taken from the original safety master's which the LP's were made from. So in effect they were processed from an old print. The UK CD's were not digitally remastered either, but digitally transfered. A subtle difference beyond me - but there you have it). Following the story so far? So when Hollywood wanted to RE-MAKE, they wanted to RE-MAKE DIGITALLY from the base up. They had the best equipment in the world at that time - and I guess they would have wanted acces to source materials. So I guess that would mean the whole shooting match - don't you? I guess Brian would like to do the same - but on DVDA - but he can' because they are gone. But the thing is =Jeffrey= (Keepin'it real) it does not matter a fig what you think - or what you believe - the fact is that they are GONE - AWOL - Finito-binito! And if Brian ever discovers the b*gger or b*ggers who knicked his stuff - then I for one would like to buy a ringside seat. As for "I can't believe a mistake as big as sending multiple multitrack tapes for each album could have been made". There is one fatal flaw in your argument. You assume that the "bottom feeders" are as professional as the band - and as Brian has found out to his cost - that is a very fatal mistake to make. Any other points you would like to discuss - or do you still want to pick me up on some other pedantic point? |
| CMG 21.10.2004 16:31 |
Now this thing comes to my mind: Will somebody dare one day to show a list of the rare recordings they own? The Reaction tracks with Roger that were auctioned some years ago, more Freddie and Monserrat bits, 1984 and Smile recordings (I think there was another version of one of their studio songs almost released...maybe Earth?) Thanks |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 16:33 |
John what do you think about my point about Dog with a bone? |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 16:35 |
DF: Good link link Notice anything strange? "The last time these tapes were played was in preparation for the Japanese Queen Karaoke CD in 1996". OK - but that proves nothing! Nothing is said about tapes before that date. The point is it's language again. If the masters were stolen... then what remains must by definition be new "masters". But these new masters - are the old safety copies - because the original masters were nicked! So what I say does not contradict Justin, as Justin is using the material he is working from as masters! Why else do you think so much stuff is missing? phew!!! Now... Justin also wrote (on the next page) - my own emphisis on S T O L E N! When there are things in the mix that are not on the multi-track, we know that this multi-track is not the one used for the mix. This is what happened with Coming Soon. We believe our Coming Soon tape was copied at a late stage in the original production, and then the copy was used to record a few backing and lead vocal changes, then used for the mix, and was subsequently lost or STOLEN. The result is a mix containing 95% of the original parts plus a few previously unheard ones. You make sense of that what you will. But as I said, they were nicked! |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 16:44 |
Double post. (And why has this answer jumped to the top of the page?) |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 17:01 |
Cesar Madarro: "Will somebody dare one day to show a list of the rare recordings they own"? Although your post is relevant, this thread is discussing the Queen debut album. I think you would be better to take this into another thread. That is not because I am being rude, but it is bound to be lost or overlooked in here. At least in another thread it would have a life of it's own. EddieVanHalen: Sorry to disagree, but I think "Dog With A Bone" comes from a much later period, and I also believe it was especially written for the fans attending one of the mid 1980 Queen conventions. I may be mistaken about the last point, but, perhaps someone who was there could clarify that for us. (Certainly, that's where the bootleg copies come from). |
| Queenland 21.10.2004 17:26 |
John, which year you believe the Hangman demo was recorded ? 1971, 1972 or 1973 ? |
| Penetration_Guru 21.10.2004 17:44 |
I hope that the unique material on any (random) acetate is not "played out" but that a copy is taken (once) and kept on (for example) mini disc. |
| Plengel 21.10.2004 18:15 |
Thanks John, Chaka, Lester, Sebastian and everybody else who contributed wonderfull information to the board. When I ever see anyone of you in real life, remember me to buy you a beer! |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 18:16 |
There's a dvd project that I'm working on right now for my theatre group which involves bringing together their personal photos, singing on some tracks from this show and also lots of personal video footage donated to the project. Four of those videos were purchased for themselves and they have handed them to me for free! Now, the next part is hard to believe. I'm repackaging all this stuff together and then selling it back to them. Two points there, one, they're paying for something they already owned and 2, the good part is that it will be improved, e.g. sound remixed and video cleaned (where possible). Looking at that makes me sound like the bad guy, yes? But the part you don't see is my heart and soul being poured into it. The fact that I didn't have to do this and have taken my own personal time to make and distribute this product to the theatre. Does it sound familiar? Brian is always talking the same about his projects. The love of it and the excitement at improving and exceeding expectations with technology, etc. etc. But what's wrong with that? The only thing I can come up with is that it's not always what the fans want to see. Peace, Adam. |
| Plengel 21.10.2004 18:17 |
btw, could someone give me the link to the topic that made EddievanHalen ask for this kind of topics?? Thanx in advance. |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 18:27 |
Ehm Plengel it is in the Backchat topic :-) |
| LiveAidQueen 21.10.2004 18:31 |
*Loves EVH* |
| EddieVanHalen 21.10.2004 18:34 |
<font color=blue>5150 wrote: *Loves EVH*Who the fuck is EVH :P no just kidding, I love EVH too |
| Maz 21.10.2004 18:34 |
Does this mean we can get the real lyrics to Hangman? I can never make out what they are. |
| Plengel 21.10.2004 18:37 |
EddieVanHalen wrote: Ehm Plengel it is in the Backchat topic :-)Thank you :) an extra beer for you! |
| Penis - Vagina 21.10.2004 19:58 |
Well John, I tried to put my feelings aside and try engaging in civil conversation, but you've taken the offensive, accused me of doubting you completely when I made it a point to add "100%" to my statement to show that I was only questioning one aspect.. as you've said, that's how you learn. Your condescending tone certainly isn't helpful in trying to turn our previous negative exchanges into something positive either. One thing I'm CERTAIN of: the Hollywood CDs were not remixes which you're implying by saying they wanted to 'remake' them. They're from the original stereo masters just as the 2001 Japanese ones are. Yes, the added some remixed bonus tracks but the albums themselves are simply remastered. Another thing I'm certain of: Not all of the Hollywood discs were done by their own people. Batch One - Remastered by Kevin Metcalfe, Issued March 5, 1991: Sheer Heart Attack, A Day At The Races, News Of The World (Feb. 12), Hot Space Kevin Metcalfe is (or was) one of Queen's own mastering engineers, credited on albums such as 'Innuendo' and continuing at least through 'Rocks'. He's also made some dreadful mistakes which have been discussed elsewhere. And he is stated in liner notes to have worked at Townhouse in London. Those four discs all feature bonus track remixes as well.. however that fits into the picture. I just think you're over-simplifying the story by stating that everything was sent to Hollywood and that they 'remade' the albums. They didn't even remaster those four themselves, and possibly two others which weren't credited to Eddy Schreyer. As for the multitracks, which are required for remixing.. it would make sense that certain ones were made available for their remixes, but ALL of them? It simply doesn't make sense. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 20:01 |
=Jeffrey= "I tried to put my feelings aside and try engaging in civil conversation, but you've taken the offensive... Your condescending tone certainly isn't helpful in trying to turn our previous negative exchanges into something positive either". Thinking too hard about that one Jeff. I am being light-hearted - no need to take a hissy-fit. I concede that you have made valid points. But cut loose a little... I am spending time answering your questions - no need to french-kiss you at the same time. xxx "Kevin Metcalfe is (or was) one of Queen's own mastering engineers, credited on albums such as 'Innuendo' and continuing at least through 'Rocks'. Fine, but we are talking c1989. That means pre"Miracle" so post"Miracle" "Rocks", and "Innuendo" don't count. Remember, the stuff was handed over to Hollywood long before Hollywood product was officially released. So that could even be as early as 1988. "I just think you're over-simplifying the story by stating that everything was sent to Hollywood and that they 'remade' the albums. Yes, I have simplified - to a degree, (but kept the important points). Otherwise, the whole thing would become over-bearing. (Infact, I am now finding the discussion tedious. It is not my job to explain or justify the policies of QP - ask them!) "As for the multitracks, which are required for remixing.. it would make sense that certain ones were made available for their remixes, but ALL of them? It simply doesn't make sense". "Mine is not to reason why...". but I see your friend Greg likes to visit the board: "Wow! Cheers to Greg for coming through with the real story! Thanks for posting that, fairydandy" - ask him. But here's the deal... This happened in the US c1989. You cannot include post-1989 recordings in that equation. Now, perhaps NOT "everything" was "STOLEN" (not my words but Justin S Smith) and who knows what percentage remains or is missing still... but it did create (and still does) some massive headaches. And perhaps the next time Brian or QP ask for their tapes back - you can ask them why they went missing. But here is the thing I don't understand Jeff (I mean I am no detective - so you figure), Why would Brian tout for the return of his stuff "IF" it was NOT stolen in the first place?? Kind of an odd request in my mind. Lets act through this surreal conversation: "Excuse me misses but have you seen my lost pussy?" - (that's a cat fatty ;-)" "No son I have not. Why not advertise?." "What a good idea we will pin posters to all the lamposts. That should help us find our lost kitty". See the logic here? One only takes this action AFTER pussy disappears - and in a vain hope that it WILL be returned. Therefore, "If" I am incorrect - why all the publicity for the return of Queen masters? PS: I was civil. PPS: Even "if" I was exaggerating and it was just one or two albums, you must still concede, that to have your masters nicked like that is pretty incredulous. PPPS: I could give you a list of stolen tracks (not comprehensive - just the ones I know about or have been made public), which include many "Greatest Hits" like "Your My Best Friend" as I have already said. The master for that has evaporated into thin air... PPPPS: Absolutely no pussys or fattys were harmed in this thread. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 20:35 |
In your opinion - Stolen stuff is in the hands of collectors hands, yes? Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 21:03 |
Adam Baboolal: In your opinion - Stolen stuff is in the hands of collectors hands, yes? What am I - Interpol? I have no idea where they are - but I can guess. (Now work with me here). These are studio masters - not cassette tapes. (Therefore they would be useless to the likes of you or I). One would need specialist euipment to make use of them. (Have you seen the price of a small recording studio?). One would need (chomping on "Columbo" cigar here) motive (finacial I would guess - even holding QP to ransom?) means (the ability to pull it off - therefore who could pull a job like this) and opportunity (be in the right plce at the right time). Now this is a guess here - I don't think it was a fan. It has to be an inside job (EMI, Hollywood or BA - if it was a BA flight). They had to be stolen to order (I don't think it was a casual theft) so this must be someone (or gang) who knew exactly what they were doing. My guess is that they flooded either Asia or USSR with millions of fake pirates, and that to me would take a lot of muscle. Was it gangland, was it mafia, was it Harvey Lee Oswald? Who knows... (Sorry sir... yes I will retract my statement... NO - I certainly would not like to awaken to a decapitated horse head... JFK... Yes, yes, I get the picture). Ahem. I can now exclusively reveal that they were stolen by JFK as a present for Lisa Marie's and Michael's wedding present, and any relationship between "Off The Wall" and "The Game" is purely coincidental. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 21:10 |
John S Stuart wrote: Adam Baboolal: In your opinion - Stolen stuff is in the hands of collectors hands, yes? What am I - Interpol? I have no idea where they are - but I can guess. (Now work with me here). These are studio masters - not cassette tapes. (Therefore they would be useless to the likes of you or I). One would need specialist euipment to make use of them. (Have you seen the price of a small recording studio?). One would need (chomping on "Columbo" cigar here) motive (finacial I would guess - even holding QP to ransom?) means (the ability to pull it off - therefore who could pull a job like this) and opportunity (be in the right plce at the right time). Now this is a guess here - I don't think it was a fan. It has to be an inside job (EMI, Hollywood or BA - if it was a BA flight). They had to be stolen to order (I don't think it was a casual theft) so this must be someone (or gang) who knew exactly what they were doing. My guess is that they flooded either Asia or USSR with millions of fake pirates, and that to me would take a lot of muscle. Was it gangland, was it mafia, was it Harvey Lee Oswald? Who knows... (Sorry sir... yes I will retract my statement... NO - I certainly would not like to awaken to a decapitated horse head... JFK... Yes, yes, I get the picture). Ahem. I can now exclusively reveal that they were stolen by JFK as a present for Lisa Marie's and Michael's wedding present, and any relationship between "Off The Wall" and "The Game" is purely coincidental.What's with the dumbass response? I only asked a simple question. Your true opinion, no less. Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 21:20 |
Adam: "What's with the dumbass response? I only asked a simple question. Your true opinion, no less" I answered you didn't I? You want jam with it? It was NOT a dumbass response... That was my personal opinion. That is what I truely think happened. What is so dumbass about that? (I could reply by saying it was a dumbass question to begin with...) Ofcourse, if your NOT happy with my answers perhaps I should just ignore your posts in future. I think (once again) you are reading more into a bit of fun - than you need you. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 21:27 |
What is up with you? I was referring to the rubbish in between answering the question in a clear way. And since you were saying the masters were stolen, then, like anyone else on here would think, I asked the obvious follow-up question. I think if GB gets to you, don't take it out on others. Peace, Adam. |
| Lester Burnham 21.10.2004 21:30 |
Christ almighty, Adam, it's like watching a fucking couple going at it here. John answered your question, but he's just trying to have a bit of fun. You just won't let it go, will you? |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 21:53 |
Adam, you don't seem to uderstand. This Q&A (for the majority) is boring. It is a turgid, tedious read. Most of the zone have fallen asleep reading it. It was meant to be a thread on "Queen's debut LP", NOT some "Great plane robbery". It is detracting from the validity of the thread, and it is now asking me things that I have absolutely NO idea about. I do NOT want to talk about things like this because hell, even I find it boring. What do you think happened to the tapes? Am I interested - do I care? So forgive me interjecting some humour to make this more palitable, but use your head, try working things out for yourself - and you know, while I am here - you are always complaining about something. How about "thanks" (even if it's jusyt for my time) for a change? |
| Adam Baboolal 21.10.2004 22:29 |
You're always doing this John. Turning things around and making out like other people are getting on your back about things. Now you criticise folk for the boring questions! But I never said your answer was bad. I was only objecting to the "humour" part. If you want to continue answering people's boring questions, just keep things simple enough, i.e. don't add unnecesary and/or confusing information. I get the feeling that you're going to take offence to this as well. Peace, Adam. |
| Lester Burnham 21.10.2004 22:33 |
How dare you inject a bit of personality into your posts, John! All we want is information! Nobody asked you to be a standup comedian! Just deliver the facts, John!! |
| John S Stuart 21.10.2004 23:43 |
For Adam - Take II Adam Baboolal: "In your opinion - Stolen stuff is in the hands of collectors..?" Very unlikely Adam. Personally, I have no idea where the "Stolen stuff is" - but I could guess for you - if you like. These are big and heavy studio masters (perhaps Seb could help us out here) not portable cassette tapes or mini-discs. They would be useless to the likes of you or I because one would need very expensive specialist equipment to play or copy them. In my opinion, to steal artifacts of such magnitude (both in terms of importance and financial value), one would need - Motive: That is a reason to commit the crime in the first place, and what better reason could there be than finacial gain? (Even if this was only holding QP to ransom) Means: That is the euipment and the ability to pull off a job like this. I would imagine (due to size and weight) that this would need at least two personages (one to pass and the other to receive) and I would also imagine a Transit type van or alternative storage and transport. I also think that maybe some fake I.D. and uniforms would need to be employed - so that the thieves would not look out of place. Therefore, I do not believe this would be the result of a casual or random theft, because both of these scenarios would be heavilly dependant on a stroke of very good fortune. Opportunity: That is being in the right place at the right time, and knowing how to escape from the crime scene without being caught. (This may also point to a degree of planning or preperation on the part of the criminals). Therefore, I don't think it was a few obsessive Queen fans, because this "evidence" suggests an "inside job" (an employee of EMI, Hollywood or BA - if it was a BA flight). I also think they were stolen to order (because I don't think it was a casual theft) so this must be the work of someone (or some gang) who knew exactly what they were doing. After sifting through all the above evidence, my educated guess would be that a mafioso/gangland type group of criminals flooded either Asia or USSR with millions of fake pirates, so that they could maximise the profits from their ill-gotten gains. For me, this would take a lot of "muscle", and therefore would NOT be in the hands of collectors. Now that I have answered this question for you Adam, would you mind if I redirected the thread back to the original philosophy behind it - that is the discussing and exchange of information regarding the eponymous or debut "Queen" album? |
| Sebastian 22.10.2004 04:22 |
Since you've asked me to contribute, here's all I can say: Stolen stuff - No idea, and couldn't care less. But, just a thought: maybe the one who stole it then spilled coca cola over it or something. So the stolen stuff could be rather consdiered "lost" than "in hands of some collector". That's all about that. Liar - Fred took one line from Lover and put it there. But it doesn't mean they're the same song. For example Good Old Fashioned has the "there he goes again" line as well as Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon, both placed near the end and in the harmonies, but it doesn't mean Lazing is the demo or the working title of Good Old Fashioned. Lover & Liar are different songs. I've never heard Lover so I can't tell differences about chords or stuff, but as far as I know, Lover was similar to Communication Breakdown. Oh yeah, and according to Brian Liar has one of the main riffs of Lover, which again doesn't mean they're the same song. The remaining 95% of both pieces are different. Stone Cold Crazy - Some visitors of my web argued the opposite in this case: that the early SCC was a different song to the one in the album. Again, I can only talk from the "journalistic" material, since I never heard the early SCC. Fred told in the Circus tapes in 1977 that Stone Cold Crazy was the first song the band performed on stage. I think if it was a different song, he would have said so. If he said "Stone Cold Crazy" I think he meant THE 'Stone Cold Crazy' people knew about (i.e. the one in Sheer Heart Attack). In a similar way the slow version of Hammer To Fall (performed by Brian in AW tour) is a different tempo, but the same song. Or those reggae versions of Beatles songs you find somewhere... they're still the same songs. Live Takes - Apparently a lot of the 70s material was done that way. Brian implies Bo Rhap was done that way too, in the documentary (the one in the DVD), while Roy said it was done in bits (hence each backing track would still be a live take, but not of the entire 5:55); according to what John (Deacon) said in 1976, almost all the first album was done very quickly, they just played their live set and then added some vocals and guitars. He mentioned My Fairy King as the exception since it was written in the studio. By "quickly" I mean he meant that there were so little hours they could actually work in the studio, because as we know it wasn't "quick" measuring it by months or years. According to Brian, some of the material of the second album had already been written at the time they recorded the first. It does make sense considering Ogre Battle was (I think) already part of the set-list. White Queen was written while Brian was in college. I think that's all I can say about it. For now at least. |
| juls 22.10.2004 05:43 |
just a word about "recording live in the studio" most of the songs are recorded live in the studio, except the ones which are looped on the backing track. The usual backing track is drums, bass, guitar (on Freddies songs often piano instead), followed by separat vocal takes and overdubs. Depending on how many tracks they can use, some tracks are punched (mixed together) to two separate tracks (left and right), therefor it is quite hard to "remaster" such kinds of recordings to DVD-A for example. because you cannot unwrap these punched tracks. but thats another topic. Mack was a friend of live recordings in the studio, together with all the mistakes - he edited the mistaken tracks afterwards. he says, this way it sounds fresher, and often the first take is the best. |
| EddieVanHalen 22.10.2004 06:43 |
Ok Sebastian what do you think about my comment that DOg with a bone was already created during these sessions? Because it sounds very raw. It sounds pretty much like the songs from that era. It could be that Dog with a bone was already created back then, but that the band wasn't satisfied with it and put it away, and later on used it for the fanclub convention in 87 or so. |
| Tim Goossen 22.10.2004 07:16 |
John S Stuart wrote: Queen: Unreleased Live City Hall, Newcastle, 22nd November 1973 A Cry Of A Screaming Pain That’s Born From Sorrow Bootleg LP Procession, Father To Son, Son & Daughter, Ogre Battle, Hangman, Keep Yourself Alive, Liar, Jailhouse Rock.Genuine? I thought it was a fake. But this is only based on the fact that I 'read it somewhere', or 'heard it somewhere'. I've just been searching the internet, but failed to find more info. Yes, I have to admit, that on my old website, I have also linked this bootleg with Newcastle 1973. Unfortunately I don't have that bootleg, to listen to it and compare it with the others. Cheers, Tim |
| Mr. Scully 22.10.2004 07:40 |
Newcastle 73 is fake, of course (or at least my copy for sure :-) John - you're a great expert on studio recordings but you shouldn't talk too much about live recordings :-) |
| John S Stuart 22.10.2004 09:01 |
To one and all: Thank you for your contributions. I think that this is good for the whole of "Queenzone" and not just our little corner. Mr Scully: I will edit this accordingly. Like many here, I have a lot of live concerts on various formats (to be honest, which I never listen to) and I have taken this information directly from the LP sleeve. I do know that you have actually trawlled through hours and hours of live tapes, and have actually been able to identify very accurately, the gig these sets are taken from. I will post a link to your site below. Also: (Not only this concert but others) - Is it possible to have various recordings of the same concert but in different quality? (I don't meant the differences between LP and MP3 copies - more like different sources?). Visit Mr Scully's "Concertography": / Edit: Martin, I have removed the "Cry Of Screaming Pain" reference from the page. I could not give you credit there - so I have done so - here. PS: Even this small piece of information has made a huge difference and improved the original piece, and that is exactly what I hoped for from this thread. As I said before, please feel free to contribute as no piece of trivia is too small. |
| Tim Goossen 22.10.2004 09:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: Also: (Not only this concert but others) - Is it possible to have various recordings of the same concert but in different quality? (I don't meant the differences between LP and MP3 copies - more like different sources?).Of course this is possible. For example there are more (audience) sources from the Knebworth show available (two?). Also the show from Apr. 30, 1978 Zurich has different sources. But most of the shows come from the same source though. Cheers, Tim ps. wasn't the gig on "born from sorrow" actually Bristol 1973? |
| Sebastian 22.10.2004 09:30 |
I confess I have only listened to Dog with A Bone once, and even then I wasn't paying much attention, so no idea :) |
| EddieVanHalen 22.10.2004 09:37 |
Sebastian wrote: I confess I have only listened to Dog with A Bone once, and even then I wasn't paying much attention, so no idea :)Do you have an idea about this mr scully or JSS or someone else? |
| EddieVanHalen 22.10.2004 09:45 |
Sebastian wrote: I confess I have only listened to Dog with A Bone once, and even then I wasn't paying much attention, so no idea :)Ok thanks, Maybe mr scully or JSS know some more about this? |
| EddieVanHalen 22.10.2004 09:46 |
Thanks Sebastian, maybe mr scully or JSS know some more about this? |
| EddieVanHalen 22.10.2004 09:48 |
Sebastian wrote: I confess I have only listened to Dog with A Bone once, and even then I wasn't paying much attention, so no idea :)Thanks, Maybe someone else knows anything about this? Maybe mr Scully or JSS. |
| Fenderek 22.10.2004 10:20 |
Why didn't you post here...? /queenzone/401110.html |
| Adam Baboolal 22.10.2004 10:32 |
Okay EVH, I'll answer your query.
EddieVanHalen wrote: What I was wondering is if Dog with a bone would also be a song that already was created during these sessions, and didn't get finished so it was later on rerecorded for the fanclubmembers? The reason I'm asking this is because it shows ressemblance with Hangman, and also soundwise it could be from the same era, because the song itself is very basic and raw, so a bit typical for their early period.Dog with a bone is just done in that style and therefore doesn't have to hark back to the old days as an original recorded song. Its resemblance could simply be coincidence. As for the sound, it really has no bearing on the idea. You have to remember that just because something sounds familiar or similar to an idea from a certain time, doesn't mean that it belongs to that era. Unless it's really painfully obvious of course! Sorry. Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 22.10.2004 12:22 |
EddieVanHalen: Sorry to disagree, but I think "Dog With A Bone" comes from a much later period, and I also believe it was especially written for the fans attending one of the mid 1980 Queen conventions. I may be mistaken about the last point, but, perhaps someone who was there could clarify that for us. (Certainly, that's where the bootleg copies come from). Another common problem Eddie is that it all depends upon the source material you are listening to. The closer to the master - the better the quality - and a myriad of things can corrupt inbetween. I also have to agree with Adam, that it could be a retro rather than a genuine sound. For example, the Tom Hanks movie "That Thing You Do" was based around a 1960's pastiche written in the late 1990's. Finally: Have you ever thought that this track was re-cycled? That is you may be partially correct in that some genuine bits of "Hangman" were later reused to create a new track - A sort of "Hangman" revisited? (Again, perhaps Seb would be the one to ask here). I know that during another mid-1980's convention, the members of Queen delivered a personal messages to their fans over the "Invisible Man" instrumental track. Not exactly a remix, but good solid evidence to support a re-cycling theory. Of course, if that re-cycling theory was demonstrated to be correct, it would mean that Queen "then" had the "Hangman" masters at their disposal (or else how could they recycle?), but, that was before the "great plane robbery" (do you think that's what inspired the unreleased track?) so God only knows if it exists still. Sorry Eddie, I would love to give you a better or more definitive answer, but this is the best I can do. PS: I have already answered this post. It is on page 5 of this thread. PPS: Why the obsession with "Dog With A Bone" and "Hangman"? |
| EddieVanHalen 22.10.2004 13:14 |
John S Stuart wrote: PS: I have already answered this post. It is on page 5 of this thread. PPS: Why the obsession with "Dog With A Bone" and "Hangman"?The osbsession for Hangman is created by QP themselves, because they have always denied that it existed, and now there is the proof that it actually exists, that's what is fascinating about it for a lot of us. And the obsession for Dog with a bone comes from the fact that I like the lyrics, and also what I don't get is why it is a song for the fans, because the lyrics don't have anything to do with a fanclubconvention, while the lyrics from the other The invisible man fanclubmessage contain bits which are indeed for the fans. |
| Maz 22.10.2004 13:17 |
So, that's a no to the lyrics question? |
| John S Stuart 22.10.2004 13:41 |
Zeni: Sometime - it's something that I need to get around to, but it could be a long wait. I'll do my best. |
| Maz 22.10.2004 18:27 |
That would be fine. As it is now, I just sing Hangman over and over again. |
| Penetration_Guru 22.10.2004 18:55 |
I know all about you They call you Mr T You come from nowhere You use.......... ........very very very skillfully Hangamn says "nice and easy" Chorus Hangman, hangman, waiting for me Hang that rope from the highest tree I don't want to beg for mercy Hangman, hangman, hangman, hangman. Verse You did a very good job On a river of ivory (?) But you go down, you go down You go down in history If you say you're tired of living Hangman says you're afraid of dying Chorus Solo Hangman, wow, why d'you keep calling Why d'you keep calling Why do you keep calling me You go down, you go down You go down in history Wll c'est la vie Now you say you're tired of living Hangman say you're afraid to die Hangman says you're afraid of dying Hangman says he won't let you go Now you're saying you're frightened of living Say won't let you go Hangman, hangman, yeah You've only come to watch me die ....singing in the morning ...don't let me go ....cry in the morning 1, 2, 3, 4 You can come along, you can come along Most audible versionn available (I think) is Liverpool 73, unless somebody else knows better? Very sketchy on the first verse, but it's a start. Feel free to add/correct... |
| EddieVanHalen 23.10.2004 18:07 |
Ehm JSS maybe you could start a thread on Queen 2 , because this thread seems to be dead, and it might be handy if you start every threadname in this series with "The Ultimate <albumname> Facts" or something like that, so that one can find it much easier later on if you use the search function. |
| Queenland 23.10.2004 19:22 |
> I have taken this information directly from the LP sleeve. You can a guide about recognizing Queen fake live recordings at link Which year(s) the acetates of Hangman and Jailhouse Rock were recorded ? 1971/2/3 ? JR is a studio demo too ? |
| Adam Baboolal 23.10.2004 23:16 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: There's a dvd project that I'm working on right now for my theatre group which involves bringing together their personal photos, singing on some tracks from this show and also lots of personal video footage donated to the project. Four of those videos were purchased for themselves and they have handed them to me for free! Now, the next part is hard to believe. I'm repackaging all this stuff together and then selling it back to them. Two points there, one, they're paying for something they already owned and 2, the good part is that it will be improved, e.g. sound remixed and video cleaned (where possible). Looking at that makes me sound like the bad guy, yes? But the part you don't see is my heart and soul being poured into it. The fact that I didn't have to do this and have taken my own personal time to make and distribute this product to the theatre. Does it sound familiar? Brian is always talking the same about his projects. The love of it and the excitement at improving and exceeding expectations with technology, etc. etc. But what's wrong with that? The only thing I can come up with is that it's not always what the fans want to see. Peace, Adam.I never did get an answer to this because Greg popped in on another thread for a second time and everyone ignored posts in this thread. I think this is an important point that I've made above. Because the basic idea is something we have all heard from QP. And it seems that it's something that is not liked. Peace, Adam. |
| EddieVanHalen 24.10.2004 06:12 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:But Adam you can't compare Brian's point of view with the fans their point of view, because to Brian those demo's and unreleased songs aren't exciting at all ços he has already heard them all, in fact he helped making them.Adam Baboolal wrote: There's a dvd project that I'm working on right now for my theatre group which involves bringing together their personal photos, singing on some tracks from this show and also lots of personal video footage donated to the project. Four of those videos were purchased for themselves and they have handed them to me for free! Now, the next part is hard to believe. I'm repackaging all this stuff together and then selling it back to them. Two points there, one, they're paying for something they already owned and 2, the good part is that it will be improved, e.g. sound remixed and video cleaned (where possible). Looking at that makes me sound like the bad guy, yes? But the part you don't see is my heart and soul being poured into it. The fact that I didn't have to do this and have taken my own personal time to make and distribute this product to the theatre. Does it sound familiar? Brian is always talking the same about his projects. The love of it and the excitement at improving and exceeding expectations with technology, etc. etc. But what's wrong with that? The only thing I can come up with is that it's not always what the fans want to see. Peace, Adam.I never did get an answer to this because Greg popped in on another thread for a second time and everyone ignored posts in this thread. I think this is an important point that I've made above. Because the basic idea is something we have all heard from QP. And it seems that it's something that is not liked. Peace, Adam. I think that Brian is so into remixing all of the queen catalogue into 5.1 surround because he really loves the music that Queen created and beause he is really proud. And what you're doing for your theatre group is very nice work too, but not comparable to the job QP or Brian has to do. |
| John S Stuart 24.10.2004 09:34 |
ThomasQuinn: John S Stuart wrote: "I have already posted all I know about "Queen". Forgive me for asking, but could you give me a link to that?" Here we are Thomas! |
| Snefru 24.10.2004 09:43 |
The 'Golders Green Hippodrome' sept. 1973 IS released on a bootleg CD (silver pressed) called "Queen Will Be Crowened". Procession Father To Son Son And Daughter See What A Fool I've Been Ogre Battle Liar Jailhouse Rock~ Stupid Cupid~ Be Bop A Lula~ Jailhouse Rock (reprise) Big Spender~ Bama Mama Bama Lou Excellent stereo Japanese Queen Archive Label 005 |
| Snefru 24.10.2004 09:51 |
Oh I forgot my web page witt much info on silver pressed bootlegs and others (proffesionale CDR Queen /solo bootlegs): Also all Hot Space & Miracle demos listed. link Vinyl info is made, but not publised yet, do to limited space for me on the server. I will soon made another web adress with more space. Also 'Hijack My Heart' & 'Delilah' demos in excellentquality is out on a 2CD (Japanese Arcive Label 004) called "Ultimate Miracle" 'Dog With A Bone' is also included with many other "The Miracle" demos and 12inch etc. |
| POTUeditor 24.10.2004 10:59 |
Re : 'Dog With A bone' - Believe this was actually called 'Goodtimes' by the band. The version played at the convention in the 80's (haven't checked but my money would be on 88) had band messages in the middle of it referring to hoping everyone was having a goodtime - who knows if it was a recycled song or not. |
| Adam Baboolal 24.10.2004 12:10 |
EddieVanHalen wrote: And what you're doing for your theatre group is very nice work too, but not comparable to the job QP or Brian has to do.I can't say I'm doing anywhere near as good a job as QP. But that's not the point. It's what the work I'm doing represents. It's the same basic idea shown by QP, except on a smaller more humble scale. I am just one guy doing many jobs. It is simply the idea that has been criticised by fans. I was just wondering if I'd be seen the same way. I'd find that very interesting to find that out. Peace, Adam. |
| Lester Burnham 24.10.2004 12:24 |
I think the difference between your projects and QP's is that you're doing it for a select group of people, whereas QP's base is more broad - therefore, they have to satisfy everyone. However, they're not setting out to please the fans who have been with them since the very beginning - they're designing their products for the market, which may commercially be very good, but that angers the die-hards who want it all. Any regular Joe off the street can buy a Greatest Hits album and be satisfied, but I'd be extremely surprised if a first-time fan bought an anthology project as his first release from any group. So while your project may be on level with QP's projects, yours is more isolated - and, therefore, the people who buy it will be delighted at the result, but if you were to start selling it to the general public, it'd be a far different story. |
| EddieVanHalen 24.10.2004 12:26 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:Yes but the things Brian has to work on are Queen records, records in which he himself played a large part creating them , so in that way it is not quite comparable.EddieVanHalen wrote: And what you're doing for your theatre group is very nice work too, but not comparable to the job QP or Brian has to do.I can't say I'm doing anywhere near as good a job as QP. But that's not the point. It's what the work I'm doing represents. It's the same basic idea shown by QP, except on a smaller more humble scale. I am just one guy doing many jobs. It is simply the idea that has been criticised by fans. I was just wondering if I'd be seen the same way. I'd find that very interesting to find that out. Peace, Adam. And you're not playing in the actual theatre group I presume? Anyway It is not my intention to hurt your feelings. regards |
| Adam Baboolal 24.10.2004 13:33 |
EVH, look at Lester's answer. And yes, I am part of the group that features on the dvd. Peace, Adam. |
| The Real Wizard 24.10.2004 17:16 |
Snefru wrote: The 'Golders Green Hippodrome' sept. 1973 IS released on a bootleg CD (silver pressed) called "Queen Will Be Crowened". Procession Father To Son Son And Daughter See What A Fool I've Been Ogre Battle Liar Jailhouse Rock~ Stupid Cupid~ Be Bop A Lula~ Jailhouse Rock (reprise) Big Spender~ Bama Mama Bama Lou Excellent stereo Japanese Queen Archive Label 005Is this all from the exact same radio source? When was this bootleg released? |
| John S Stuart 24.10.2004 22:26 |
I forgot to add that the inspiration behind "My Fairy King", comes from Robert Browning's epic poem "The Pied Piper". Here are the lyrics to "My Fairy King". In the land where horses born with eagle wings And honey bees have lost their stings There's singing forever Lions den with fallow deer And rivers made from wines so clear Flow on and on forever Dragons fly like sparrows thru' the air And baby lambs where Samson dares To go on on on on on on My fairy king can see things He rules the air and turns the tides That are not there for you and me Oooh yeah he guides the winds My fairy king can do right and nothing wrong Then came man to savage in the night To run like thieves and to kill like knives To take away the power from the magic hand To bring about the ruin of the promised land They turn the milk into sour Like the blue in the blood of my veins Why can't you see it Fire burning in hell with the cry of screaming rain Son of heaven set me free and let me go Sea turn dry no salt from sand Seasons fly no helping hand Teeth don't shine like pearls for poor man's eyes Someone someone just drained the colour from my wings Broken my fairy circle ring And shamed the king in all his pride Changed the wings and wronged the tides Mother mercury mercury Look what they've done to me I cannot run I cannot hide Here is a link to the Robert Browning page - where you can see the whole "book" link Heer is a link to the "Fairy King" specific section of the poem. link 230 And when all were in to the very last, 231 The door in the mountain-side shut fast. 232 Did I say, all? No! One was lame, 233 And could not dance the whole of the way; 234 And in after years, if you would blame 235 His sadness, he was used to say, -- 236 ''It's dull in our town since my playmates left! 237 ''I can't forget that I'm bereft 238 ''Of all the pleasant sights they see, 239 ''Which the Piper also promised me. 240 ''For he led us, he said, to a joyous land, 241 ''Joining the town and just at hand, 242 ''Where waters gushed and fruit-trees grew, 243 ''And flowers put forth a fairer hue, 244 ''And everything was strange and new; 245 ''The sparrows were brighter than peacocks here, 246 ''And their dogs outran our fallow deer, 247 ''And honey-bees had lost their stings, 248 ''And horses were born with eagles' wings; 249 ''And just as I became assured 250 ''My lame foot would be speedily cured, 251 ''The music stopped and I stood still, 252 ''And found myself outside the hill, 253 ''Left alone against my will, 254 ''To go now limping as before, 255 ''And never hear of that country more!'' |
| LiveAidQueen 24.10.2004 22:27 |
EddieVanHalen wrote:Have you seen them on this tour? They still rock...<font color=blue>5150 wrote: *Loves EVH*Who the fuck is EVH :P no just kidding, I love EVH too |
| EddieVanHalen 25.10.2004 05:38 |
<font color=blue>5150 wrote:Nope I haven't seen them on this tour, but I've heard some boots from this tour and they still rock for sure, especially Eddie.EddieVanHalen wrote:Have you seen them on this tour? They still rock...<font color=blue>5150 wrote: *Loves EVH*Who the fuck is EVH :P no just kidding, I love EVH too Eddie is a living guitar legend, he introduced the whole fingertapping thing, and all the others who came after him like Vai and Satch are just rip offs. |
| Serry... 26.10.2004 15:46 |
John, I am not sure, but is there no any connections between 'The Night Come Down' line 'Lucy was high' and the Beatles' song 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds'? I always thought it was. |
| John S Stuart 28.10.2004 12:05 |
The Hero: "The demo of Polar Bear (Smile cover) with Freddie on vocals. Was this recorded during the same sessions as Mad the Swine?" The exact answer is that I do not know. I can tell you the period they come from, and that they do share a collective history - but we have already discussed that here. As to the actual dates and recording sequences - I don't know. Sorry. |
| The Real Wizard 28.10.2004 16:51 |
According to my knowledge, Polar Bear is from much earlier than Mad The Swine. MtS is 71/72, while PB is from 70. It has Barry Mitchell on bass. |
| John S Stuart 28.10.2004 19:41 |
Sir GH: Polar Bear is from much earlier than Mad The Swine. MtS is 71/72, while PB is from 70. It has Barry Mitchell on bass. Actually, that is NOT the case. Barry Mitchell NEVER made any Queen studio recordings. As far as Queen studio work is concerned it was ALWAYS - Mercury, May, Deacon, Taylor. Below is the chronology which we do know... Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, Sept/October 1971 – February 1972. The Eponymous Queen album was recorded June – Nov 1972. Released 13th July 1973. Queen: BBC Radio Session, 5th February 1973 – Queen At The Beeb The Eponymous Queen album - released 13th July 1973. Queen: Unreleased BBC Radio Session, 25th July 1973 – Freddie’s Boys At The Beeb Queen: BBC Radio Session, 3rd December 1973 – Queen At The Beeb Notice that the first BBC Radio Session, 5th February 1973 – Queen At The Beeb was broadcast a full five months before the debut album was released. Only five tracks were cut at De Lane Lea, Therefore we know that BOTH "Polar Bear" and "Mad The Swine" were recorded at Trident between June – Nov 1972. I thought The Hero's question: "The demo of Polar Bear... Was this recorded during the same sessions as Mad the Swine?" demanded a more precise answer. Generally - Yes it was, both were recorded between June – Nov 1972. Specifically - (ie a more precise date of session and order - I do not know). |
| The Real Wizard 29.10.2004 00:18 |
John S Stuart wrote: Only five tracks were cut at De Lane Lea, Therefore we know that BOTH "Polar Bear" and "Mad The Swine" were recorded at Trident between June – Nov 1972.How do you know there were no recording sessions of any kind before De Lane Lea? |
| John S Stuart 29.10.2004 03:16 |
Sir GH: How do you know there were no recording sessions of any kind before De Lane Lea? Have you read "As It Began", or any other biography? How about "Queen Before Queen"? Have you listened to Brian on Radio (or other interviews) state that the very first things we did were at De Lane Lea? There is even a link to a web site which host's Brian's FIRST Queen acetate which was the De Lane Lea Sessions (as taken from "Record Collector"). Finally, Barry Mitchell himself conceeds, that he NEVER recorded in a studio with Queen, that the studio sessions came later. There are NO pre-Deacon Queen studio recordings. I am not arguing that some songs are earlier than others, but they are not years apart studio-wise. Hope this helps. |
| John S Stuart 29.10.2004 11:37 |
ThomasQuinn: NO Thomas. That is what I am trying to do - puncture the mythology bubble. There are NO pre-John Deacon Queen studio tapes or acetates. So every take of "... Salmon" features John. "IF" "...the studio chat before the start also hints at it being one of the first sessions with that bassist", then who can say that is NOT one of their first recordings as "Queen?". I can certainly assure you that No studio recordings exist without John Deacon. Why not ask Brian, or GB, they are both internet available. |
| The Real Wizard 29.10.2004 12:09 |
John, I know it's been said by many sources that De Lane Lea was the first demo, but I was just entertaining the possibility that they could have still pressed "record" at some point in that first year for three minutes. |
| John S Stuart 29.10.2004 12:35 |
Sir GH: John, "I was just entertaining the possibility that they could have still pressed "record" at some point..." No worries - I know that, and like you, I wish that they did too. Unfortunately that is not the case - but I wish it was! |
| HDvorak 20.11.2004 20:57 |
John S Stuart wrote: "Stand Up And Fight" by "Quartz" You can read about this CD here: link The "Quartz" 1977 debut album "Stand Up And Fight" featured sessions including Brian May as guest guitarist on a track called "Circles" (which also featured Ozzy Osbourne on backing vocals). The track was not included on the eventual album release - but WAS later released as the B-side to the "Quartz" single - "Stoking The Fires Of Hell". Earlier this year (2004) Majestic Rock (US) re-issued the debut "Quartz" CD called "Stand Up And Fight" - including "Circles" as an extra track. So clearly this track has nothing to do with "Queen" until circa "News Of The World" period. The only reason I mentioned it above was becuase I could not recall from memory whether it was an early or late 1970's session track. I can now see that it does not slot into the "Queen" debut time-frame, and I apologise for any hopes raised - or for any ensuing confusion. As a postscript "Circles" is still commercially available - for those who may be interested. EDIT: YV has contributed later in this thread. link This site is certainly worth a visit, and also, I am now allowed to say that the track IS available in the hub.Here's some more from Garry Sharpe-Young's book 'Black Sabbath - Never Say Die - 1979-1997' "It would not only be the Sabbath duo that featured on the record. Tony's friend Brian May of Queen fame was invited down to the recording studio. 'Tony asked Brian to mix one of the album tracks because he was impressed with the way Queen did things. The trouble was that, as we discovered, Queen tracks are heavily edited so that's what Brian tried to do. The result was a load of edits that just ended up as a big pile of tape on the floor! So Brian never in fact got to mix anything. I can remember us all looking at this wasted tape and saying 'So, that's how you get the Queen sound then Brian.' He didn't know whether to laugh or apologise, Birmingham humour can be very dry." The Queen man would get to add a splash of that famous hand made guitar onto the track 'Circles', once more featuring a certain Mr. Ozzy Osbourne on backing vocals. "Ozzy tried to put some harmonica on too" laughs Malcom. "It didn't work though and I think that ended up on the floor too or we just didn't mix it in. It might still be on there though, I'll have to dig it out and give it a listen." Black Sabbath collectors will need to do their own spade work. 'Circles', a re-work of an earlier Bandy Legs tune, inexplicably never made the album, only appearing as the B side to the subsequent 'Stoking The Fires If Hell' single (MCA 642-1980). |
| HDvorak 20.11.2004 20:59 |
John S Stuart wrote: "Stand Up And Fight" by "Quartz" You can read about this CD here: link The "Quartz" 1977 debut album "Stand Up And Fight" featured sessions including Brian May as guest guitarist on a track called "Circles" (which also featured Ozzy Osbourne on backing vocals). The track was not included on the eventual album release - but WAS later released as the B-side to the "Quartz" single - "Stoking The Fires Of Hell". Earlier this year (2004) Majestic Rock (US) re-issued the debut "Quartz" CD called "Stand Up And Fight" - including "Circles" as an extra track. So clearly this track has nothing to do with "Queen" until circa "News Of The World" period. The only reason I mentioned it above was becuase I could not recall from memory whether it was an early or late 1970's session track. I can now see that it does not slot into the "Queen" debut time-frame, and I apologise for any hopes raised - or for any ensuing confusion. As a postscript "Circles" is still commercially available - for those who may be interested. EDIT: YV has contributed later in this thread. link This site is certainly worth a visit, and also, I am now allowed to say that the track IS available in the hub.Here's some more from Garry Sharpe-Young's book 'Black Sabbath - Never Say Die - 1979-1997' "It would not only be the Sabbath duo that featured on the record. Tony's friend Brian May of Queen fame was invited down to the recording studio. 'Tony asked Brian to mix one of the album tracks because he was impressed with the way Queen did things. The trouble was that, as we discovered, Queen tracks are heavily edited so that's what Brian tried to do. The result was a load of edits that just ended up as a big pile of tape on the floor! So Brian never in fact got to mix anything. I can remember us all looking at this wasted tape and saying 'So, that's how you get the Queen sound then Brian.' He didn't know whether to laugh or apologise, Birmingham humour can be very dry." The Queen man would get to add a splash of that famous hand made guitar onto the track 'Circles', once more featuring a certain Mr. Ozzy Osbourne on backing vocals. "Ozzy tried to put some harmonica on too" laughs Malcom. "It didn't work though and I think that ended up on the floor too or we just didn't mix it in. It might still be on there though, I'll have to dig it out and give it a listen." Black Sabbath collectors will need to do their own spade work. 'Circles', a re-work of an earlier Bandy Legs tune, inexplicably never made the album, only appearing as the B side to the subsequent 'Stoking The Fires If Hell' single (MCA 642-1980). |
| Chaka 06.01.2005 04:06 |
just going through my old hub downloads, and I found the song "Feelings," not the one from the News Of The World sessions but the one that was apparently erroneously distributed as an alternate version of Silver Salmon. Anyone know if that was from the first album sessions as well? |
| Chaka 29.01.2005 23:45 |
the_hero wrote: I thought it was mentioned before that Brian wrote it in 1973 but they never used it again... I have the version as well when they start with "9 number 9.... number 9..."no, that's the "Feelings Feelings" track. The one I'm talking about is the blues/rock one that was erroneously distributed as an mp3 under the Silver Salmon name. |
| ferdy 06.11.2006 06:10 |
about Larry Lurex single: eil.com had some time ago a trident label acetate in which beside the name of the song there was reported: LARRY LUREX & THE VOLES FROM VENUS. was this name intented to be the name of the artist then shortened to just Larry Lurex?? Also there's 1 side w/l test pressing 7" of I can hear Music from EMI with the stamped number LL A1 in the run-off groove. It should contains 20 sec extra of the song. Is this true? |
| ferdy 06.11.2006 06:12 |
about Larry Lurex single: eil.com had some time ago a trident label acetate in which beside the name of the song there was reported: LARRY LUREX & THE VOLES FROM VENUS. was this name intented to be the name of the artist then shortened to just Larry Lurex?? Also there's 1 side w/l test pressing 7" of I can hear Music from EMI with the stamped number LL A1 in the run-off groove. It should contains 20 sec extra of the song. Is this true? DOUBLE POST SORRY |
| Wilki Amieva 06.11.2006 06:54 |
ferdy wrote: about Larry Lurex single: eil.com had some time ago a trident label acetate in which beside the name of the song there was reported: LARRY LUREX & THE VOLES FROM VENUS. was this name intented to be the name of the artist then shortened to just Larry Lurex??Yes, I remember that too. Wasn't it LARRY LUREX & THE VULTURES FROM VENUS? Also there's 1 side w/l test pressing 7" of I can hear Music from EMI with the stamped number LL A1 in the run-off groove. It should contains 20 sec extra of the song. Is this true?I am wondering this myself. Any news? The extra 20 secs might be caused by lack of a fade-out. |
| ferdy 06.11.2006 07:33 |
link there you'll see the only picture I've found of it. as regards the test pressing. I will get one copy of this soon and tell you if it's just fade out.. |
| ferdy 12.11.2006 04:22 |
the test pressing edition contains 20 seconds more than the UK standard issue. So this 3.26 version is the same of the FM box and also of the german 45 issue. |
| Sebastian 25.06.2010 08:02 |
Six years later, it's time to bump this. |
| cmsdrums 30.06.2010 03:23 |
I have a Greek pressing of this album, and I'm sure that the cover is a different colour/shade to the UK one. To be honest I've never listened to the vinyl, and I'm sure it's the same, but I will have an in depth listen just in case running times, track listing, edits etc are any different. |
| Sebastian 25.09.2010 06:04 |
Some bits and pieces of info that may be totally useless for many, but at least 'kinda' interesting for some. And that's enough for me to put them here: I can't promise anything, but I may be scoring an interview with Neil Kernon, who used to work at Trident as tape-op about the time Mike Stone was promoted from tape-op to engineer. He worked as assistant to virtually all of Trident's in-house engineers and also got to meet the gr8 l8 Geoff Workman. And, of course, he was there when Queen recorded I, II and (mixed) SHA. So... fingers crossed. Now, about the drums: I've got very strong suspicious thatm for most of the album, Roger not only played a poorly produced/mic'd kit, but also not his own: considering they were recording downtime, it'd be often the case that they didn't even have enough time to set up the drums so Roger had to stick with what was housed in the studio. A giveaway is the very thin sound of the bass-drum and the way the snare 'cracks' (classic Hayman sound, not Ludwig which is way warmer and deeper). So (and this is an educated guess of course), Roger seems to have played Trident's Hayman drums (sometimes there weren't even toms, it seems) on: Keep Yourself Alive My Fairy King Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll Son and Daughter Seven Seas of Rhye Mad the Swine And Ludwig (poorly mic'd, unfortunately) on: Liar Great King Rat (you can tell on the first take as well) Jesus Doing All Right And of course De Lane Lea and BBC sessions... you can tell the difference! Now, on those two sets of tracks, not only drums are different but also bass: my guess - on the former, he used the studio amplification, on the latter, he used his own. Last but not least, some comments on vocals: The three of them sang on everything (except SSOR of course), except for Modern Times R'n'R, which lacks Brian completely (I'm not 100% sure about that but I don't hear him anywhere, though maybe he's buried somewhere in the mix). Most of the times, Brian sang in tenor range (exceptions: Keep Yourself Alive, Liar and Mad the Swine where he was a baritone). Ranges by each member on each song: ----- KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE: Freddie: f#' to a' (minor 10th) Roger: e to a' (perfect 11th) Brian: d' to g' (perfect 4th) Of course, it changed on live, demo, BBC and retake versions. The lowest note on the album version is sung/spoken by Roger ('every DAY'). ---- DOING ALL RIGHT: Freddie: a to d" (perfect 11th) Roger:e' to d#" (major 7th) Brian: b to b' (octave) They switched the line-up depending on the section. Sometimes Fred took over the top voice, sometimes he was in the middle, and before the last verse he's on the bottom. Live versions and BBC had different setting although the actual notes sung were the same. ------- GREAT KING RAT: Freddie: e to a" (perfect 18th) Roger: e" to g" (minor 3rd) Brian: g' to c" (perfect 4th) One of the few songs where Fred sang the top note instead of Roger (more examples: Under Pressure, Show Must Go On). During the chorus there's an 'ah ah ah ah' bit where they're indeed Roger-Freddie-Brian from the top (which was not as usual as one may have thought at first). There's a bit after the 'gypsy break' where Fred sings a three-part by himself: tenor, baritone and (for the first time on a Queen record) bass (topping on middle C). -------- MY FAIRY KING: Freddie: e to e" (perfect 15th) Roger: b to a" (minor 14th) Brian: e' to f#' (major 2nd) Roger's high screams peak on 880-Hz A (the same note Fred hit near the end of Great King Rat). -------- LIAR: Freddie: e to g#" (major 17th) Roger: e' to d" (minor 14th) Brian: a to e' (perfect 5th) Without multitracks I'm sure I made several mistakes or failed to hear a couple of things, but so far this is the best I can do: top note sung by Freddie again (not that uncommon, but not that common either, especially in that era). -------- THE NIGHT COMES DOWN: Freddie: g to c#" (diminished 12th) Roger: a' to c#" (major 3rd) Brian: f#' to a' (minor 3rd) One of the few songs where Freddie sang lead but not backing vocals. --------- MODERN TIMES ROCK 'N' ROLL Freddie: Just d' (unison). Roger: a to e" (without falsetto!) (perfect 12th) John Anthony: G to eb (minor 6th) The chorus harmony (AFAICH) is a two-part between Freddie and Roger in fourths. If there's Brian there (or anybody else for that matter) on a second harmony, he's probably doing a b... or maybe there's another Roger doing b' instead? or both? Please, let those multitracks surface... ---------- SON AND DAUGHTER: Freddie: g#to g' (major 7th) Roger: c#" to d" (minor 2nd) Brian: e' to g' (minor 3rd) None of them got to a full octave. Another one of those few songs where Fred sang lead but no harmonies. Guitar-wise, the range of this one is the largest in the album (E to f#"', a major 30th) thanks to varispeed. ------- JESUS: Freddie: g to b' (major 10th) Roger: a#' to d" (major 3rd) Brian: f#' to a' (minor 3rd) The chorus is a four-part (rare case for this era) where the lead is the 3rd from the top. Both Roger and Brian are adding higher harmonies (Roger higher than Brian, of course) and the bottom voice (baritone, not bass) is Freddie. It seems that the trick of all of them singing each part and then moving on to the next only started on Queen II (Father to Son's break), but here each took a part or two and that was it. --------- MAD THE SWINE: Freddie: f to db" (minor 13th) Roger: f' to bb' (perfect 4th) Brian: bb to e' (tritone) Again, Fred sang both the highest and the lowest notes in the song. Brian sings an e (more exactly fb) near the end, giving a nice bluesy touch to the harmony (driven by D-Flat major chord). Now, was it Brian's idea or Freddie's? IMO, Brian's ... he was more into those sorts of things (e.g. Too Much Love - his own version, near the end). Tbc... |
| Malacandra 23.10.2010 13:17 |
An absolutely magnificent post, Sebastian; more, please! |
| EddieVanHalen 27.11.2014 06:28 |
I was thinking, shouldn't we also include the Larry Lurex recordings with this? Since they were recorded whilst Queen were recording Queen 1. Another question/idea that's been on my mind is; various sources have stated that Freddie was asked by Robin Geoffrey Cable to perform lead vocals for the 2 Larry Lurex songs. Freddie then brought his bandmates (Brian and Roger) along, to record percussion and guitar. The questions this raises are: Does this mean John wasn't present during some parts of recording Queen 1? Or are the sources incorrect and did John also participate on the 2 Larry Lurex songs? Or was he around and did he just not partake in the Larry Lurex sessions at all? And did they record just the 2 songs, or did they record more for mr Cable? Would be much appreciated if someone could shed some light on this! |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.11.2014 06:49 |
I don't really recall, it's been a few years since I listened to these two tracks, but is there actually a bass on the recordings? In a Wall of Sound-approach, a bass tends to get drowned out rather quickly (analogue recordings!!! not *necessarily* so if you do it digitally, of course), so it might be kinda obsolete. I'm fairly sure the intention was that Mr. Cable would put out a single as an experiment, so I doubt more than these two tracks were recorded. I've never heard anything, even rumours, about more material from the Larry Lurex-sessions. |
| musicland munich 05.09.2016 23:37 |
As for Queen /Liar Most of Queen sound muddy and turbid, with the instruments mixed not to complement each other as they would on later albums, but instead to blend with each other, unfortunately obfuscating the results. The effect was certenly unintentional: as mentioned before, the band recording during down-time, and the mixing table levels would often have to reset after every recording, resulting in an uneven sound from song to song. In an anguished moment, it was discovered that "Liar" had been overdubbed onto the wrong backing tape, necesseitating a remix of the track. |