Whisperer 23.10.2004 16:39 |
If no-one buys those concerts, MAYBE QP will have to at least consider releasing all the soundboard recordings. There are so many concerts we haven't yet heard in their archives! |
Penis - Vagina 23.10.2004 16:53 |
I think that's pretty much already happening, based on comments.. but it can't hurt to discourage people from wasting their time and money I suppose. I'm in! Or out, depending on how you look at it. :) |
The Real Wizard 23.10.2004 17:21 |
I'm in. Enough of the same audience recordings that can be obtained elsewhere for free. That isn't even the best source of Osaka 85. And surely there must be a lower gen NJ 82 out there. Bring on the unreleased soundboards. |
agneepath! 11994 23.10.2004 17:25 |
I don't think there is a need for a boycott - anyone who sensible won't go anywhere near them. |
Rich Tea 23.10.2004 17:28 |
Lets change the name of this site to ANTI-QUEENZONE!! Its a matter of choice and I won't be buying them all but boycott that really is pathetic! They will only release live gigs on cd that they feel are worthy such as Milton Keynes/Wembley if you bothered to read justins Q&A about On Fire at the bowl you will know they actually DON'T own soundboard recordings to all there gigs! I really am getting disillousioned by some of the so called Queen fans posting here! Why do some people think they are so fucking clever!! |
joeyjojo 23.10.2004 17:29 |
It would seem to me that people interested in bootlegs would aready have gotten them in the 15+ years since Queen last toured. The general public probably isn't inerested in crappy sounding audience recordings either. So, it seems like a product without a market. |
Maz 23.10.2004 17:34 |
There seems to be a de facto boycott going on already. What we can watch for is how long the project goes on, ie will they actually release 100 boots or will it quietly go away in a few months. |
Lester Burnham 23.10.2004 17:36 |
Rich Tea wrote: I really am getting disillousioned by some of the so called Queen fans posting here! Why do some people think they are so fucking clever!!You are free to leave. |
Rich Tea 23.10.2004 18:06 |
No Lester I think I will stay just to Piss You Off!! ha ha ha Trouble is you see I think you will get in a tiz about all this and it will play on your mind where as thankfully I have a life!! |
Jimmy Dean 23.10.2004 22:16 |
I don't see why they're doing this. It's not like they have to remaster and mix the soundboard recordings before releasing them online. I think most fans would be delighted to pay 6 pounds sterling for a rough sounding soundboard recording of vintage queen shows. |
Adam Baboolal 23.10.2004 22:56 |
No need to boycott if no-one wants to buy them! :) Peace, Adam. |
Gunpowder Gelatine 24.10.2004 00:01 |
I'm not boycotting per say; I just don't have the money! Anyway, I think the idea's great in theory, but just wasn't released in the right way, which will most likely result in not so amazing sales. |
Richard Orchard 24.10.2004 01:05 |
According to the 7 digital chart the bootlegs are doing OK. the thing is, i think there are going to be quite a lot of people who don't realise how bad quality some bootlegs are. This will result in complaints, + eventual decline in their popularity. |
Maz 24.10.2004 01:39 |
Richard Orchard wrote: According to the 7 digital chart the bootlegs are doing OK.Yes, except the one that they screwed up the link for. But will it continue after everyone hears what they sound like? |
deleted user 24.10.2004 16:11 |
I'm certainly not going to buy them. On ebay, I've seen some of the same bootlegs on DVD for around the same price. I don't have a DVD burner on my computer so downloaded concerts are of no use to me. |
j0ck3 25.10.2004 03:31 |
Are there any special concerts we would like to have? I would like Gothenburg '82. It doesn't exist as audience recording. It is the first concert during Hot Space Tour. It's things like that we want, concerts we don't have or better quality ones of crappy ones. I want to know how loud the Leiden audience are for example. |
Mr. Scully 25.10.2004 03:49 |
"if you bothered to read justins Q&A about On Fire at the bowl you will know they actually DON'T own soundboard recordings to all there gigs!" Of course. They don't own soundboard recordings to all their gigs, they only own soundboard recordings to all their gigs since 1975 (or so). What's the fucking difference? Doesn't matter if they have 550 or 700 soundboard recordings. Even releasing 10 of them would be fat more useful than this '100 bootlegs' crap. |
Libor2 25.10.2004 05:43 |
Mr. Scully wrote: Of course. They don't own soundboard recordings to all their gigs, they only own soundboard recordings to all their gigs since 1975 (or so). What's the fucking difference? Doesn't matter if they have 550 or 700 soundboard recordings. Even releasing 10 of them would be fat more useful than this '100 bootlegs' crap.Very good said Martin. If they put out some good soundboard gigs (as you said - maybe 10 really good ones from different tours) for reasonable price (in such situation 5$ or maybe even more seems OK for me), I'd really buy it. Unfortunatelly, it didn't start oh so well. |
Fenderek 25.10.2004 08:45 |
Rich Tea wrote: Lets change the name of this site to ANTI-QUEENZONE!! Its a matter of choice and I won't be buying them all but boycott that really is pathetic! They will only release live gigs on cd that they feel are worthy such as Milton Keynes/Wembley if you bothered to read justins Q&A about On Fire at the bowl you will know they actually DON'T own soundboard recordings to all there gigs! I really am getting disillousioned by some of the so called Queen fans posting here! Why do some people think they are so fucking clever!!Fucking stepford... |
Adam Baboolal 25.10.2004 09:57 |
The whole releasing soundboards idea is one of a dreamer. It can't happen without revisiting and remixing. And there's just too much going on to ask for more than 2-3. Don't buy these bootlegs and be done. And forward your soundboards idea to Brian's site in great numbers. When he reads their dismay, he'll at least acknowledge it. Just don't expect the stars. Peace, Adam. |
Benn 25.10.2004 10:10 |
Sadly, "US" boycotting the 100 bootlegs thing won't make a blind bit of difference. This WILL get Queen a huge ammount of publicity within the business as a whole - i would imagine that all the large music magazines will carry a general news item about the fact that the band are doing something to actively hurt the bootleggers. This will then carry through onto articles regarding the fact that the BPI and RIAA are working together with bands to "destroy the virus of bootlegging". This will then be a huge feather in the cap for EMI who are clearly driving the boat here. As a result, there will be hundreds of thousands of downloads from people that are simply casual; music fans that fancy a bit of live Queen on their PC's. Does anyone really believe that this has been done in response to overwhealming demand from "the fans"? Surely "the fan's" demand would have been for master tapes of live shows to be available for download, rather than for versions of boots that they already own? |
Mr. Scully 26.10.2004 02:57 |
Btw. I paid $10 for downloading a Metallica concert in MP3. Rough soundboard - no remixing, no remastering. I was less than impressed by the quality but it was still better than in case of most bootlegs. So I would for sure pay more for any Queen bootleg in such a format. Maybe even better than releasing a lot of rough soundboard recordings would be taking two soundboard recordings from each tour and remastering them (and selling for $20 per concert). But that's too much work for them, obviously... |
juls 26.10.2004 06:23 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: The whole releasing soundboards idea is one of a dreamer. It can't happen without revisiting and remixing. And there's just too much going on to ask for more than 2-3. Don't buy these bootlegs and be done. And forward your soundboards idea to Brian's site in great numbers. When he reads their dismay, he'll at least acknowledge it. Just don't expect the stars. Peace, Adam.That's exactly the point. I am sure they don't have 24 or 16 channel tapes of all the shows since 1975. I guess most of them are just taped on audio tape, especially the first years. And if they'd have half inch reels with 16 tracks or what, they had to remix and remaster them all - that takes years and years of time to make it with two engineers (JSS said, they worked about 60 days on MK). SO it makes more sense to remaster tapes for DVD purposal. And it is sure, that I wont D/L any bootleged concert. The quality annoys me, even the "ex+" type audience recordings. And to be honest, I am fed up with listening to Brighton Rock "maysturbation" - and no way 500 times :)) |
Rich Tea 26.10.2004 14:33 |
It's a pretty certain possibility that the soundboard recordings they do have will be released one day. My guess is they will release a box set of some sort chronicling the best of each year or tour! It's just a shame that these things seem to take forever! I also think if they see a demand for the bootlegs it might speed up the process of releasing something of superior quality. |
Negative Creep 26.10.2004 14:58 |
No one has ever said they had multitrack recordings of most of the gigs. There will be only a small number recorded to multitrack due to cost of doing it and gigs are only usually recorded to multitrack with some intent to release the material in some form. They will only have 2 track stereo reels - I doubt they would have bothered recording to cassette at all (if anything was on casette it would be VERY early gigs), more likely 2 track reel. It quite likely that the recordings are very releasable as a stereo mix would have been set up each night. Obviously, they wouldn't want to release anything that was mixed PARTICULARLY badly. And to the person who stated the amount of time needed for such a project - not true. All they would need to do was transfer the analogue tapes to hard drive and choose which gigs are fine for release. Also, the mastering of the recordings which would be done outside of Queen Productions wouldn't take particuarly long - several gigs could be remastered in a day, no problem. To release atleast 1 or 2 soundboards a months via online purchase would be very easy indeed. |
juls 26.10.2004 15:08 |
Negative Creep wrote: No one has ever said they had multitrack recordings of most of the gigs. There will be only a small number recorded to multitrack due to cost of doing it and gigs are only usually recorded to multitrack with some intent to release the material in some form. They will only have 2 track stereo reels - I doubt they would have bothered recording to cassette at all (if anything was on casette it would be VERY early gigs), more likely 2 track reel. It quite likely that the recordings are very releasable as a stereo mix would have been set up each night. Obviously, they wouldn't want to release anything that was mixed PARTICULARLY badly. And to the person who stated the amount of time needed for such a project - not true. All they would need to do was transfer the analogue tapes to hard drive and choose which gigs are fine for release. Also, the mastering of the recordings which would be done outside of Queen Productions wouldn't take particuarly long - several gigs could be remastered in a day, no problem. To release atleast 1 or 2 soundboards a months via online purchase would be very easy indeed.Oh my!Where is the difference between 2-track and multitrack reels? nothing! You can use 1/4 or 1/2 inch reels, for 2, 4, 8, 16, 24 tracks. In the time between 1975 and 1982 they used 24 track analogue tapes. The reels, the tapes, are the same, so the only thing that counts is the recording equipment (trackmachine). They could have used a Telefunken 2-track, or a Tascam 16 track, we will never know for sure. And the other statement, well, Justin SHirley-Smith said it in the interview, how many time he needed to restore the tracks for MK (see link -> featrures). We are talking about a professional restore/remaster routine, which is needed for any commercial release - as long as you dont want to have a rough mix, that's another thing. "Several mixes can be mastered in one day" - well, depends on what you call remastering! A stereo 2-track mixdown copy from tape machine to Hard disc, yes. But that's not a remaster, just a digital mixdown. A restored, track-to-track remaster will take its time - including a professional mixdown - count about 1 month, minimum for an acceptable mixdown with the technology used nowadays (see link for further details) |
Negative Creep 26.10.2004 15:42 |
You obviously like to think you know more about such things, but you clearly dont and you analyse too much. I was stating that they will only have recorded the stereo feed from the desk - I thought that was quite simple to understand. It wouldn't be a mixdown to anything, as they are only STEREO recordings. They can only transfer whats on tape. With MK they were dealing with MULTITRACK tapes and had to create a new stero mix. Theres no mixing involved whatsoever with the straight mixing desk recordings! Yes, I do mean remastering - theres only some much that can be done to a stereo recording! All they are able to do is transfer the recordings to hard drive, re-eq and apply any noise reduction/sound restoration techniques if desired. MK took so long as they had to remix it and syn seperate bits of film in with the audio. |
Adam Baboolal 26.10.2004 16:07 |
Oh boy... "several gigs could be remastered in a day" What kind of cheapo facility is that?? Not even I would do more than two to three tracks a day. And even then, I'd be rechecking everything again and again from beginning to end. As for "remastering", there is no remastering because it has never been mastered before! I posted some links on mastering in another thread - link As I mentioned in another thread, I got a soundboard bootleg and it sucks because Brian's guitar is lower than the synths. Not to mention that there's no ambience from the location, so it sounds too artificial for my liking. That's a very good reason to at least match a soundboard with an audience recording. The best of both worlds. Peace, Adam. |
juls 26.10.2004 16:17 |
Negative Creep wrote: You obviously like to think you know more about such things, but you clearly dont and you analyse too much. I was stating that they will only have recorded the stereo feed from the desk - I thought that was quite simple to understand. It wouldn't be a mixdown to anything, as they are only STEREO recordings. They can only transfer whats on tape. With MK they were dealing with MULTITRACK tapes and had to create a new stero mix. Theres no mixing involved whatsoever with the straight mixing desk recordings! Yes, I do mean remastering - theres only some much that can be done to a stereo recording! All they are able to do is transfer the recordings to hard drive, re-eq and apply any noise reduction/sound restoration techniques if desired. MK took so long as they had to remix it and syn seperate bits of film in with the audio.First of all, calm down, I am working in a studio, and I know about the techniques. Second, please read back exactly what I wrote before! I am bored to write the stuff again and again, if you think I am talking crap, it's okay, it is just a podium for discussion here on QZ, but not a place to insult people. I exactly explained that a multirack master tape can be remastered in terms of a good production. Everything else is just a copy of analogue to sigital, without any improvement of the single tracks. That's what you was talking about. We dont know if they had 2,4 or 36 tracks recorded in those days (if they really recorded all the gigs) - but it is no question of money to record the output of x channels on 2,4, or 24 groups (sub-groups of the single channels) to a 1/2 inch reel. The tape costs always the same, the main difference is just the tape machine, which - in most cases - is a standard equipment! You wrote:"There will be only a small number recorded to multitrack due to cost of doing it and gigs are only usually recorded to multitrack with some intent to release the material in some form." Well, why are you so sure they did not use a multitrack tapemachine? And the release of the material - look at Live Killers, which is a bunch of concerts. |
juls 26.10.2004 16:20 |
Adam, "As for "remastering", there is no remastering because it has never been mastered before!" Yes, in fact only a Master can be remastered. You are absolutely right, they are not mastered at all - it is just the point of copying the analogue tracks in digital. Then they can be restored. True. |