| Queenman!! 08.03.2005 03:40 |
I have red the topic about what future release Queen should put on DVD. I have got the feeling that our friend G.B doesn't even knows what out there. I think he only looks in the Queen archives what is good for use. For example: A while a go he was asking on BrianMAy.com if anyone had got a copy of the BBC seven seas of Rhye. I think everybody on the HUB, including me, were laughing about his question because the file is on the hub for quite a time. He could have used rhat one for the greatest video hits dvd 1. Also the lack of work they put on DVD 2 of the Milton Keynes worries me. If you want to make Queenfans happy, don't put a unrestored version of vienna 82 on it. Do some research, contact companies who tapes this footage all those years ago... I also feel the same for the upcoming DVD. They use what in the Queen Archive and that's it.. |
| Joma 08.03.2005 05:48 |
I believe the Queen archive is vast and we will probably get to see a maximum of 1% or so... I'm crazy, but I would love to hear the first 20 takes of Innuendo for example. Learning how they developed their songs etc |
| Benn 08.03.2005 06:38 |
Joma, But that is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that we ought to be seeing in the box sets. I'd like to hear a whole disc devoted to the creation of Bo Rhap - the first notes in terms of a demo to the full and complete version before it was pared down and all of the individual tracks that were used to create the final version. A complete history of the song. The fact is that it's not commercially viable to do anything as interesting or as ground-breaking as that. The lack of ambition within EMI / Queen Productions is clearly visible when the most ambitious thing they have ever done is to clean up (minimally) a concert film shot all thattime ago in 1982 (dripping with sarcasm). |
| John S Stuart 08.03.2005 07:39 |
Sorry to be a party pooper, but the Queen archive is not as big as you guys think it is. Very little survives from the early sessions, and what does remain - is top heavy (ie more slanted towards newer material). Do not build up your hopes too highly. |
| Richard Orchard 08.03.2005 07:50 |
something would be nice though. I would be amazed if we ever get anything at all. |
| Benn 08.03.2005 09:52 |
And that's exactly the point - something being better than nothing. Constant outflows of crap from the fan club and Brooksy relating to "proposed" dates etc and then no real admition of the state of play. For 10 years...... Regardless of how big the archive, what is being done to ensure that the archive is as complete as it can be? ave we ever seen any updates regarding the tracking down of missing master tapes? What IS being done to track them down? Have sources been found and negototiations outstanding? It's a band's history that is as important to the legacy of recorded music as The Beatles ever was. And, frankly, it's being treated like shit. |
| Sebastian 08.03.2005 10:01 |
I seriously doubt they've got "the first 20 takes of Innuendo" or something like that. A lot would get erased once they did the definitive version, except perhaps (keyword) for the jam session that originated part of it in the first place and some not-very-different out-takes. The few that I know about their recording process in the later days is that they would do something like this: for instance, Fred rehearses some x song with the lyrics and sings them. Day after day they change some lyrical and melodic parts until they get the definitve ones. Then Fred makes three or four live takes (all being very good and similar) and then he sits with David Richards and meticulously select the best take for each verse, or even each line. But those three/four "definitive" takes would be everything remaining on the archive. The rest would get erased and the only way to obtain them is if for example one of those "working process" demos was sent to EMI or some friends. Those ones sent to EMI were too short (e.g. Invisible Man with alternative break, I guess, rather than know), those ones sent to friends are now still in their hands, or they were thrown away by those mates, or they're now owned by elite collecotrs who, of course, wouldn't provide them (and they've got all the right to decide whether not to do so). Furthermore, about the DVD, I was thinking about that yesterday: whoever controlls which is the next concert released (whether it's Brian, or Jim Beach, etc) is definitely doing marketting instead of trying to promote the image of the band. Think about it: releasing Hammermisth '75 would be a commercial failure compared to Wembley, of course, because 98% of people who know Queen don't go further than Ga Ga, Break Free, Magic, Pressure, Crazy, Another, Rockyou and Champions. Xmas '75 only would offer a "weird" (for masses) rendition of Bo Rhap, plus two averagely well-known tracks (KQ and NIH) which I'm afraid aren't enough for them to risk all the costs involved in such a release. Otoh, it would definitely promote and spread the fact that Queen, in the 70s, were an amazing band, very efficient and very musical. Instead of having a keyboardist and having Fred dancing and playing that non-sense air guitar when he wasn't doing the stupid vocal warm-ups with the audience, we'd have four excellent musicians working together as one mind, connecting, without an auxiliar bloke, with Fred singing extraordinarily and playing great piano parts (e.g. the White Queen solo), with Brian doing nice background vocals and doing a banjo exhibition, with John playing bass and then suddenly hitting a triangle and a couple of bars later coming back to the bass in perfect timing, with Roger making a wonderful drum solo in Keep Yourself Alive, taking some impressive vocal parts (e.g. his lines in Black Queen) and keeping perfect rhythm in others like Leroy Brown whilst being dynamic at the same time as completely linked with his band-mates. So, in long-term, releasing something like that or full Rainbow would make classic rock circles and fans of bands like Zeppelin or Pink Floyd respect Queen much more and get to know that they could rock as well (Ogre Battle, Liar), they could make progressive/art for some extent, they could set up a more mystique show... all in all, a release like that could make Queen bigger for the immense minority, rather than making it "big in sales, average in respect" for the immature majority as they have done until now by promoting their pop-crap. But everything turns to a big "if" |
| Lester Burnham 08.03.2005 10:53 |
Contrary to popular belief, Greg Brooks doesn't have any control over the release dates of the box sets. His only function is to provide information about what is in the archives, which has been done for years - his job is essentially over. It's up to Queen Productions now to get the ball rolling. Same thing regarding DVDs, etc.: Greg can look in the archives all he wants, and probably select all never-before-seen stuff, but he doesn't have the final word on what goes on any release. If he wanted to release a box set called "The Evolution of 'Who Needs You'", containing 45 discs of takes and sessions of that song, and it came out as "Greatest Hits IV" the next month with seventeen songs we've all heard before, it wouldn't be his fault. Not that I'm a Greg Brooks apologist, I just think we should all know that it's not really his fault for the delays of the box set. |
| Negative Creep 08.03.2005 11:28 |
I seriously doubt there are many, if any outtakes of the Innuendo tracks unless they chose to radically rework a track. Firstly, it isn't a particularly live album, secondly, it was recorded using "then" top of the range digital recorders with many tracks (46? more?). There will be many takes of guitar lines and vocals but they would have then made one mix out of all these different takes - a patchwork if you will. There are bound to be early rough mixes though ,with guide vocals etc. There wont be many outtakes from the very early days, as tape was so expensive they would re-record over rejected takes. I'm sure there are better things to put in such a boxset anyway - such as home demos, studio demos and unreleased songs or jams. |
| John S Stuart 08.03.2005 12:01 |
Lester: Methinks someone recalls a similar conversation on the alternative channel! I think that merits a gold star award! |
| kohuept 08.03.2005 12:30 |
We know there are at least SOME alternate takes from Innuendo since one of them is used for the beginning of the musical. But, as was hinted at before, you really can't tell that much of a difference. |
| Negative Creep 08.03.2005 13:52 |
I've no idea what is used in the musical as I wouldn't be seen dead going to see that trash, but its likely it is just an early mix or a new mix. |
| Serry... 08.03.2005 15:56 |
Shame on me but I don't want to listen hours of sounds of 'Bo Rhap' making. |
| Saint Jiub 08.03.2005 23:57 |
QP is short sighted and has little interest in providing value or keep the core customers happy. We will probably see GHV before we see the box sets. The QP Motto: Recycle and recycle some more, and occasionally throw the core fans a bone every few years. |
| iGSM 09.03.2005 03:56 |
Yes, unlike The Beatles I imagine Queen erased a lot of their 'stuff'. The Who did the same. |
| Benn 09.03.2005 07:30 |
>The Who did the same..... Err......no they didn't. They didn't actually *RECORD* a lot of what they did in the studio - they would warm up and rehearse around the home demos that Pete (and John) brought into the studio and then they would begin cutting a master for each track - there were very few "takes" actually committed to tape. The Who's archive is also in the same kind of state as Queens - missing masters etc, but there is a WEALTH of material lying around, tht simply no one within the organisation really cares about. EG - A Quick One (Happy Jack) was re-mastered in 1995 (from memory) using mix-down tapes that resided in the band's archive. It was well-known that the Stereo masters were sitting in the archive of Polydor in Germany but NO ONE COULD BE BOTHERED to have them brought over to Polydor UK. I was working for TNT at the time and even offered for them to be collected from there and delivered to the UK FOC, but had the offer ignored. AQO only received it's Stereo re-mastering last year. At the end of the day, bands regard this stuff as past history - some times the old material that was discarded is the subject of a lot of bad memories - ie it was rejected, but one member of the band may have felt very strongly about it being taken seriously at the time and caused arguements. That's absolutely fine and natural, but SURELY, this is the kind of thing that needs to be taken well out of the hands of the band and it's management so that fresh eyes / opinions can decide whether it is worthy of a band's name. My ideal scenario would be for the rejected material / demos / alternate takes to be licenced out to specialist labels like Sanctuary or Castle. They then bring in a team of fans / band historians to then wade through the material and then release the results. These labels often do a FAR better job of this than the bigger labels, but the bigger labels also then receive the reward through the terms of the licence agreement. But, you then get the labels that are overly protective and would never entertain anything as imaginative as that..... |
| Lester Burnham 09.03.2005 09:06 |
John S Stuart wrote: Lester: Methinks someone recalls a similar conversation on the alternative channel! I think that merits a gold star award!Indeed! I just felt too lazy to sift through the conversations on the alternative channel to find exactly what I had written. You've got a good memory in yer noggin there, Mr Stuart! |
| Proko 09.03.2005 13:29 |
BTW - the Innuendo track which opens the musical is nothing but a remix of Freddie's vocals , being played back to a well synchronized band. If you listen to it there's no new voacl part (or harmonies) in this version. The one thing I regret is the fact Queen didn't let any video cameras in the studio (except the millions times watched One Vision project). The least the band could do after the tour finishes is to try to get their shit together about anything regards the boxset. |
| Q-Nick 09.03.2005 16:27 |
The WWRY Version of Innuendo features vocals that aren't taken from the released version of Innuendo. |
| Serry... 10.03.2005 06:48 |
Great work, Dennis, but '75 box would be criticize too much - most of fans doesn't like things like 'Rare Live'... |
| Benn 10.03.2005 06:59 |
Denny-boy! And you'd be happy with a '75 DVD set like that? What you have there is nothing more than a rough VHS bootleg equivalent but on DVD. It's amateurish and would be a joke in the industry. I think they're doing pretty well on the DVD front and the stuff about "the big public" (whatever you think that actually means) having to have WATC, BoRhap etc on a release is rubbish. Queen, as a brand, sells. Regardless of the material, they are a huge commercial property - and the DVD format is a wonderful medium for ANY of their live shows that were filmed. Denny-Boy! You're not WKMahler (Billy-Boy!) in disguise are you? |
| Benn 10.03.2005 10:10 |
Denny-Boy! >Benn, everybody can say Denny-boy to me except for you, your not saying it with respect :P. Really, I hadn't spotted that, but if you say so. I'll carry on calling you that just for fun as opposed to with or without respect..... >What your saying isn't right Really? >Queen as a brand would sell yes, but the people want hits at least that's what i think. So, based on the above, what you are saying *IS* right? >I would love to place a bet. If they'd release the rainbow look wether it's going to be a hit. It's just do you think the people would like to pay 30 euro's for 50 minutes of DVD wich only includes 2 songs you'd know? I will wager anything you like that WHATEVER Queen release on DVD it will top the music DVD release chart at some point and for however brief a period. Queen span a number of genres - people ONLY interested in early - mid-70's rock DVDs will by anything from Queen up to 1979. FACT. They are a huge name and people will buy things like that out of curiosity more than as collectors. >...how Queen was in that year... So you think putting in "clips" from the 1980's is representative of Queen in 1975? Come on denny-Boy! |
| Negative Creep 10.03.2005 11:13 |
Dennis - whats the point in these imaginary boxsets you are posting up?? I've always thought it would be a good idea to release the majority of the footage they have only in the regions they were filmed, then people who really wanted them could buy them on import.... or the major chains could import them. |
| Benn 10.03.2005 11:21 |
Creep, Again, that will ever happen. If they were going to do that, they would have done it through Queenonline and offered them as simited releases. EMI / QPL still have a massive amount of money to make out of Queen and limiting something as widely commercially attractive as a live DVD would prevent them from making as much as possible out of the release. They'll make All DVD's available to ALL in ALL regions / territories. |
| Brianmay1975 10.03.2005 11:25 |
Dennis, I'm sorry I don't agree with you. Freddie WAS at his top in the Earl's Court'77 show. His voice was in one of the best shapes ever. He was funny, he smiled and talked to the public, very entertaining, he sounded splendid and the three ohter guys were top shape as well. Besides that, the setlist is one of the best they ever had (I mean, I'm very fond of the A Day At The Races tour set list). Hyde Park'76 - what do you mean they sounded incredibly false? It's true that the sound was different, because it all happened in a tent (and yes, the place were it's recorded does matter) and the worst thing is that even the master tape is not very good quality. But it was one of their most brilliant gigs ever. It's sad they weren't allowed to play all the songs from the usual set list and the encores... |
| Queenman!! 10.03.2005 11:39 |
Greg Brooks should inform and do some more research. If not Mr. Scully would like to replace him ! lol The guy has far more knowlegde what;s on the planet concerning Queen Stuff! |
| Benn 10.03.2005 12:07 |
Brianmay1975 Just remember that Denny-Boy! is delusional in the same way that WKMahler is and you'll get an understanding of where he's at - the guy's a fruit loop who has no idea about the commercial appeal of Queen releases world-wide. |
| Negative Creep 10.03.2005 13:40 |
Put it this way - it would be cheaper to release them this way also a live in the US release would do better in the US than it would over here etc etc. |
| Mr Mercury 10.03.2005 16:48 |
Queenman!! wrote: For example: A while a go he was asking on BrianMay.com if anyone had got a copy of the BBC seven seas of Rhye. I think everybody on the HUB, including me, were laughing about his question because the file is on the hub for quite a time. He could have used rhat one for the greatest video hits dvd 1.I think he was referring to a broadcast quality version and not the version that Rien had on his site, for instance (I am assuming of course that that is same file in the hub) |
| Queenman!! 11.03.2005 04:06 |
I think he was referring to a broadcast quality version and not the version that Rien had on his site, for instance (I am assuming of course that that is same file in the hub) There is no broadcast quality available because the BBC ( British Butt Corps) removed it from their archive. ( That's not the way you threat Queen material) |
| Benn 11.03.2005 04:29 |
>specially for Benn > >As Michael jackson said: "Don't we all need a >friend like Benn?" "No Michael we don't need >one" > >cheers, >|)3NN!5 Shit, you need to really get out a lot more than you obviously do at the moment. And no, YOU didn't wite the song, you plagiarised and amended a song written by Roger Taylor, so you can't possibly claim the credit for it. |
| Mr Mercury 11.03.2005 05:37 |
Queenman!! wrote: I think he was referring to a broadcast quality version and not the version that Rien had on his site, for instance (I am assuming of course that that is same file in the hub) There is no broadcast quality available because the BBC ( British Butt Corps) removed it from their archive. ( That's not the way you threat Queen material)I take it that you mean they wiped the original version? I say that because, if the original was merely "removed from their archive", then that would suggest that it may be in the hands of a collector. |
| Benn 11.03.2005 10:37 |
>I wrote the lyrics.... No you didn't - you stole them from Rock It (prime jive) and amended them to suit you - grand theft in my book. |
| on my way up 12.03.2005 05:03 |
people don't look at the hits.they look at the name and they know:ah,queen is a legend,I'm gonna buy one of their dvd's!I know it because I see it in the shop where I often come.wembley or we will rock you:for them there's no difference. |