| Ozzy Queen 26.03.2005 06:53 |
I know that this was Freddies alter ego before Queen, but does anybody know more about this. And where i can get some songs by him. |
| The King Of Rhye 26.03.2005 07:33 |
it consisted of one single.....Goin Back / I Can Hear Music....(or was it the other way around)...Freddie singing on both, and Brian and Roger contributing to I Can Hear Music.....can be found on the cds In Nuce and Preordained (dont know where on the net tho) |
| Flo Joe 26.03.2005 08:02 |
Can be found on queen.buum.pl |
| John S Stuart 26.03.2005 08:18 |
The King Of Rhye: "...can be found on the cds In Nuce and Preordained..." With respect, these are two of the worst made CD's ever - and have absolutely nothing to do with QP. Even the 7" singles were of superior quality. Best to spend a little money and buy the Freddie Box set - where they are both officially released in all their glory. The difference in quality is like chalk and cheese. As a bit of trivia: The original name of this band was "Larry Lurex And The Voles Fom Venus". I Can Hear Music - Acetate - UK - 7" VINYL - LARRY LUREX & THE VOLES FROM VENUS I Can Hear Music (Stunning genuine Trident Studios UK 1-sided acetate) recorded by Freddie, Brian and Roger during summer of 1973 while they were waiting for available studio time to work on their debut album. Trident producer Robin Cable thought Freddie's voice was perfect for this novelty cover of the Beach Boys song. When released the artist name was shortened to just 'Larry Lurex'. You can see a picture of this acetate here... link |
| The King Of Rhye 26.03.2005 09:37 |
The Voles From Venus!?!?!?? and they dropped that? lol...........too funny..........that just made my day.... |
| The King Of Rhye 26.03.2005 09:41 |
and I assume that was meant as a parody of the "Spiders from Mars".....so the name was going to be a dig at Gary Glitter AND David Bowie? |
| John S Stuart 26.03.2005 13:12 |
The King Of Rhye: "a parody of the "Spiders from Mars..." You know, I never even thought of that - but now you mention it, is is kind of obvious! So now we really know what "Under Pressure" was all about. It was a War Of The Worlds between the Spiders From Mars and The Voles Of Venus! Perhaps the "Doctor" has the answer! |
| Adam Baboolal 26.03.2005 17:52 |
In respect to your saying that the FM boxset versions of the Larry Lurex tracks are better, I must disagree. I really like the sound of the Nuce versions. The ones from the FM set are denied the right to breathe! And the result is that the Nuce ones can sound airy. Just listening to the piano on Going Back is enough to hear the stunning difference. To this day, I still don't understand what they (QP) were thinking when they choked those tracks for the FM set. Anyone have inside knowledge of this? Peace, Adam. |
| Serry... 26.03.2005 18:35 |
Sorry for the off-topic: Adam, you are again disagree with JSS :-) |
| XcessQueen 26.03.2005 18:44 |
I really LOVE both songs. I bought Freddie's box set, but in it there is no mention of that "THE VOLES FROM VENUS" name. It's funny, but I see it for the first time tonight here. I thought that this book from the box set would be the ultimate source of information...? In it, they mention that Gary Glitter guy (but I don't know ANYTHING about him), but there is no mentioning of Bowie, Spiders or Voles. :) John - can you please tell me where did you get that information? Anyone interested in Lurex, but not knowing much about it - check link Adam - I know about "In the nuce" bootleg, but I've never heard it. However, it sounds a bit odd to me that sound quality on some obscure old bootleg is better than on the Freddie Mercury luxurious box set. |
| John S Stuart 26.03.2005 19:02 |
XcessQueen: "John - can you please tell me where did you get that information?" As I said above, you can see a picture of this acetate (as well as read about it) here... link XcessQueen: "it sounds a bit odd to me that sound quality on some obscure old bootleg is better than on the Freddie Mercury luxurious box set." Obviously, I agree with you. The bootleg comes directly from an old 7" single (not in that great a condition either) complete with hics, pops and pitched incorrectly - because of a wrong playing speed. My own (mint) 7" versions are far better quality than this. The Box set remaster is exactly that - a remaster - direct from the studio master tape, without the hic pops or pitch distortions. So how a pirate created from an old single could be better than the master source is beyond me. Incidently, there is a slight variation between the US Anthem version and the UK EMI/EC Electra releases - namely that the US version has a longer fade out at the end. This demonstates beyond any doubt that the US version was also taken from the master tape, and is not an "unofficial release" as suggested by both the fan club and QP. |
| XcessQueen 26.03.2005 19:09 |
Thank you. (I didn't read carefully your post first time, so I didn't see that link.) |
| Adam Baboolal 26.03.2005 19:16 |
Serry Funster wrote: Sorry for the off-topic: Adam, you are again disagree with JSS :-)Jeez. As if I'd committed a crime, for crying out loud! Okay, I'm putting this demonstration up: link (320kbps - 824kb) Now only focus on the HI-end of either version. And be truthful about which preserves it better. Peace, Adam. EDIT: If this remaster was made from a studio master tape, how come the crackly vinyl copy has a better hi-end? That's very confusing to me, because that would mean they edited/mixed that out of their new remaster! My theory is that they DIDN'T have a studio master tape and instead got the best vinyl copy from their vaults and used that for remastering. And just in-case you're wondering, yes, it's possible to edit wobbles out of a record recording. Cool, eh? |
| John S Stuart 27.03.2005 08:25 |
Adam, First: Your sample is MP3. Both versions are compressed. You need both to be heard in their full glory on a half decent system before you can compare like with like. Second: The top end of the first version is very "tinny" - almost transistor radio like - it was never meant to sound like that. I can assure you that I have the original 7" version (US, UK and EC) and none of my singles sound as "distorted" as your version. Rather, they all sound more like the second version. Third: It is a very common "aural" illusion, that the first version (which is the incorrect speed by the way) is slightly faster (thus notching the pitch up a tad), because it is the first version, makes the second seem a little slower, and thus laboured. If you swapped them around, the "Nuce" version would seem faster - by comparison. After a few listens to the second version - it becomes obvious that it is better than the first. Fourth: The master tape of Lurex STILL exists, and was issued on the box-set as it was meant to be heard. (Without hics, pops or scratches). It was not taken from a 7" version - but as I alluded to above - if you have listened to "Nuce" long enough, then perhaps you do prefer it - because to you it is the most familuar. (Just as I prefer Jon Pertwee's Dr Who in B&W - even though they were recorded in colour). I am not saying that YOUR favourite is "incorrect". If you prefer the first version - then that is YOUR perogative. But I really do not agree that the second (official) version is inferior to a degenerated bootleg version. |
| XcessQueen 27.03.2005 14:41 |
I payed for it half of croatian average month pay! And I'm unemployed! So tell me that I'm not the biggest living Queen fan! :)) |
| brENsKi 27.03.2005 16:13 |
XcessQueen wrote: I payed for it half of croatian average month pay! And I'm unemployed! So tell me that I'm not the biggest living Queen fan! :))i dunno - how much do you weigh? i'm only 13st 8lb - so i know i CAN'T be the biggest queen fan |
| XcessQueen 27.03.2005 17:09 |
Being fat and HEAVY is one category; being BIG (or in my case - the biggest) is completely different category. :) You must first learn your lessons, and then talk to strangers. |
| Adam Baboolal 27.03.2005 23:33 |
MP3 is not a bad thing and doesn't need to be heard on anything other than a decent set of headphones. How do you think the zoners decided what they thought on the 2001 remasters? From MP3's posted by Rien. Most headphones can represent things fine. Tinny is unfair to the file I posted. I checked on 2 different pairs of speakers, studio and computer as well as headphones and it sounded fine. Tinny? Definitely not. You're right on the pitch thing. I forgot that all the frequencies would be different at the hi-end. However, after bringing to the same pitch as the FM set version, it still sounds better! Surprising to me, I assure you. Btw, I've been listening to the FM set version since 2002. I haven't listened to the Nuce version since I got the set! So, trust me when I say there's no listening bias. But it's strange how I still remember that I liked the Nuce version. Curious... This thread has awoken that old feeling for the Nuce one. Now, I realise that the Nuce version is not the best quality and I will remedy this by cleaning it up and presenting it here as a free download. A definitive version. I've already played around with the tools needed and it sounds brilliant! I'll restore the pitch and speed, clean the clicks/pops and will remaster it. I really feel impassioned to do this. Sometime over the next few days or couple of weeks and I'll get this done. Btw, if they had the studio tape, why did it come out the way it did? Seriously. Peace, Adam. |
| XcessQueen 28.03.2005 07:31 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: MP3 is not a bad thingMP3 compressing is the worst thing that can happen to the sound. But, there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH in the world of audiophilia / hi-fi / sound. We all have different ears, we all hear differently. |
| Adam Baboolal 28.03.2005 10:18 |
XcessQueen wrote:The point was that it's (mp3) not bad enough that you can't tell the good and bad of encoded songs. I guess I should've made that clearer. Especially since I forgot to post a mastering site link that demonstrates how they show off their mastering skills with 56kbps MP3s! I'm not sure I'd step that far, but interesting, no less.Adam Baboolal wrote: MP3 is not a bad thingMP3 compressing is the worst thing that can happen to the sound. But, there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH in the world of audiophilia / hi-fi / sound. We all have different ears, we all hear differently. And that last line about ears? I said that a couple of weeks back here, so I'm well aware. But to say there is no absolute truth in those highlighted things? Tell that to THX. There are standards after-all that work. Peace, Adam. |